Audible difference in high-end capacitors? - ABX samples

[MAB]

Even if you are right with some points, I don't like the way you address your criticism. As a thought experiment you can switch the role with Frank and think of the reaction from his perspective. He has put in the effort and did a test. I am sure if the criticism is brought to him in a respectful and not insulting manner he is willing to react to it and maybe he will do another better test which might be of interesst for a lot of people.

Science is hard. Like doing 20 pushups. So when non-technical people make technical people do the equivalent of 20 pushups over and over, and still get things woefully wrong, it does need clarification! This is a great example of getting it wrong. And some people pointed it out, but you don't like the criticism. It would be understandable if they flamed, but they just calmly pointed out the many issues (the omitted capacitor values are hard to understand or forgive here, earlier in this thread someone did exactly the same thing trying to prove a point with dramatically different capacitor values - this would be called fraud in science).
I don't hear insults. But it is hard to stand corrected, and correction is needed on the videos you posted.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Even if you are right with some points, I don't like the way you address your criticism. As a thought experiment you can switch the role with Frank and think of the reaction from his perspective. He has put in the effort and did a test. I am sure if the criticism is brought to him in a respectful and not insulting manner he is willing to react to it and maybe he will do another better test which might be of interesst for a lot of people.

I totally agree. The reactions are not very kind, and I'm wondering if all those people insisting on double blind bla bla testing are professional scientists or just looking for a way to kill any argument that does not fall into the correct box of prejudices.

 

[thewas]

Even if you are right with some points, I don't like the way you address your criticism. As a thought experiment you can switch the role with Frank and think of the reaction from his perspective. He has put in the effort and did a test. I am sure if the criticism is brought to him in a respectful and not insulting manner he is willing to react to it and maybe he will do another better test which might be of interesst for a lot of people.

Instead of criticizing our criticism you could have better spend your time doing so on his channel which I refrained as I don't believe the flaws were a result of lacking knowledge but of a desired outcome. Good luck and please keep up us informed of the outcome!

 

[MAB]

I totally agree. The reactions are not very kind, and I'm wondering if all those people insisting on double blind bla bla testing are professional scientists or just looking for a way to kill any argument that does not fall into the correct box of prejudices.

It seems more of an inability to take valid criticism when wrong. And not just the double-blind part. Like, we do need to see the capacitor values. Multiple times in this thread, the most important part of a capacitor (the capacitance) is omitted! It's surreal! Like a cooking discussion with no ingredients!!!

 

[ctrl]

Even if you are right with some points, I don't like the way you address your criticism. As a thought experiment you can switch the role with Frank and think of the reaction from his perspective. He has put in the effort and did a test. I am sure if the criticism is brought to him in a respectful and not insulting manner he is willing to react to it and maybe he will do another better test which might be of interesst for a lot of people.

I don't see where I insulted anyone. Everyone who expresses himself in a public space must expect criticism - including me (and my reviews which are certainly are not prefect), as you just show.

The first video "cap sound listening test" (apart from the explained electronic basics, where Frank has really a lot of knowledge) is totally flawed - a fact Frank himself has acknowledged. If the microphone on the body constantly changes position relative to the tweeter, one naturally perceives differences in the short wavelengths in the high-frequency range - but it's not caused by the capacitors.

And the second video, really, the problems are so obvious. Frank is an intelligent man, he was certainly aware of what was not right.
He could have simply used a die to determine the order of the capacitors. Then a capacitor might have been tried twice and the subject's consistency in the answers could have been validated. In a "blind test", the tester is not allowed to influence the respondent in any way - in the video the opposite was done. Frank knows all this for sure.

And at the end of the second video, I really had to laugh heartily, because it was shown there that what cannot be, must not be.
It can't be that one of the cheapest capacitors sounds best for the test person, so in the end he had to go home with the most expensive capacitor in the speaker.

Frank mentions it himself in the video, the company Mundorf regularly provides him with equipment, so also the "tested" capacitors. Therefore, the end was virtually already determined - in the end, the most expensive capacitor had to go into the speaker.

