 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.137.226.111
In Reply to: RE: Hopefully, Mr Fraker will join us, as you suggested.... posted by Winston Smith on March 13, 2013 at 21:01:57
Winston, I'm not a maven, but I can share a few useful tools with you.First of all realize two things: (1) No cap maker in the world makes all good caps. Just for kicks, consider 4uf. Dynamicap makes a great 4uf. Is the Dynamicap 1 uf just as good? No, it's dimensions simply don't work. (2) most signal coupling caps present very narrow bandwidths and restrict energy mightilty-- when used as couplers.
First, 1 uf in any brand-- is not going to couple the entire musical range into anything perfectly. Neither is any other value, but just for argument's sake, let's say you're stuck with only one cap as a coupler (you're not!)-- who makes ONE cap that would PARTIALLY work PRETTY WELL in coupling ONLY SOME PARTS of the signal? That would be Duelund and Mundorf Silver/Oil/Gold. The Mundorf Silver/Oil is a great cap for parallelling apps, but not normally wideband enough to be used alone.
Now, while I ALWAYS use parallelled stacks of really decent caps for any and all uses, it's a bit too complex for this writing. This is entirely because each app. is different, and so requires a different stack of caps to get ALL the music transferred. What works in one app. will NOT work in another circuit or another part of the same circuit. Different brands---- ditto-- same set of problems to solve..
That's why "cap shootouts" are completely worthless. What good is a guesstimate of brands of .1uf caps when you're going to use a 2uf cap?
The same manufacturer might have a great .1, and a terrible 2uf. Happens in ALL manufacturers.
Here is, then, a box of toys to play with-- things that, when parallelled with each other-- as and when required, will aid you in getting an amp or preamp to accurately replicate at its output-- what you're putting into it.
This is a KIT-- a set of tools-- that can be used to get a cap-coupler to actually work musically:
Incidentally, this set of tools applies equally to B+ supplies for the tube in question, and also to any cathode bypassing that is done. Another thing is to not worry so much about cap UF values as CAP QUALITY. You are trying to accurately couple energy-- NOT engage in radio frequency tuning.
Here is a minimum requirement-- a set of bare-bones-- to get you going:
Here is what is in the coupler-artist's kit: 10uf Dynamicap, 4uf Dynamicap, .68uf Dynamicap, .22uf Dynamicap, .033uf Dynamicap, and .01 Dynamicap. 1.5uf Mundorf Silver/Oil, 1uf Mundorf Silver/Oil, .68 Mundorf Silver/Oil/Gold, .68 Mundorf Silver/Oil, .15 Mundorf Silver/Oil, AND .15uf Mundorf Silver/Oil/Gold, .068uf Mundorf Silver/Oil. Also, .15uf Mundorf M-Cap Supreme. This saves $$$ where it can be used effectively.
These caps are re-arranged in parallels with each other until the cap-couple works perfectly linear across the entire musical experience.
ALL of each cap leadout should be used. Make these into coils by wrapping them around a standard, round pencil or pen of the same size. Then, pull-out the correct distance to the solder-point. Again, use all of all of the cap's leadouts. The cap will be supported by these "springs". They will also combat unwanted lead-tuning-- to some degree. When all caps are in place, and the performance is virtually perfect, then contractor's silicone (like G.E. Silicone2)-- at Home Depot, etc., is slipped-in as a cushion between caps. NO cap is allowed to touch another cap-- or anything else. They must be suspended in 3-dimensions, not clamped or mounted on or to anything.
ONLY the leads mount them. When the contractor's silicone sets, the entire cap-pack is suspended by all the springs as a unit. You can drop it off a cliff, and the caps will stay put. Yet, they are attached by nothing but their leadouts.
As you can visualize, using only a single cap-- of any brand or value is pretty useless musically, unless you enjoy hearing only a small slice of the music that is available to you. This isn't meant as criticism-- it is a matter of preference. Many people only want to hear what they want to hear, and that's OK with me-- but it isn't faithful to the source, and it cheats you when you change the music source to something else. When a system can play anything and everything fully-- it beats the @#$#%$% out of any other approach hands-down and all who hear it will know it if they listen long enough to overcome personal tastes and get lost in the music.
For some people, that may take a week-- but in the end, all of them will finally realize that they're getting the real thing.
---Dennis---
Edits: 03/14/13Follow Ups:
Thanks for the informative post. I do like to hear from all sides and very much from some who "think out of the box", of course there are some who think out of the box, that are " out to lunch ", of course the same goes for the old school way of thinking, some are very helpful and somewhat open to other theories, while some are wielded shut close minded. To each their own!
A designer I know and respect has shown me a number of times that one must use common sense, but one must also use an open mind and sometimes common sense and common knowledge gets thrown out the window.
That sometimes things cannot yet be explained, that things that shouldn't work in theory, can at times make a difference, sometimes a very, very noticeable difference.
I am not that experienced at all in DIY compared to most here or anywhere, but I would like to make a comment on what you said:
" They must be suspended in 3-dimensions, not clamped or mounted on or to anything."
In one of my Preamps I have had the hood open a few times and have changed out a few basic things like caps, volume pot, etc, sometimes just adding some Damping compound to see if that makes a difference, or even taking the feet off and using some decoupling or coupling devises.
Well I noticed a strange thing, and it was that a pair of Caps had come unglued. Well so I did what anyone would do and glue that back down.
