Are "audio grade electrolytic capacitors" snake oil?

[SIY]

“Interesting” is a commonly understood word. I use it in the dictionary sense.

A couple examples of where Bateman’s work is not applicable are coupling caps and decoupling caps. His work mostly is useful for understanding crossovers because of his chosen experimental setup. I’ve linked my measurements of coupling caps here before- my apologies, I’m traveling and on my phone, otherwise I’d give you direct links to them.

edit: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audio-grade-capacitors.9564/#post-253730

 

[Octalman]

“Interesting” is a commonly understood word. I use it in the dictionary sense.

A couple examples of where Bateman’s work is not applicable are coupling caps and decoupling caps. His work mostly is useful for understanding crossovers because of his chosen experimental setup. I’ve linked my measurements of coupling caps here before- my apologies, I’m traveling and on my phone, otherwise I’d give you direct links to them.

edit: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audio-grade-capacitors.9564/#post-253730

Thanks for the reply and link to your work. I did gather Bateman's work primarily applicable to crossovers.

 

[Cbdb2]

Yea the most demanding application for electrolytics, high power, large values, low tolerance, and sometimes the ESR is used in the design. So pick the cap for the application. Linear PS, SMPS, bypass, coupling, EQ (xovers), etc are all different and some parameters are more important than others. I roll my eyes when people say the audio grade lytics in the PS has made the soundstage deeper. Actually I roll my eyes as soon as anyone says "audio grade". I want to try the LIGO grade, or the CERN grade. They must be better, LOL.

 

[Octalman]

Don't think there is much debate that a capacitor should be properly selected based on application. Bateman's work showed electrolytics introduce noise. He stated electrolytics were not a good choice in loudspeaker crossovers, poly caps a better choice. While I do not believe all "audio grade" caps are better simply due to the label attached, quality does make a difference.

Started with a pair of speakers the designer matched and sold only in numbered pairs. Drivers were tested and matched. Crossover component values were matched/tuned to the drivers. The enclosure/driver/crossover configuration design process included all the standard response tests and listening evaluation. Reviews universally positive and still in demand on the used market today. Point being, started with a pretty good pair of loudspeakers.

The original intent of making any change was a simple refresh. The designer of the speaker suggested after 10+ years electrolytics can degrade, so replacement with a poly cap would be good. To confirm whether changes might result in an audible difference (good or bad) one speaker was left untouched as a baseline. A modern inexpensive poly cap replaced a Bennic "audio grade" electrolytic. The removed capacitor was measured and compared to the crossover design value. Exact match. The replacement poly was matched to the measured and design value, both the same.

There was an audible difference between the two speakers. Unexpected, but real. After a few hours of listening comparison determined the audible difference to be a positive change. Additional Incremental changes were made to the single speaker with hours of listening comparison performed each time. Same source material, same level, same listening position, same room conditions, same, same, same. Every change did not turn out positive so I strongly discount expectation bias. Ended up with all high quality poly caps not promoted by the manufacturer as "audio grade". The difference between the baseline and modified speaker was so great, even the eye-rollers could hear it.

No doubt, the naysayers will remain. Nay all you want, will not shake my confidence one bit. My hearing has been tested as equal to the acuity of a 15 year old. Took the Klippel noise differentiation test, much better than average at -51dB. Level 8 on the Harman listening test.

 

[Wes]

Bateman cite?

 

[SIY]

Don't think there is much debate that a capacitor should be properly selected based on application. Bateman's work showed electrolytics introduce noise. He stated electrolytics were not a good choice in loudspeaker crossovers, poly caps a better choice. While I do not believe all "audio grade" caps are better simply due to the label attached, quality does make a difference.

Started with a pair of speakers the designer matched and sold only in numbered pairs. Drivers were tested and matched. Crossover component values were matched/tuned to the drivers. The enclosure/driver/crossover configuration design process included all the standard response tests and listening evaluation. Reviews universally positive and still in demand on the used market today. Point being, started with a pretty good pair of loudspeakers.

The original intent of making any change was a simple refresh. The designer of the speaker suggested after 10+ years electrolytics can degrade, so replacement with a poly cap would be good. To confirm whether changes might result in an audible difference (good or bad) one speaker was left untouched as a baseline. A modern inexpensive poly cap replaced a Bennic "audio grade" electrolytic. The removed capacitor was measured and compared to the crossover design value. Exact match. The replacement poly was matched to the measured and design value, both the same.