On the other hand, consumers are seduced, tricked, manipulated into spending their hard-earned money on absurdly expensive audio hardware by taking the term "blind test" ad absurdum. That's what we have to criticize.

 

[DSJR]

For a moment, I was thinking of doing a listening test about capacitors in crossovers with some industry people here at my place and making a video. But honesty, the reaction to Franks testing made it clear to me that whatever result it will have, the usual people will tell us that it's all wrong or marketing or Bla Bla.
The first video, I thought, was not a good way, but having a person sitting there and listening and hearing a difference and describing it is something one cannot ignore. The question for me is, can he hear a reliable difference, not if the more expensive capacitor is the best one.
Even if this might not be the correct method, it must make you wonder if all the other people shouting that there are no differences, might not be right.

BTW, here you can download an article about capacitor sound of Martin Colloms, written in 1983 as far as I remember:

Martin Colloms article

I have a second article by Martin, but it seems not online. It contains measurements on capacitors
I don't want to upload without permission, but I will ask Paul Miller of HiFiNews and send a link if I can. Or you send me a PM.

I'm also still thinking if I should get me two of the D/A converters that Amir tested and give one a makeover with "Audiophile parts" to improve the performance. I would compare it with a second one on the same amp, just switching between the inputs, using the same cables and the same source (Eversolo via USB, playing via Roon). Not sure, if I can get a schematic, but often, the critical power supply can be found without it.

Sir, I'd trust your ears and findings a damned sight more than the often 'odd' designs by that consultant-engineer-reviewer, self appointed guru you linked to I daren't say much more as ad hominem comes into play.

If you find that certain capacitors are ok in one part of a crossover and other fancier types are better in other sections, then go for it - oh, you have - and it works commercially

 

[ctrl]

The first video, I thought, was not a good way, but having a person sitting there and listening and hearing a difference and describing it is something one cannot ignore. The question for me is, can he hear a reliable difference, not if the more expensive capacitor is the best one.
Even if this might not be the correct method, it must make you wonder if all the other people shouting that there are no differences, might not be right.

It's just a completely flawed approach. Any unavoidable change in body and head position will result in a change in sound perception due to the short distance between head and tweeter, the short wavelengths and the HRTF.

Further, a basic requirement is that the capacities are measured, the deviations mentioned and the difference is as small as possible - my limit is well below +-0.5%.

No it is straight up poor communication skill you can say exactly what you want to say in a nice and respectful manner and you not weaken any of your points to the contraire your arguments gets way more weight and value since you stay constructive and respectful,

Again, no one was insulted by me (at least that was not my intention). If a "blind test" is faulty (and I don't mean any minor details), then this should also be named as such.
Especially when the video is sponsored by a company that manufactures capacitors and the result directly affects sales.

 

[MAB]

@ctrl starts a thread on capacitors.
People post demonstratively flawed videos claiming to show a blind experiment on capacitors, but the experiment isn't blind, the capacitor values aren't quantified, and the results are overruled in the end in favor of expensive.
The video's problems are explained, not harshly at all.
The people who defend the video take offense at the explanation, and worry about additional offense the video's author may take. Really???

I'm gong to actually be rude:
@Karl-Heinz Fink and @test1223 Please grow up. You are both being rude and inconsiderate.
This is someone's thread, they did the work. Not you, and not the guy in the video. If you want to promote these videos, fine, but don't take offense when these rather severe issues are pointed out.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Frank mentions it himself in the video, the company Mundorf regularly provides him with equipment, so also the "tested" capacitors. Therefore, the end was virtually already determined - in the end, the most expensive capacitor had to go into the speaker.

On the other hand, consumers are seduced, tricked, manipulated into spending their hard-earned money on absurdly expensive audio hardware by taking the term "blind test" ad absurdum. That's what we have to criticize.

