• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Fosi Audio V3 Mono Amplifier Review

Rate this amplifier:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 13 1.8%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 23 3.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 139 19.4%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 540 75.5%

  • Total voters
    715
No-one can see that unless they join the group. I'm certainly not going to.

However this type of mod is exceptionally unlikely to make any improvement. Far more likely to mess something up.

This is what was posted and I was interested in understanding other peoples experience & expertise with similar modifications, are they with merit?

Now here is the area of improvement for the power in the V3 monos and why:
Electrolytic capacitors are not fast enough to deliver enough energy for the high frequencies. Ok, some smaller value faster capacitors are found on the board, but my finding was - by adding a superfast 1 uF X2 capacitor parallel to each of the two big capacitors it significantly improved the sound - significantly! It was a wow moment! It is the yellow capacitors in the picture of the above view of the board and a closeup picture.
How could this be that it made such a big improvement?
It is feeding a class D amplifier, a pulse switching amplifier. Because the output is very fast switching pulses and not just switching according to the music, it is imperative to have enough big superfast capacitors for the TDA3255 to create exact, fast and powerful pulses. That power chip switches up to 100.000 times per second! The pulses are longer or shorter, depending on the music, and then filtered to smoothen out the pulses to become music (or whatever signal you input.)
On the other power rails having lower voltages I put a small ceramic capacitor parallel to each electrolytic capacitor, intended to give the circuits enough fast energy to reproduce the micro details in the music. They are small enough to easily be soldered on the bottom of the board to the pins of these capacitors (the blue ones in the bottom view picture).
Then I inspected the signal path. As I only use the balanced input, being the best input on the V3 monos, I only upgraded the balanced signal path.
There are used good quality electrolytic capacitors. These are good, but not the best. I decided to change each electrolytic capacitor to Wima red film capacitors. Yes, they are more expensive and would raise the cost of the unit, but soundwise still worth it. The electrolytic value is 10 uF and what I could barely fit in was 4.7 uF Wima film capacitors. Doing so could risk to make the bass become less strong. But after testing I found no reduction to notice at all, and my speakers play all the way down...
I changed 4 but not the 3 ones for RCA input only. They should preferably also be upgraded. The ones I changed are the red squared ones on the top view picture.
Now testing and comparing my modified V3 monos with my big class A/B amps was giving me shivers! Wow, now we're talking high end! Now the Fosi Audio V3 monos are better than my big mono blocks!!
 
This is what was posted and I was interested in understanding other peoples experience & expertise with similar modifications, are they with merit?

Now here is the area of improvement for the power in the V3 monos and why:
Electrolytic capacitors are not fast enough to deliver enough energy for the high frequencies. Ok, some smaller value faster capacitors are found on the board, but my finding was - by adding a superfast 1 uF X2 capacitor parallel to each of the two big capacitors it significantly improved the sound - significantly! It was a wow moment! It is the yellow capacitors in the picture of the above view of the board and a closeup picture.
How could this be that it made such a big improvement?
It is feeding a class D amplifier, a pulse switching amplifier. Because the output is very fast switching pulses and not just switching according to the music, it is imperative to have enough big superfast capacitors for the TDA3255 to create exact, fast and powerful pulses. That power chip switches up to 100.000 times per second! The pulses are longer or shorter, depending on the music, and then filtered to smoothen out the pulses to become music (or whatever signal you input.)
On the other power rails having lower voltages I put a small ceramic capacitor parallel to each electrolytic capacitor, intended to give the circuits enough fast energy to reproduce the micro details in the music. They are small enough to easily be soldered on the bottom of the board to the pins of these capacitors (the blue ones in the bottom view picture).
Then I inspected the signal path. As I only use the balanced input, being the best input on the V3 monos, I only upgraded the balanced signal path.
There are used good quality electrolytic capacitors. These are good, but not the best. I decided to change each electrolytic capacitor to Wima red film capacitors. Yes, they are more expensive and would raise the cost of the unit, but soundwise still worth it. The electrolytic value is 10 uF and what I could barely fit in was 4.7 uF Wima film capacitors. Doing so could risk to make the bass become less strong. But after testing I found no reduction to notice at all, and my speakers play all the way down...
I changed 4 but not the 3 ones for RCA input only. They should preferably also be upgraded. The ones I changed are the red squared ones on the top view picture.
Now testing and comparing my modified V3 monos with my big class A/B amps was giving me shivers! Wow, now we're talking high end! Now the Fosi Audio V3 monos are better than my big mono blocks!!
Sure, why not... I mean this goes way beyond my (poor) understanding of audio electronics but is there any measurements to back up this "wow moment"?
 
In all my 40 years of electronics design I’ve never once read a data sheet for a capacitor that had a parameter for “speed.”

