Heresy I capacitor recommendations?

[NOSValves]

Tag team? I'm just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that ESR is the be all end all specification on this subject. Capacitors sound different for many reasons that have little to zero to do with ESR. I

I'll never understand how someone in the audio business can not get there head around the fact that test equipment does not tell the entire story when it comes to music signals flowing through passive components. In my expereince everything sounds different. In this case hugely different and very easily descernable. In this case yea you pick up detail, but with the detail you lose tonal balance. Music sound less musical and more like machines trying to reproduce music.

[NOSValves]

Bob,

If curious I thought of a way you could possibly hear what I'm talking about. Since you replace tons of the original oil cans Klipsch used it seems to me you might be able to find original examples that still have this elusive low ESR specification to build a couple cossovers and then also test some Sonicaps or whatever modern film cap you choose to have simialr ESR specification. Build a pair using both capacitors and simply listen to both. If they sound the same and you feel confident of it then send them to me I'll install them both in a stock set of my Lascala and if I find the same thing I will shut up and crown you the king.

Craig

[Deang]

BTW, if I haven't already said it, congratulations on that beautiful grandbaby of yours -- I've really enjoyed the pictures.

Sorry about mentioning Bob G, I forgot how disturbing that might be for you.

I think I sent you a 13uF and a 2uF so you could build a Type A. You said they didn't measure bad, but didn't measure great either -- and that neither you or Michael could hear a difference with your listening test -- which I believe was conducted in the manner you described above. I don't put much stock in that type of test. It's the type of test that removes any possibilty of detecting subtleties, whether large or small. Is this the same test you used to compare a Heresy II to a Heresy II with the Klipsch Upgrade Kit installed? Do you remember what you told me?

Your statement regarding QA is a valid point, but we might have a different idea of "what all over the map" is. It seems reasonable that Audience would have picked two Jensen caps at random, and like you said, those numbers are pretty good. I don't think a variation of 0.0065 ohms speaks to a quality or quality control issue.

It's not that some people hear things that aren't there, it's that people actually listen differently, and these people easily notice these shifts in signature. Some people listen with their front door kicked open while running their chainsaw -- right Coytee?

[Deang]

Craig, they would need to completely change how they listen over there. Switching back and forth between stuff on the fly isn't the way to do it. I like what Deneen said about this in that DBT thread a few years ago.

'"Imagine trying to judge camera lenses the same way we do AB testing in audio. Here's an experiment to consider the problem.

Using two makes of high quality 50mm lenses, two photographs are taken of the same scene filled with a lot of detail and contrast. The two nominally identical photos are given to a subject who is asked to find the differences that exist, if any.

Now, to be clear, the lenses are physically very different in construction. Number of lens elements, arrangement of elements, glass composition, and so on. They only have in common their specifications as to aperture and focal length so that the picture will be the same in terms of exposure, field of view and content. Light passing through a lens and being refocused into a plane behind is one of the most complex engineering feats. It involves many compromises even in the finest lenses ever made. The two lenses are different because their design invokes different sets of compromise.

Back to our subject. The subject will usually take both photos and lay them side to side and study them together as two whole, inclusive entities. Using full parallel perceptual processing the photos are examined in detail. Casual review may reveal "no difference" for some subjects but, a more studied review, particularly by someone with expertise and or training, will reveal small differences in sharpness, spherical distortions near the edges, coma, color aberrations, and so on. For those subjects who see the difference, some judgment can be made about which is better. Ok---easy enough.

But now suppose the subjects weren't given both photos simultaneously to compare side by side? Suppose it worked like this: One photo is labeled "A" and the other is "B". They will be viewed using a special technique that creates a serial memory presentation. The "A" photo is loaded into a "roller box" with a horizontal slit measuring perhaps 1/4" high by 8 inches wide - (the width of the photo). The photo is rolled past the viewing slit at the rate of 1-inch per second. In 12 seconds the entire photo is rolled through the box with the subject viewing it as it moves past the slit. The entire photo is viewed, but not all at once.