Mundorf always delivers samples to people who are doing professional work with them. What's wrong with that? Frank was very transparent on this. And as far as I remember, the Standard Supreme was the best one.... the same one I like. The listener did not know that the first was the cheapest one.....but he compared it with the others and found them better. Not more and not less. So, I cannot see anybody getting manipulated. Choosing the first capacitor on the tweeter feed carefully is the way to go. Putting in crazy expensive capacitors in other places is questionable. But these are other people. Frank is doing a lot for DIY and trying hard to find good-sounding devices people can afford.

 

[SSS]

On the topic of testing caps. Two episodes by

https://www.youtube.com/@frankswerkstatt

Not worth viewing these videos. The one explaining capacitors is not so bad. But the listening test is only valid for the loudspeaker presented and it is possible to hear differences between both crossover networks. Which sound is more natural and the right one connot be stated with this test. So there cannot be made a global validation of a "better sounding" capacitor in this test for other loudspeakers.

 

[changer]

What's wrong with that?

His testing/demonstration is not reliable, how is this so hard to acknowledge? If this youtuber provided a reliable procedure and robust results, we could see beyond the fact that his clip not by coincidence is labeled as advertisement. But he is doing the classical work of the analogue speaker builder gild that declares without evidence how they perceived something special about the electrical component product they are selling to their customers. This must ring every alarm bell. Do not get me wrong: I am interested in proof that capacitors sound different, and would love to see your video. But the criticism that was raised regarding these clips was adequate, to the point and in no way impolite.

 

[voodooless]

But honesty, the reaction to Franks testing made it clear to me that whatever result it will have, the usual people will tell us that it's all wrong or marketing or Bla Bla.

Is it not wrong?

but having a person sitting there and listening and hearing a difference and describing it is something one cannot ignore.

Can't one? Why not? Extraordinary claims... you know the jist by now.

The question for me is, can he hear a reliable difference, not if the more expensive capacitor is the best one.

Well, exactly! That's why we can ignore the above.

Even if this might not be the correct method, it must make you wonder if all the other people shouting that there are no differences, might not be right.

I'm quoting this one a lot these days:

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and I'm wondering if all those people insisting on double blind bla bla testing are professional scientists or just looking for a way to kill any argument that does not fall into the correct box of prejudices.

Who cares who we are? We have points to make. Address those, not the form.

 

[DonR]

Religions all over the world, followed by millions of people, proclaim things all the time, often highly contradictory to each other. Surely they can't all be wrong?

 

[ctrl]

Mundorf always delivers samples to people who are doing professional work with them. What's wrong with that?

What is problematic about this is that when things are provided for free by a manufacturer, the reciprocity effect kicks in - this is unavoidable and all of us know this experience.
One feels obliged to give something back to the giver.

The listener did not know that the first was the cheapest one.....but he compared it with the others and found them better. Not more and not less. So, I cannot see anybody getting manipulated. Choosing the first capacitor on the tweeter feed carefully is the way to go. Putting in crazy expensive capacitors in other places is questionable. But these are other people. Frank is doing a lot for DIY and trying hard to find good-sounding devices people can afford.

It could be "by chance" that the first cheap capacitor from the competitor manufacturer had the lowest capacitance - for example -6% to the most expensive cap. Then it would be theoretically possible that the cheap capacitor sounds slightly "duller" compared to the other cap - but we do not know that, since no measurements are available.

In addition, the "first" one in a test series is often somewhat screwed. Because the test person listens more closely to the second capacitor to hear possible differences - expectation behavior, selective attention.

Just as the capacitor heard last always has an advantage over the other capacitors heard before it, since recent events are preferred over older ones - it's called recency bias (first one could be an exception - serial-position effect). Therefore, it is important to have a random order in such a test with repeated test of the same cap at different test series positions.

Or one does simply an ABX test to check if there is an audible difference between cheap and high-end capacitors - oh wait, that's what this thread is all about it

 

[Geert]

Religions all over the world, followed by millions of people, proclaim things all the time, often highly contradictory to each other. Surely they can't all be wrong?

