Your tremendous efforts are greatly appreciated, Tony. I can't quantify how much I've learned from you. I can also really appreciate your objective opinions. It would be cool to know how film caps would change the characteristics but that's a lot of time and cash to ask you to invest.
Better can mean different things to different people. Usually it's used for better sound quality! But what if there's no change in sound quality but a longer service life instead? I would consider that being better also! So if there's only the possibility of ending up with a device that lasts longer..... Then I would say that it's definitely worth it, even more if you plan on keeping it. Unlike some of my USB flash drives and SD cards which I haven't used in years and only recently discovered that the files on them have become corrupted! I have vhs and compact cassettes that are far older and have been sitting unused longer and still work! The term "they don't make them like they used to" really brings home that even though I had to wait for an hour to get my pictures, the negative and paper printed pictures are going to outlive the picture files stored on solid state drives! Yet the pictures that I had on my 3.5" floppy disc's are still there even though they have been sitting unused for 20 years! If you can make something old last longer..... Do it!
You could construct two very simple same circuits to compare. Say an op-amp gain stage. One with electrolytic coupling caps the other with film coupling caps.
I think it would prove a lot if it demonstrated no difference between the two amps if one was full of film capacitors. I love seeing the science and the proof. We live in a world of evidence-based practice.
I would love to see that too. I totally get the differences and the design considerations that went in to using electrolytic caps in the signal path (brilliant video, thank you Tony!) - but in practice what is the audible effect of using the "wrong" type of replacement? (sorry Tony, I do realise that is a huge amount of work😢)
Hi Tony, I’m just now getting caught up on this series on the CA-2000. I’ve heard you mention in videos before that you personally seem to prefer the sound of an electrolytic cap in the signal path when that is what was originally in there. You find that putting films in place of electrolytics makes it sound less ideal to you. Recently I posted a video of me finally restoring my power washed Marantz 2230. I was actually quite reluctant to do a full restoration of this receiver because, to me, it actually sounded incredible as is. Like there was some kind of magic in its sound whenever I heard it. I really noticed it. But, for a video’s sake, I went “all out” and replaced all the caps. I did what I’ve always done with the early 22XX preamp board and whipped out the Wima film capacitors that the forums all know and love. I also admit I have some videos that are a part of this problem. And you know what I noticed when I turned the thing back on? I didn’t sound as good as I remembered it sounding. That’s a long-winded way to say I was really excited to see you take a deeper dive into this and explain all the insane stuff that happens with capacitors the minute you’re working with AC. I certainly learned a lot from that video. On paper, and with the data you’ve shown in your video, it seems that yes, there is undoubtedly going to be some difference in sound signature when you put a film where an electrolytic was originally. To further support your argument that the manufacturers did not simply use electrolytics because they were cheaper, take a look at that same Marantz 2230. The preamp board has BOTH films and electrolytics in the signal path. The phono preamp is the same way. I fully agree with you that the goal the manufacturers in the 1970s were going for achieving the best sound. It was never to cut corners and reduce cost. That’s what the 1980s were for. But who am I kidding, I wasn’t even alive for either of those decades. So as I was watching this video, the thought came into my head before you mentioned it toward the end: Wouldn’t it be really interesting to see how this test would go if one of these amps had all film capacitors in place of the electrolytics found in the signal path? Yes, it would be very interesting! And it seems there are some people in the comments that agree with this. I’ll say this: you are in an extremely unique position right now (or at least at the time of recording this video) where you have TWO of an identical preamplifier. On top of that, this particular preamplifier has a LOT of caps and really does appear to be engineered around them. It would be a lot more difficult to do this if you only had one of these amps. Trust me, I understand, and I totally get it when you say it’s gonna be a lot of work to do this test. It is indeed going to be a lot of work. But I think it would really be worth it and I’d watch the heck out of it. I'll see what I can do about my 2230 conundrum in the meantime. This is my first comment on one of your videos but I’ve been watching for years - well before I started a channel. I love your approach and see you as one of the best people on here. I like what you’ve done recently with the dual cameras, too. It’s really making me think about adding something like that to my setup which is an 8 year old DSLR camera and a tripod. Thank you for sharing all you know - it helps people like me get better with every project they tackle.
I was thinking there would be at least a minor difference between the amps. Would be interesting to try the film cap swap, maybe on a different (as in easier/simpler) amp, and just compare the right and left channels. Are you going to test the BA amps this way?
