# Tropical fish caps?



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

So I just opened up my old Traynor combo to clean the pots and blow out the dust bunnies. Am I mistaken in thinking it's full of tropical fish caps? 
Or 
See the pics:


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> So I just opened up my old Traynor combo to clean the pots and blow out the dust bunnies. Am I mistaken in thinking it's full of tropical fish caps?
> Or
> See the pics:


These caps values are colour coded like resistors. Not something you see often today.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Look, I even found one of these:








Tropical fish cap 

Aren't those the same caps everyone freaks out about in wah pedals? Isn't that about $50 worth of vintage caps in there? 
I'm just about to sell this amp...


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Yep those are the tropical fish ones. Alot of the stuff about those is really just hype, but people will pay for them.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

The originals were made by Mullard, that's why :wink:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Geek said:


> The originals were made by Mullard, that's why :wink:


Actually, they are Phillips!

I sold zillions of them in the 70's and 80's. They were very popular in Canada 'cuz they were cheap and readily available.

That's why Traynor used them. They are nothing special - just a metalized film cap like many others.

Sometimes all this mojo reminds me of the Cargo Cult in the Pacific Islands during WWII. The primitive islanders had never seen technology, canned or bottled food, weapons or radios. They actually developed a religion around Cargo! They believed that all this stuff came from the gods and that somehow the white man had stolen their share or blockaded their supply line.

They would build a "radio" or whatever from sticks and feathers. Then they would pray to it! If the gods were pleased with their model then they expected it would actually work like the real thing!

They viewed cargo recovered from parachute drops as proof of their religion!

Perhaps its also like painting antelope on cave walls to ensure a successful hunt.

Whatever, it's pretty well all CRAP!

All the books, websites and schools we have available to teach electronics and we have so many people who find it easier to believe in magic. I'm surprised no one has started using serial numbers to date an amp and thus determine it's horoscope sign!

Libra amps have a more well-balanced tone! Scorpio amps will get down and dirty!largetongue

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Phillips? Wow, there's a lot of misleading info out there them :frown:




Wild Bill said:


> Libra amps have a more well-balanced tone! Scorpio amps will get down and dirty!largetongue


Heh, you got that right


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

phillips- mullard -norelco

all the same company 

and like it or not the mustards and tropical fish 

caps do have a smoother top end than more modern caps 

which is why reissue amps can sound shrill 

p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> phillips- mullard -norelco
> 
> all the same company
> 
> ...


No offence, but that's a matter of opinion:smile:


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> No offence, but that's a matter of opinion:smile:


no offence but its a matter of audible difference 

if you are fortunate enough not to hear it, you are lucky 

the korg ac30 reissue was the one exception... those sounded good, but had other problems 



p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> no offence but its a matter of audible difference
> 
> if you are fortunate enough not to hear it, you are lucky
> 
> ...


like I said...it's a matter of opinion


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

just bought a whole bunch today very cheap prices NOS...


p


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I hear a lot of conflicting information about these caps. On one hand they're standard film caps with a fancy paint job. On the other hand, knowledgable, experienced and well regarded stomp box/wah pedal "gurus" favour them over modern tone caps for certain applications. I understand that "mojo", "voodoo" and "magic" are good for the bottom line, and giving the customer the illusion of rarity or "specialness". What I think gets forgotten, is that most players don't follow this stuff. The individual building the circuit may be the only one that ever knows what's inside. Paint jobs aside, is it possible that through serendipity, these older caps were better at doing certain jobs? Or that we percieve the job *they do* as better. I understand and appreciate the need to debunk some of this stuff, but if I were to go exclusively with the naysayers camp, then ANY garden variety component ought to do the job regardless of make, so long as it's on spec with the parameters of said circuit. I guess I'm a science guy, but at the end of the day it's a beleif system, that's as capable of narrowing one's viewpoint as any other. However, I appreciate that science is only as right as the next discovery/revelation permits. So if anyone has opinions on these little buggers I'd like to hear them either way. Thanks

Shawn :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> I hear a lot of conflicting information about these caps. On one hand they're standard film caps with a fancy paint job. On the other hand, knowledgable, experienced and well regarded stomp box/wah pedal "gurus" favour them over modern tone caps for certain applications. I understand that "mojo", "voodoo" and "magic" are good for the bottom line, and giving the customer the illusion of rarity or "specialness". What I think gets forgotten, is that most players don't follow this stuff. The individual building the circuit may be the only one that ever knows what's inside. Paint jobs aside, is it possible that through serendipity, these older caps were better at doing certain jobs? Or that we percieve the job *they do* as better. I understand and appreciate the need to debunk some of this stuff, but if I were to go exclusively with the naysayers camp, then ANY garden variety component ought to do the job regardless of make, so long as it's on spec with the parameters of said circuit. I guess I'm a science guy, but at the end of the day it's a beleif system, that's as capable of narrowing one's viewpoint as any other. However, I appreciate that science is only as right as the next discovery/revelation permits. So if anyone has opinions on these little buggers I'd like to hear them either way. Thanks
> 
> Shawn :smile:


Well, if there are differences in the sound then there must be differences in the waveform. That would mean that every 'scope and piece of tube measuring equipment could only have been accurate if the exact same part or brand of tube was used if any replacement was needed!

If a Mullard 12AX7 was being used in a panadapter display then you couldn't replace it with an RCA or you would destroy the accuracy. At the very least you would have had to do a complete and thorough re-alignment! If a coupling cap blew and needed to be replaced in an HP waveform analyzer you would have had to search high and low for the exact same brand and type of cap to replace it!

