[Steve Eddy]

Hey Steve Eddy,

Hey Daygloworange.

I think it best that our discussion ends here. 

se

[dado5]

Missed your post. Science can "never, ever" explain? That doesn't leave any room does it? Any empirical data to support that?

Now that's wit worthy of Wilde!

But seriously, from the point of science, all that exists is a communication of an internal experience by the listener. There is no way to remove any confounding factors on the part of the listener, so effective control is impossible. Indeed it's not even possible to know what potential confounding factors there might be as they are internal to the listener and can themselves only be communicated. The experience can not be studied objectively by definition.

[Danny Richie]

Just because you didn't agree with those arguments doesn't mean I was being argumentative. Argumentative in my book means to argue, often disingenuously, purely for the sake of argument, which was never the case on my part during that exchange.

You have your own definition of "argument" as well? If I remember correctly that exchange was all about defining the function of, or correctly labeling the function of...

If it makes you feel better we can call it a disagreement and let it.

I'll make it simple. Your current status here is "welcome". Don't ware it out.

[Daygloworange]

Dado5

Just for the record, I don't disagree with your comments as a whole. It's difficult to put concrete values on human perception. I was just razzin' you a bit. You know every few years or so, Tide laundry detergent comes out with a 34% brighter version of their detergent.....if you added it all up....you'd have to put your Tshirts in a lead lined room to be able to get it dark enough to sleep!

Never is an absolute term that I don't always like hearing, I would have preferred to have it as "science can never fully explain". It just leaves a little room for further analysis.

Cheers

[george king]

Just to clarify a few points.  Perception can be studied objectively and values can be placed on human experience.  The area of psychophysics and signal detection theory have a long history in psychology.  They are both empirical, scientific, and quantitative.

dado said

But seriously, from the point of science, all that exists is a communication of an internal experience by the listener. There is no way to remove any confounding factors on the part of the listener, so effective control is impossible. Indeed it's not even possible to know what potential confounding factors there might be as they are internal to the listener and can themselves only be communicated. The experience can not be studied objectively by definition.

This statement is largely true of any area of science.  One never knows if all the confounding variables are eliminated.  One simply does the best one can do.  The statement that it isnt possible to know what the confounding variables might be is simply false.  People know about quite a few of these factors - fatigue to name just one.  Furthermore, recent advances in imaging technology could be applied to the audiophile realm it one desired, although there is a long history of EEG and evoked potential work in perceptual phenomena.

[woodsyi]

I am skeptical about where neo-behaviorism is going to lead us.  Now, how is this for a different tack -- intersubjectivity? http://www.community-intelligence.com/blogs/public/2004/06/from_intersubjectivity_to_coll.html#more

[Daygloworange]

Is it possible that we as humans all too often, overcomplicate things? And have the compulsion to always add, and never be satisfied with an outcome, that we always want more? And that we will always come back to something and.......Oh, man! I need help!

[Steve Eddy]

You have your own definition of "argument" as well?

No. Please read what I actually wrote. I gave my definition of "argumentative," not "argument." "Argumentative" carries with it a certain negative connotation, which is what you clearly intended to convey when you said I had been argumentative with you in the past and that you had a low level of tolerance for such interactions.

If I remember correctly that exchange was all about defining the function of, or correctly labeling the function of...

The exchange centered around your claim that the method of isolation of the magnet-based isolation platform you were selling at the time was "quite different from a spring/mass isolation device."

I disagreed, saying that its method of operation was exactly that of a spring/mass isolation device and presented arguments as to why this was the case.

I see no reason whatsoever why this should be cast in such negative terms as "argumentative" and portrayed as something one should have a low tolerance for, unless one is simply intolerant of any sort of disagreement.

se

[audioengr]

daygloworange wrote:

I know that you and a number of other manufacturers feel that Sonicaps capacitors are superior than other brands available.