Don't call them out for being wrong, you need to be more considerate. Inviting them for coffee and cake would be a good start

 

[SIY]

if all those people insisting on double blind bla bla testing are professional scientists

Those terrible scientists and their insistence on basic controls! What's the fun in that?

This was a dishonest marketing exercise disguised as a scientific experiment. It deserves no consideration.

 

[DonR]

Don't call them out for being wrong, you need to be more considerate. Inviting them for coffee and cake would be a good start

Sugar and caffeine are the start of rational discussion.

 

[test1223]

Science is hard. Like doing 20 pushups. So when non-technical people make technical people do the equivalent of 20 pushups over and over, and still get things woefully wrong, it does need clarification! This is a great example of getting it wrong. And some people pointed it out, but you don't like the criticism. It would be understandable if they flamed, but they just calmly pointed out the many issues (the omitted capacitor values are hard to understand or forgive here, earlier in this thread someone did exactly the same thing trying to prove a point with dramatically different capacitor values - this would be called fraud in science).
I don't hear insults. But it is hard to stand corrected, and correction is needed on the videos you posted.

First I didn't posted the video.
Second you are into science, so please ask experts on communication science what they think about the communication here and especially your post. I think with such communication a negative conflict spiral is very hard to avoid.

Instead of criticizing my criticism you could have better spend your time doing so on his channel which I refrained as I don't believe the flaws were a result of lack of knowledge but a desired outcome. Good luck!

Even if you think he did it wrong on purpose you should only bring that up if you want to start an escalation, since it is one of the hardest insults you can bring up in any honest discussion.

I don't see where I insulted anyone. Everyone who expresses himself in a public space must expect criticism - including me (and my reviews which are certainly are not prefect), as you just show.

The first video "cap sound listening test" (apart from the explained electronic basics, where Frank has really a lot of knowledge) is totally flawed - a fact Frank himself has acknowledged. If the microphone on the body constantly changes position relative to the tweeter, one naturally perceives differences in the short wavelengths in the high-frequency range - but it's not caused by the capacitors.

And the second video, really, the problems are so obvious. Frank is an intelligent man, he was certainly aware of what was not right.
He could have simply used a die to determine the order of the capacitors. Then a capacitor might have been tried twice and the subject's consistency in the answers could have been validated. In a "blind test", the tester is not allowed to influence the respondent in any way - in the video the opposite was done. Frank knows all this for sure.

And at the end of the second video, I really had to laugh heartily, because it was shown there that what cannot be, must not be.
It can't be that one of the cheapest capacitors sounds best for the test person, so in the end he had to go home with the most expensive capacitor in the speaker.

Frank mentions it himself in the video, the company Mundorf regularly provides him with equipment, so also the "tested" capacitors. Therefore, the end was virtually already determined - in the end, the most expensive capacitor had to go into the speaker.

On the other hand, consumers are seduced, tricked, manipulated into spending their hard-earned money on absurdly expensive audio hardware by taking the term "blind test" ad absurdum. That's what we have to criticize.

I know that you are almost always very constructive and even the post I am criticizing wasn't that badly insulting but none of the less I think the way you worded your post was disrespectful for example the "blind test" part or to frame it as laughable and therefore it isn't helpful to get any constructive work going. This upsets me since this behavior is more common here at ASR than in a lot of other places. So it triggered me and I want to address it.

--

To make it very clear:
I think it is very insulting to imply or explicitly say that the test was fraud or on purpose done wrong.
I don't think you should stop to bring up valid criticism. But please be more respectful this would help everyone.

 

[MAB]

First I didn't posted the video.

Thanks. I stand corrected. In that case I would replace the word posted with boosted!

 

[voodooless]

I think it is very insulting to imply or explicitly say that the test was fraud or on purpose done wrong.

Well, I can play the victim as well: I find it insulting that we’re supposed to treat these videos seriously… so now what? We’re both insulted…