If you had a motor drive control and you changed a tube you would have to expect that the motor would then run at a different speed! Or how about a tube TV? Would a Sylvania horizontal output tube have given a crisper picture than a Westinghouse?

Yet anyone who ever worked on such equipment knows that this is just not true!

So what would make an audio signal so special? How would an electronic circuit even KNOW if it was an audio signal or something else?

Do circuits have a preference for tone?

It just doesn't make sense. It sure sells a lot of stuff, though.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Wild Bill said:


> So what would make an audio signal so special? How would an electronic circuit even KNOW if it was an audio signal or something else?
> 
> Do circuits have a preference for tone?
> 
> ...



I hear you, but these caps were intended, and one would surmise, designed with audio performance in mind. I guess my point was *it* (the capacitor) doesn't know it's an audio signal, but the designer does. Seems, judging by the cost of these tropical fish caps, that it would be an advantage to use an equally good modern cap. Since, as I said in my earlier post, most guys don't get into it this deeply to even know or care. 

Let me put it another way. I cater for a living, and when I cook at home I put in all the trimmings. OTOH, when I'm making high-volumes I have to consider my ingredients much more carefully. In every dish there are essential ingredients that cannot be omitted. As there are ingredients that are costly and can be removed without much detriment to the overall flavour. Similarly, I cook organically at home as much as possible, but this is rarely feasable for large functions. The cost and sourcing headaches for me are greatly reduced and the savings for the customer as well. These guys must be under similar pressures in this market especially.

Thanks Shawn


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Well, if there are differences in the sound then there must be differences in the waveform. That would mean that every 'scope and piece of tube measuring equipment could only have been accurate if the exact same part or brand of tube was used if any replacement was needed!
> 
> If a Mullard 12AX7 was being used in a panadapter display then you couldn't replace it with an RCA or you would destroy the accuracy. At the very least you would have had to do a complete and thorough re-alignment! If a coupling cap blew and needed to be replaced in an HP waveform analyzer you would have had to search high and low for the exact same brand and type of cap to replace it!
> 
> ...


This reminds me of another debate regarding caps where there really are differences in caps....and not in a good way.
All tonewheel Hammond organs up to 1964 used the best quality caps in their tone generators. They had to as each tonewheel had a little tank circuit made from a .01 cap and coil. This was needed to filter out adjacent wheel crosstalk. Each coil had a hand-matched cap that was specific to that coil and tonewheel. The best caps available at the time were wax coupling caps.
Unfortunately, wax caps do not stand the test of time well and most of them are way out of tolerance. This is due to the fact that they aren't well sealed and over time, moisture and temperature changes their capacitance. In almost all cases, it has grown significanly larger which causes lots of crosstalk between wheels. Suffice to say, anything with 'vintage' wax capacitors in it are probably useless now no matter what anyone tells you.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> This reminds me of another debate regarding caps where there really are differences in caps....and not in a good way.
> All tonewheel Hammond organs up to 1964 used the best quality caps in their tone generators. They had to as each tonewheel had a little tank circuit made from a .01 cap and coil. This was needed to filter out adjacent wheel crosstalk. Each coil had a hand-matched cap that was specific to that coil and tonewheel. The best caps available at the time were wax coupling caps.
> Unfortunately, wax caps do not stand the test of time well and most of them are way out of tolerance. This is due to the fact that they aren't well sealed and over time, moisture and temperature changes their capacitance. In almost all cases, it has grown significanly larger which causes lots of crosstalk between wheels. Suffice to say, anything with 'vintage' wax capacitors in it are probably useless now no matter what anyone tells you.


This is exactly why specific caps are useful in specific audio circuits. 
Caps are not perfect and one could argue newer caps are more perfect than older ones. ESR and Inductance are specfications that have gotten better over time. Unfortunately newer caps can have higher fidelity. When Marshall built their early amps they generally used Mullard mustard capacitors. Their construction contributes to smooth upper trebles. Modern caps used in the old marshall circuit can sound very harsh. 
Paper in oil caps are the choice for humbucking guitar tone circuits, they have very muted upper trebles if installed in a guitar amp, in a guitar tone circuit this upper frequency inefficiency works in reverse since the guitar treble is grounding out through this cap, as the tone is dialed down enough treble remains to add apparent clarity and detail to the pickup. 

There is a lot of Mythology and hype too... I find certain Brands of Caps acceptable for building & repairing guitar amps, but will buy old Mullards (they made the tropical fish) if I can find cheap stashes of them. 

If I'm restoring a Vintage Marshall I will go out of my way to find the correct Mullard mustard to make sure the amp is right. 

It should also be Obvious to anyone who has done the a/b test in a simple guitar amp that a NOS mullard or Brimar 12ax7 smokes a chinese 12ax7 
Likewise most nos 6v6 tubes will last for years in a small fender while a few years ago any chinese or russian 6v6 would die within weeks. 

With caps matching construction materials is the key. 



P


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> This is exactly why specific caps are useful in specific audio circuits.
> "Caps are not perfect and one could argue newer caps are more perfect than older ones. ESR and Inductance are specfications that have gotten better over time. Unfortunately newer caps can have higher fidelity. When Marshall built their early amps they generally used Mullard mustard capacitors. Their construction contributes to smooth upper trebles. Modern caps used in the old marshall circuit can sound very harsh."
> 
> Sorry Parkhead, but I don't buy this argument. Are you saying that the ESR in vintage caps is so significant that it has that much effect on the circuit? I'll bet if you put two exact amps side by side one with vintage, one with modern caps, you wouldn't be able to tell which one's which. There's so many more variables at play that vintage/modern caps is a small variable.
> ...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Actually, there are two things that come to mind for me in this.

