Yep, all that heat in Class A is murder on those electrolytics. But who wants to rule out Class A, even for power amps?
It’s a good thing to keep the hot spots (rectifiers, output transistors) away from the electrolytics and noisy power transformers away from the listening chair. I solve the problem by putting a spacious power supply in another room, with reactances well away from the heat, but not everyone is lucky enough to have the space.
While film caps have focused a great deal on reducing ESR (Equivalent Series Resistance) we've had little to demonstrate that alone makes for a great cap.
On the electrolytic side though I think there's a number of improvements that are hard to dispute. Better longevity and reliability along with lower inductance and lower ESR. I won't say the need to bypass them is entirely gone but man compared to their brethren from the 1980s things here are really so much better.
Okay, all components have improved in quality out of necessity. Decades ago it made sense to make resistors of varying quality. Miniaturization and speed has largely changed that. It now makes sense to only make extremely good quality parts because that’s less expensive than manufacturing different quality resistors on different production lines.. So a resistor that cannot operate into gigahertz or more are just not worth manufacturing these days, not to mention the transition from, point to point, to through hole, to surface mount technology.
Beyond all of that though had been a constant drum beat, so to speak, for better sounding components as well. Another real issue for those who do modifications is the problem of circuit design, and components used.
A poor design often suffers when better components are used, and if the circuit has lousy components, changing out a few may not yield results which will be obvious.
Another very real factor is the system itself. Particularly the speakers, if dull, will certainly impact all of the sound. While the same it quite true of any dull sounding component, it seems especially obvious with regard to speakers as some speakers are notorious for it.
My early speakers were AR, but honestly the rest of my system was of such poor quality, Sanusi, Teac, and some general production TT with a Grace MM cartridge, so I really can’t speak to the sound quality of anything in it separately.
I was a technician and had been told that SS was better than tubes, unless there was a nuclear attack, so it went for several decades. All the while I was seeking out audio per listening to TAS’s Harry Pearson telling me that this or that magic component would make Dusty Springfield appear before me, Harry really loved Dusty Springfield. It never happened. There were 2 reviewers who I actually respected, but I’ll leave it there because that’s not the issue. I wasn’t fortunate enough to live near high end dealers.
Anyway, I found electrostatic loud speakers and Black Gate capacitors. Black Gates were heads and shoulders more transparent than other electrolytic capacitors, but that was only a good thing in good equipment with decent components. Furthermore, I found that some capacitors sounded even better, by-passing began.
I did parts swapping in loads of gear, and spent at least hundreds of dollars on opamps alone. Here’s the problem folks, unfortunately equipment is usually less than neutral, so what sounds good in one system may not sound good in another. I was going through Linear Technology opamps as though they were candy at one point, and many loved them, but until I found more neutral gear, they were just making up for high frequency losses in other gear. The same CDP was bright in more neutral systems, so you guessed it, I began buying more opamps. I did finally find a really good post DAC set up, but by then I had a Schitt Audio Yaggdrasil, and it was irrelevant.
As for caps and circuits, as mentioned in a previous post, and by me, the thing is that once you reach near neutral, the differences are not being impacted by the circuit/system. A good circuit is absolutely essential to good sound, and swapping out individual components individually just doesn’t impact the design, though it certainly does impact the signal.
Another thing that I have found to be true is that less is usually more. I say usually because my SS amplifier is not a simple circuit, it’s a ML 27.5, and I haven’t installed soft recovery diodes or anything else, it is just as neutral as anything that I have ever heard.
I am working, using the term VERY loosely, on a KT88 based amp, but I am in no hurry, the Levinson is more than sufficient. Also, the power supplies in my Don Sachs 2 preamp, as well as in my tube amp, are far from simple, but any type of amplifier needs very controlled and quiet supplies capable of satisfying instantaneous demands for power in order to be both quiet, and accurate. Both tube units have some of the best, though not the most expensive, components in them.
People who claim to have tin ears listen in awe of what they have never heard before from familiar music. Musicians too love finding things that they had never heard in songs before.
Every electronic/electrical component in my system was selected by someone in order to attain the quality of music that I enjoy. Frankly, for the first time in decades I have gear in my system that I have done zero mods to because it all came out of the box neutral, but someone else did voice the circuits and components.
My speakers are full 15" range drivers, until I bought them I would never have believed that crossovers buried so much detail. I always understood that once lost a signal is lost, but I never expected high output signals to take such a loss, I was always preoccupied with low level signals, I figured that while mods to crossovers have improved things, I didn’t realize that any crossover destroys the signal. I believe that is likely also why tube gear has a reputation for better sound. There may be something to tubes adding pleasing distortion, but I am 100% convinced that the minimal number of components in the signal path is where the greater difference lies. There is no doubt that as in opamps, tubes very heavily impact the sound, but with the beat tubes, I think that only truly special SS gear, like my Levinson amplifier, can compete with top end tubes.
I don’t doubt that there are better systems our there, but besides the DAC, I think that you would have to spend an absurd amount of money to substantially better it. A trusted audiophile who had a Yaggdrasil told me that the PS DAC for 5 or 6K???? is better, but for the first time in my life, I am content.
One other important point. I mentioned that systems are capable of negatively impacting the sound, and that could hide improvements made by installing a couple of top of the line capacitors, etc. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Many people don’t want to hear every detail of every song! What and how you enjoy your music is a rather personal thing. It’s no one’s business what you enjoy in music, as long as you are not trying to get others to affirm your taste in music. I used to really look down upon those who owned this or that pair of speakers, etc. So, there will be many who could care less about how my system sounds, and that’s as it should be.
In closing, I could only prove the negative impact of some electrical components such as capacitors if you were here to listen to my system, thus the positive impact of other components. No one is going to be persuaded here, and if they were, it wouldn’t be a logical conclusion. You MIGHT be swayed if a reviewer whom you respect and have always agreed with, or an audiophile you know personally were to say so, so I respect your skepticism as it is just unless it can be aurally proven to you that you have been misinformed. I am expressing my experience and it is worth every penny you paid me for it! Enjoy your music, but don’t expect information that you are incapable of providing in this arena to persuade anyone! If you find yourself in the Cincinnati/Dayton area, feel free to try to contact me, I often keep odd hours, and you can give my system a listen.
To me it’s definitely materials and new manufacturing techniques. I have Duelund cast silver caps in my 1970’s luxman amp with Teflon caps and sounds absolutely stunning and has got me off the amplifier merry go round. They really are amazing caps. My tech is also part of the stunning sound this is important for your upgrades too.
I didn’t realize that any crossover destroys the signal.
Not all. Time correction can be done, but it requires thinking "outside the box"
Nearly 50 years ago Dahlquist did the DQ-10. Nearly 40, John Bau did the Spica TC-50 and later the Angelus. Also Wilson, Van der Steen, ... All the crossovers were complex and none of them had drivers mounted on a flat panel.
No passive crossover in a flat panel box will ever equal equal phase aligned drivers each driven by a suitable amplifier in turn driven from a bespoke active crossover. To think otherwise is kidding yourself.
The new ODAM caps from VH Labs are quite amazing besting even cast copper Duelund. in comparison they made the Duelund sound slow and not as open and organic as the VH labs.
Please note that you appear to be a dealer of some sort: "As a dealer I do realize the challenge it presents when you attempt to set up a high end system in a store environment. That is why our high end reference system is actually set up in a home environment." in
Audiogon Discussion Forum
For high voltages, 300 and higher including 1000 or more, I feel safer using polypropylene to electrolytic because of shelf life issues the former do not have and you can get polypropylene good for 1300 Volts for about the same price you would have to pay for banks of electrolytic capacitors wired in series and parallel to get rated 1800 Volts. The former are larger, 3" diameter but you can get an aluminum box 17" by 17" that will have enough room for two power supplied with chokes on the negative sides. I use fast solid state diodes with center taps on power supply transformers rather then risk the problems with high maintenance mercury vapor diodes and the isolation transformers for their cathodes that have to be pre-heated and could short circuit.
From the early eighties until the early nineties the transparency of audiophile-quality gear improved enormously. This is almost certainly the improvement in passive part quality (mainly capacitors, but also to a degree in resistors.) My observation is that J. Peter Moncrieffe in his publications and promotion of WonderCaps made believers out of many who had heretofore scoffed at the notion that these passive devices had a "sound". Electrical engineering courses, of course, had not even considered these subjects. I know for a fact that the folks that developed the HK Citations found part swapping a critical part of their development, at a time when virtually no one else was doing it.
Yes, Lou's post was very good & made for some interesting reading. I can't understand either why manufacturers go through all the trouble of designing a piece of gear & then at the most critical point insert cheap caps.
I can't understand either why manufacturers go through all the trouble of designing a piece of gear & then at the most critical point insert cheap caps.
For one thing, a large manufacturer might pay a dollar for a cap which you might pay ten.
Adding $100 in parts cost is $500 out the door and $1000 in the store.
Many of the improvements effected by the great unwashed may be seen as detrimental by the designer in terms of sonics, reliability, etc.
An engineer, be it an all out, no holds barred or LoFi PoS has a specification of what it to be achieved and a budget to hold. Better caps could result in a flimsy chassis, under-sized heat sinks, lower quality PCB, cheaper switches, etc. etc.
There are plenty of Best of Everything manufacturers and their prices reflect it.
How many Joe HiFi tweaks are verified in engineering terms? Joe may think it better, but most may not.
I can't understand either why manufacturers go through all the trouble
of designing a piece of gear & then at the most critical point
insert cheap caps.
When design engineers select components/parts for their circuitry, it is their responsibility to assure all components/parts are up to required specification and not to compromise safety and reliability. Most boutique audiophile capacitor manufacturer cannot provide required documentation for design engineers to consider installing such capacitors in the design.
@widmerpool Absolutely correct. Even table salt versus Kosher salt. And even among brands of salt with Diamond Kosher salt generally superior to other brands.
My EAR 890 amp uses cheap electrolytics, downrated from the original build and then, after they started blowing amps, uprated in the current version. This is an abberation of EAR equipment. I haven't had a problem and understand that Paravacini designed his equipment to a price point. He didn't use the top quality parts but he chose parts which would work and produce the sound he sought. His genius is that he could take more conventional parts and design great sounding equipment at a price point, not cheap but not high end expensive either (besides his commercial product work). His affordable tube phono preamps are still highly regarded at their price.
Good post @fleschler. Tim's U.S.A. doppelganger was Roger Modjeski of Music Reference and RAM Tubes. Roger argued that the use of costly boutique parts was often unnecessary, as their claimed superior involved matters unrelated to the part's function in a particular circuit application, and therefore provided no sonic benefit. He further argued that some boutique parts actually compromise a circuit's behavior, leading to not just inferior sound quality, but in some cases reliability problems. Music Reference products are known for their superior stability and reliability.
And a second on Paravini's EAR tube pre-amps: After auditioning the EAR 912 pre-amp, Art Dudley stated in his Stereophile review that it was the first pre-amp he had heard which challenged the sound of his Shindo. The 912 was out of his reach (mine too ;-), but the excellent 868 is an over-looked nice little pre. Single-ended and true balanced outputs (two stereo pair of each, the latter via Tim's world-famous transformers), able to drive a 200 ohm load!
Roger argued that the use of costly boutique parts was often unnecessary, as their claimed superior involved matters unrelated to the part’s function in a particular circuit application, and therefore provided no sonic benefit.
I totally buy this. A great deal of this is driven by armchair buyers who will nit pick relative quality and value based on parts instead of performance.
Of course, a large part of it is manufacturers attempting to make gear to sell specifically in the high end. What if the best sounding amp on earth cost $100 to make? No one would buy it, unless it had meters. Big, beautiful bouncing meters.
rather then risk the problems with high maintenance mercury vapor diodes and the isolation transformers for their cathodes that have to be pre-heated and could short circuit.
Have you ever used Mercury vapor Diodes? I don't seem to have any problems with them shorting out, only the initial preheating is time consuming, after they have been in circuit and the initial 30 minute preheating is accomplished you only preheat for 30 seconds to 1 minute.
@bdp24 They were two of a kind; however, Roger designed circuits requiring perfectly matched output tubes such as he provided for my friend's RM9 amp. Luckily, the tubes also run conservatively and have an extended lifespan (10,000 hours?).
but…..i have had both my Modjeski RM-4 and RM-9 apart and there are a few very excellent back in the day boutique caps and R in the right places. Engineering Economics is a class some loathe but others can exploit.
one thing to very carefully consider for all the backyard coupling cap replacer chasers…. Does the musical signal at that point in the circuit have enough voltage to form that big bad cap ?
Roger designed circuits requiring perfectly matched output tubes
This may be more marketing than fact. Matching to 5% is really hard and does not last much after the tube is put in service. 10% is considered pretty darned good. Industry standard used to be 20-25%.
@ieales My friend has the PSAudio BHK 250 amp and said it sounds best with matched Mullard 6922 tubes. Perfect matching is rare and maybe Kevin Deal goes for 5% and 10% for his premium and gold matched sets on Upscale Audio. Maybe I've just chosen 5% and 10% matched 12AX7s, 6922s and other small gain tubes. Output tubes are the most likely to alter gain and other characteristics during long term use. That is why manual and/or self biasing is required for output tubes.
Illuminating indeed, @tomic601. Modjeski gave hour long talks at three of the Burning Amp Festivals (videos available on YouTube), the audiences filled with some other pro hi-fi designers (Nelson Pass, Mike Sanders of Quicksilver Audio), a few reviewers (Herb Reichert), and lots of amateur solder-slingers. A free education in basic (and not-so-basic) tube amplifier design.
I'm not debating matching tubes. Been doing it for decades. However, if you stick a matched quad in something like a CII or ST-70, bias it up, play it a while and then re-measure the tubes, they are no longer what they were and the ratios of the various parameters have all drifted slightly.
Quality tubes will likely still qualify as a matched quad, but 2x matched pairs are within the probability realm. As is a matched trio... and an orphan.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