Now, the "B" photo is loaded and rolled past the slit in the same 12-seconds.

The subject is asked to identify whether there is a difference between "A" and "B" by guessing each time which photo went past the slit. How well would even the best photography experts do on this test?

That is essentially what an AB test is like in audio. A song or musical piece, is a serial stream of aural sensations just like the photo is a stream of light sensations rolling past the slit. You can't ever hear the audio stream as a "whole" the way you can view a whole picture all at once. And you sure can't hear TWO streams of audio simultaneously in the way you can examine two photographs at the same time.

In the photo AB testing, it would be doubtful that many subjects correctly identify "A" from "B". And testers would exclaim, "See, there IS NO DIFFERENCE, and we scientifically proved it!" And yet, a person could be handed the two lenses, and assuming they knew anything about optics they would understand immediately that light will pass differently through these two very different constructs. Well, there's no deep paradox here - - it is obvious the contrived photographic "slit test" was meaningless as a method of discriminating differences between lenses.

Likewise with audio, AB/X testing is the bulwark that is used by all those who like to prove "no differences" in wire, cable, amplifiers, cd players and so on. They make a false assumption from the start that the test is valid, when it's obviously not. It's not, because the human memory is not a scientifically valid instrument for such a comparison. The principle of taking my memory of event "A" and comparing it for differences to my other memory of event "B" is flawed from the start. Yes, gross differences can be remembered, but in this area of extremely subtle differences between "A" and "B" memory isn't useful."' - Mark Deneen

[BEC]

Bob,

If curious I thought of a way you could possibly hear what I'm talking about. Since you replace tons of the original oil cans Klipsch used it seems to me you might be able to find original examples that still have this elusive low ESR specification to build a couple cossovers and then also test some Sonicaps or whatever modern film cap you choose to have simialr ESR specification. Build a pair using both capacitors and simply listen to both. If they sound the same and you feel confident of it then send them to me I'll install them both in a stock set of my Lascala and if I find the same thing I will shut up and crown you the king.

Craig

Craig,

Since that is what I did all those years ago, I don't see a good reason to do it again. Method was one crossover with double pole, double throw switches to instantly swap out caps for listening comparison. I was the listener, my son was operating the switch. His job was to operate that switch without me knowing (unless I could tell by listening) that he operated the switch. My job was to tell him, if I could,when he switched in the other cap.

Result: With capacitance held equal, I could usually hear the difference when ESR differed by about 0.5 ohm. I have no doubt some would hear that with better resolution than me. I am, after all, old and have been around a lot of jet engines, reactor coolant pumps, steam turbines and 5000 horsepower diesel engines. My son could hear that difference at around 0.4 ohms.

[RRFL]

Craig, they would need to completely change how they listen over there. Switching back and forth between stuff on the fly isn't the way to do it. I like what Deneen said about this in that DBT thread a few years ago.

'"Imagine trying to judge camera lenses the same way we do AB testing in audio. Here's an experiment to consider the problem.

Using two makes of high quality 50mm lenses, two photographs are taken of the same scene filled with a lot of detail and contrast. The two nominally identical photos are given to a subject who is asked to find the differences that exist, if any.

Now, to be clear, the lenses are physically very different in construction. Number of lens elements, arrangement of elements, glass composition, and so on. They only have in common their specifications as to aperture and focal length so that the picture will be the same in terms of exposure, field of view and content. Light passing through a lens and being refocused into a plane behind is one of the most complex engineering feats. It involves many compromises even in the finest lenses ever made. The two lenses are different because their design invokes different sets of compromise.

Back to our subject. The subject will usually take both photos and lay them side to side and study them together as two whole, inclusive entities. Using full parallel perceptual processing the photos are examined in detail. Casual review may reveal "no difference" for some subjects but, a more studied review, particularly by someone with expertise and or training, will reveal small differences in sharpness, spherical distortions near the edges, coma, color aberrations, and so on. For those subjects who see the difference, some judgment can be made about which is better. Ok---easy enough.

But now suppose the subjects weren't given both photos simultaneously to compare side by side? Suppose it worked like this: One photo is labeled "A" and the other is "B". They will be viewed using a special technique that creates a serial memory presentation. The "A" photo is loaded into a "roller box" with a horizontal slit measuring perhaps 1/4" high by 8 inches wide - (the width of the photo). The photo is rolled past the viewing slit at the rate of 1-inch per second. In 12 seconds the entire photo is rolled through the box with the subject viewing it as it moves past the slit. The entire photo is viewed, but not all at once.

Now, the "B" photo is loaded and rolled past the slit in the same 12-seconds.

The subject is asked to identify whether there is a difference between "A" and "B" by guessing each time which photo went past the slit. How well would even the best photography experts do on this test?

That is essentially what an AB test is like in audio. A song or musical piece, is a serial stream of aural sensations just like the photo is a stream of light sensations rolling past the slit. You can't ever hear the audio stream as a "whole" the way you can view a whole picture all at once. And you sure can't hear TWO streams of audio simultaneously in the way you can examine two photographs at the same time.

In the photo AB testing, it would be doubtful that many subjects correctly identify "A" from "B". And testers would exclaim, "See, there IS NO DIFFERENCE, and we scientifically proved it!" And yet, a person could be handed the two lenses, and assuming they knew anything about optics they would understand immediately that light will pass differently through these two very different constructs. Well, there's no deep paradox here - - it is obvious the contrived photographic "slit test" was meaningless as a method of discriminating differences between lenses.

Likewise with audio, AB/X testing is the bulwark that is used by all those who like to prove "no differences" in wire, cable, amplifiers, cd players and so on. They make a false assumption from the start that the test is valid, when it's obviously not. It's not, because the human memory is not a scientifically valid instrument for such a comparison. The principle of taking my memory of event "A" and comparing it for differences to my other memory of event "B" is flawed from the start. Yes, gross differences can be remembered, but in this area of extremely subtle differences between "A" and "B" memory isn't useful."' - Mark Deneen

emmm most interesting!!! I actually consider each point of view to be correct and that each person is totally genuine in expressing their point of view!

I note that from a live mixing point of view, the sound I heard tonight at the outdoor Sydney Trop Fest in the Domain Park was off the scale inaccurate compared to this discussions fine detail, I was not impressed and left going to Darling Harbour to watch the Chinese New Year parade celebrations and listen to live natural instruments and real fireworks.

If the memory is so flawed from the start, then how do we know what we are listening to right now is any good at all? Do we just believe it is good and so that makes it good? When I'm sound mixing a live band on stage, how do I know I made it sound better when I made some minor adjustments and then used the EQ in/out switch on that channel to compare the difference? Are the people who say it's the best mix they have ever heard for that band I was mixing that night unable to compare what I did to what they remembered they had heard previously and are simply endeavouring to please me, make me feel good so I will get a good nights sleep?

[BEC]

Dean said: "Is this the same test you used to compare a Heresy II to a Heresy II with the Klipsch Upgrade Kit installed?

Those were the days right after we got the CNC router and I needed a project to try out the machine. So, how about the worlds only (I think) Heresy comparitor box. The Heresy 123

[BEC]

Of course there is also a matching Heresy 321.

[Axz Hout]

E

[Axz Hout]

f

[Deang]

Early in this thread I posted that I replaced the caps in my three 1975 Klipsch AA crossover's. I still have them. So with the recap set I have four sets of different caps in the same configuration. Each set sounds different. You can not get matched sets to replace the old ones. At least the recapped crossovers all sound the same to me.