I like the additions to the videos with the picture in picture I even liked the pause added for clarification to see the details better makes it easier to understand. The only quibble I have is one with the exposure some times the displays are kind of washed out or a lot of refection. I understand you are trying to do a lot of it on the fly on your own so do not freak out about it things are improving day by day watching you do new things as well as restore things and troubleshoot is teaching me things I did not know I did not know.
It would be interesting to use that difference amplifier to compare audio interconnect cables. I suspect you would not find any difference at all between high-end “audiofile” cables, and the generic ones. Al O’
Open up another window Tony. Takes me back to the testing you did with "outside foil" difference on capacitors. Really didn't make a difference on cap operation. Thanks for your time and efforts.
I say yes, you can hear differences in things that may measure the same. That said, I dont have those golden ears, I would guess I am on Tony's level. He is humble about it but can still tell the difference between what sounds good or not.
If they measure the same , (frequency, phase, distortion and amplitude) then you won't hear a difference. If you put expectation bias into the picture by allowing or knowing before hand which component is being listened to THEN all bets are off and the results will be subjective and not accurate.
@davidlong1786 in the end that is all it boils down to anyway. You can have two quality receivers side by side. Play the same source through them, measure all the same data yet they sound different. I guess you either get it or not. I believe in God too...
@@seanobrien7169 So show me where that happened with measurements? You can't. You just keep saying the same thing over and over with zero objective proof. This is how misinformation and BS gets spread through the audiophile community. People who claim that the human ear can hear things that we cannot measure are deluding themselves or need to go on meds to stop the voices in their heads. Oh BTW I believe in God too and use the brain he gave me to study and learn what is possible and what is not.
Could they be Tandy / RS old pa amp knobs ?? HAha certainly look similar to what I remember on those :- ) I'd love to know what film caps do to the treble and bass on an old Pioneer or the Sansui. Unfortunatly I could not do a before/after on the Pioneer receiver i restored, because before it was very distorted.. so not apples to apples. I did use films on the small values.
I think this is interesting. It should be pointed out that you are only looking at the fundamental frequency. What about the harmonics? Is it possible to study that using this technique? Some people like John Curl think much of the sound quality can be found in the harmonics (or lack of). I’m just curious is this could be used to study that. It’s an interesting topic. That’s it…..thanks for your videos
If you don't test with the film caps installed then everything you said earlier about them possibly changing the sound due to different ESR and other characteristics will just be a "he said, she said" claim and nothing will be proven.
You're having to reach too high to get to the RIGOL DG-4162. You should do yourself a favor and send me the SG80 and the PA81... they're just getting in your way. ;)
i'm pretty sure that this Difference Amplifier will be one of the main test equipment devices after a restore/recap project on your bench. But i have to say, at certain point you say that you once heared a difference in audio and it was not seen on your test equipment, but i think that's the placebo effect. A human who replace a part with a new part, always presume that the new part will be better, that you see/hear/notice a improvement, this is human behavior. The same thing occurs when you buy a new part, install it, and expect that the new part is 100% okay, while there can be a chance, that new part is bad from the factory, this is human behavior. With this Difference Amplifier, if you feed in a 1,000 Khz (1000hz) signal on one channel, and a 1,002 Khz (1002Hz) signal on the second channel, that you see the difference on the scope, but that you don't hear this difference. I strongly believe, that if you really hear a difference in audio, that this is visible on a test device, but that a difference seen on a test device is not always hearable. The human ear is very sensitive, but i doubt if a human ear can detect some minor things like a small difference in frequency, amplitude signal level or distortion. But with this new test device, you have the device to proof it. Great project and i think this device is also useable for non audio related testing, like comparison of 2 powersupplies outputs (with a extra voltage divider to the Difference amplifier) etc....
Interesting so you can compare two signals as they go through two identical amps and determine if they behave differently, I hope I have that right !! if you find a discrepancy which of the amps is wrong and what could you do about it please, I mean this demo is in ideal situation but this is a piece of test gear so it must help us identify and fix a problem otherwise its a waste of bench space, probably because I don't understand but I am struggling to see any value here because its going to be so rare where I have two identical amps. If I did and they both where in spec on the bench but I decided to do this test and they behaved differently what would I do ?. Can you put me straight in a few words please ? preferably kind ones !... Great video and loads of food for thought and your being scientific about it, but like you say what you and I hear are maybe two different things ! let's plug our ears and brains into the difference amp and see what happens LOL...cheers.