1) *Materials Science*. I read an article the other day, not sure if it was linked from here or not, on the Jensen company building a modern version of capacitor that Gibson I think it was had used. The originals were foil/paper/foil and the moderns are foil/plastic/foil, and how that plastic is formed or what kind of plastic is used changes the capacitors characteristics. I would guess things like temperature co-efficients, charge density, charge retention, etc

2) *Mark Hammer*. Yes, the member here, though not him specifically but an article he once linked of a study a friend of his did on wah pedals. In that persons study of the vintage VS modern pedals he found the vintage inductor was badly manufactured and had specific flaws the modern part didn't have.

I think that 1uf is 1uf maths wise yes. But I think there is a huge differance between putting ten 0.1 ceramic capacitors in parallel and calling that a 1uf capacitor when you compare that to a 1uf tantalum or 1uf electrolytic. Each may be by maths 1uf, but I think all three of these would function differently in a circuit. :/ I think even that if you did put ten ceramic in parallel to attain 1uf and then placed that in parallel with an electrolytic, that what you have is neither one nor the other, but I have no way of being able to articulate what it is you do get and NONE of the tech books I have talks about this. The off the top assumption is that TYPE is never swapped or mixed @[email protected]

I dunno, I have not had a GOOD discussion on caps and in fact when I brought this question up with a dude on youtube this week, his response was to delete my question and block me  which is shocking from an older person that claims to be a teacher and writer of books!

Gosh, I was even wondering if you had two caps in parallel, one with a positive temp co-eff and one with a negative temp co-eff would you end up with a temp stable cap? :wave:

 Learning is fun, asking questions is fun. I just wish the text books thought to include the dang answers! 'Cuz I alwayz can haz questunz! No can alwayz haz anzrz


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> I hear you, but these caps were intended, and one would surmise, designed with audio performance in mind. I guess my point was *it* (the capacitor) doesn't know it's an audio signal, but the designer does. Seems, judging by the cost of these tropical fish caps, that it would be an advantage to use an equally good modern cap. Since, as I said in my earlier post, most guys don't get into it this deeply to even know or care.
> 
> 
> Thanks Shawn


Well, I must have given out hundreds of data books and the Phillips specs were also in the catalogue of the distributor I worked for and I don't recall that these caps were specifically for audio! Besides, audio was always the much smaller market. Why would Phillips have deliberately reduced their number of customers?

And that still doesn't rebut my point that if they handle audio signals in different ways they would have the same effect on non-audio signals in any other piece of equipment.

The one that really gets me is Bumblebees, the caps with the colour coded rings like resistors. I have in my files somewhere a Zenith service bulletin from the Golden Years, telling techs that whenever they find a BumbleBee they should replace it, as they are of poor quality and a failure waiting to happen!

I still would love to hear of some blind testing!

Meanwhile, I guess I have to finally retire my old vintage tube oscilloscope. Over the years I have replaced two small caps, the filters and several tubes in the channel amplifiers. I had paid no attention to all this mojo. I guess that means I must have totally ruined the 'scope's accuracy and it's no good anymore!

Wonder how they ever got a man on the moon with such stuff!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

well In support of your side of things 

here's proof that you don't need vintage caps.

However, I will also say that If I had used "orange caps" I would not have got

the results of the mallory 150's...

the objective was the Bluesbreaker Tone 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn_8Y7tLJf8

Let me be a little more practical about the problem 

If I see vintage caps for sale cheap I buy them ...

If as has happened someone will pay me $100 for single NOS cap 

I'm selling ....

If your scope is no Good I'll be happy to take it off your hands 

In Fairness I have had buddies tell me that what I "hear" as obvious and plain as day, they can't fathom 

these buddies will also bring me their amp and say "make it sound right" 

I have also heard good sounding DRZ amps using caps I wouldn't touch. 

The key point is as long as the cook knows his ingrediants he can make good audio stew. 

OLD marshalls were built around the the mustard, to get "the results" with modern components 

one might have to tweak the recipie...

P


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> Actually, there are two things that come to mind for me in this.
> 
> "1) *Materials Science*. I read an article the other day, not sure if it was linked from here or not, on the Jensen company building a modern version of capacitor that Gibson I think it was had used. The originals were foil/paper/foil and the moderns are foil/plastic/foil, and how that plastic is formed or what kind of plastic is used changes the capacitors characteristics. I would guess things like temperature co-efficients, charge density, charge retention, etc"
> 
> ...


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> well In support of your side of things
> 
> here's proof that you don't need vintage caps.
> 
> ...


Hey, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. There are people out there that believe aliens live among us and no discussion will ever change their mind. That's not for me to judge. 
All I know is I've had hundreds of satisfied customers with both new and vintage amps. On occasion one or two will ask me to put in something vintage to replace an existing part. Sure, I don't care, that's their business.
I think you should look back through the posting history Parkhead...you're not the first one to dredge up this discussion. It's been talked about at length already.
BTW my scope and ears both work fine...I think what you believe is your business but that belief shouldn't be at others expense.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Wild Bill said:


> And that still doesn't rebut my point that if they handle audio signals in different ways they would have the same effect on non-audio signals in any other piece of equipment.
> :food-smiley-004:


Well, if I gave you the impression that I was trying to "win" some sort of debate, I'm sorry. I'm having some work done by a well known pedal "guru"(not anyone from the forum). He makes a point of using these caps in his circuits. I don't get the impression he's a snake oil salesman, but obviously there's something "fishy" here! Maybe I'll email him and ask him what he thinks they do differently.