Well for some reason the glue would eventually let go (%#@*).
Well this happened about 4 times and I because of the repeated process I noticed that every time I glued them back down, the sound would change, and not for the better. Every time that I found the Caps unglued. my system seemed to have more Air, much more Open, notes resonated more, much more like a live instrument would. It was a very noticeable difference and after a while, I got the hint and left them unglued hanging in open space, in 3-dimension.
While I was in the designers shop one time, I mentioned this and he just looked at me and smiled and said " it does make a very nice improvement, doesn't it! ". He explained to me that because he ships alot of his gear, he has to be careful about how he fastens components in his gear because they can be manhandled in transport, some Caps can be left hanging in open space and be solid and no worries, but some he has to be more careful with.
This may seem like a simple and maybe a even stupid thing, but I was dumfounded in the difference this made, and it was repeatable.
I don't wish to get into any arguments with anyone, as to what works and what doesn't. I just wanted to relate my own experience in my system, with my ears!
Thanks for Posts your thoughts on this subject.!
YMMV!!
Ken
Thanks for your friendly, open attitude!
---Dennis---
"....my system seemed to have more Air, much more Open, notes resonated more, much more like a live instrument would"
Your story has me thinking two things.
Either the cap, when it's glued down close to the chassis, is applying shunt capacitance and robbing high frequencies or the cap is microphonic when not glued down is causing problems that you perceive as good sound.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
" microphonic when not glued down is causing problems that you perceive as good sound."
Yes, I think you have it right. I think it's adding a type of distortion that I find very pleasing. Of course other may not like the affect.
Is it right or wrong, I don't know.
But I'll take it! :O)
I wouldn't be jumping to this conclusion. Caps don't suddenly turn into generators just because they're not strapped to something.
Whether a cap is part of a tuned circuit depends on that circuit, and the value of the cap.
Most likely, caps suffer from proxiximity effect when they are too close to something or are strapped onto it.
We know that all components do.
---Dennis---
Thanks for the further insight.
Always nice to read some good posts and insight from alot of members here.
Just wish some could state their different opinions without the mudslinging. :O)
Ken
Dennis, how does increasing the ESL of a cap improve its performance*?Answer: It doesn't, and it can't.
What it will do is create a resonant tank. You are not advocating higher fidelity you are advocating creating HF spuriae that result in a sonic signature which is to your taste.
That's all well and good until you try to ram it down everyone's throat as the ONLY WAY to achieve TRUE MUSIC REPRODUCTION (your capstyle)
* BTW I shouldn't need to point out what part of your post will result in increasing the ESL of the capacitor.
Mark Kelly
Edits: 03/15/13
The best gear does not use caps as signal coupling devices-- I have never used a cap in series with an audio signal, and do not intend to.
Capacitors are by far the sorriest sounding devices ever invented to use in the presence of audio signals-- if they're used in series with an audio signal.
I don't do that. Capacitors are ONLY used by myself in power supply design, and that is only because the A.C. power systems in our world require filtering if we're going to produce D.C. from A.C.
When you're modifying a piece of gear that does use capacitors as signal pass devices, then you're forced to get the capacitors to perform as well as they can musically-- something that no capacitor has ever done right.
Compromise becomes the order of the Day-- you do the best that you can with what's available in these sorry devices that cannot, under any circumstances, pass a musical signal without degrading it.
Which is why we build D.C. amps-- they ARE REQUIRED in order to reproduce music well.
The amp/preamp modifier doesn't have this luxury, so he is forced to search among the ruins, and try to assemble or find cap combinations that will at least limp along trying to reproduce music.
For most, it's no big deal. I simply gave the man a glimpse of what can be done if you need to do it. That's the most honest approach-- give a complete answer.
---Dennis---
> Capacitors are by far the sorriest sounding devices ever invented
> to use in the presence of audio signals-- if they're used in series
> with an audio signal.
Another piece of sheer nonsense. If it was true, almost none of today's measurement equipment would work because of distortions, noise, whatever. The person who states so lacks even very basic knowledge of electronics and physics.
In the Alice in Wonderland world that those people inhabit, none of the usual laws of physics apply. They invent crackpot "explanations" for real or imagined audio effects, and will never, ever, present a logical and reasoned reply when challenged on a technical point. The standard retreat is of the form that "we pros can HEAR the difference, so we don't need to give any supporting argument for the technical "explanation" that we previously claimed."
Chris
Until you do it isn't worth responding.
Mark Kelly
"I have never used a cap in series with an audio signal"
Dennis, that's not true.
A cathode bypass cap is in series with the audio signal, the plate signal current of the tube. That's very much in the signal path.
The power supply, the way you do it, is in the signal path so the last cap in the power supply is very much in series with the audio signal.
Just because the driver tube has it's plate directly connected to the output tube's grid does not mean there are no capacitors in the signal path.
With your circuit I count 4.
1. The driver stage cathode bypass cap.
2. The decoupling cap (last cap in the power supply just before the plate resistor) for the driver stage.
3. The output tube cathode bypass cap.
4. The decoupling cap just before the output transformer.
Please correct your post.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yes! Tre, my post does need correcting.
What I meant to say, and should have clarified, is that a D.C. amp doesn't use coupling caps in the main signal path, which is true.
Caps are used in Power Supply functions, for cathode bypassing, and as filters in power supplies located as local nodes within the D.C. amp's layout-- power usage points all have local power supply development that uses capacitors.