Look at it a different way. What do you think the Keithley 2015 is doing when you test for distortion? You feed a known signal into the device under test and it reads the output. Anything that isn't the fundamental signal is read as distortion. Instead of displaying it to you visually, it just displays a percentage value. The difference amplifier is similar, in that you feed a known signal into the DUT and display the output. The advantage is that the output can be a visual display instead of just a numeric display. You can view it in the domain with an oscilloscope, or in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer. This will show you, in a visual manner, HOW the signal is being changed (or distorted) by the DUT. If the phase is being shifted, you will see the same waveform at the output as the input, but at a smaller amplitude and you won't be able to null it out. Distortion will show up as a heterodyned signal consisting of the original signal (such as the 1kHz sine wave) plus the distortion products (such as the harmonics). Another example would be frequency analysis, where you could feed a pink or white noise signal into the DUT and look for any "bumps or dips" at the output (this would require a spectrum analyzer or RTA). Once you understand how a signal should look, it will become easy to identify any type of distortion. I believe this touches on what Bob Carver was doing when he was measuring the transfer function of an amplifier. He probably used very specific frequencies and/or waveforms to derive a mathematical function of how the amplifier affected the signal. What you saw in this video is what happens when everything is working as it should, with minimal phase shift, distortion or frequency response difference. Hopefully, we will see different results when testing different equipment in later videos. Of course, my goal is to always have the results you just saw in this video ;)
You're makin the audiophiles mad, Tony! But in all seriousness, I've seen people hack apart good gear in order to insert a giant fancy 300 dollar capacitor, and look, they're probably all in these comments talking about hearing differences in things that will null electrically, it's one of the tastiest bits.
Measurable differences between electrolytics exist and simply relate to physical size, at a given voltage rating. Especially at lower test frequencies, Elna RFS2 consistently offers lowest tanΔ, followed closely by Nichicon KZ & BT, with FG, KA & KW a little more behind. I mean obviously, we're splitting hairs, but there you have it.
Your tremendous efforts are greatly appreciated, Tony. I can't quantify how much I've learned from you. I can also really appreciate your objective opinions. It would be cool to know how film caps would change the characteristics but that's a lot of time and cash to ask you to invest.
Better can mean different things to different people.
Usually it's used for better sound quality!
But what if there's no change in sound quality but a longer service life instead?
I would consider that being better also!
So if there's only the possibility of ending up with a device that lasts longer..... Then I would say that it's definitely worth it, even more if you plan on keeping it.
Unlike some of my USB flash drives and SD cards which I haven't used in years and only recently discovered that the files on them have become corrupted! I have vhs and compact cassettes that are far older and have been sitting unused longer and still work!
The term "they don't make them like they used to" really brings home that even though I had to wait for an hour to get my pictures, the negative and paper printed pictures are going to outlive the picture files stored on solid state drives! Yet the pictures that I had on my 3.5" floppy disc's are still there even though they have been sitting unused for 20 years!
If you can make something old last longer..... Do it!
Thanks for the demo! I found it pretty interesting actuality =)
You could construct two very simple same circuits to compare. Say an op-amp gain stage. One with electrolytic coupling caps the other with film coupling caps.
I think it would prove a lot if it demonstrated no difference between the two amps if one was full of film capacitors. I love seeing the science and the proof. We live in a world of evidence-based practice.
I would love to see that too. I totally get the differences and the design considerations that went in to using electrolytic caps in the signal path (brilliant video, thank you Tony!) - but in practice what is the audible effect of using the "wrong" type of replacement? (sorry Tony, I do realise that is a huge amount of work😢)
Hi Tony,
I’m just now getting caught up on this series on the CA-2000. I’ve heard you mention in videos before that you personally seem to prefer the sound of an electrolytic cap in the signal path when that is what was originally in there. You find that putting films in place of electrolytics makes it sound less ideal to you. Recently I posted a video of me finally restoring my power washed Marantz 2230. I was actually quite reluctant to do a full restoration of this receiver because, to me, it actually sounded incredible as is. Like there was some kind of magic in its sound whenever I heard it. I really noticed it. But, for a video’s sake, I went “all out” and replaced all the caps. I did what I’ve always done with the early 22XX preamp board and whipped out the Wima film capacitors that the forums all know and love. I also admit I have some videos that are a part of this problem. And you know what I noticed when I turned the thing back on? I didn’t sound as good as I remembered it sounding.