Shawn :smile:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> True, but it's a totally different component you're talking about. Inductors have more variables to manipulate. The number of winds, the core, are both a factor. Guitar pickups are essentially inductors. If a pickup has alnico 5 magnets and 10000 turns of wire, it will have a distinctive sound. Conversly, if it has an alnico 2 magnet and 5000 windings of the same guage wire it will sound significantly different.


True that. Inductors can be very wonky to begin with when built as intended, not to mention when one of the ingredients in the core was mislabeled. But with capacitors, each insulator has a different leakage resistance and temperature sensitivity and ability to retain charge. I am just wondering if the material used had a higher or lower carbon or similar content or had some other issue. These can affect their efficiency to store charge or lose charge. Ceramic I have read are very poor at maintaining a stored charge whereas electrolytic are very good. 

I do not know, I would have to spend some time to sort out what would happen to a signal in a filter as the leakage resistance of the capacitor was changed. I do not know what the dissipation time is for foil or ceramic caps, but if it is losing the charge 1/2 way (time wise) between the signal cycles vs keeping that charge all the way to the next peek, would that not change how the filter response curve would shape up too?

I just am suggesting there may be a science reason for how some capacitor constructions might cause an effect that is noticeable in audio. I think I read at some point the human ear can hear 1% distortions so the impact could be almost negligible. As for the fish caps, to me, they are simply pretty. If I could purchase them new, I would, and that would only be for their looks. My amp project (WILD BILL THANKS! I have a few ideas from schematics heaven what I will try to do ) However, I will be trying to use all the same makers of caps, resistors, etc. Not because of the mojo of sound  I just like Ohmite for resistors for the looks and the name, and same for Jensen for capacitors they look good etc. :/ I like uniformity in construction, it leaves me fuddled to see a mix of makers and styles in electronics, kind of like looking at a pack rat nest. NOTHING to do with the electronics (because 1uf is still 1uf really), for me it is *purely* visual mojo!




nonreverb said:


> "I think that 1uf is 1uf maths wise yes. But I think there is a huge differance between putting ten 0.1 ceramic capacitors in parallel and calling that a 1uf capacitor when you compare that to a 1uf tantalum or 1uf electrolytic. Each may be by maths 1uf, but I think all three of these would function differently in a circuit. :/ I think even that if you did put ten ceramic in parallel to attain 1uf and then placed that in parallel with an electrolytic, that what you have is neither one nor the other, but I have no way of being able to articulate what it is you do get and NONE of the tech books I have talks about this. The off the top assumption is that TYPE is never swapped or mixed @[email protected]"
> 
> There is some validity to what you say but the reasons don't include pure capacitance. Putting 10 caps in parallel could create problems with interference due to long leads and possible ESR and noise induction. Of couse it would depend on the specific ESR of the caps being used.
> Elecrolytic caps are subject to leakage and heat related failure and due to their high ESR and ESL, are not a good substitute in coupling signal paths. Therefore, it's much easier/cheaper to use ceramic or film caps.



Ah thanks  Where I became interested in this part was in watching people build capacitor banks for Tesla Coils. I wondered at the time "so, why don't people ...", it also left me wondering "ok, so, they have 9 capacitors rated at 1Kv each in series. You are putting 9Kv onto these. What happens to the other 8 when one goes resistive?" :/ be miserable to blow a capacitor bank all in one go all because of one cap that failed. The Geek Group's capacitor bank is HUGE compared to that too @[email protected] if that went it could be a conflagration!

>.< my next great discovery is to find out if I can put two chokes side by side for transformer coupling or not >.< and if so, whats the efficiency of that >.<


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Ah thanks  Where I became interested in this part was in watching people build capacitor banks for Tesla Coils. I wondered at the time "so, why don't people ...", it also left me wondering "ok, so, they have 9 capacitors rated at 1Kv each in series. You are putting 9Kv onto these. What happens to the other 8 when one goes resistive?" :/ be miserable to blow a capacitor bank all in one go all because of one cap that failed. The Geek Group's capacitor bank is HUGE compared to that too @[email protected] if that went it could be a conflagration!

>.< my next great discovery is to find out if I can put two chokes side by side for transformer coupling or not >.< and if so, whats the efficiency of that >.<[/QUOTE]

Ah yes the Tesla coil! A wonderful piece of technology. Cap selection here becomes critical as the frequencies and voltages involved are very high.
Get something wrong in that circuit and you have BIG problems!


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> Well, if I gave you the impression that I was trying to "win" some sort of debate, I'm sorry. I'm having some work done by a well known pedal "guru"(not anyone from the forum). He makes a point of using these caps in his circuits. I don't get the impression he's a snake oil salesman, but obviously there's something "fishy" here! Maybe I'll email him and ask him what he thinks they do differently.
> 
> Shawn :smile:


I wasn't differing with you, Shawn!:smile:

I really think that much mojo is just 'fadism', where someone substitutes mojo for real electronic knowledge. Then there are the hybrids, who have more than enough electronics background to understand how things work but go along with the mojo to part the ignorant from their money!