I’ll say it again, capacitors have become the new cables. People are convincing themselves, through no science or measurements at all, that “cap rolling” makes a difference.
Coupling caps - changing them can make a big difference. I've only once bought into the expensive audiophile thing and regretted it almost immediately - silver foil caps. They were good but the next week bought some cheap as chips Russian K73-16 PEPT ones, slagged off by some old American 'gurus'.

There's a big thread from some years ago on diyaudio 'pept capacitors-One Of The Best.

In a word 'transparent', Like a lot of others on that thread, didn't want to accept what the OP wrote but he was right. He had spent a lot of money on audiophile/fool caps - well worth reading what he wrote.

Of course the real 'true believers' came steaming in with insults as they always do - had never used them, didn't need to - they were right and everyone else was wrong/deluded/stupid. The audiofools believe that to be good caps must be big -the K73-16 aren't. There other PEPT caps that are said to be as good. I've used 10 and 22uF caps in speaker x/overs. One American speaker maker daren't tell his American clients he uses them, they would go crazy - everything COMMIE is bad LOL.

I don't know if I have values that would work in this amp or if it would benefit.

The word transparent is maybe insufficient to describe these caps, it's that other caps colour the sound, these don't. I can only think of one other component that has the same effect - Z foil resistors.

O/A if you can't hear a difference in sound from different caps I think you have a real hearing problem.
 
The word transparent is maybe insufficient to describe these caps, it's that other caps colour the sound, these don't. I can only think of one other component that has the same effect - Z foil resistors.

O/A if you can't hear a difference in sound from different caps I think you have a real hearing problem.

Colour and transparency are two other "technical terms" that I don't ever recall seeing parameters for on capacitor datasheets.

Capacitors are the new cables. No science. No measurements. Just flowery phooey.
 
All this caps and cables talk sheesh. Op amp swaps make the real difference, let's start discussing those :p ,
 
O/A if you can't hear a difference in sound from different caps I think you have a real hearing problem.

If you did the comparison blind and it turned out you couldn't hear a difference either, none of us would have a relevant hearing problem. We'd just be human.

If there's a real audible difference, the most sensible next step would be to verify them with measurements. Chances are that the "odd man out" isn't actually more "transparent", but simply have electrical parameters ill-suited for the application. If it messes things up in an immediately intriguing way, it might be easily confusable with an improvement.
 
Electrolytic capacitors are not fast enough to deliver enough energy for the high frequencies. Ok, some smaller value faster capacitors are found on the board, but my finding was - by adding a superfast 1 uF X2 capacitor parallel to each of the two big capacitors it significantly improved the sound - significantly! It was a wow moment! It is the yellow capacitors in the picture of the above view of the board and a closeup picture.
How could this be that it made such a big improvement?
Almost certainly because no controlled listening comparisons were used. If you look at the TPA3255 datasheet layout examples you will see:
Note T2: Close decoupling of PVDD with low impedance X7R ceramic capacitors is placed under the heat sink and
close to the pins.
It's almost certain that Fosi have followed this, or the measured performance would be worse. So there is already 'superfast' capacitance right next to the chip where it is more effective than the mod proposed. The mod probably made no difference, which would have been shown by before and after measurements, or recordings that could have been checked for changes.
On the other power rails having lower voltages I put a small ceramic capacitor parallel to each electrolytic capacitor, intended to give the circuits enough fast energy to reproduce the micro details in the music. They are small enough to easily be soldered on the bottom of the board to the pins of these capacitors (the blue ones in the bottom view picture).
Don't know where these are, but probably no difference - again no before and after measurements to demonstrate it's doing something useful. It's not impossible that there's a difference (IIRC it came up when opamp-rolling on the 3E integrated showed a difference, traced to a missing cap and the difference in PSRR between opamps) but with the PSRR of modern opamps it would be unusual.
Then I inspected the signal path. As I only use the balanced input, being the best input on the V3 monos, I only upgraded the balanced signal path.
There are used good quality electrolytic capacitors. These are good, but not the best. I decided to change each electrolytic capacitor to Wima red film capacitors. Yes, they are more expensive and would raise the cost of the unit, but soundwise still worth it. The electrolytic value is 10 uF and what I could barely fit in was 4.7 uF Wima film capacitors. Doing so could risk to make the bass become less strong. But after testing I found no reduction to notice at all, and my speakers play all the way down...
Again no before and after. I don't know the cap specs or the operating conditions - see the capacitor distortion thread for pointers on how this can effect performance.
 
Electrolytic capacitors are not fast enough to deliver enough energy for the high frequencies.
You can discount the whole article just from that line.

The tests show it has flat frequncy response up to 20KHz (and beyond) That is the fastest the amp has to operate - and if that is achieved, it shows all the components are fast enough - including the capacitors.

Their opening premise is faulty - the rest can be safely ignored.
 
