[Brian Cheney]

I think so and would certainly like to try out some teflons designed for audio.

[TheChairGuy]

Scott F. (aka, Chopped Liver  )

Where is your article on capacitors located...on Enjoy the Music (I looked there, no can find, tho)?  Post a link, por favor.

[Scott F.]

Hiya John.

Heres the link to the V-Caps.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1104/joeaudiophile3.htm

and then heres the link to Chris' OIMP Caps
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0705/joeaudiophile8.htm

Regards,
CL 

[TheChairGuy]

Great - thanks.

And, thanks to Gordy for chipping in with the link in a PM, too.

John / TCG

[jeffreybehr]

Jeffrey:
of course I have to know the exact details of the system in which the comparison tests were made, or the results are not duplicatable.  It's not physics if you can't duplicate the test and get the same results.

Ahh...that's not what you said the 1st time.  But you're still not arguing that THOSE results aren't reliable, only that YOU can't duplicate the system. 

Then are you arguing that NO equipment reviewer's opinions are valid...er...'not physics'...if YOU can't duplicate the test system?  The next logical answer is 'not a one of them is reliable becaue I have no access to that listening room.'

I suggest you take the results for ONE person's observations in ONE system spread over (more than?) a year. 

[Brian Cheney]

Sorry, I can't accept your argument.  If the test results are to be taken seriously, as much about the test protocol as possible should be revealed.  If not the test deteriorates into one man's opinion, based on tests scattered over time under varying conditions, none of which are documented or verifiable.

The tone of your posting suggests you're biased towards believing that the report is a factual account of controlled scientific testing, and therefore valid.  I would dispute that assumption. 

[DSK]

http://www.10audio.com/sonicap_oimp_multicap.htm

FWIW, stumbled across this comparison of:
- Sonicaps Gen1
- VCAP OIMP
- Relcap Multicap
- Mundorf Silver/Oil

[Daygloworange]

Sorry, I can't accept your argument.  If the test results are to be taken seriously, as much about the test protocol as possible should be revealed.  If not the test deteriorates into one man's opinion, based on tests scattered over time under varying conditions, none of which are documented or verifiable.

I'm surprised that there is even a debate about this. I didn't read the article. But if there wasn't a detailed ( even if brief ) description about the controlled circumstances, then yes, it can't be taken as a serious comparison.

Even car magazines make great efforts when they do a comparison on different brands of station wagons. 

Seriously, this is a fanatical hobby/pursuit/pastime. If the reviewer wants his review to be taken seriously, then conduct it in such a manner. Otherwise, it is drivel. 

Cheers

[Brian Cheney]

"Drivel" is a little strong.  However, passive parts vary in sound quality with application.  As the tester points out, performance in signal coupling through a low cap value does not necessary extrapolate into a blanket judgment of listening quality of each of the devices under test elsewhere, though it appears that's what the tester himself is doing, given his rather enthusiastic verbiage.

Still, I remain completely unsurprised by the superiority of the teflon cap.  That's what I'd use given the budget and if the value required were small enough.

[Daygloworange]

"Drivel" is a little strong.

Ok, fair enough. Let's settle on "conjecture ".

Cheers

[Wayne1]

FWIW,

I just shipped off my 626Rs to Brian to be upgraded with the CDWG. As part of the upgrade, some parts in the crossover will be changed.

I sent along 4) .01 Sonicap Platinum Teflon caps to be used as bypass caps in the crossover upgrade. I did my best to match the caps before I sent them. My meter is not as good as Brian's but the caps I sent Brian tested at .00979.

Hopefully Brian will comment on any differences he may hear in a system he is very familiar with.