I vividly remember one audiophile who brought me a tube stereo power amp. He also had a kit of capacitors he had bought from some 'guru' on the 'Net and wanted me to give it a cap job and checkout. One of the first things I noticed was that the guru had included a bias filter MUCH larger than stock! I have no quarrel with making the power supply filters larger. Can't hurt even with major overkill, as long as you have a solid state rectifier. The bias voltage filter is a different story. This one was so large that it would take some tens of seconds to reach full charge and thus full bias voltage. So it would take that long before the tube had adequate bias voltage to keep it from running excessive current? NOT a good idea! I left that cap value alone. The 'guru' obviously had taken a good idea a bit too far without understanding the different application.

Anyhow, I charged him a few hundred dollars, which I thought was fair. He gave me a funny look and never came back! I found out from some mutual friends that he thought my price was too cheap so I must have done a cheap job!

It's been my experience that most audiophile guys are this way. They don't know enough technicals to recognize what's good or what matters so they substitute mojo and money! If they paid a lot of money from a mojo source then it must be good!

Ah well, we are all entitled to our own opinions but I'm afraid I just can't push what I don't believe in. Call me a Boy Scout but I sleep better at nights.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

I had an IT guy in my office Bragging that he was an audiophile and that 
"serious audiophiles" replace their complete sound systems every two years 
because they can hear the wear and tear on the electronic components.... 

I almost asked if this was before, or after the break in period 

Don't get me wrong 
i still think different manufacturing methods yield different results in audio components ....

but will not be cryogenically treating any tubes soon ...

Oh and I love curley cables 

In other words, 99% of this stuff is snake oil, but sometimes some things do sound different 

p


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> I had an IT guy in my office Bragging that he was an audiophile and that
> "serious audiophiles" replace their complete sound systems every two years
> because they can hear the wear and tear on the electronic components....
> 
> ...


Agreed, however the components that really make amps sound different are 
the magic three....power tubes, output transformer and speaker(s). Change any one of these three in any audio amp and there will be a difference in tone....guarranteed. You mentioned old Plexi's a while back...big part of their sound was the output trannies and speakers. Anything with Peerless, Radio Spares, Partridge, Triad etc get big bucks now and it's in no small part to the trannies in them.:smile:


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

For anyone who's interested:

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/capacitors.htm


A Quote:
"Suffice to say that there is a great deal of real engineering needed in these cases, but none is appropriate for normal audio applications. Such engineering (at the extreme levels) simply doesn't affect what we hear. Standard capacitors are perfectly acceptable for audio, and will rarely (if ever) compromise sound quality unless used beyond their ratings, or a completely inappropriate type is selected for the application (such as a high tempco ceramic in a filter circuit).

I have never seen the specifications for snake oil as a dielectric, but I expect it to have rather poor performance overall. With 'magic' components, in the end everyone loses. DIY audio is supposed to be fun, not an endless search for the mystery component that will make everything sound wonderful. Sad news ... that component does not exist."



Shawn :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> For anyone who's interested:
> 
> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/capacitors.htm
> 
> ...


Good link, Shawn! Whenever I get involved in this debate I can't help but think that people today are missing something. Tubes were a mature technology. Those engineers at Fisher and MacIntosh knew a LOT and they didn't go to such extremes with parts like capacitors! 

It's not as if we suddenly today discovered these things because we're so much smarter! If anything, the average baseline of tube audio today is far LOWER than in the Golden Years! We've forgotten so much and have not re-discovered all of it.

The idea that some guy sitting on a couple of boxes of old stock "goldfish" caps knows that they are worth a fortune as a retrofit to improve those old high end tube hifi units is just crazy to me! He's just trying to get more money! There's no way on earth that if we could time travel him back to 1957 that a tube hifi manufacturer would recognize him as far smarter than their own engineers and hire him on the spot!

Why didn't we hear all this mojo back in 1958?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

parkhead said:


> I had an IT guy in my office Bragging that he was an audiophile and that
> "serious audiophiles" replace their complete sound systems every two years
> because they can hear the wear and tear on the electronic components....
> 
> ...


Most of the audiophiles I know are like me ..... they listen to oodles of gear searching for the sound that they like best. Once there they usually are content for some time, usually measured in years, but for many their musical tastes change and they are off again searching for that magical sound. 

Now there are certainly others who have enough money to toss around on new gear every couple or few months. I find these guys are more samplers and tasters than audiophiles. Often times they are new to the hobby and are looking to test out as much gear as possible in order to establish a reference level with which to draw future comparisons. Once they figure it out they usually settle down and start spending more money on music than on gear.

As far as tweaks and stuff in the audio world, some of it is certainly snake oil, but I have found that most of it is not. Then again, much of this stuff is only worthwhile if your system is capable of revealing them. The vast majority of people's audio systems aren't so they'll think you are ready to be committed if you suggest something as weird as say changing power cords or interconnects or speaker wire will change the sound that you hear. It's not until you show them in person that they realize you are actually quite sane :smile:


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Pneumonic said:


> Most of the audiophiles I know are like me ..... they listen to oodles of gear searching for the sound that they like best. Once there they usually are content for some time, usually measured in years, but for many their musical tastes change and they are off again searching for that magical sound.
> 
> Now there are certainly others who have enough money to toss around on new gear every couple or few months. I find these guys are more samplers and tasters than audiophiles. Often times they are new to the hobby and are looking to test out as much gear as possible in order to establish a reference level with which to draw future comparisons. Once they figure it out they usually settle down and start spending more money on music than on gear.
> 
> As far as tweaks and stuff in the audio world, some of it is certainly snake oil, but I have found that most of it is not. Then again, much of this stuff is only worthwhile if your system is capable of revealing them. The vast majority of people's audio systems aren't so they'll think you are ready to be committed if you suggest something as weird as say changing power cords or interconnects or speaker wire will change the sound that you hear. It's not until you show them in person that they realize you are actually quite sane :smile:


By the time most audiophiles are wealthy enough to afford high end equipment, their hearing threshold is probably to a point where discerning miniscule differences is difficult if not impossible. If we were able to maintain hearing up to 20K throughout our lifetime then tweaking might be worthwile.
Changing your speaker wire to Monster cable or solid gold speaker connects though, just seems like wierd snake oil stuff. However like religion, their belief is their truth and that's ok......if you have the money:smile:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> By the time most audiophiles are wealthy enough to afford high end equipment, their hearing threshold is probably to a point where discerning miniscule differences is difficult if not impossible. If we were able to maintain hearing up to 20K throughout our lifetime then tweaking might be worthwile.
> Changing your speaker wire to Monster cable or solid gold speaker connects though, just seems like wierd snake oil stuff. However like religion, their belief is their truth and that's ok......if you have the money:smile:



:wave: Like I said, the LOOK is the MOJO for me. I forget now, but about 5 or 10 years back there was an audio amp out, it used a 1/2 inch thick or thicker sheet of glass as a back-plate (or front, as I said, its been a few) and it was lit from underneath. The natural green of the glass and the shine of the gold in the photos were quite simply drool inducing.

:/ as to how it sounds well, there is NO WAY for me to know, not without my hearing aid in. Otherwise, how anything sounds changes as I turn my head. Not to say my other ear is "good", my left hearing charts to people in their 70's, my right ear charts to people in their 50's and I am just 40!!

You know, the more I have read online on the audiophile forums, and on gear forums such as here or Remo, the more I think what matters most is looks and not sound. 

You know, if you take the same food, and have one person use a nice white plate, arrange the food in a nice neat tall pile in the center, put a squiggle of sauce to one side to off-center the look and another that uses a dull grey/white smaller plate with the same food simply put where it falls on the plate and then taste tested that, people will die trying to tell you that that white arranged plate of food tasted far better than the grey/white plate of disarranged food. The "food" means nothing, its all in the "look" that determines how people think it tastes. There have been lots of studies on that simply because it is such an easy to do and repeat study.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> :wave: Like I said, the LOOK is the MOJO for me. I forget now, but about 5 or 10 years back there was an audio amp out, it used a 1/2 inch thick or thicker sheet of glass as a back-plate (or front, as I said, its been a few) and it was lit from underneath. The natural green of the glass and the shine of the gold in the photos were quite simply drool inducing.
> 
> :/ as to how it sounds well, there is NO WAY for me to know, not without my hearing aid in. Otherwise, how anything sounds changes as I turn my head. Not to say my other ear is "good", my left hearing charts to people in their 70's, my right ear charts to people in their 50's and I am just 40!!
> 
> ...


+1

I totally agree with you. Presentation is everything. Just look at guitar amp packaging. How many amp heads look like a Marshall? They basically set the standard for amp head design and angled 4X12 cabs as well. How about all the tweed stuff offered by Peavey these days and Gibson back in the late '50's and early '60's. If it looks like what we believe "cool" is, then it must be.

As for hearing loss, I'm with you on that too. After being in bands for 25 years and sticking my head too close to one to many guitar amps and Leslies,
I'm starting to suffer as well. There's an article I read a while back which stated that men start losing their hearing in their left ear first which is what's happening to me too. Go figure...


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> By the time most audiophiles are wealthy enough to afford high end equipment, their hearing threshold is probably to a point where discerning miniscule differences is difficult if not impossible. If we were able to maintain hearing up to 20K throughout our lifetime then tweaking might be worthwile.


Most true audiophiles I know worry most about getting the mids and lows right which is where most of the music we listen too exists. This is the costly venture and you are correct, for many, unattainable. But so is getting a nice Les Paul with PAF's a dream for some people. So, it's all relative. BTW, the high's are the least important part of the equation. I can direct you towards a $500 setup that'll get you a frequency response up into the 19kHz range. But, of course, you won't be hearing it unless you are a 15 year old, or a bat! 



nonreverb said:


> Changing your speaker wire to Monster cable or solid gold speaker connects though, just seems like wierd snake oil stuff. However like religion, their belief is their truth and that's ok......if you have the money:smile:


Don't take this personally but I'm guessing it "seems" weird to you because you've never heard a good enough system to reveal the differences.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> You know, the more I have read online on the audiophile forums, and on gear forums such as here or Remo, the more I think what matters most is looks and not sound.


Now that's simply ludicrous. 

Outside of attaining the ultimate sound, the biggest struggle for audiophile's is WAF (wife acceptance factor). We struggle with WAF because our gear *doesn't* look pretty!


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Pneumonic said:


> Don't take this personally but I'm guessing it "seems" weird to you because you've never heard a good enough system to reveal the differences.


I bet he has. Rich knows his stuff.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

shoretyus said:


> I bet he has. Rich knows his stuff.


He may but his response of improving ones system by changing ones cable to "Monster Cable" suggests otherwise. 