That’s a long-winded way to say I was really excited to see you take a deeper dive into this and explain all the insane stuff that happens with capacitors the minute you’re working with AC. I certainly learned a lot from that video. On paper, and with the data you’ve shown in your video, it seems that yes, there is undoubtedly going to be some difference in sound signature when you put a film where an electrolytic was originally. To further support your argument that the manufacturers did not simply use electrolytics because they were cheaper, take a look at that same Marantz 2230. The preamp board has BOTH films and electrolytics in the signal path. The phono preamp is the same way. I fully agree with you that the goal the manufacturers in the 1970s were going for achieving the best sound. It was never to cut corners and reduce cost. That’s what the 1980s were for. But who am I kidding, I wasn’t even alive for either of those decades.
So as I was watching this video, the thought came into my head before you mentioned it toward the end: Wouldn’t it be really interesting to see how this test would go if one of these amps had all film capacitors in place of the electrolytics found in the signal path? Yes, it would be very interesting! And it seems there are some people in the comments that agree with this. I’ll say this: you are in an extremely unique position right now (or at least at the time of recording this video) where you have TWO of an identical preamplifier. On top of that, this particular preamplifier has a LOT of caps and really does appear to be engineered around them. It would be a lot more difficult to do this if you only had one of these amps. Trust me, I understand, and I totally get it when you say it’s gonna be a lot of work to do this test. It is indeed going to be a lot of work. But I think it would really be worth it and I’d watch the heck out of it. I'll see what I can do about my 2230 conundrum in the meantime.
This is my first comment on one of your videos but I’ve been watching for years - well before I started a channel. I love your approach and see you as one of the best people on here. I like what you’ve done recently with the dual cameras, too. It’s really making me think about adding something like that to my setup which is an 8 year old DSLR camera and a tripod. Thank you for sharing all you know - it helps people like me get better with every project they tackle.
I was thinking there would be at least a minor difference between the amps. Would be interesting to try the film cap swap, maybe on a different (as in easier/simpler) amp, and just compare the right and left channels. Are you going to test the BA amps this way?
fantastic work, thank you, have a great week
I like the additions to the videos with the picture in picture I even liked the pause added for clarification to see the details better makes it easier to understand. The only quibble I have is one with the exposure some times the displays are kind of washed out or a lot of refection. I understand you are trying to do a lot of it on the fly on your own so do not freak out about it things are improving day by day
watching you do new things as well as restore things and troubleshoot is teaching me things I did not know I did not know.
It would be interesting to use that difference amplifier to compare audio interconnect cables. I suspect you would not find any difference at all between high-end “audiofile” cables, and the generic ones.
Al O’
Open up another window Tony. Takes me back to the testing you did with "outside foil" difference on capacitors. Really didn't make a difference on cap operation. Thanks for your time and efforts.
thank you for the vid
Tony, please do the film cap test! I really want to know if all of the film caps I’ve put in are making a difference negatively. Thanks!
I say yes, you can hear differences in things that may measure the same. That said, I dont have those golden ears, I would guess I am on Tony's level. He is humble about it but can still tell the difference between what sounds good or not.
If they measure the same , (frequency, phase, distortion and amplitude) then you won't hear a difference. If you put expectation bias into the picture by allowing or knowing before hand which component is being listened to THEN all bets are off and the results will be subjective and not accurate.
@@davidlong1786 I disagree.
@@seanobrien7169 Then you have zero evidence, just your opinion.
@davidlong1786 in the end that is all it boils down to anyway. You can have two quality receivers side by side. Play the same source through them, measure all the same data yet they sound different. I guess you either get it or not. I believe in God too...
@@seanobrien7169 So show me where that happened with measurements? You can't. You just keep saying the same thing over and over with zero objective proof. This is how misinformation and BS gets spread through the audiophile community. People who claim that the human ear can hear things that we cannot measure are deluding themselves or need to go on meds to stop the voices in their heads. Oh BTW I believe in God too and use the brain he gave me to study and learn what is possible and what is not.
i'm honestly nervous about the test results...
pls make it so there will be major differences!! :):)
Could they be Tandy / RS old pa amp knobs ?? HAha certainly look similar to what I remember on those :- ) I'd love to know what film caps do to the treble and bass on an old Pioneer or the Sansui. Unfortunatly I could not do a before/after on the Pioneer receiver i restored, because before it was very distorted.. so not apples to apples. I did use films on the small values.
I think this is interesting. It should be pointed out that you are only looking at the fundamental frequency. What about the harmonics? Is it possible to study that using this technique? Some people like John Curl think much of the sound quality can be found in the harmonics (or lack of). I’m just curious is this could be used to study that. It’s an interesting topic. That’s it…..thanks for your videos
If you don't test with the film caps installed then everything you said earlier about them possibly changing the sound due to different ESR and other characteristics will just be a "he said, she said" claim and nothing will be proven.