It’s fascinating to me that the world of hifi has so much phooey in it. If it was engine design there would be no hesitation in measuring results. Even if it was wine making then blind testing would be commonplace.

For some reason hifi has a history of opinions and puffery. Businesses have exploited the customer’s limited access to or understanding of information to milk the price/ quality relationship. The result is cables and other accessories that cost nothing to make and sell for thousands.

What’s weird is that even without products to buy hifi enthusiasts find ways to create the same illusions for themselves. We see otherwise sensible people placing weights on amps and DACs, lifting cables off the floor, swapping out insignificant parts in new gear, filling speaker stands with sand etc etc without the slightest inclination to objectively measure or test the results.

Fascinating.
 
For some reason hifi has a history of opinions and puffery. Businesses have exploited the customer’s limited access to or understanding of information to milk the price/ quality relationship.
Some large part of the world economy consists of con operations. Success in business, politics, religion may be as often based in conning people as in providing real value. Seems like about a 50/50 mix, at best. The successful con will often convince the marks that it is the truth-tellers who are engaged in the conning. Related is the crisis in scientific journals of late. It's become obvious even the top peer-reviewed journals in may fields have published a lot of fraud. If the audio business weren't part con, it would be wonderful and rare.
 
Some large part of the world economy consists of con operations. Seems like about a 50/50 mix, at best.

50/50 huh? Worldwide GDP is ~ $100 trillion. Show me 50 trillion of fraud every year.

Related is the crisis in scientific journals of late. It's become obvious even the top peer-reviewed journals in may fields have published a lot of fraud. If the audio business weren't part con, it would be wonderful and rare.
While this is a legitimate issue/problem, to put it in perspective, the # of fraudulent papers is still <0.5%. And in the vast majority of cases, the journals themselves are not committing the fraud. Paper mills submitting bogus papers using author names without that author's involvement/permission are the primary culprit.

I think your fraud-centric worldview is a bit exaggerated.

My apologies for taking things even further off-topic.
 
Colour and transparency are two other "technical terms" that I don't ever recall seeing parameters for on capacitor datasheets.

Capacitors are the new cables. No science. No measurements. Just flowery phooey.
Colour and transparency aren't technical terms and you are stating that all capacitors sound the same - I repeat you have a serious hearing problem. Have you ever had a bona fide hearing test?, if not, why not? If you havn't then you simply don't know how good or bad your hearing is - answer the question, otherwise everything you state is simply an opinion, not basec on scientific fact.
 
and you are stating that all capacitors sound the same - I repeat you have a serious hearing problem.
Capacitors don't have a sound - they have electrical characteristics. Capacitance, ESR, Operating voltage etc.

Depending on the circuit they are used in - if you change these characteristics, then it may - or may not - alter the operation of the circuit in an audible way. Most likely change - if there is one - will be the frequency response of the circuit.

However, if the circuit already achieves the necessary parameters for the device to have excellent sound - eg flat frequency response - then putting in "better" or "audiophile" or "expensive" parts, in place of the stock parts isn't going to make things any better.

Bear in mind electronic devices are designed by highly trained engineers, using sound design techniques and calculations, and doing lots of measurements to confirm the design operates correctly with the chosen components. Swapping out those components at random without detailed knowledge of the overall design, and without repeating those detailed design calculations - at best, won't make things worse: Most likely - if you match the capacitance value of the part you are replacing - it will make no difference. If it does make a difference at all, it will most likely make things worse. For example, altering the frequency response away from flat, destabilising amplifier stages, or (in the case of increased bulk smoothing capacitors) increase the stress on rectifiers.

If you are hearing sound improvements from these changes, then by far the most likely explanation for this is sighted listening being subject to cognitive biases - in this case - almost certainly - expectation bias. This doesn't mean you have a hearing problem - it just means your auditory system is just the same as all humans.
 
Last edited:
Colour and transparency aren't technical terms and you are stating that all capacitors sound the same - I repeat you have a serious hearing problem.

That's not what's he's saying. He's saying that if (and that's a big if) a capacitor changes a signal to an audible degree, it's predictable by its electrical parameters and its specific implementation, and those can give you a much, much more useful description of the change, while keeping the risk of fooling yourself way, way lower.

Have you ever had a bona fide hearing test?, if not, why not? If you havn't then you simply don't know how good or bad your hearing is - answer the question, otherwise everything you state is simply an opinion, not basec on scientific fact.

If we got a penny for every time someone tried to use the old you're-deaf "argument" to force acceptance of a wild claim here on ASR, we'd all be billionaires :D

Have you ever designed electronics on a level where you were tasked with choosing capacitors based on the electrical parameters found in their data sheets, and subsequently verifying the impact of your choice through measurements? -answer the question, otherwise everything you state about the behavior of capacitors is simply an opinion, and wildly at risk of being skewed by cognitive bias.
 
