Need some education on capacitors

[m82a1pa]

I've been involved in the restoration of antique radios for years. Those of us that do are fairly meticulous when it comes to the replacement of electrolytic caps, as well as paper and leaky mica caps. Not to mention out of tolerance carbon resistors that have drifted over the years. We use quality, newly manufactured capacitors and can get these antique radios sound as good as the day they were manufactured.

I recently bought a pair of La Scala's and was naturally concerned with the 25 year old caps in the crossovers. I ended up building a set of ALk's to replace the AL's which were original. They sound much better, but I attribute that to a good crossover design and new capacitors.

In studying the new caps, and doing a bit of research, I agree that the cap construction is excellent, but I'm curious as to the prices that these type of caps command, and if they are worth the 10x to 100x the price of 630V polypropylene (and similar) caps.

We have a discussion going on an antique radio forum, and here's the consensus of opinion summed up by one poster:

A company called Hovland manufactures capacitors that are touted to be the perfect audio capacitor. Their sub-brands are MusiCaps and AuriCap. Here's their description of AuriCaps as found in the Antique Electronic Supply catalog (

http://www.tubesandmore.com

):

Auricap

High resolution capacitors. Used in Airtight, Bottlehead and Rowe! Tolerance – ±10%.

Jennifer WhiteWolf-Crock of Jena Labs,

http://www.jenalabs.com

writes: "Auricap has become my reference standard for audio caps. My customers always comment about how much better and more natural their audio gear sounds when I install Auricaps. The highs are smooth and clear without tizzyness or hash or dulling roll off. The mids are meaty and full of emotions when the source offers it. ‘Three D' sound staging should be Auricaps middle name. Bass is tight and well connected, chesty and textured with power and authority. Best of all is not that these separate frequency groups sound so good as separate elements, but that they sound so ‘together' and ‘as one whole' when music plays through them. I sense no loss of rhythm, pacing, or emotion in circuits that employ these parts. An outstanding technical feat."

Note that in 2003, these capacitors range in price from $6.25 to 10.95 each for 450 volt units ranging from 0.1µF to 1.5µF and from $8.45 to 25.95 each for 600 volt units ranging from 0.0022µF to 1µF.

The descriptive jargon above just floors me.

How can a capacitor be "high resolution"? What's to resolve? High resolution in electronics usually refers to the ability of a video display to resolve fine detail or to the ability of an analog-to-digital converter to resolve down to a lot of bits.

How does audio gear sound more natural? They're listening to a reproduction of something that they never heard as the original performance, so how can they know what's natural?

What are smooth and clear highs? For matter, what would rough and muddy highs sound like? Smooth is a characteristic of scotch whisky, a freshly sanded board or a new blacktop road. Clear usually refers to the water in a Rocky Mountain stream, window glass or a good explanation.

Tizzyness? Now there's a good one to look up in a dictionary. I think that "tizzy" may describe Jennifer WhiteWolf-Crock.

Hash is a food type. It's what you do with a knife when you make a series of close cuts, usually with a chopping motion. It's the RFI you hear with the rapid opening and closing of contacts, hence the term "vibrator hash" in old car radios.

A dulling roll off. I know what roll off is. Has to do with the upper and lower cutoff points of filters or amplifiers. A smooth roll off means that it rolls off with predictable characteristics and always in the same direction. A sharp roll off means that it falls off quickly, but still smoothly. A dull roll off. Boring? Not too smart?

Meaty describes chili or soup, not sound. So what's a meaty sound versus one without any meat at all? Is possible for a vegan to enjoy music played through equipment using these capacitors?

How can sound be full of emotion? Can the original performance lack emotion and the reproduction be full of emotion? I thought only humans had emotion.

Tight bass. Sounds like a cheap quartet member. A well-connected bass must know the President. A chesty bass must be a well-endowed member of a Sweet Adeline barbershop quartet. A textured bass must have had a terrible acne problem as a teenager. A bass with power likely works out every day and one with authority IS the President!

I love it when frequency groups sound "together" and "as one whole". So why do we divide them up into groups then?

I cannot imagine any electronic device other than a variable digital delay causing any problems with rhythm or pacing. That seems to me to be something that has to do with the original performers.

All of these descriptive terms are not measurable. They are strictly subjective opinions based upon ear of the listener, and no two listeners are alike, nor will they agree on anything. In fact, the only other persons who use terms like these are either chefs or interior designers.

I'd like to know the constructive thoughts of other board members concerning what justifies the cost of the above capacitors. Has anyone done any sort of side by side comparison of these expensive caps and standard replacement caps? Any web links to realistic articles?

Thanks

[m82a1pa]

Thanks for the bump on the other thread. I believe I'll recap the old crossovers with my el-cheapo caps and see if I can tell any difference.

[WMcD]

I quite agree with the puzzlement.

I can believe, that old caps don't perform as well as new, particularly when there is reason to believe there is physical degrading of properties. This shows up in measurable electrical characteristics too.

In a similar vein, I can believe that caps made of different material have different electrical characteristic (maybe measurable), and therefore sonic characteristics.

Overall, engineers (amateur or otherwise) do recognize the relations of a) aging which degrade performance, elecrical characteristics based on physical characteristics, and c) sonic performance based on electrical charateristics. Even the most outrageous claims of magic components are linked to or c).

But the issue here is goes well beyond the above. The manufacturer of these caps (and many others) does not tell us much of anything about the physical characteristics of the family of caps in general. What is in these things that should make a difference? Why are the high priced ones better than the low priced ones? What are the materials, where are the theoretical advantages and electrical charateristics?

Now, one can imagine that there is a secret ingredient (micro diamonds with internal vacuums?) that is expensive and a trade secret. We use more in the expensive caps which have better performance. I can't believe that.

- - - -

The manufacturer may well say that the proof of the puddng is in the eating (hearing) and it is all subjective hearing. This has the possiblity of being legit. Nonetheless, any such subjective analysis should have a control group of double blind testing. From what I see, all they are doing is collecting favorable reveiws. Are there others which are not favorable?

The bottom line is that I think it is snake oil.

Wm McD

[Deang]

The manufacturer of these caps (and many others) does not tell us much of anything about the physical characteristics of the family of caps in general.

The information is available, and if it's not readily accessible, you just have to ask for it. Attached is the spec sheet for the Auricap.

What is in these things that should make a difference? Why are the high priced ones better than the low priced ones? What are the materials, where are the theoretical advantages and electrical charateristics?

Some things I can say here, but it will have to wait until later -- I need sleep!

Auricap_Specifications.pdf

[colterphoto1]

"Auricap has become my reference standard for audio
caps. My customers always comment about how much better and more
natural their audio gear sounds when I install Auricaps. The highs are
smooth and clear without tizzyness or hash or dulling roll off. The
mids are meaty and full of emotions when the source offers it. ‘Three
D' sound staging should be Auricaps middle name. Bass is tight and well
connected, chesty and textured with power and authority. Best of all is
not that these separate frequency groups sound so good as separate
elements, but that they sound so ‘together' and ‘as one whole' when
music plays through them. I sense no loss of rhythm, pacing, or emotion
in circuits that employ these parts. An outstanding technical feat."

all the various descriptors used here have more to do with the recording and mixing process then with the playback equipment in my lexicon.

but Dean has proved me wrong before....maybe I let him tweak some networks for me if he can find the time...

[Deang]

In studying the new caps, and doing a bit of research, I agree that the cap construction is excellent, but I'm curious as to the prices that these type of caps command, and if they are worth the 10x to 100x the price of 630V polypropylene (and similar) caps.

Since I don't do radio or amplifier work, I don't know exactly what you guys are using or how you're making these price comparisons. I'm only guessing here, based on some history on this forum -- but you guys probably use caps like the Vishay 715P (Orange Drop). It's an epoxy coated oval metallized polypropylene, and a search at the Mouser site shows a .22uF/600vdc going for about $4.00. These things are found in almost everything and they're probably wound in the millions -- so it makes sense that they're relatively affordable.

Let's level the playing field a little.

Vishay/Sprague makes all kinds of caps, and they make one very similar to the Auricap (wrap and fill metallized polypropylene) -- it's the 735P. This cap comes in the kind of values we are more likely to use for crossover work. However, there are two problems: 1) limited available values, and 2) they cost more than the "fancy overpriced audiophile caps".

Here is the link to the Vishay/Sprague 2uF/100vdc. This cap will cost you about $20.00.

http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=75-735P205X9100L

You can buy the same cap in 200vdc from Auricap for $17.00.

http://www.partsconnexion.com/t/catalog/CapacitorsFilm.html

A Vishay/Sprague in 10uF/200vdc is almost $40.00.

http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=75-735P106X9200L

The same value in an Auricap is $10.00 less.

Also notice that if you use Auricap, you have a wide range of values to choose from. If you use the expensive overpriced engineering cap -- you're limited to about a half dozen available values.

There is also the Cornell Dubilier 935 Series, with prices that fall in above the Solens and Bennics, and below the Vishays and Auricaps. It looks like a good cap -- but again -- available values are too limited for serious consideration for the kind of work I do. All things considered, I see the Auricap as a decent value.

All of the capacitors discussed to this point are metallized types, and though similar -- are not exactly the same. They don't sound the same, and guess what -- they usually don't measure the same either.

Capacitors like the Hovland and PPT Theta are not metallized types -- they are true film and foils (separate layers of film and foil) -- and this is reflected in their cost.

At this point I will agree that many capacitors are absurdly priced (Teflons, Duelunds, etc.) -- you won't find any attempt on my part to defend their pricing or advocate their use. I also agree that the differences in sound are sometimes overstated. However, it is my experience that with the capacitors that are most likely to be used by everyone around here -- the costlier caps like the Auricap and Sonicap sound subjectively better than the inexpensive variety.

http://ldsg.snippets.org/appdx-ec.php

[Deang]

"A company called Hovland manufactures capacitors that are touted to be the perfect audio capacitor. Their sub-brands are MusiCaps and AuriCap."

Hovland is not a manufacturer. There are only a few manufacturers and they build/wind for everyone. Hovland's cap IS the Musicap. Auricap is sold through Audience, and it's basically the old Sidereal rebranded as Auricap. There is no relationship between the two companies -- and their caps may or may not be rolled in the same factory.

[m82a1pa]

Dean,

I appreciate the links and discussion. Very informative!

[mark1101]

I have literally spent thousands on capacitors for crossover networks in Klipsch speakers over the years. I have not heard several of the high end caps like Jenson and V-cap. But I have found that each and every time I recap with Auricaps.........which is what I have migrated to over the years..........I get an absolutely noticeable improvement. They are the best all around caps I have ever heard for MF and HF filters and not by a small margin.

For instance, I recently upgraded my current speaker networks in stages because of cost. I have multiple caps with large values...... 68uf, 75uf. Every time I replaced a Sonicap (which is what I originally started with) with Auricaps, there was a very marked improvement in clarity. Also improvements in openess.....I mean the perception of separation between the instruments, removal of a sort of "boxy" sound, and also an improvement in high end extension. I've always thought they were worth the money because I'm the type looking for all of that microscopic detail in the music. They are ridiculously expensive to do what I did. It cost me around $1500.00 to home build the networks I am using now, and they are only a 2-way speaker network. When I ran 3-way I had extra boards that I recently sold that were also all Auricapped and those cost me around $600 / pr. So it is not cheap at all. But over the years I compared many different caps. Dean knows this well as he built me a few networks. You are surely safe when you buy Auricaps. But.......they are terrible with regard to tolerance. 10%. They are all over the place. Each time I purchase them I have the supplier measure and match them so I get exact matched pairs. In these latest networks I was forced to parallel caps together to get the large values, but I was lucky enough to wind up with dead nuts matched values eliminating tolerance altogether.

The moral of the story is............how good do you want it to sound?............it's going to cost you............but it makes a big difference.

[Deang]

Every time I replaced a Sonicap (which is what I originally started with) with Auricaps, there was a very marked improvement in clarity.

I think maybe you meant to say Solen? I consider the Sonicap to be every bit as good as Auricap, though I don't think they sound as good as Auricap.

I've never seen an Auricap deviate by more than 5% until you get to the bigger values (20uF and above).

[mark1101]

If a Sonicap does not sound as good as an Auricap how can it be "every bit as good"? I can tell you the Sonicaps are best when I replace them. []

I'm joking.........Honestly, the Sonicaps are good middle of the road caps that have become somewhat of a network rebuild standard here on this forum due to the cost / performance trade off. I don't want to bad talk them. There are far worse sounding caps out there and actually Sonicaps do sound good. That is why I actually spent a very good buck and started with them because I knew it would be quite some time before I could afford replacement Auricaps.

I'll also withdraw my comment on Auricaps having better high end extension than Sonicaps. Not true, and I am sure because I measured the frequency repsonse. It was no different. What I meant by that comment was the Auricaps have a much better sounding extreme high end. It's very plain to hear. Crispy clean and clear with a removal of harshness / abrasiveness / edgeiness.

[Groomlakearea51]

I agree with Dean (I think...). I tried Auricaps in a type B crossover rebuild and was not quite satisfied. Replaced them with Sonicaps and it sounded better (to me... )Not sure on this, but i suspect that the coloration of sound from the various types is going to appeal to the individual listener. I have also tried some others, but the improvement (if any for my ears) does not, in my opinion, warrant the extra cost.... unless that's the "sound" you were looking for to start with.

[Deang]

http://www.ellisaudio.com/CrossoverComponents.htm

A lot of it does come down to simple preference. I locked into the Auricap early and have always just preferred their sound with horns. My favorite cap is the Audiocap PPT Theta, but very few are willing to pay for them (and what a shame).

[mark1101]

I still have the Audiocap Thetas in my ALK Jrs. and those have hung in my lascalas for years. Excellent. But those only come in small values. Would cost an arm and a leg to pony those up for the values I need. Othrewise, yes very very good.

Groomslake, you are the first person I've heard say a Sonicap sounds better than an Auricap. That's cool you save money on that deal.

[Groomlakearea51]

Groomslake, you are the first person I've heard say a Sonicap sounds better than an Auricap. That's cool you save money on that deal.

But only to me..... Like most folks, I "hear" things differently. What may sound really good to one, may not to the next guy. Although I am probably biased a bit by the cost factor. I probably rationalize that if something costs alot, it better sound better... alot. By consequence, if it does not sound "better" (or as well as my expectations...) then I tend to become, shall we say, more "subjectively biased" in my evaluation.

I would suspect, however, that Auricaps may likely be better for my ears in some applications that I have not heard yet. My crossover rebuilding (and understanding...) skills are still in the "toddler" levels....