You're having to reach too high to get to the RIGOL DG-4162. You should do yourself a favor and send me the SG80 and the PA81... they're just getting in your way. ;)
Hi Tony, do you have load on that preamp during tests?
The Outputs were loaded by the two 47K pots at the inputs of the difference amplifier. It's a standard load for a preamplifier
i'm pretty sure that this Difference Amplifier will be one of the main test equipment devices after a restore/recap project on your bench.
But i have to say, at certain point you say that you once heared a difference in audio and it was not seen on your test equipment, but i think that's the placebo effect.
A human who replace a part with a new part, always presume that the new part will be better, that you see/hear/notice a improvement, this is human behavior.
The same thing occurs when you buy a new part, install it, and expect that the new part is 100% okay, while there can be a chance, that new part is bad from the factory, this is human behavior.
With this Difference Amplifier, if you feed in a 1,000 Khz (1000hz) signal on one channel, and a 1,002 Khz (1002Hz) signal on the second channel, that you see the difference on the scope, but that you don't hear this difference. I strongly believe, that if you really hear a difference in audio, that this is visible on a test device, but that a difference seen on a test device is not always hearable. The human ear is very sensitive, but i doubt if a human ear can detect some minor things like a small difference in frequency, amplitude signal level or distortion. But with this new test device, you have the device to proof it. Great project and i think this device is also useable for non audio related testing, like comparison of 2 powersupplies outputs (with a extra voltage divider to the Difference amplifier) etc....
Interesting so you can compare two signals as they go through two identical amps and determine if they behave differently, I hope I have that right !! if you find a discrepancy which of the amps is wrong and what could you do about it please, I mean this demo is in ideal situation but this is a piece of test gear so it must help us identify and fix a problem otherwise its a waste of bench space, probably because I don't understand but I am struggling to see any value here because its going to be so rare where I have two identical amps. If I did and they both where in spec on the bench but I decided to do this test and they behaved differently what would I do ?. Can you put me straight in a few words please ? preferably kind ones !... Great video and loads of food for thought and your being scientific about it, but like you say what you and I hear are maybe two different things ! let's plug our ears and brains into the difference amp and see what happens LOL...cheers.
watch the previous video it will answer all your questions.
@@duroxkilo I have, I still have reservations as to how useful this is lets see what Tony has to say
@@andymouse ok, just trying to help.. :)
@@duroxkilo Thanks :)
Look at it a different way. What do you think the Keithley 2015 is doing when you test for distortion? You feed a known signal into the device under test and it reads the output. Anything that isn't the fundamental signal is read as distortion. Instead of displaying it to you visually, it just displays a percentage value.
The difference amplifier is similar, in that you feed a known signal into the DUT and display the output. The advantage is that the output can be a visual display instead of just a numeric display. You can view it in the domain with an oscilloscope, or in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer. This will show you, in a visual manner, HOW the signal is being changed (or distorted) by the DUT. If the phase is being shifted, you will see the same waveform at the output as the input, but at a smaller amplitude and you won't be able to null it out. Distortion will show up as a heterodyned signal consisting of the original signal (such as the 1kHz sine wave) plus the distortion products (such as the harmonics). Another example would be frequency analysis, where you could feed a pink or white noise signal into the DUT and look for any "bumps or dips" at the output (this would require a spectrum analyzer or RTA). Once you understand how a signal should look, it will become easy to identify any type of distortion. I believe this touches on what Bob Carver was doing when he was measuring the transfer function of an amplifier. He probably used very specific frequencies and/or waveforms to derive a mathematical function of how the amplifier affected the signal. What you saw in this video is what happens when everything is working as it should, with minimal phase shift, distortion or frequency response difference. Hopefully, we will see different results when testing different equipment in later videos. Of course, my goal is to always have the results you just saw in this video ;)
You're makin the audiophiles mad, Tony! But in all seriousness, I've seen people hack apart good gear in order to insert a giant fancy 300 dollar capacitor, and look, they're probably all in these comments talking about hearing differences in things that will null electrically, it's one of the tastiest bits.
Measurable differences between electrolytics exist and simply relate to physical size, at a given voltage rating. Especially at lower test frequencies, Elna RFS2 consistently offers lowest tanΔ, followed closely by Nichicon KZ & BT, with FG, KA & KW a little more behind. I mean obviously, we're splitting hairs, but there you have it.
It goes to 11.
Beware the drummer, and don't let Derek Smalls anywhere near the plastic pod.
Bloody Stonehenge!
fantastic work, thank you.. have a great week