That should cover all 4 points you mentioned, you are correct in all of them.
Caps are the "poor boy" in audio, performance wise. For this reason, we can at least eliminate them as main signal path couplers.
We can and should use the best caps we can find, and when those-- no matter how good, are not nearly good enough-- we are reduced to cap bypassing or buying super-expensive caps (Duelund CAST)in order to degrade the signal's bandwidth, dynamics, and transfer efficiency as little as we can arrange.
That is admittedly not perfect-- as no capacitor is. As always, you do what you can!
Thanks, Tre, for the heads-up. Consider my post corrected.
---Dennis---
Dennis, I appreciate you making that correction.
Please understand that there is no real difference between what you call the "main signal path" and the cathode bypass position or the decoupling position.
The audio signal at the grid of a tube causes that tube's plate current to change, to increase from the idle point and to decrease from the idle point. The plate current change is what causes there to be a output signal.
The cathode bypass cap is in series with the tube and all of the AC component of that plate current flows through the cathode bypass cap.
That cathode bypass is every bit as much in the signal path as a coupling cap is.
The decoupler (last cap in the power supply) is also in the main signal path in a single ended circuit for all the same reasons.
The cathode bypass cap, the tube and plate load are all in series with the last cap in the power supply and in series with each other.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Good explanation, Tre. Good.
---Dennis---
> What I meant to say, and should have clarified, is that a D.C. amp doesn't use coupling caps in the main signal path, which is true.
Nonsense. Cathode bypass caps ARE in the main signal path. You're just waffling now because, truth be told, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Or, to put it another way, a "good engineer," such as you claim to be, wouldn't have gotten himself confused over such a fundamental issue in the first place.
Stop dissembling and admit your thinking is a muddled mess. Not the mind of an engineer by any stretch of the imagination.
You have no business passing judgment on anyone. Go away.
-Henry
No offense meant Henry, but what are you smoking?
---Dennis---
Dennis is no engineer and has absolutely no right to claim that he is, in his attempts to neutralize opposition from real engineers. He is at best a dilettante, dabbling in audio but avoiding proper in-depth engagement. No doubt I shall be damned as a wrecker of the forum, but so be it.
Are you and Henry sharing the same------ stuff?
You better check-into a rehab center!
---Dennis---
I am not a junkie and I doubt if Henry is either. You really should refrain from making libellous statements.
I have to agree with Benie. The mud slinging is regretable, and I realize I'm pushing the limits of what's tolerable. On the other hand, I do believe what I'm saying is true, and the nasty tone is due to having become totally frustrated trying to have a productive two-way discussion with these clowns.
No, I'm not on drugs, If you really think I'm out of my mind -- well, that's a lame rationalization on your part, Dennis.
Dennis: Read everything I (and others) have written. Ignore the name calling and focus on the facts. People are trying to send you a message. They are tired of being lectured to and told that everything but your formula is crap. Some of us are fed up with your calling yourself a superior engineer and then posting undeniably nonsensical techno-crap.
Seems to me (and a lot of other folks who prefer not to comment) that a dialog with you and Jeff is really a monologue. What did Mark say? You never respond to the topic, except with more one-way preaching. Is your heart really broken? Try to understand, what you said about the forum being taken over by people with no common sense and no tolerance for different ideas -- many of us would agree, in another context, we could have used exactly the same words to describe you and Jeff.
We are trying to teach you something here. In short, get off your high horse and figure out what the community is trying to tell you. Stop playing the victim (and the savior). It's neither needed nor wanted.
-Henry
"Capacitors are by far the sorriest sounding devices ever invented to use in the presence of audio signals-- if they're used in series with an audio signal.
I don't do that. Capacitors are ONLY used by myself in power supply design, and that is only because the A.C. power systems in our world require filtering if we're going to produce D.C. from A.C."
Of course, the power supply itself is in the audio path, and so the final capacitor in the power supply is essentially "in series with the audio signal" too.
Chris
Hi Mark,
I see nothing in the above post which "rams it down your throat "
as you quote :
"That's all well and good until you try to ram it down everyone's throat as the ONLY WAY to achieve TRUE MUSIC REPRODUCTION (your capstyle)"
It may be Dennis' capstyle, but it certainly isn't what Dennis was emphasizing in his most informative post above. I just re read it twice!!
I see you are listed as a manufacturer Mark, what exactly do you make in the audio world? Myself, and other Forum Members would like to know.
Jeff Medwin
I don't respond to your posts.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to mine.
Mark Kelly
"It may be Dennis' capstyle, but it certainly isn't what Dennis was emphasizing in his most informative post above. I just re read it twice!"
How many times did you re-read Sam Tellig's explanationof the Stereophile doggie CD? And you still couldn't understand it.
He makes sense.
-Henry
He makes three phase turntable motor controllers.
And, as you say, sense.
He is also the most educated mathematician the AA has.
I don't think any of us have a big enough slide rule to go toe to toe with Mark.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I've posted this before, but it always makes me laugh.
A long, long time ago, one of my former colleagues, a signal processing engineer named John Stach, wrote a little haiku. I think it's hilarious.
Supposedly, a haiku is a three-line poem composed of 5-7-5 syllables and having something to do with the seasons. I know this is a poor definition, but it's crucial to the humor of the poem. To wit:
Two parallel plates
And a spring together ring
Forever high-Q
LOL.