I'm interested in knowing if the performance differences are measurable, and if so, what are they? In your speakers, are there improvements in phase?, frequency response?, does it have any effect on impedance?,.....if you had 2 or 3 crossovers with all similar parts values, but different brand caps, resistors, inductors.....how do they differ?  Are there concrete emperical differences, or are they subjective? Is it a clearly subjective thing that we just haven't found an appropriate method to quantify in scientific terms, as some have suggested might be the case

Actually, one of my customers, who is an engineer made some dielectric absorption measurements and found that the absorption of the Sonicap Platinum was less than the V-cap and most other caps.  Only one was better than the Sonicap, and I'm keeping this one a secret.  Listenening tests bear this out. The ones with the lowest DA seem to sound the best.  Less congestion.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

[Steve Eddy]

Actually, one of my customers, who is an engineer made some dielectric absorption measurements and found that the absorption of the Sonicap Platinum was less than the V-cap and most other caps.  Only one was better than the Sonicap, and I'm keeping this one a secret.  Listenening tests bear this out. The ones with the lowest DA seem to sound the best.  Less congestion.

So how does this square with those who find paper in oil capacitors to sound better than the various Teflon film caps in spite of paper and oil caps having significantly greater DA?

se

[Danny Richie]

Steve Eddy, I am not interested in re-hashing that old thread. If you want to debate it some more then go on over there and post about it.

So how does this square with those who find paper in oil capacitors to sound better than the various Teflon film caps in spite of paper and oil caps having significantly greater DA?

Some people like how they color the sound.

[Steve Eddy]

Steve Eddy, I am not interested in re-hashing that old thread. If you want to debate it some more then go on over there and post about it.

Excuse me, but you were the one who brought the whole thing up, not me. I was simply responding to the aspersions you were trying to cast by bringing it up, which included a direct quote from that thread.

If you had a problem with anything I had said on this forum, you should have addressed what I had said that you had a problem with. Instead you chose to engage in a personal confrontation by bringing up a thread from over four years ago on another board.

If you're not interested in rehashing it, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. And if you're going to bring it up, don't blame me for responding to it.

se

[Danny Richie]

Steve,

I didn't bring it up to debate the topic all over again. I brought it up because it was the last exchange that I had with you and you were combative and argumentative. I no longer have time for fruitless debates. I do not seek such exchanges with you again and hope that you do not as well.

[Daygloworange]

Hey Audioengr,

Thanks for chiming in. Interesting.

On the topic of which sound best, Paper in oil versus teflon film caps, while interesting, does, at least to me, qualify it as an entirely subjective evaluation.

Again, personally, when I originally posed the question, I wanted to know the scientific reasons why certain caps could sound different, and I seem to be finding out some of the parameters and differences in performance ( materials, construction methods etc..)and the effects ( rate of discharge, dielectric absorbtion etc...) and how that might possibly ( or probably ) manifest itself in the electronic reproduction of music.

This is what I was looking for, so, thanks for all those that have contributed so far, and keep the info coming, by all means.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

Hey Danny,

Got another question for you. Based on frequency response measurements including off- axis ones, is there anything that dictates how far apart the speakers should be apart, and/or toe in? I guess I'm also asking, is there a distance apart that would cause negative effects ? Would there be boundries that if exceded would result in soundstage collapsing or other anomolies?

[audioengr]

Actually, one of my customers, who is an engineer made some dielectric absorption measurements and found that the absorption of the Sonicap Platinum was less than the V-cap and most other caps.  Only one was better than the Sonicap, and I'm keeping this one a secret.  Listenening tests bear this out. The ones with the lowest DA seem to sound the best.  Less congestion.

So how does this square with those who find paper in oil capacitors to sound better than the various Teflon film caps in spite of paper and oil caps having significantly greater DA?

se

I also use PIO caps, but I bypass them with Teflons.  The PIO just cannot deliver the highs IMO.  I like the V-cap PIO's, and they are not too spendy.  The Jensens may be better, but they are huge and very spendy.

Steve N.

[Daygloworange]

Any theories as to why the PIO caps might not deliver as many highs? Is it the DA thing? By bypasssing them with the sonicaps what is the net effect that you are able to discern?