# orange drop and tropical fish capacitors



## Guest (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm amazed at how players get fished into the notion that Sprague orange and older tropical fish looking capacitors are better sounding than capacitors manufactured today. I've been modding and repairing amps for 25 years now and trust me and my Sencore capacitor checker, capacitors manufactured in this day and age are by far superior. Certain types love to propagate myths about components and the like to sell off their antiquated stock and reap a pretty penny doing it. Ebay is full of them. I especially get a chuckle at how some amp companies go as far as to use caps with their company name stamped on them leading the owner to believe that the caps were manufactured by the amp builder and are necessary to achieve that "sound".


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

konasexone said:


> I'm amazed at how players get fished into the notion that Sprague orange and older tropical fish looking capacitors are better sounding than capacitors manufactured today. I've been modding and repairing amps for 25 years now and trust me and my Sencore capacitor checker, capacitors manufactured in this day and age are by far superior. Certain types love to propagate myths about components and the like to sell off their antiquated stock and reap a pretty penny doing it. Ebay is full of them. Caps purchased at Mouser or Digi-key are cheaper and probably better than some joker's 30 year old stock. I especially get a chuckle at how some amp companies go as far as to use caps with their company name stamped on them leading the owner to believe that the caps were manufactured by the amp builder and are necessary to achieve that "sound".


But those tropical fish caps are so purty...

Well, there are a lot of folks with no electronics background building and modding amps now, so it's not hard to sucker them in with this kind of hype.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

i just put a vitamin q cap in my tele. i won't say it was night and day or anything, but to my ears, it did change the way the high to upper mids were rolled off... and i find it pleasing to my ears. this was from the standard fender orange cap, i'm less convinced there's any difference between higher end caps.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

caps for guitar is a completely different animal than caps for an amp.

the stuff that makes old caps good for a guitar (drifting values, etc) can sound good in a guitar. Amp guys hate old bees, guitar guys love em.

I agree, for an amp, unless you are trying to keep something vintage, why would you buy old caps?


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Heh, when having a mate beta test guitar amps for me, the winner for tone in one amp ended up being a two cent ceramic disk 

*swings watch back and forth*

Unlearn HiFi for guitar amps *_*

Cheers!


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2008)

Here we go. First of all drift in a component is anything but desirable. It doesn't make anything sound better, it might certainly move a filter's corner frequency.
You can tune that yourself with a modern cap that won't drift appreciably over time. I have often tuned an amp this way. When choosing caps pay careful attention to the type of cap utilized. Electrolytics are good for power supply filtering and stage coupling where large values are required.Polypropylene capacitors are used in tone stacks , stage coupling and guitar tone circuits. Anyone who tells you that their caps have that special "je ne sais pas quoi" is full of "marde" . Crack open a Peavey JSX and look for those special caps from the golden years. That's right , the components are modern and Saint Joe thinks they sound just right. If some of you blokes can hear something magical , get yourself a spectrum analyzer and show me what you here. Get yourself a cat scan while your at it.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

suttree said:


> i just put a vitamin q cap in my tele. i won't say it was night and day or anything, but to my ears, it did change the way the high to upper mids were rolled off... and i find it pleasing to my ears. this was from the standard fender orange cap, i'm less convinced there's any difference between higher end caps.


You have to bear in mind that the tolerence on these parts are generally +- 20%. The cap could just be a different value.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Hi,



konasexone said:


> If some of you blokes can hear something magical , get yourself a spectrum analyzer and show me what you here. Get yourself a cat scan while your at it.


That is a rediculous statement and I can prove it:

http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html
http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps1.html
http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps2.html


Cheers!


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I just knew that this thread would get "interesting"

Dave


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

greco said:


> I just knew that this thread would get "interesting"
> 
> Dave



LOL...even Wild Bill is staying away from this one


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I was following along with interest until you used Peavey as a sonic benchmark. 

TG


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> I was following along with interest until you used Peavey as a sonic benchmark.


Oh! Burn! Hahaha


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2008)

(I'm going to regret this but...)

I was thinking a bit about the whole "put it on a scope" argument with respect to cables this week. The counter for the "high end cables rule" argument tends to be: put them on a scope, run a frequency generator, and the results look the same, ergo you just wasted your money.

Yet people contend they hear a difference.

So as I scientist (EE actually) I have to ask myself: are they full of shit? Or are my methods for measuring the differences lacking?

I have to go with the latter because the former is subjective.

So my hypothesis is that there is no difference between a $90 Monster cable and a $20 Planet Waves cable. I test them on my scope with the same frequency generator and the results look the same. My hypothesis is upheld. But a different measuring instrument, the human ear (of some other human), tells me they hear a difference. How do I resolve this problem? I can't dismiss they're observations _just because I can't measure it on my oscilloscope_. That's not scientific. I have to assume my measurement method is either inaccurate or incomplete.

The only option I have to resolve this troubling report is a double blind test. When the measuring tool is biased (and the human ear is because it's attached to a human brain) a double blind test is the only way to sort all of this out. I need to not only setup a test where by a person is able to play the same guitar and amp with two different cables, but the tester (the person administering the test) can't know which cable is which either. And for good measure I need two groups of testers: one group A/B's the Monster and Planet Waves cable. And one group A/B's the same cable (i.e. the cable doesn't change) -- this is my control group.

Now if it turns out the double blind tests show that:

A) A significant number of people in the control group noticed a difference between the cables (which they should because it's the same cable); or
B) A significant number of people in the test group fail to notice a difference between the cables.

Then my oscilloscope test is upheld as rigorous and I can say that any difference you notice between the cables is all in your head. It's subjective, psychosomatic and has no basis in fact or reality.

But, if A or B don't hold then I can only contend that the oscilloscope test is inadequate and does not uphold my hypothesis.

The same applies to the capacitor argument. You can't sort out the science from the pseudo-science from the subjective here without a double blind test. All reports indicate the oscilloscope tests are some how inadequate. If you want to argue otherwise you need to set up the double blind test because ultimately the character of the circuit isn't being measured by an oscilloscope, it's judge by the human ear.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> (I'm going to regret this but...)
> 
> I was thinking a bit about the whole "put it on a scope" argument with respect to cables this week. The counter for the "high end cables rule" argument tends to be: put them on a scope, run a frequency generator, and the results look the same, ergo you just wasted your money.
> 
> ...


+1! There's so much mojo crap being spread around. It's always easier to pick up buzzwords and misconceptions than to actually study the theory. A lot of the time it's used to ego-boost and add some glamour to a reputation, in order to sell you something or simply to let someone pass himself off as some kind of "guru".

It's significant that while there are lots of very techy looking articles measuring factors that you'd expect to find anyway or that aren't actually germane to the application you NEVER see a double blind test! Or even a single blind test! Or mostly not even any kind of objective test at all!

However, you can't fight human nature. P T Barnum proved that years ago.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milothicus (May 22, 2007)

Barnum would love this page...

http://www.ilikejam.org/blog/audio/audiophile.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2008)

Milothicus said:


> Barnum would love this page...
> 
> http://www.ilikejam.org/blog/audio/audiophile.html


Wow. That's a great link. At the end of the page it links to: http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html -- someone did a double blind test of audio cables. Cool story.


----------



## Milothicus (May 22, 2007)

iaresee said:


> Wow. That's a great link. At the end of the page it links to: http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html -- someone did a double blind test of audio cables. Cool story.


I didn't even notice there was something that relevant. i just love to laugh at some of the products... :smile:


----------