-Henry
Dear Dennis-
Wow! Superbly informative post. Countless thanks.
After reading your post and others, I will go with the Mundorf silver/gold/oil 1uF cap in the Aikido. That is exactly what my tech suggested, as well. (Great minds think alike, apparently.) :-)
What is your take on this combo: 1uF 600V Jupiter HT with a copper foil/teflon .01uF V-Cap by-pass? I already have these two caps together in another speaker's crossover, and they performed very well as a team, complimenting each other nicely. And as they are both voltage rated sufficiently for use in the Aikido, I was going to also try them, as well. But this an Aikido preamp, not a speaker crossover. Maybe they wouldn't work well here.
My tech was pooh-poohing the combo, as he doesn't like Jupiter caps, and believes that any attempt at cap paralleling other than in speaker crossovers usually leads to spectral overlaps and nasty resonances as likely consequences, and feels (like you do) that one of the only caps that is seemingly coherent top to bottom used alone is the Mundorf silver/gold/oil.
Any thoughts on a Jupiter/V-Cap combo as described above?
Many thanks, Dennis.
Cheers,
WS
" ..as he doesn't like Jupiter caps, and believes that any attempt at cap paralleling other than in speaker crossovers usually leads to spectral overlaps and nasty resonances as likely consequences, ..."
Yup, pretty much my experience too. I like one cap at a time thanks. They all have flavours so pick the one you like.
Which is pretty much what you were going to do in the beginning.
I wouldn't take any notice of what any one individual likes. You have a general consensus. These things are so variable depending on what system or amp you stick them in.
If it's the last piece of the jigsaw and you won't change it, go for broke.
If on the other hand you might change your mind more than once and funds are limited, I'd go for a more general well balanced item that doesn't favour anything in particular. And then concentrate on something else.
You say one or other of these caps is bass shy. That usually says to me they highlight mids and highs where caps have their most influence. Makes them sound impressive. Personally, I would find that irritating.
I'd concentrate on whatever makes me want to listen to the music and makes me forget the hifi.
cheers,
Stephen
Hello, Winston.
In the past, Jupiters have had reliability problems, so techs are afraid of them.
Perhaps the new Jupiters are better now. My own approach-- to everything-- is total reliability first, everything else second, but not avoided-- one just works a little harder, using only "bulletproof" parts. Dynamicaps aren't perfect-- you can pull or melt the leads off of them. Handled right, they don't fail, once installed and run correctly.
Never put them somewhere where they will be heated.
A company that always sells super-reliable caps is REL-- Reliable Capacitor. I also use many of those.
You can always try any combos you like to try, however, but be careful about using anything questionable at voltage-- or swing-voltage possibilities that are getting fairly close to the cap's published ratings. Stay a long ways away from those ratings!
That's from my point of view as a customer demand supplier-- for your personal work, you can probably fry a few caps and not ruin your world.
Spectral overlaps do occur where parallelling of a cap that doesn't fit into the mix-- disturbs that mixe's proper operation. Happens everyday with DIY folks. It also happens to experts because cap manufacturers are always changing their caps. This is normal human progress- changing things. You just work with the new stuff until IT works, or get something that does work.
It's an Art-- you can't calculate much of it and get stellar results. You have to use sensitive equipment elsewhere in the system, and you take advantage of good test equipment where it can be effectively used. An example is identifying those sonic overlaps with a Spectrum Analyzer.
Once you have the industrial or DIY experience, you'll know what the preamp is doing anyway, so test equipment will become mostly a way of looking (somewhat-- all test equipment is limited) at what you're already hearing and noting.
The Spec. Analyzer will also identify unwanted oscillations mostly caused by wiring, physical placement problems with components, and layout problems.
Sometimes, manufacturers apply oscillation-quenching circuits or parts (an example is the use of a series resistor at a grid input, etc.)-- sometimes referred to as a "grid stopper". You may see things like this in a piece of equipment.
The existence of such items in audio equipment is proof that the designer gave up before the equipment was designed and built right, and "fixed" his problem with a gimmick.
You have to work around, or eliminate these things when working with existing equipment before you can just add capacitors-- and expect the results that the best caps can deliver.
---Dennis---
Consider for a moment the possibility that 99% of this cap tweaking lore is pure baloney. Consider the possibility that boutique manufacturers like Dennis either deliberately or naively promote these esoteric ideas because it is profitable and enhances their egos and reputations. Consider the possibility that the emperor has no clothes.
My advice: Use high-quality industrial components of the correct value for your circuit. Do not play games with multiple stacked components unless you thoroughly understand the objective implications of same. Dress your leads as appropriate for your mechanical design. Shun unsubstantiated tweako lore. Be skeptical. Look to where the money leads. Focus on first principles. Avoid demagoguery.
-Henry
Winston-- You can get scoffer-baloney like this first paragraph from anyone who doubts anything on the Planet. It's easy to splat it out there-- it costs them nothing...!! Anyone can barf on anything.It stinks.
The simple truth is-- some things work, some don't. Emotional outbursts like the first paragraph ARE baloney-- and will not help good audio equipment to get built.
Your job-- as someone engaged in making audio electronics work well-- is-- to get it to work well!
Take a look at the SECOND paragraph though-- the man says to get good Industrial parts for your equipment. I agree totally with him on that-- it's part of how it's done right.
