Dueland Silver By Pass Caps

[muon*]

Just now, Ittaku said:

That still makes The Duellund bypass .01uf caps less than 1% of the total capacitance.

Which makes it unsuitable for you, but it seems not for many others.

[Ittaku]

2 hours ago, Assisi said:

It is all about the listener and not the system.  It is the ability of the listener to detect the benefit or otherwise of a change.  Sometimes I can and sometimes I cannot hear a benefit.  It is about awareness of the individual listener to acknowledge the limits of what they can or cannot discern.

John's implying I'm deaf here, which he has a habit of doing since we disagree about the effect of power cables, and whilst it's no secret I now have a hearing issue, it only developed last year and my crossover capacitor experimentation all predates it.

 

My main issue with these caps is you can get 1.5uF of copper paper/poly foil caps from Miflex for the same price as these 0.01uf caps. Such a large bypass value has massive effects in my experience, and allows you to have 10% of the total capacitance bypassed for a more affordable price. No, they're not silver foil, but they're similar construction and there's 100x more capacitance and that much bypass effect is unquestionable. I've not had the pleasure of hearing the cast silver caps from Duellund in full sized values, but the cast PIO copper were equivalent to the Miflex in my experience.

[mbz]

I haven't worked through the bypass theory/argument yet, perhaps someone can explain why it works. Can we leave the "expectation" argument to one side for the time being.

 

First up, I hope we are only talking about bypassing caps that are in series with the drivers. No bypassing of caps that connect across the driver.

 

I have a basic understanding of the math, such caps (0.01uf...) do not provide a low impedance path for higher (2k-20KHz) frequencies. Do these caps alter the phase angle (slightly) resulting in a "better" sound?

 

Someone must know why bypassing works and can explain. I expect not and the counter will be trust your ears then we can return to the expectation arguement.

 

Seems like another "snake-oil" product like boutique power cables and ...

[muon*]

Sounds like you have already concluded It's snake oil, so any discussion is a waste of time.

 

Me, I'll let people decide for themselves and not judge them for it. If someone finds it doesn't work for them... then that is valid for them, and if some does find it works for them.... then that is valid for them.

[muon*]

33 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

...snip...

 

My main issue with these caps is you can get 1.5uF of copper paper/poly foil caps from Miflex for the same price as these 0.01uf caps. Such a large bypass value has massive effects in my experience, and allows you to have 10% of the total capacitance bypassed for a more affordable price. No, they're not silver foil, but they're similar construction and there's 100x more capacitance and that much bypass effect is unquestionable. I've not had the pleasure of hearing the cast silver caps from Duellund in full sized values, but the cast PIO copper were equivalent to the Miflex in my experience.

And that is your experience and valid for you.

Edited March 12, 2020 by muon*

[Assisi]

2 hours ago, Ittaku said:

John's implying I'm deaf here, which he has a habit of doing since we disagree about the effect of power cables, and whilst it's no secret I now have a hearing issue, it only developed last year and my crossover capacitor experimentation all predates it.

I was in no way suggesting that you are deaf.  I said that we all hear and listen differently and therefore what we perceive will vary. 

I did say in my post  

“Sometimes I can and sometimes I cannot hear a benefit.”

That applies equally to me, to you and everyone else. 

2 hours ago, Ittaku said:

My main issue with these caps is you can get 1.5uF of copper paper/poly foil caps from Miflex for the same price as these 0.01uf caps. Such a large bypass value has massive effects in my experience, and allows you to have 10% of the total capacitance bypassed for a more affordable price. No, they're not silver foil, but they're similar construction and there's 100x more capacitance and that much bypass effect is unquestionable. I've not had the pleasure of hearing the cast silver caps from Duellund in full sized values, but the cast PIO copper were equivalent to the Miflex in my experience.

I am not able to comment on the the technical aspects of various caps etc or costs.  All I am interested in does something provide a benefit or not? I had the Dueland Silver bypass installed in my speakers.  For me there was an unquestionable benefit.  No doubts whatsoever even though it is now memory from a few years ago.  I have moved on to other benefits since.  The latest is the SPEC Urushi real sound processor.  Wonderful.

 

John

[MattyW]

As I understand it, smaller signals and upper frequencies will go through the bypass caps until more current is required and then that goes through the larger caps.... The higher frequencies combine with those going through the larger caps allowing for better harmonics....

 

Just going off my (quite poor) memory so probably a way off the mark.

[mbz]

Working on a meridian power board, P1 yellow wire is from linear power supply, passes

local filter 1000uf/16V(red cap) then 3.3uf/400V filter then C3&C5 0.1uf bypass the 2 more (boutique) 3.3uf/400V filters then out.

 

In this situation I understand that the 0.1uf film caps offer a low impedance path at RF's at which the 1000uf/16V ESL becomes significant/dominant.

 

 

1 hour ago, MattyW said:

As I understand it, smaller signals and upper frequencies will go through the bypass caps until more current is required and then that goes through the larger caps.... The higher frequencies combine with those going through the larger caps allowing for better harmonics....

Thanks for contributing... not sure I agree, would need to think about it some more...

 

[mbz]

15 hours ago, muon* said:

Sounds like you have already concluded It's snake oil, so any discussion is a waste of time.

Years ago, I bypassed (0.01uf) the tweeter cap (4.7uf) on some vintage altecs. I immediately noted that the "sound hurt my ears". That went on for about 1 week of daily listening, so something is going on. I was just after an explaination hopefully based on some math, both appear beyond you.

[MattyW]

31 minutes ago, mbz said:

Working on a meridian power board, P1 yellow wire is from linear power supply, passes

local filter 1000uf/16V(red cap) then 3.3uf/400V filter then C3&C5 0.1uf bypass the 2 more (boutique) 3.3uf/400V filters then out.

 

In this situation I understand that the 0.1uf film caps offer a low impedance path at RF's at which the 1000uf/16V ESL becomes significant/dominant.

 

 

Thanks for contributing... not sure I agree, would need to think about it some more...

 

It's been a long time since I read about it, and I've not really any interest in researching again.

 

I tend to boil most technical explanations down to a simpler concept that I'm more likely to remember over time though isn't necessarily correct in itself. Necessary to remember much of anything at all if you're me 

 

Anyway, it works for me. I understand that bypassing can cause phase issues at times too. Not everyone can hear it and I'm not sure if I can myself. Ah well.

[muon*]

....deleted...

 

Not worth a responce

Edited March 13, 2020 by muon*

[Fortmont]

Apologies for a late reply to Something clever, it's been a busy few days. I agree that changing valves can make a great difference. I was until recently using a Musical Fidelity X Pre and when I changed the stock JAN Philip ECC88s to Reflektors I got a significant improvement, particulary in the bass response which as much deeper and more detail,  The improvement with the Dueland bypass caps is not as great, but still significant and worthwhile.

 

Peter

 

 

[MattyW]

Aye, I've always found cap changes to be more subtle.  More akin to changing interconnects.

[Steever]

On 12/03/2020 at 1:53 AM, Decky said:

Sometimes I feel that psycho-acoustics is the only reason why this whole industry exists. 

Haha, I love it.

 

[aussievintage]

4 hours ago, MattyW said:

Aye, I've always found cap changes to be more subtle.  More akin to changing interconnects.

You mean, like inaudible  

[MattyW]

18 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

You mean, like inaudible  

Only if you've wool in your ears or your system isn't up to scratch 

Edited March 17, 2020 by MattyW

[aussievintage]

1 minute ago, MattyW said:

Only if you've wool in your ears or your system isn't up to scratch 

But wool implies non-subtle changes and you just said it WAS subtle.  Don't worry, I just couldn't resist teasing.  I think I hear coupling cap changes, but I doubt I would hear a crossover cap bypass like being discussed here.

[MattyW]

6 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

But wool implies non-subtle changes and you just said it WAS subtle.  Don't worry, I just couldn't resist teasing.  I think I hear coupling cap changes, but I doubt I would hear a crossover cap bypass like being discussed here.

It's a night and day difference to me.... Though I know for others it's inaudible so I guess it can be argued either way. You know what I'm getting at though 

[Fortmont]

 

Couldn't agree more. The more they burn in the better the get.

[Fortmont]

Yes, the big drop in price is what encouraged me to buy a pair.

[Guest DrSK]

On 12/03/2020 at 8:16 AM, andyr said:

 

So if it doesn't show up on "standard kinda of measurements " ... surely all that means is ... you've been measuring the wrong things.

 

So how are you going to find out what it is you need to measure? 

 

Andy

Too often the case as there are barely any instruments that measure what we hear. 

 

And often instruments instead measure stuff that is beyond what we can hear and as a result they can tell a different story and can be completely misleading.

 

I've had to give up on standard instrumentation before and develop custom code using psychoacoustic models to predict perception of noise sources relating to annoyance. This is on something as 'basic' as the modulated sound of truck engine compression brake noise, standard instrumentation and digital processing without proper frequency and time domain psychoacoustic modelling can not reliable pick a good truck from a bad one. This is because the modulation we perceive is completely different to the physical modulation in the raw acoustic signal. I'd expect music to be even more complex than truck noise.

 

At some point I'd like to run different DACs and audio gear etc through the models I have. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by DrSK

[Guest DrSK]

On 12/03/2020 at 2:53 AM, Decky said:

Sometimes I feel that psycho-acoustics is the only reason why this whole industry exists. 

Or the complete lack thereof in component specifications and measurements.

 

Standard measurements and equipment can't even reliably rank between 10 different truck engine compression brakes between ones that create no annoyance to ones that have high annoyance.  Myself and others have tried, even using basic psychoacoustic parameters like roughness and fluctuation strength. I instead had to develop a custom algorithm that modelled the auditory system.  Standard approaches will rank them in one order of biggest modulation to lowest but it won't agree with perception. The rank of modulation with a psychoacoustic model will agree with perception but have a different rank to the physical modulation. 

 

Annoyance is due to modulation that we perceive and think of as low frequency noise (which it isn't,  most of the noise is mid to high frequency but we get confused by the virtual pitch).

 

Given these effects and perception is inherent in music I don't see how any equipment can be properly specified without psychoacoustic measurements with equipment that doesn't yet exist. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by DrSK

[Decky]

7 hours ago, DrSK said:

Or the complete lack thereof in component specifications and measurements.

 

Standard measurements and equipment can't even reliably rank between 10 different truck engine compression brakes between ones that create no annoyance to ones that have high annoyance.  Myself and others have tried, even using basic psychoacoustic parameters like roughness and fluctuation strength. I instead had to develop a custom algorithm that modelled the auditory system.  Standard approaches will rank them in one order of biggest modulation to lowest but it won't agree with perception. The rank of modulation with a psychoacoustic model will agree with perception but have a different rank to the physical modulation. 

 

Annoyance is due to modulation that we perceive and think of as low frequency noise (which it isn't,  most of the noise is mid to high frequency but we get confused by the virtual pitch).

 

Given these effects and perception is inherent in music I don't see how any equipment can be properly specified without psychoacoustic measurements with equipment that doesn't yet exist. 

Good start but how do you model human emotions? That is for starters your most significant variable in this whole conundrum. Then you go into psychology and self-reinforcing statements that our brain serves us when we are trying to justify our own behaviour and put it against social norms. Without that everything else is meaningless and it is maybe better to just follow objective measurements that we can do on components and leave human brain alone. With that, we should always take any personal perception, being that audio or any other, with a huge grain of salt. Maybe even Himalayan grain of salt.

[Guest DrSK]

41 minutes ago, Decky said:

Good start but how do you model human emotions? That is for starters your most significant variable in this whole conundrum. Then you go into psychology and self-reinforcing statements that our brain serves us when we are trying to justify our own behaviour and put it against social norms. Without that everything else is meaningless and it is maybe better to just follow objective measurements that we can do on components and leave human brain alone. With that, we should always take any personal perception, being that audio or any other, with a huge grain of salt. Maybe even Himalayan grain of salt.

The approach I've used  is subjective testing in a controlled situation. Then plotting the subjective scores against the test variables. And then analysing for correlation in the raw psychoacoustic models to identify the perceivable component triggering the response. Then taking a new data set, using the model to predict the subjective response, then checking the actual subjective response to the new data set. 

 

Until equipment differences are analysed against what is perceiveable with binaural effects, I don't think much progress will be made. 

[MattyW]

Once the price of Duelunds entire range drop due to the purchase of Jensen winding machines I'll almost certainly replace the 1uf Duelund RS-Cu + 0.47uf Arizona Blue Cactus cap combo I have on my super tweeters with a 1.5uf Duelund RS-Cu + Duelund silver bypass caps