Monster Cable is to audiophiles what a cheap, Chinese made acoustic is to a Taylor owner.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Pneumonic said:


> He may but his response of improving ones system by changing ones cable to "Monster Cable" suggests otherwise.
> 
> Monster Cable is to audiophiles what a cheap, Chinese made acoustic is to a Taylor owner.


....and many a audiophile wannabe has! That's the problem. Don't get me wrong, there are valid considerations when buying and upgrading audio systems for those who have done their due diligence and actually have an idea of how they want their system to perform.....it's the guys who buy into all the silly hype and wind up spending astronomical amounts of dough and they don't really understand what they're after. It's more of a see and be seen thing.
Once upon a time I was invited to a very wealthy guys place with a friend. He was selling this guy a guitar. When we got there, lo and behold the guy had not one but five '59 bursts! After regaining consciousness, he instructed me to try one out. As awe inspiring as it was, I was more amazed to find that the guy barely played at all. They were merely possesions of status...not unlike many "audiophiles" who are in the game for status but don't really understand ergo appreciate the technology


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> ....and many a audiophile wannabe has! That's the problem. Don't get me wrong, there are valid considerations when buying and upgrading audio systems for those who have done their due diligence and actually have an idea of how they want their system to perform.....it's the guys who buy into all the silly hype and wind up spending astronomical amounts of dough and they don't really understand what they're after. It's more of a see and be seen thing.
> Once upon a time I was invited to a very wealthy guys place with a friend. He was selling this guy a guitar. When we got there, lo and behold the guy had not one but five '59 bursts! After regaining consciousness, he instructed me to try one out. As awe inspiring as it was, I was more amazed to find that the guy barely played at all. They were merely possesions of status...not unlike many "audiophiles" who are in the game for status but don't really understand ergo appreciate the technology


+1 agreed, and I think that is where I was coming from. Not from the point of "people that know", but from the masses that "think they know".

In reading lots of forum postings (of all kinds, not audio specifically) the last few months, there are what appears to be 2 groups of people. The larger group is the "fad" group, running after the latest craze. The smaller group is the better group to follow, and I have read some very informative and interesting articles by these people. However, they tend to be much older people, that have had some college or university education, and really do love what they do, and do know the pros and cons of what they are into.

kqoct and of course, being human, I am myself not perfect in this too; I happen to like to follow the occasional fad or two myself.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

I suppose "audiophilia" (if that's a word) can be a fad but my experience is it isn't. Probably because few can afford the price of admission. 

Now you want fad ...... check out all the new guitarists that start up everyday, buying gear left, right and centre and then quitting 6 months later. 

Don't let that one bad audiophile experience cloud your judgment, nonreverb. it sounds like this guy was simply a collector of expensive things. I hang around with countless audiophile's and his kind, while around, certainly isn't the norm. It's no different than some of the geraheads in here.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Pneumonic said:


> I suppose "audiophilia" (if that's a word) can be a fad but my experience is it isn't. Probably because few can afford the price of admission.
> 
> Now you want fad ...... check out all the new guitarists that start up everyday, buying gear left, right and centre and then quitting 6 months later.
> 
> Don't let that one bad audiophile experience cloud your judgment, nonreverb. it sounds like this guy was simply a collector of expensive things. I hang around with countless audiophile's and his kind, while around, certainly isn't the norm. It's no different than some of the geraheads in here.


Quite true...but you have to admit, there are a lot of guys selling pipe dreams to people who have no clue in the audiophile world. There has to be, it's a relatively mature and popular industry. Yes, there are many parallels with gear heads and they abound so logically there are just as many audiophile wannabes out there just aching for someone to separate them from their money.


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> Quite true...but you have to admit, there are a lot of guys selling pipe dreams to people who have no clue in the audiophile world. There has to be, it's a relatively mature and popular industry. Yes, there are many parallels with gear heads and they abound so logically there are just as many audiophile wannabes out there just aching for someone to separate them from their money.


I find there are MANY more gearhead wannabees than comparative audiophile ones due to the simple fact of economics. Gearheads can get into something that plays music for a song and a dance these days whereas you had best be prepared to write a cheque for a minimum $5k to get into true "audiophilia" and even then that's just entry level. 

I find the players in "true" audiophile circles are either very serious and knowledgeable about the hobby or deep pocketed and curious about it all and willing to toss money around to test things out. Not much in-between.

I find the gearheads all over the place, starting at 13 yrs old and relying on parents to buy them there gear right up to 60+ yr olds and figuring they missed out on not learning how to play an instrument and better do so before they bite the dust.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Pneumonic said:


> I find there are MANY more gearhead wannabees than comparative audiophile ones due to the simple fact of economics. Gearheads can get into something that plays music for a song and a dance these days whereas you had best be prepared to write a cheque for a minimum $5k to get into true "audiophilia" and even then that's just entry level.
> 
> I find the players in "true" audiophile circles are either very serious and knowledgeable about the hobby or deep pocketed and curious about it all and willing to toss money around to test things out. Not much in-between.
> 
> I find the gearheads all over the place, starting at 13 yrs old and relying on parents to buy them there gear right up to 60+ yr olds and figuring they missed out on not learning how to play an instrument and better do so before they bite the dust.