If I have 4 bald or at least used bias ply tires and replace them with four new radial ply tires, it is different. I will stick to the new radials. chris

Anyone want to test my old caps? I have some old tires also

Those old square ones are supposedly hermetically sealed and I was once told that as long as they haven't been abused, they can last centuries. I wonder if these are the ones PWK made mention of in that letter Bob posted earlier where he said he "was caught using high ESR caps".

Did anyone read through the material in my last link? How about the one before that? LOL.

I dig those pictures. I would buy some CornScala cabinets from you, but what I really want is a set of LaScalas or another set of Jubilees. The measurements on those Faitel drivers are impressive - nice find.

[Deang]

"If the memory is so flawed from the start, then how do we know what we are listening to right now is any good at all?"

I can let Mark answer that one too!

'"The premise behind all forms of audio AB testing is that the memory is the measuring instrument that provides output data to the experiment. You listen to a sample, followed by listening to another sample, and you then must compare your memory of one or more samples to the current experience. You repeat this serially. This is using the human memory as a measuring instrument to provide output data. That represents a flawed premise for the entire experiment which is rarely debated.

When DBT is used in say, pharmaceutical trials, most of the output data is provided by specific, calibrated and reliable instruments like X-Ray machines, MRI, blood gas analysis, chemical assay and so on. This provides the concept of repeatability - any other researcher should be able to confirm or duplicate the results, because the instruments and measures are standards.

In audio, the instrument is human memory. Here's a few very significant factors to be considered about memory:

1. Memories are constructions made in accordance with present needs, desires, influences, etc.
2. Memories are often accompanied by feelings and emotions.
3. Memory usually involves awareness of the memory.

In this model any memory has a dynamic, instantaneous value in relation to the sum total of all sensory inputs, current emotions, and state of being of the "machine" (person) storing the memory. Strike a bell at this moment, and the memory will be different than striking the bell at some other moment. Same bell, different universal circumstances, and therefore different memory. That's roughly equivalent in reliability to a volt meter which zeroes itself to some random voltage before you make each measurement.

What we know about AB testing is that when A is grossly different than B, people easily pass the test. As you shrink the difference between A and B, more and more people fail the test. When you reach the useful "resolution" of an AB memory test, most people fail. This is where the technicians trip over their feet. They assume the failure means: "people have reached the limit of differences they can hear." That's not the meaning of the results at all. The meaning is: "We have reached the limits of resolution for using human memory as the measuring instrument in an AB test."

You can measure a lot of things with a wooden yardstick - very useful tool. You can't reliably measure the thickness of paper though. The tool doesn't have the necessary resolution at that small dimension. Now you need a caliper or something similar to that.

Referring to items 1, 2 and 3 above, you simply can not extract the intention of the subject from the act of listening. All listening experiences contain their intent, the subject and the object as an indivisible whole. This is why bias can never be eliminated - because even intent of the subject is a bias.

The problem is the reliance on memory, period. I fail to see how DBT solves the "unreliable memory" problem in any way at all. To the contrary, it is wholly based on memory for the entire test.

I think the people promoting DBT show a lot of misunderstanding of neuroscience, memory, and perception. Short term, long term, makes no difference. It is not an instrument for measurement and comparison for such fine resolution. Sure if A is an apple, and B is a banana, it works fine. When A is a Pioneer and B is a Mark Levinson, that's not going to work the same way.

1. We DO NOT RECORD all input! And just in that fact alone, the use of memory should be tossed out the window. We only store essential patterns, partial inputs, enough to make the recall. If we were storing ALL sensate input in full bandwwidth, our brains would have to be the size of Texas. (EX: If you drove an hour on the freeway tonight to get home, can you recall the license # of each car that passed you? The year, make and model of each car? Description of all the occupants? Obviously not---but you "saw" it all with your eyes. If you tried to store all the sound you heard in a few minutes at something like CD resolution, your brain would explode.)