There was an audible difference between the two speakers. Unexpected, but real. After a few hours of listening comparison determined the audible difference to be a positive change. Additional Incremental changes were made to the single speaker with hours of listening comparison performed each time. Same source material, same level, same listening position, same room conditions, same, same, same. Every change did not turn out positive so I strongly discount expectation bias. Ended up with all high quality poly caps not promoted by the manufacturer as "audio grade". The difference between the baseline and modified speaker was so great, even the eye-rollers could hear it.

No doubt, the naysayers will remain. Nay all you want, will not shake my confidence one bit. My hearing has been tested as equal to the acuity of a 15 year old. Took the Klippel noise differentiation test, much better than average at -51dB. Level 8 on the Harman listening test.

A few basic questions:

When you say that electrolytics have "noise," what exactly do you mean and how is it relevant to speaker-level crossovers?

How exactly did you measure the capacitors?

What position in the crossover circuit were these caps?

How did you verify the frequency response before and after the changes?

Have you tried doing a listening comparison with controls?

 

[solderdude]

I would add the questions:

Did you know which speaker was 'improved' and when it was playing ?

If this speaker builder was such a meticulous whizz kid then why was he using 'audiophile' electrolytics in the filter ? I mean this 'electrolytics degrade' is common knowledge for at least 30 years now.

 

[Octalman]

The expectation bias at the starting point was that little to no audible difference would exist. That expectation was blown up right out of he gate.
There was no intent to perform a full fledged science experiment. As already stated, reasonable steps were taken to minimize variables. First, was there an audible difference between modified and unmodified? Second, if a difference existed did it change the listening experience? Ears are the only "test" equipment that can make that determination. If I had the best audio test lab in the world at my disposal, would not change the fact my ears are the final judge.

Anybody in the loudspeaker business makes choices based on a price point. Plenty of electrolytic capacitors in current designs from smart people (whizz kids) employed by industry heavy hitters.

With all due respect to those that subscribe to measurements tell all. No problem if measuring everything possible about YOUR loudspeakers makes you happy. What makes me happy is the listening experience. You can accept or not how I arrived at a happy place.

 

[SIY]

So of five basic questions, you have answers to zero of them.

 

[Octalman]

As previously stated, did not intend to start a science project or scientific evaluation. As with most DIYer's do not have an array of test equipment, only ears as the final judge of the enjoyment level of the final result. My post is aimed at the DIYer with and open mind interested in experimenting as they see fit and judging for themselves without choosing sides. Respectfully, I choose not to go down the Q&A rabbit hole filled with Ya but, you didn't do A, Ya But you didn't do B, Ya but expert XYZ said . . .

I do not believe the dogma that capacitors cannot possibly sound different. Nor do I support the dogma that anything called "audio grade" must sound better. However, there is too much industry evidence of audio equipment using QUALITY capacitors and other components that as a unit test very well and reproduce music very accurately. At the same time there is no doubt a segment of the audio industry that makes inflated claims. Unfortunately, terms like "snake oil" are broad brush accusations too easily thrown around by armchair experts.

 

[SIY]

As previously stated, did not intend to start a science project or scientific evaluation. As with most DIYer's do not have an array of test equipment, only ears as the final judge of the enjoyment level of the final result. My post is aimed at the DIYer with and open mind interested in experimenting as they see fit and judging for themselves without choosing sides.

There's no "sides," you're either making a claim that has some merit or you're not. These are some pretty basic questions that you're unable to answer.

Some of us get out of the armchair and actually do experiments. That's the "science" part of ASR. And if you engage on a technical level, you might end up learning something, which is the fun part of doing science.

 

[Octalman]

There is a difference between can't and won't. If I had access to the array of test equipment used during working years, would dive head first into measuring and collecting data. Since that is not the case it is waste of time to engage in Q&A. I know what was NOT done due to limited resources. Well aware every detail of my process does not fit neatly into the box of "science". Does not make the results invalid.