"Dress your leads" can mean anything, just don't ty-rap them together to "look neat". Good wiring layout WILL look neat, but each wire will be suspended in 3 dimensions-- not placed near or tied to-- anything. That's also an Art-- it is very necessary to get top performance.
"look to where the money leads" and "avoid demagoguery" are cop-outs that are designed to mislead and confuse-- and are the products of a negative attitude towards honest people. Both have absolutely nothing to do with obtaining the best parts and using them correctly-- which is the subject here.
This kind of attitude being shoved in-your-face IS "demagoguery"-- judging people or objects without having ever met or used them.
The advice concerning obtaining good Industrial parts stands, however, it is good advice.... and is what we do.
---Dennis---
Edits: 03/14/13
dem·a·gogue
/ˈdeməˌgäg/
Noun
1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
2. (in ancient Greece and Rome) A leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
Winston:
The demagogues do not like it when we call their bluff. In fact, they can get downright ornery.
Take a look around and you can see the world is awash in demagoguery. The world is a subtle and complex place. It's so much easier and more comfortable just to turn off your brain and fall into line behind those -- like Dennis here -- who spin pretty fantasies and try tell you how to think and act. It's so much harder, but so much more rewarding, to take honest stock of what's going on and to use your own mind to come to your own thoughtful decisions.
The demagogue will tell you there is no difference between his methods and those of his opponent. The creationist lies (or maybe he's just too stupid to realize how full of himself he is) and proclaims that evolutionary biology is just another form of religion. But we can do better than that.
There is a fundamental difference between legitimate skepticism and demagoguery. The former is based on reason. It is supported by clearly stated assumptions and consistent chains of argument and inference. The latter is propped up on shabby presuppositions and disingenuous appeals to sentiment. This is why, looking back at the history of this asylum, you see, year after year, the purveyors of audiophool nonsense doing everything in their power to demean, and elevate themselves above, proper audio engineering.
Audio design most definitely has a subjective side, and many cause-and-effect relationships between design and sound are either not well understood at all, or are too difficult for most hobbyists to understand and control. I am not here to pass judgment on Mundorf capacitors or on people who find value in playing with expensive audiophile tweakery. I'm not here to tell you "science" proves the tweakers wrong, or has all the answers, or is even the best foundation for enjoying the DIY audio hobby. Some people talk that way, but not me. The love of hi-end audio is not a rational sentiment, so why should we be forced to pursue it rationally? Do whatever floats your boat.
And I'm not here to order you how to conduct your hobby, or to tell you my stereo is better than yours, or to influence your thinking in any way except one: I want you to think on your own, and not fall into the trap of supplicating yourself to these self-annointed charlatans just because they think highly of themselves and tell pretty stories.
Dennis (and his ilk) are here to sell you something. A fantasy. In return, they hope to get validation, prestige, influence, money -- or maybe a combination of these things. Dennis may or may not be honest. Let's give him the benefit of a doubt and say he is sincere, but reckless. And rude. Because he willfully ignores and dismisses opposing points of view that make him uncomfortable or cast him in a bad light. Because he consistently reminds us that he is better than all of us. And because so much of what he says is demonstrably, objectively wrong.
I have spent years now observing and engaging the Doctrine of Dennis. I am very comfortable saying, no matter how superficially appealing Dennis's ideas may seem, at the core his story is riddled with holes and hot air.
Yes, this is a harsh position I'm staking out. I wouldn't want you to believe me just because I'm friendly. In fact, by going out of my way to be unfriendly, I pretty much insulate myself against any accusation that I'm in this for power and influence. Postings like this are just my way of pushing back a little bit at a world that has clearly lost its senses.
You get to choose what to think, believe, and do. Good luck.
-Henry
One thing here is certainly clear-- someone has definitely lost his senses.
The things that myself and other good engineers have been able to build outperform-- everyday-- the very best of what has been offered to members of this forum.
People who own and have used this equipment over time have proven-- beyond any possible shadow of doubt-- the superiority of simply thinking originally, and then designing something to be the best at what it does.
Quite naturally, methods have been developed to deliver this high-level performance consistently, over a period of years. These methods were not envisioned, and then developed for anyone to prove anything personally. THEY WERE DEVELOPED TO DELIVER MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE and THEY DO.
There is NO glory to me personally to take the time out to answer a question that was asked of me on the forum. I am busy trying to build a home since fire claimed by own-- and several neighbor's as well.
If you think that I took out valuable time to gain some kind of goodie--when, in fact, I shouldn't be using up valuable time, and recieve NO compensation for it, you're a total idiot, Henry!
I answered the question honestly, and completely, and ALSO took the time to impart extremely valuable know-how as applied to using capacitor banks as wideband pass mediums.
It is true that I wasn't asked to provide all of that, but if you're talking about expensive caps, then you need to know HOW TO USE them!
I realized this, and provided an honest, complete answer.
It doesn't get any better than that, Henry.
You have the right to disagree. You DO NOT have the right to slander honest people.
---Dennis---
Dennis, let's get a few things straight.
First of all you are not a "good engineer." You are not an engineer at all. You have no engineering credentials, you do not understand nor subscribe to engineering methodology, you do not communicate in a way that is recognizable to an engineer as engineering communication. Kindly, out of respect to those of us who ARE engineers, please stop misrepresenting yourself in this way.