This is true but I wonder if it's proportionally the same? I would bet it is. If you look at the blue chip guitar collectors, which there are few. Probably proportional to audiophiles, a portion of the guys understand the market and have educated themselves around what they want....then there's the guys who buy into the hype and make bad choices or spend more money than they have brains...it's the same in the music world too.
The audiophile market is as much about value as it is about function. Like the blue chip guitar collector or expensive/auntique car collector. It becomes an exclusive society if you will. There are definitely those who are dedicated to their passion but the question is always the same: Is a $250,000 Les Paul really that much better than a re-issue? Is a $20,000 audio system that much better than a $2000 one or a $5000 one? My ears wouldn't know...I guess it's all about what each of us places value on.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

nonreverb said:


> This is true but I wonder if it's proportionally the same? I would bet it is. If you look at the blue chip guitar collectors, which there are few. Probably proportional to audiophiles, a portion of the guys understand the market and have educated themselves around what they want....then there's the guys who buy into the hype and make bad choices or spend more money than they have brains...it's the same in the music world too.
> The audiophile market is as much about value as it is about function. Like the blue chip guitar collector or expensive/auntique car collector. It becomes an exclusive society if you will. There are definitely those who are dedicated to their passion but the question is always the same: Is a $250,000 Les Paul really that much better than a re-issue? Is a $20,000 audio system that much better than a $2000 one or a $5000 one? My ears wouldn't know...I guess it's all about what each of us places value on.



Yes a 250k les paul 59 is instantly and painfully obvious if played in a band at volume ... depressingly devastatingly so .. Its not the sound which is exceptional, its the behaviour of the thing.... it sings and roars and makes you play better... you brain shouts "damn thats why people will pay ANYTHING for one of these" .... and some people have more to pay with than others so the competition to buy them drives the price 

one would be at the top of my post lotto win list !

here's my old buddy Phil experiencing the moment of realization at 1 min 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6zJJ3Cyo8s

BTW I'm staying out of this at this point 


p


----------



## Pneumonic (Feb 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> This is true but I wonder if it's proportionally the same? I would bet it is. If you look at the blue chip guitar collectors, which there are few. Probably proportional to audiophiles, a portion of the guys understand the market and have educated themselves around what they want....


I don't really see them as similar.

Unlike the blue chip guitar market, the blue chip audiophile market isn't one made up of collectors. In fact, it's the opposite. Higher end audio is like the vehicle market: you lose 1/2 the value the second you walk out the store. There is no such thing as collecting in the high end audio market. As mentioend previously, those who play in this game either are fanatical and knowledgeable about the sound they are after or they are ultra rich people who are testing and who wouldn't blink any eye about spending $75k on speakers and the same on a turntable. 



nonreverb said:


> then there's the guys who buy into the hype and make bad choices or spend more money than they have brains...it's the same in the music world too.


Not too many of them anymore in the audiophile world. I think the exhorbanabt cost of the hobby has weeded most away. 



nonreverb said:


> The audiophile market is as much about value as it is about function. Like the blue chip guitar collector or expensive/auntique car collector. It becomes an exclusive society if you will. There are definitely those who are dedicated to their passion but the question is always the same: Is a $250,000 Les Paul really that much better than a re-issue? Is a $20,000 audio system that much better than a $2000 one or a $5000 one? My ears wouldn't know...I guess it's all about what each of us places value on.


Laws of diminishing returns is rampant in the audiophile world no doubt. As I said previously, you can start playing for around $5k and get a sniff of what it's all about. Say 95% of the way there. But, for every appreciable % increase in performance above this mark, you pay through the nose. We have a saying in this hobby that getting the bottom 2 octaves and midrange proper is a very difficult undertaking one that unfortunately comes at a very steep price. 

BTW, you are in Ottawa I see. Two excellent audio shops are in your neighbourhood that you might want to check out. 

http://www.ozenterprises.net
http://www.planetofsoundonline.com


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

parkhead said:


> Yes a 250k les paul 59 is instantly and painfully obvious if played in a band at volume ... depressingly devastatingly so .. Its not the sound which is exceptional, its the behaviour of the thing.... it sings and roars and makes you play better... you brain shouts "damn thats why people will pay ANYTHING for one of these" .... and some people have more to pay with than others so the competition to buy them drives the price
> 
> one would be at the top of my post lotto win list !
> 
> ...


Not this debate again  It's painfully obvious that it's way overpriced.
What on gods green earth justifies such a purchase? If I had the good fortune to find one of those slabs cheap, and I'd sell it faster that I could spit... Sings? Roars?? Makes you play better??? Come on, let's take a moment here for a second. I've had the good fortune to play 7 or 8 in my lifetime and I didn't get ANY of that outta them. They were nice but certainly not nearly that nice. They're old pieces of maple, mahogany, plastic and metal. Some sound excellent and some sound like shit. The historics coming out of Gibson now are excellent guitars and practically free when compared to the price of a real one.
I just don't get how people buy into the hype. It's taken a good instrument and turned many of them into display case trinkets. I suppose if gibson had produced them for 10 years unchanged, many more people would have them and this goofy mysique would not exist.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Pneumonic said:


> I don't really see them as similar.
> 
> Unlike the blue chip guitar market, the blue chip audiophile market isn't one made up of collectors. In fact, it's the opposite. Higher end audio is like the vehicle market: you lose 1/2 the value the second you walk out the store. There is no such thing as collecting in the high end audio market. As mentioend previously, those who play in this game either are fanatical and knowledgeable about the sound they are after or they are ultra rich people who are testing and who wouldn't blink any eye about spending $75k on speakers and the same on a turntable.
> 
> ...


Good points Pneumonic...definitely a pursuit for the financially endowed:smile:
As for me, checking out is about all I could afford. I've got all my money tied up in Hammond organs, guitars and amps:smile:


----------