When one loudspeaker reproduces a cymbal that sounds mushy and another loudspeaker reproduces a crisp clean cymbal, something is responsible for the difference. Do the same comparison for piano, guitar, drum, violin, voice, etc. Spent untold hours around the unvarnished characteristic sound of musical instruments. Any assertion that my ears or brain are somehow not to be trusted is pure hogwash.

Actually Sy, it we had a fully stocked lab to work in together it would be great fun. Not likely, so will just have to leave as is.

 

[SIY]

I only asked one question requiring some equipment. And even that can be very cheap equipment, which you likely have- a DAC and, at worst, a test mic and free software. Everything else related to more information on what you say you already did.

 

[Killingbeans]

Any assertion that my ears or brain are somehow not to be trusted is pure hogwash.

This always seems to be the core of these discussions. I don't trust my own combination of those two, unless they are being kept on a tight leash. Especially the brain.

Electrolytic capacitors suck, that's for sure. For a ton of reasons that have nothing to do with audio. They are a necessary evil in most electronics, and hopefully polymer alternatives will make them a thing of the past relatively soon. But while they show their inferiority in measurements, I still havn't seen any definitive proof of them having an audible disadvantage, as long af the implementation is done correctly?

The difference between the baseline and modified speaker was so great, even the eye-rollers could hear it.

I'm not trying to bash your abilities or intellect, but objectively speaking that isn't really useful as a verification.

 

[Tks]

Any assertion that my ears or brain are somehow not to be trusted is pure hogwash.

Trusted to do what? Tell you what you're hearing is representative of what is occurring in reality? Well you can't even live without a brain, so this is simply a trivial statement. When people here talk about brains' effect on sound incoming through the ears - it's mostly concerned with potential bias vectors like foreknowledge (like knowing the price of pieces of kit being compared) or visual additives (seeing two different devices functioning when presented with a challenge to differentiate them).

The "brain" then fails quite hard when exposed to such bias potentials. This is basic knowledge now, and sighted bias is a whole field of study and waves of actual studies demonstrating such phenomena.

But if you can isolate the sensory organ that is being challenge, to only work with the brain, and with the aid of no other senses. Then demonstrations of ability can be more accurately assessed.

Don't make errors like many others that attempt diversionary tactics, and inserting whole new portions to statements like: "Whatever dude, I don't need blind testing to tell me how much I enjoy the music". Such is completely off-topic, and also an indicator of either ineptitude for honest conversation, or simply motivated reasoning taking over.

 

[Octalman]

Thanks Tks for living down to the typical attacks too common on this forum. If your little missive is representative of your idea of an honest conversation, NO THANKS.

 

[Cbdb2]

There typical for a reason. There usually correct.

 

[LTig]

The expectation bias at the starting point was that little to no audible difference would exist. That expectation was blown up right out of he gate.

Unfortunately this is not how bias works. It's not a counscious process in the brain. We all suffer from it, since we are all human. The only way to get rid of bias is blind testing, meaning using your ears only, cutting other senses and knowledge about the speaker under test from your brain while judging sound.

This has been proven scientifically multiple times, so in a science oriented forum statements like yours are seen as more of an opinion than a fact. Sorry if this offends you - but you're not alone, neither the first nor the last. Many people here experienced this also in the past. It's painful when one realizes that one cannot rely on personal experiences.

 

[SIY]

Electrolytic capacitors suck, that's for sure. For a ton of reasons that have nothing to do with audio. They are a necessary evil in most electronics, and hopefully polymer alternatives will make them a thing of the past relatively soon.

There's reasons for using them in some crossover positions and reasons to avoid them in other crossover positions. It could have been useful if @Octalman could have answered the basic question about how they were used, but he's been pretty clear that he just wanted to make a claim and not to actually engage in a technical discussion. That's a pity, it would likely have been educational, but that's his choice.

 

[cistercian]

There's reasons for using them in some crossover positions and reasons to avoid them in other crossover positions. It could have been useful if @Octalman could have answered the basic question about how they were used, but he's been pretty clear that he just wanted to make a claim and not to actually engage in a technical discussion. That's a pity, it would likely have been educational, but that's his choice.

I have a question and I hope it does not come off as too ignorant. I have wondered for years how electrolytics could be
used just for ac signal work as in a crossover. I thought they needed DC bias to maintain the thin dielectric layer on the plates.
Just for stability and low loss poly seems way better to me. Thanks in advance if anyone can answer this!