2. A "memory" of a sound is not a recording of the soundwaves! Nor is it a digital representation, nor is it necessarily even stored in a contiguous brain space. Electrical impulses from the ear system are "mixed" (yeah, like a 16 track mixer) along with visual inputs, other sense inputs, emotional content, other similar patterns from previous events, and wellness stimulus. Point being, there is no discrete memory object of "just the sound" that was heard when A was played or when B was played. Proponents of this are pretending that the brain functions like a tape recorder. Ain't so.

3. DBT depends on this real time analysis: A past memory must be compared to a current stream of conscious perception and a determination for differential must be made. Well, hang on, these are two vastly different brain processes. You might as well try to compare volt meter readings to the direction a weathervane is blowing. It's nonsense. That's why it only works with "Apple and Banana" level comparisons."'

[BEC]

Dean said: "Did anyone read through the material in my last link? How about the one before that? LOL."

No, I admit I did not. My attention span is not that long. For that particular author, I generally read the first sentence, last sentence and one sentence from about the middle. Generally that gets me by instead of reading the whole couple of thousand words.

[Axz Hout]

t

[Deang]

I think the guy is worth listening to.

"Lukasz Fikus: ...I am an electrical engineer, with a master degree in high voltage physics...and a diploma in the subject of protection of air planes from static charges.
I also have an EMBA degree."

"ESR - equivalent series resistance for high frequencies - it is a very misleading term - the inductance for the uneducated people and in fact ESR is a poor man's IMPEDANCE. As we know - impedance is a sum of inductance and capacitive reactance and is FREQUENCY DEPENDENT. Here we arrive to the critical point of quality issue: capacitors due to not negligible inductance have RISING IMPEDANCE VERSUS FREQUENCY. So a cap behaves like a "pure" cap at 1 kHz, but at 300 kHz it is another ball game - it behaves like a cap with a 100 Ohm resistor attached to it in series. Most caps - even poor ones, behave like perfect caps to say 100 kHz."

"A very rare but audiophile approved sub type of foil cap is PIO which stands for paper in oil. The electrodes are just a metal foil, usually aluminium, sometimes tin, and rarely copper or even silver. So the first parameter is fulfilled - electrode is not vapour deposit but real metal sheet. The dielectric or insulator in this case is PAPER, and correctly speaking - cellulose. It is very pure chemically and it is slightly porous. To improve heat dissipation, to prevent paper oxidation and to heal possible breakage of paper - the cap is submerged in special transformer grade mineral or organic oil. But contrary to popular belief - oil is NOT THE INSULATOR. Due to preservative qualities of the oil - no metal oxidation, no paper drying out - PIO tend to live 50 years or more. One of the reasons they sound good is that when voltage is applied, electrostatic forces cause the layers of foil to expand and contract, to BREATHE. This is dampened by the oil. The minuscule internal vibrations are eliminated. The cap sounds SMOOTH."

He is an EE with a Masters in high voltage physics. Which is more likely -- he knows what he's talking about or he doesn't know what he's talking about?

[BEC]

I think that last post broke the forum. Dean, you gotta be more careful!

[Deang]

It was a bit over the top. Hey, it gave us a chance for a nice overdue talk.

[Marvel]

Dean,

I have a question about changing taps on my DHA2 crossovers... Is it as critical to change the cap values since this has the 10 ohm swamping resistor? I can send/post the schematic if you would need to see it.

Bruce

[Deang]

Does it float common - IOWs, is the negative connection for the midrange connected to tap 0 on the Autoformer? Look at the tinned wire on the barrier strip - does it connect to the midrange driver?

EDIT: found the schematic on my hard drive. Looks like John set it up with fixed taps, which is probably how I had you build it. You can modify it faily easily, and no, you don't have to change any of the capacitor values.

[Marvel]

Thanks Dean,

I had dropped the mids down a bit, to balance the overall tone. Seemed a bit forward, and the bass sounds more full now It's been this way for a couple of years, but hadn't really thought about it until everone was saying you need to change the cap value, or risk damaging your k55.

Bruce

EDIT: Looking at the drawing, I will have to see how I actually have it wired.