In Reply to: Hmmm..... posted by Commuteman on January 15, 2004 at 12:04:41:
Example: Capacitors
It's not that long ago that it was heretical to think that capacitor selection had an audible impact. Oops, turned out there were good technical reasons for this crackpot position (at least for elctrolytics). Then it was OK to avoid electrolytics, but of course any film cap is equally effective. Then some tests showed up (conducted by Curl et al) that showed clear differences due to dielectric absorbtion. Oops, wrong again! So, film caps have a hierarchy, with Teflon at the top.Now we have the "black gates are a scam" mentality. I suspect that we will find some valid reason why they have the effect they have. I love this, because the naysayers are now having to say that film caps are better than electrolytics. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF 30 YEARS AGO.
In the meantime, I don't recall any capacitor naysayers coming out and saying: "Guess what, I was full of shit!"
Wait a minute.
The tests you mentioned did absolutely nothing to establish actual audibility. So if one is claiming that capacitors produce no audible differences, why should they say they were full of shit when actual audiblity has yet to be established?
What's full of shit in my opinion is spinning some theory or making some measurement and then attempting to pass it off as proof of actual audibility.
This no more proves actual audibility than the lack of proof of actual audibility proves the opposite.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Hmmm..... - Steve Eddy 16:35:45 01/15/04 (4)
- True enough (sort of) - Commuteman 16:57:40 01/15/04 (3)
- Re: True enough (sort of) - Steve Eddy 20:10:30 01/15/04 (2)
- Cap sequence - Commuteman 21:21:08 01/15/04 (1)
- Re: Cap sequence - Steve Eddy 21:43:14 01/15/04 (0)