Second, anecdotal reports from the incredibly small user base of your narrow-purpose equipment prove nothing about the superiority of your methods and designs. In fact, there are very good arguments to be made that your amplifiers are INFERIOR, if only because they are utterly useless at driving the vast majority of real-world loudspeakers in real-world listening rooms.
Third, you constantly remind us that your amplifiers are the very best in the world. This is a grandiose claim. The only proof you have is vigorous assertion. Personally, I don't believe in the "world's best amplifier" because there is no single use case, and therefore no single best solution. I don't know if I'm more offended by the claim itself, or by the fact that you expect people to believe it.
Fourth, I am confident you wouldn't be posting here if there wasn't some net benefit to you, financially, psychologically, or whatever. I cannot believe you get nothing out of it. My goal is to make the experience less pleasant for you, so you will be encouraged to go away.
Fifth, I dispute that your "know-how" is "extremely valuable." I say the value is questionable at best, and quite possibly a net loss. I have pointed out on many occasions statements you have made that are undeniably misleading and/or untrue. You have never responded satisfactorily. In my opinion, the community is better off without your "know-how."
Sixth, I'm convinced that you sincerely believe what you say. What I consistently observe about you, though, is that you NEVER learn anything. You never adapt or grow from the feedback you receive. You are static and unchanging, and to me that means mentally DEAD. In my opinion, while representing yourself as being so vibrant and creative and alive, your mind is the worst kind of cold, hard stagnation. I don't expect you to understand this, but this is the profound impression you've given me, and I have a lot of experience interacting with smart, vibrant, creative people.
Finally, I haven't slandered you. It's in writing, so it would have to be libel. And to prove libel, you'd have to prove false and malicious defamation. I'll stand by the truth and honestly of everything I've said about you. If I've made a mistake, prove it and I will gladly apologize. Integrity is important to me. Politeness, not so much.
I don't know whether the misinformation you post is intentional or self-delusional, or a bit of both, But you should know better by now. That's why I said you are "reckless." I believe it would be best for you to find another playground to peddle your "incredibly valuable know-how." Like the Tweak asylum. Take Jeff with you.
-Henry
How come you use all those twenty five cent words?
Can anyone trust what you write ?
Dennis Fraker is not full of hot air. His amps bear ample witness to that.
End of topic.
But I do know you know how to balance yourself on a motorcycle.
Oops, wrong Forum.
Jeff Medwin
I thought you were supposed to have a tertiary education? So how come you object to Henry's vocabulary? It shouldn't be too difficult for you, surely?
To be truthful Ray,
I really went well beyond the third grade.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry thinks logically, loves to debate, and he writes beautifully, but his whole posting was uncalled for, off-base, and out of order, in my modest opinion.
EOM.
Jeff Medwin
I see my Limey vocabulary has caused confusion, sorry. "Tertiary Education" means college or university education. What I meant was that you have a university degree, AFAIK, so I'd be surprised if Henry's words were difficult for y0ou to understand.
Ray,
Yes, I had never seen that, but I figured out what it was, and just made a joke like I was stupid. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration from Penn State University, Class of 1966.
Jeff Medwin
Why?
Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.
-Henry
Criticizing one's opponent for being well-spoken is tantamount to admitting you're out-argued and have nothing to say.
I'm not trying to "talk fancy," Jeff. This is just how I think.
You've embarrassed yourself enough lately. Go away before you shoot off what remains of your feet.
Dennis's amps mean squat to me when the guy can't even carry on a coherent technical conversation. You and your amps, too, only you don't have quite as high-and-mighty an opinion of yourself as Dennis does.
The both of you belong in the Tweak forum.
Bye.
-Henry
PLEASE!
I know all of you mean well towards me, and generally towards the asylum crowd. Each has a view they believe in passionately. Excellent! That creates a dialectic, a process whereby the interaction of these opposite positions (hopefully) elevates us to what Hegel referred to as the 'synthesis', where the supposed differences are integrated into an entirely new understanding that allows us to progress, benefit and improve our collective lot.
But when the conflict between positions becomes overwhelming, personal and extremely bitter, it causes damage, a type of collateral damage to those observers engaged in the process, both directly and on the periphery. With enough negativity, some are lost irretrievably to the process itself. A shame, no doubt.
Thus a call to civility and respect is needed.
I think what everyone has offered has been done in what appears to be very good faith. Perhaps not, but I have no emotional crystal ball to look into the psyches of the contributors and determine who is expressing pure self interest disguised as unbiased opinion, and who is not.
And please understand that I am no 'babe in the woods'. While I may appear very sweet, ignorant and utterly lost in all of this, understand I am a retired litigation partner in a well-known trial law firm in one the largest cities in the world. So I know the value (or lack thereof) of 'expert opinions', as I have hired countless of them, some among the preeminent minds and voices in their fields.
What I learned from this career was simple: always keep an open mind, always listen very deeply but critically, never accept anything at face value, and ALWAYS be kind, courteous and thankful for every bit of help offered. Because life is simply to short to be mean and rude.
That said, I can get into a grouchy mood or two, like everyone else, and I can say things I might regret later. We all can. It happens. Forgiveness and understanding are watchwords of any evolved human existence.
We must always bear in mind that this website, these forums, and those who participate in them, are special. We share. We extend the hand of experience and knowledge we have obtained, and offer it for nothing but the reward of helping others. Some may wish to obtain private benefit through their offerings, and some may knowingly offer bad, disingenuous advice from malice, but I strongly suspect these are very, very few and far, far between. Most are honest, caring, sharing people. Again, this place is special.
What is most important is that participants herein are made to feel welcome, that their egos are not targeted for bruising or ridicule, that contrary opinions are honored rather than openly despised and put upon, and that we all work together to make this a very pleasant experience for those who engage this superb forum. This will insure the growth and longevity of a source for useful information that serves the audiophile community to which we all belong.
With that, I thank you all for your advisements, counsels, warnings, opinions, experiences and all else offered and shared, and hope that a spirit of community prevails here in the future, as it so often has in the past.
Because this place IS special.
Cheers,
WS
Very nicely put, Winston. I respect your sentiment, and the way you expressed it.
I think the essence of the problem here is that a lot of people feel the message coming from Dennis/Jeff, though it may be framed in a superficially positive way, is really quite negative and exclusionary. Of all the people who comment on this subject, I'm probably the most outspoken. I've been doing internet forums for a long time, and my experience has shaped my attitudes.
I apologize if when I said I want you to "use your brain" you took that as a personal slight. Though the posting was addressed to you, I was quite conscious of the fact that I was really preaching to the colloquium, as it were.
You seem like a very smart fellow. Too bad this isn't the real world; it would be interesting to step aside and speak to you in person.
Regards,
Henry
.
Hi Winston,
Intertechnik Audyn capacitors sound good in speakers, but not in electronics. I have tried the Audyn Reference and copper foil.
The Mundorf and Jantzen sound good in both. For your tube preamp forget humblehomemadehifi - speakers. On audiocircle there is a big capacitor-shootout thread for capacitors in electronics.
The Supreme SIO are very heat sensitive, the SGIO a little less - failure. The SIO have more highs, the SGIO more midrange warmth. Both have no deep tight bass. Mundorf told me for tubes inside a cabinet, i should use the Supreme SG without oil. (also bass shy)
You want smoothness + high detail, that's not easy.
Try the great Clarity Cap MR - 630V. Neutral from top to deep bass, high resolution and great dynamics in micro + macro. A friend has used them for tube output.
Well if you want all the best - the ice on the cake, there's nothing like Duelund.
If your DC voltage is around 150VDC you may use the VSF speaker version. Duelund says they are safe up to 200VDC. Ask them.
All capacitors have a direction. Burn them 200 hours and swap direction.
Johann
In the real world (you, a graduate EE, and a college teacher)..if YOU had to build an amp to power a high efficiency speaker, never in a MILLION YEARS could you ( or would you ) come close to the performance Dennis has obtained, for decades now !!! Particularly Dennis' work in recent years.I am more interested in results and techniques that work, ( especially if its not in the old textbooks ), than reading your mean posts.
In the real world, if your LIFE counted on building a high performance amp for efficient speakers, we'd be playing one of my favorites for you, Mozart's Requiem .
Cheers,
Jeff Medwin
Edits: 03/14/13
Of course I could build an amplifier as good as Dennis's, especially if I had a million years to work on it. The question is why I would want to waste ten thousand lifetimes doing something so trivial. I don't even want or need a puny 200mW amplifier.
But why in the real world would my life ever depend on building a high performance amp for high efficiency speakers?
This debate is pointless because it's predicated on two giant fallacies:
1) That Dennis's amplifiers really are as exceptional as the two of you think.
2) That your subjective perceptions and preferences actually represent those of the audiophile public at large.
Take away the two fallacies, and the whole thing just collapses. And that doesn't even take into account all the other objective fallacies the two of you spout.
Jeff, you're outmatched. Take it to the tweak forum.
-Henry
You so casually call things a fallacy when they are not - and when you have NO clue at all. Also, don't take liberties, it is not 200 mW in power.
I am not here to debate you, you have a pretty good mind for that. And you ride a Ducatti.
I am more interested in making better audio amplifiers. I made a statement to the effect, " that you could not build an equal, if not better low powered amplifier than Dennis ". This holds true. Nothing has changed. That is no fallacy.
This thread's discourse between us reminds me of the old saying :
If you can't DO IT, (make it in the real world) become a Teacher !!!
Jeff Medwin
It's a kind of mindless mental exercise, oxymoronically speaking.
Anyway, regarding the 200mW thing, there was a discussion recently about the current limits of Dennis's driver and Dennis himself explained that he sacrifices large-signal linearity for better sonic performance at low power. I floated the notion of 200mW being the limit of the sweet spot for this amp, to which Dennis did not disagree. Hence my comment above.
Now, you said I couldn't build an amp as good or better than Dennis's in a million years. I think it's perfectly plausible that I could, in fact, do exactly that, given so much time to experiment. So I dispute your claim to the contrary. As always, though, I would be happy to see you try to prove me wrong.
Concerning the two logical fallacies, I claim it's obvious by inspection that both are untrue. I welcome your rebuttal, but kindly request something more than proof by vigorous assertion. Precisely how do you demonstrate that a) Dennis's amps are the best in the world, and, b) you and Dennis are the final arbiters of subjective taste? I say you can't. Prove me wrong.
I believe the expression you're trying to quote is, "Those who can't do, teach." I find this to be an extraordinarily stupid and cynical saying, that is largely a reflection of the paradoxically low standing teachers have in society on account of their low salaries. This, in turn, IMHO, is due to the extremely short shrift children and their caregivers receive (e.g., pediatricians, to one of whom I am married), and also to deeply entrenched historical/religious traditions that dictate that teachers are obliged to be poor and live on handouts from their students.
All of which is completely ass-backwards in my opinion, since good teachers are some of the smartest, most hard-working, and most valuable members of society.
There is another saying, popular in the medical profession: "See one, do one, teach one." And the message there (ignoring the controversial issues of how medical training is conducted) is that you don't really understand something until you can teach it effectively to others. In my opinion, a much smarter and more relevant expression.
But what I think what you're really saying is that you're so overawed by Dennis that it's impossible to conceive of anyone matching what you perceive to be his skill and accomplishment. This, of course, is nonsense. I think what you really need to be asking yourself is why you have such a deep psychological need to attach yourself to dubious authority figures. Surely this reflects some kind of personality disorder. I would be interested to hear the details of your childhood, especially of your relationship with your father.
-Henry
It is my opinion that those who'd follow such ridiculous pronouncements as made by Dennis can not be saved from themselves. I have yet to see a counter example...:) let alone be responsible for one.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
I'm truly sorry, Winston, that a simple, honest question about using capacitors could not be answered completely and honestly on this forum without the source for that answer being viciously attacked, maligned and lied about.
This forum is a wonderful thing, but unfortunately, it has become a haunt of Jackals. Because common decency is being destroyed, and common sense is viciously attacked, conventional electronic engineering mistakes that worked only partially-- in the past-- are all that will be tolerated on this forum.
New ideas and newly proven methods are not only eschewed, but anyone daring to mention them gets a full-blown attempt at inciting Mob-Rule thrown at him.
It is with great sorrow, and a broken heart that I witness the decline and take-over of this outherwise great forum.... one of the best on the Internet-- if you consider only the rational members.
These no longer have any voice here unless they lace their explanations in feather-smoothing absurdities, laced with old, obsolete "proven proofs" methods that barely worked in the past.
In order to placate the Attack Squad that uses this obsolete technology in a vain attempt to "prove" that they can "build" equipment that easily outperforms good commercial gear, members are expected to bow down, salute, praise, and shower these members with accolades and personal awards.. for their careful study of methods that at best-- produced barely mediocre results 50 years ago!
I can state flatly, and with total honesty, that almost any GOOD commercial gear today has their efforts badly beaten. VERY badly.
Yet, they cling to outmoded design beliefs that simply don't produce the best equipment-- because they have mastered the FORMULAS and PROOFS for these almost worthless methods..
WHAT DOES produce the best equipment is NO mystery among good commercial audio engineers, but they are few and far between-- there are plenty of them that are also stuck in the same old moldy, mildewing, rotting rooms as the "Detractors Inc."-- (my idiom) people who have invaded this forum, and routinely accuse its most rational and sincere members of being irrational, deluded, and even insincere.
When you are medoicre and have little else to offer, then attacking someone else who is honest may seem like the way to go. IT IS NOT.
A far better way to go would be to find out what the performance levels of the new ideas and equuipment really are--- now that would make some sense.
Most of this could easily be observed at various Audio Shows-- where honest vendors actually allow the public to see and hear their equipment.
It is to these fine people that I give my appreciation. To continue to pay homage and give extremely valuable information to an artiface that has been invaded by people with no empathy and no moral standing, and extremely poor engineering talents to boot-- has become counter-productive in the extreme.
Maybe some of you can save this once wonderful forum.
Unfortunately, quite a few of us have been forced to finally admit it-- it has become violently ill!
---Dennis---
nt
Ya' gotta get up to get down!
"This forum is a wonderful thing, but unfortunately, it has become a haunt of Jackals. Because common decency is being destroyed, and common sense is viciously attacked, conventional electronic engineering mistakes that worked only partially-- in the past-- are all that will be tolerated on this forum.
New ideas and newly proven methods are not only eschewed, but anyone daring to mention them gets a full-blown attempt at inciting Mob-Rule thrown at him."
Ridiculous, melodramatic and dishonest attempt to gain sympathy. You have the gall to vilify established engineering principles and practice, of which you manifestly understand very little, and yet you claim that you represent modern ideas in this field. You try to present yourself as a persecuted prophet.
"A far better way to go would be to find out what the performance levels of the new ideas and equuipment really are--- now that would make some sense."
Publish pictures and a schematic of your amplifier Dennis then we can find out what the performance level is.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Dennis, I flatly disagree with just about everything you say. But I'm so glad you posted this because together you and I have created such a remarkable dichotomy! Congratulations! The contrast is a beautiful thing to behold. And I mean that sincerely.
You know, in one way you are infinitely superior to Jeff. Jeff has nothing to say for himself whatsoever. You, on the other hand, have stood up and created this point-for point mirror image of everything I believe in. It's almost like staring into a pool of water and seeing the real world reflected in this incredibly twisted and dark way. I'm so glad you haven't just curled up in a fetal position and started to cry like Jeff does.
I would also say the beauty here is that there can be no synthesis. Like matter and antimatter, if we tried to combine these two perspectives, it would result in complete annihilation of both. I see this as pure, irreconcilable conflict. And I like that, because the battle lines are clearly drawn and there is no weaseling or ambiguity.
No, I don't respect you for your knowledge or opinions or experience or accomplishments. But somehow, all of a sudden I realized that because you exist, I am all that much surer of who I am.
Good work, Dennis.
-Henry
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