Colour and transparency aren't technical terms and you are stating that all capacitors sound the same - I repeat you have a serious hearing problem. Have you ever had a bona fide hearing test?, if not, why not? If you havn't then you simply don't know how good or bad your hearing is - answer the question, otherwise everything you state is simply an opinion, not basec on scientific fact.
Have you ever participated in a double-blind test to support your claims? If not, why not?
 
Coupling caps - changing them can make a big difference. I've only once bought into the expensive audiophile thing and regretted it almost immediately - silver foil caps. They were good but the next week bought some cheap as chips Russian K73-16 PEPT ones, slagged off by some old American 'gurus'.

There's a big thread from some years ago on diyaudio 'pept capacitors-One Of The Best.

In a word 'transparent', Like a lot of others on that thread, didn't want to accept what the OP wrote but he was right. He had spent a lot of money on audiophile/fool caps - well worth reading what he wrote.

Of course the real 'true believers' came steaming in with insults as they always do - had never used them, didn't need to - they were right and everyone else was wrong/deluded/stupid. The audiofools believe that to be good caps must be big -the K73-16 aren't. There other PEPT caps that are said to be as good. I've used 10 and 22uF caps in speaker x/overs. One American speaker maker daren't tell his American clients he uses them, they would go crazy - everything COMMIE is bad LOL.

I don't know if I have values that would work in this amp or if it would benefit.

The word transparent is maybe insufficient to describe these caps, it's that other caps colour the sound, these don't. I can only think of one other component that has the same effect - Z foil resistors.

O/A if you can't hear a difference in sound from different caps I think you have a real hearing problem.
When discussing the impact of capacitors on audio systems, it's essential to consider the science behind electronic components and their influence on sound quality. The argument you've presented can be addressed from a technical perspective that clarifies why different capacitors might seem to have varying effects on sound.

1. Capacitor Functionality in Audio Circuits

Capacitors in audio circuits primarily function as filters, coupling elements, or part of crossover networks in speakers. Their role is to manage the signal path, preventing DC from passing through while allowing AC signals (audio signals) to flow. The fundamental purpose is to ensure the signal is as unaltered as possible, maintaining fidelity.

2. Material and Construction Impact

The material and construction of a capacitor (e.g., dielectric type, foil, or film material) can influence its performance characteristics, such as Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR), capacitance stability, and dielectric absorption. However, in many audio applications, particularly in the audible frequency range (20 Hz to 20 kHz), the impact of these factors is often negligible if the capacitors are within the appropriate specifications.
  • ESR and Inductance: While ESR and inductance can affect high-frequency performance, in audio circuits, the impact is minimal unless the components are severely mismatched or defective.
  • Dielectric Absorption: Different dielectrics have varying levels of absorption, which can theoretically influence audio quality. However, many of these effects are outside the range of human hearing or are so subtle that they require extremely controlled conditions to be noticeable.

3. Perception vs. Measurement

Human hearing is highly subjective, and psychological factors like expectation bias can significantly influence perceived audio quality. This is why double-blind tests are essential when evaluating audio components. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that when listeners are unaware of the component being used, they often cannot reliably distinguish between different capacitors if the technical specifications are equivalent.
  • Expectation Bias: If a listener believes that a particular capacitor, especially an expensive or "audiophile" one, will sound better, they are more likely to report an improvement, even if there is no measurable difference in the output signal.
  • Placebo Effect: This is well-documented in audio, where belief in the quality of a component can create a perceived improvement in sound.

4. Capacitor "Transparency" and "Coloration"

The term "transparent" often refers to a component's ability to not alter the sound. Scientifically, if a capacitor is truly transparent, it means it is not adding any coloration or distortion to the signal. In well-designed audio systems, with capacitors that meet the required specifications, there should be minimal to no audible difference between different types of capacitors.

5. Objective Testing

The most reliable way to determine if a capacitor changes the sound is through objective testing using equipment like Audio Precision analyzers that can measure Total THD and SNR, and other key audio performance metrics. If two capacitors measure identically in these tests, the difference in sound quality is either nonexistent or beyond the threshold of human hearing. There is no magic going on here.

Conclusion:
While different capacitors may have variations in their construction and materials, their impact on audio quality in well-designed systems is often minimal when objective criteria are applied. The subjective differences reported by users can frequently be attributed to psychological factors rather than measurable changes in the audio signal.
Regarding your suggestion that those who don't hear a difference in capacitors might have hearing problems, it's important to remember that hearing acuity varies from person to person and diminishes naturally with age. However, claiming that those who don't share your perception are suffering from hearing loss is both scientifically unfounded and overly aggressive. Discussions about audio quality should be grounded in mutual respect and objective analysis rather than dismissing others' experiences or knowledge with such claims.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom