De-Bunking Myths About Capacitors

[MrRhoads]

Originally Posted by Indrek

If what you said to begin with was that the cap value makes no difference with your particular setup, then yes, you've proven it to be true. Then again, no one has really contested that. It may also be true for other people and their setups, but no one has contested that either. In fact, I've expressed several times that the difference might not be audible in every case. Why must we still argue over something that's entirely subjective?


Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't understand why some people insist on finding personal attacks in everything others say. Simply because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have something against you, or anyone else for that matter.

I, too, have grown tired of the immature namecalling that certain people here have resorted to, for reasons that escape me, yet I still manage to express my opinions without descending to their level.


By the same token, why don't you present something besides your "sound clips" to prove your point? Find a scientific explanation that supports your position, or let it go.

See? I can do it too. Of course, fat chance of you doing that, because it involves blah blah blah formulae.

As for letting it go, I've suggested it several times now. Each time I was ignored. Apparently people aren't interested in dropping this issue. I'm done here, though.

We can use theory and math to show us on paper which result we´ll get but oops, something else happened when we tried it in our guitar
Sound clips is the most solid proof to prove theese things IMO, especially when recorded with good gear which Jonesy has.

[jonesy]

I rest my case




I always liked this Video

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

[MrRhoads]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I rest my case




I always liked this Video

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

Ha ha, that house/building which Mr Dolby arrives to looks very much like a the front of a former Museum in my old hometown here in Sweden

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by Raz59

... the high frequency boost that the ceramic one provides is noticeable enough to be significant.
....

There's that term again

(semantics is what turned this thread into a clusterfvck in the first place)

... just sayin'

[jonesy]

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[9]

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[10] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[11]) However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning. Thus the likelihood of the prior observation being true is statistical in nature [12] and would strictly require a Bayesian analysis. To overcome this uncertainty, experimental scientists must formulate a crucial experiment, in order for it to corroborate a more likely hypothesis.

In the twentieth century, Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others found that we need to consider our experiences more carefully, because our experience may be biased, and that we need to be more exact when describing our experiences.[13] These considerations are discussed below.


Truth and belief
Main article: Truth
Flying gallop falsified; see image below.

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts," until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception.[20]
Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping

Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying gallop' image as an example of observation:[21] in it, the legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge show otherwise. In a gallop, at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, a horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying gallop observation (this is an example of observer bias).

This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of a scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can definitively contradict the hypothesis. end quote from wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Belief" that lower value caps make your guitar sound brighter when your Tone control is on 10 was based on a "theory". My testing that I did and the sound-clips that I made was the "experiment". If you listen to the sound-clips you cannot hear any difference between the two caps as far as brightness goes when Tone is on 10. The "experiment" clearly stated evidence in contrary to the original "theory". I think that really needs to be considered if you are looking at this in a scientific manner. Just saying

[Raz59]

jonesy, please don't drag "scientific method" into this or we won't get out of here all week...

[MrRhoads]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[9]

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[10] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[11]) However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning. Thus the likelihood of the prior observation being true is statistical in nature [12] and would strictly require a Bayesian analysis. To overcome this uncertainty, experimental scientists must formulate a crucial experiment, in order for it to corroborate a more likely hypothesis.

In the twentieth century, Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others found that we need to consider our experiences more carefully, because our experience may be biased, and that we need to be more exact when describing our experiences.[13] These considerations are discussed below.


Truth and belief
Main article: Truth
Flying gallop falsified; see image below.

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts," until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception.[20]
Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping

Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying gallop' image as an example of observation:[21] in it, the legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge show otherwise. In a gallop, at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, a horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying gallop observation (this is an example of observer bias).

This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of a scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can definitively contradict the hypothesis. end quote from wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Belief" that lower value caps make your guitar sound brighter when your Tone control is on 10 was based on a "theory". My testing that I did and the sound-clips that I made was the "experiment". If you listen to the sound-clips you cannot hear any difference between the two caps as far as brightness goes when Tone is on 10. The "experiment" clearly stated evidence in contrary to the original "theory". I think that really needs to be considered if you are looking at this in a scientific manner. Just saying

[Armitage]

There is so much fail here, I don't know where to begin. Shreiking high mids, digital samples over computer speakers... wow... oh well you're on your own.

[lukemacauley]

Originally Posted by Armitage

so much fail

HC.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Armitage

There is so much fail here, I don't know where to begin. Shreiking high mids, digital samples over computer speakers... wow... oh well you're on your own.

I just recorded a new set of sound clips, same guitar, same amp but I dialed the mids and the treble back so it is EQ'd a little differently now. The Windsor has an EL34 (Marshall-ish) in it so it does have more upper mids. The caps are the same, .01 uf compared to .033 just like before before. I still cannot hear any difference in brightness between the two caps when the Tone control is on 10.

Brightness Test #3 .01 uf cap vs .033 Cap With Tone control on 10

BTW the Sound clips over my computer speakers sound virtually the same as it did when I was sitting right next to my amp. "In my experience" There is not a pronounced audible difference between different sized capacitors with Tone control on 10 as Armitage has claimed to hear and has stated in his earlier posts. ("I can hear a difference and so should you") Armitage If you can record some sound clips of your own that show otherwise I would be more than glad to listen to them and consider the findings.

[Armitage]

I can't tell you how to hear a subtle difference that's measurably there... and the problem with clips, is that they have to be done properly and double blind. No compression or sampling with a full audio width frequency response through quality speakers. Heck even a Shure SM58 alone has a 5 dB rise then 15dB fall in the high end... kind'a makes miking a mess for critical listening.

And of course someone's going to say, "well if a big name mike doesn't care, either do I".... well they're obviously forgetting loses are accumulative. You're losing high end all the way along, a little here, a little there... how much do you have to lose to care, or do you actually want to lose more? Oh, and more or less is an opinion... maybe they like less high end, and that's OK. Eric Johnson and Jimi Hendrix both like crappy cables because the high end loss sounded good to them. And remember, we're talking about whether there IS a difference, not whether someone will care or have a preference.

And as far as quick clips go, people hear what they expect to hear, even when they know the system is flawed, here's a great example. Guys are always saying they can hear a difference with the "50s Wiring mod", even on 10... (in another thread here even, it's hysterical)... remember, it's the even on 10 thing I'm talking about.



Here's a typical guitar pot...




OK, here's the inside of a pot...




And here's the usual 50's drawing for your reference.


In the modern and vintage wiring, lug 1 is grounded, 2 is the output, and 3 is the input. When on 10, lugs 2 and 3 are shorted internally together, zero ohms... there is no difference whether the cap is soldered to 2 (50's) or 3 (modern)... Zip, zero, nothing. They are the same. Maybe if the pot was really really faulty etc... but then that's other issues.
And even then take into consideration most people... heck I doubt anyone can hear the much bigger difference between a 500,000 ohm pot and 499,998 one!

But they've got clips to prove it... lots of them... wow... magic...

Next;



And the tone control 50's mod... com'on. It doesn't matter which end of a resistor is which... and it doesn't matter whether the tone pot is turned to a different value either. You can't even draw it different, it's always like this... the value goes up and down the same either way... but people claim to hear a difference... wow... magic...

You can take a cold soldering iron and poke around in a guy's guitar and tell him "I'm re-aligning the phase relationship with the dilithium crystals in your flux capacitor and you'll tell a difference in your bottom end in a couple days when the field collapses, it'll be sweeter and more buttery..." and three days later you'll get a call "that was great, can you do my other guitar?" and he'll post clips... or he'll kick your butt because he watches a lot of TV too.

So does the 50's mod make ANY difference? Lots of people claim it does... Of course it does, when you turn it down!
And only when you turn it down.


Modern on the left, '50s on the right (I kept the tone circuit on the left of the drawing to make it easier to visualize)

Why? Because (simplified, because a cap and a coil and changing resistance can get really wild) when you turn down a volume pot, wired like a voltage divider, which is in parallel to the pickup, the cap only drains part of the high end signal to ground, less and less as you turn it down. And changing the value of the pot or cap will make a difference...

[Raz59]

That is a lengthy and most probably correct explanation of what's happening. Indeed, changing pots with make an audible difference, that's a given because we're dealing with KILO-ohms.

Changing caps also makes a difference on ten...an obvious mathematical one, yes, but not a significant audible one. We are within the nanofarad range, right? "Extreme" isn't going from .001 to .033 in my book.
Surely that explains the lack of difference in jonesy's clip...it is a fact, but not perceivable by our ears.

[Goldtop75]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I still cannot hear any difference in brightness between the two caps when the Tone control is on 10.

Hey Jonesy, I think we need to remember, just because we can't hear the differences (I certainly can't) doesn't mean the differences don't exist. Unless we're all using no-load pots on 10, the capacitor does still form part of the circuit. At the micro level, there is probably a difference in the resultant signal. Just that the difference may not be discernable by many pairs of ears.

And because it's not obvious (or even audible, perhaps except by dogs) it actually may not matter to most, I guess. But that doesn't mean the differences aren't there. And put through different amplifiers, I'm not sure how the results may be, but some amps might actually show the differences more than others.

On a side note, I spent some time putting my electronics engineering hat back on again, and I think I've also realised another reason why cap materials matter. Not just about what I said about discharge patterns and all previously.

I remembered that different materials have a specific property when it comes to frequency bandwidth allowance. Not just a matter of cap values, but the material itself has an inherent low pass frequency bandwidth. Some materials allow more through, and some allow less through. In the case of PIO, I can't remember if the paper is the limiting factor, or oil.

So, a 47uf cap made of PIO will have a different filtering bandwidth as compared to a ceramic or polyproplene simply because the materials differ in terms of the amount of frequencies of the signal it processes.

[Armitage]

Originally Posted by onehippie

with my 50s wiring when i have the volume on 5 i have ...

On 5 it makes a difference, no doubt... it's the claim it does on 10 I'm discussing, and how people are willing to accept flawed clips as proof.

Originally Posted by Goldtop75

...And put through different amplifiers, I'm not sure how the results may be, but some amps might actually show the differences more than others....

Many Mesa amps for e.g. filter away most of the extreme high end as a form of noise reduction...

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Armitage

I thought we were perfectly clear on that.... and actually I'm saying it's more audible and clearly proven.

Originally Posted by Armitage

But I can hear it... and so should you.

Originally Posted by Armitage

Obviously not.

"will buy different types of caps where many (though not all) have zero theoretical or measurable differences and go "I can hear a difference!" "

Some caps can and do sound different, many do not, and even the ones that do, is pretty slight, much less then a change in value, even on 10, the whole point of this part of the discussion.




And when I say measured, I'm not referring to the caps value, but it's effect on the audio spectrum. And that can clearly be measured... no matter what the cap is made out of.

Originally Posted by Goldtop75

Hey Jonesy, I think we need to remember, just because we can't hear the differences (I certainly can't) doesn't mean the differences don't exist. Unless we're all using no-load pots on 10, the capacitor does still form part of the circuit. At the micro level, there is probably a difference in the resultant signal. Just that the difference may not be discernable by many pairs of ears.

And because it's not obvious (or even audible, perhaps except by dogs) it actually may not matter to most, I guess. But that doesn't mean the differences aren't there. And put through different amplifiers, I'm not sure how the results may be, but some amps might actually show the differences more than others.
<SNIP>

You know I think most guitarists are more concerned with what they can actually "HEAR". That's one reason why we choose the types of guitars and amps that we use to begin with, because of how they sound. That's why we re-wire them and change out the pickups and EQ our amps a certain way.

Armitage claimed that it was a noticeable difference that you can actually hear. If so that would be reason enough to take it into consideration when we talk about "TONE".

I deal with "REAL" things I can hear, touch and see. When I posted that lower value caps do not make your guitar brighter, I was speaking from a common sense point of view and what a player can actually hear. I was not talking about frequencies that only dogs can hear, or frequencies that can only be seen on some type of audio analyzer. I was talking about what the average person can hear and how it would affect their guitar Tone. Would you use or buy pickups or some new gear if someone told you "You may not be able to actually hear the difference, but in theory there is a difference, just trust me on that"? I think not.

Just because my sound-clips did not agree with the theory that lower value caps make your guitar brighter on 10 now for some reason they are "Flawed" in some way? Or to suggest that my amp does not produce the proper frequency response is why you can't hear any difference is just utter none sense. When I didn't hear any difference between the .010 and the .033 I decided to install the .001, but when I could not hear any contrast in brightness with the Tone on 10 at that point it proved to me that it doesn't make any audible difference, for me at least.

I think the bottom line is this, you can listen and read what other people have to say about wiring components and how it affects guitar tone. But at the end of the day you have to decide what works for you and what really has an affect and what does not.

"In My experience" the cap value does not have an affect on brightness when your Tone control is on 10. I find it to be quite a mute point anyways, I install Tone caps in my guitar because I intend to actually roll of my Tone control and use them to "Color" my guitars sound. But am still glad I did the testing and made the sound clips like I did.

Deep down inside I am an Artist, not a salesman or a scientist. I often go by what my heart, my ears and my instincts tell me is right. If that contradicts some theory then so be it. For the most part all this has made for some pretty good discussion and I hope it will encourage people to try things out for themselves and see what really works for them

[Goldtop75]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I deal with "REAL" things I can hear, touch and see. When I posted that lower value caps do not make your guitar brighter, I was speaking from a common sense point of view and what a player can actually hear. I was not talking about frequencies that only dogs can hear, or frequencies that can only be seen on some type of audio analyzer. I was talking about what the average person can hear and how it would affect their guitar Tone. Would you use or buy pickups or some new gear if someone told you "You may not be able to actually hear the difference, but in theory there is a difference, just trust me on that"? I think not.

Hahaha!!! point taken. Yeah... I don't think there's an audible difference between the values when you're dealing with the pot on 10. But for the pot on 0? Definately!

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by jonesy

You know I think most guitarists are more concerned with what they can actually "HEAR". That's one reason why we choose the types of guitars and amps that we use to begin with, because of how they sound. That's why we re-wire them and change out the pickups and EQ our amps a certain way.

Armitage claimed that it was a noticeable difference that you can actually hear. If so that would be reason enough to take it into consideration when we talk about "TONE".

I deal with "REAL" things I can hear, touch and see. When I posted that lower value caps do not make your guitar brighter, I was speaking from a common sense point of view and what a player can actually hear. I was not talking about frequencies that only dogs can hear, or frequencies that can only be seen on some type of audio analyzer. I was talking about what the average person can hear and how it would affect their guitar Tone. Would you use or buy pickups or some new gear if someone told you "You may not be able to actually hear the difference, but in theory there is a difference, just trust me on that"? I think not.

Just because my sound-clips did not agree with the theory that lower value caps make your guitar brighter on 10 now for some reason they are "Flawed" in some way? Or to suggest that my amp does not produce the proper frequency response is why you can't hear any difference is just utter none sense. When I didn't hear any difference between the .010 and the .033 I decided to install the .001, but when I could not hear any contrast in brightness with the Tone on 10 at that point it proved to me that it doesn't make any audible difference, for me at least.

I think the bottom line is this, you can listen and read what other people have to say about wiring components and how it affects guitar tone. But at the end of the day you have to decide what works for you and what really has an affect and what does not.

"In My experience" the cap value does not have an affect on brightness when your Tone control is on 10. I find it to be quite a mute point anyways, I install Tone caps in my guitar because I intend to actually roll of my Tone control and use them to "Color" my guitars sound. But am still glad I did the testing and made the sound clips like I did.

Deep down inside I am an Artist, not a salesman or a scientist. I often go by what my heart, my ears and my instincts tell me is right. If that contradicts some theory then so be it. For the most part all this has made for some pretty good discussion and I hope it will encourage people to try things out for themselves and see what really works for them

The most sensible post so far in this entire thread.

[Armitage]

And quite acceptable because "In My experience" and "Myth #1 Will Lower value capacitors make my guitar brighter? No, capacitors only filter highs off when you turn your Tone control." are quite different.

Even;

"Myth #1 Will Lower value capacitors make my guitar brighter?"

Yes it will, slightly, though I can't hear a difference, and it will lessen the effect and range of your tone control as you turn down.

There's a big difference between yes and no when you're talking in absolutes.

You may not care about the difference between milk chocolate and dark chocolate, and that's OK.
You may not be able to tell the difference between milk chocolate and dark chocolate, and that's OK too.
But when you stand up and tell people they're the same... they're not... and don't be surprised or upset when you're taken to task for it.

[Indyclone]

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Armitage

You may not care about the difference between milk chocolate and dark chocolate, and that's OK.
You may not be able to tell the difference between milk chocolate and dark chocolate, and that's OK too.

I guess Capacitors are a lot like Chocolate, the milk chocolate are kinda like the lower value caps and the higher value caps are like the darker chocolate.

You can't taste the difference between the two when they are still in the wrapper (Tone control on 10) and then when you take them out of the wrapper and taste them (Roll off Tone control) you can actually tell their is a difference between the two

[Armitage]

Nah, I think it's the difference between a salesman and an skeptical electronic repair tech whose been chasing tone for 40 years...

[MrRhoads]

Originally Posted by Armitage

Nah, I think it's the difference between a salesman and an skeptical electronic repair tech whose been chasing tone for 40 years...

How about you make some soundclips to back up your words or shut it?
Mmmmkay?

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Armitage

Nah, I think it's the difference between a salesman and an skeptical electronic repair tech whose been chasing tone for 40 years...

You seem kind of grumpy, maybe have some chocolate it might make you feel better

[Indyclone]

Milk chocolate always tastes brighter to me.

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by jonesy

You seem kind of grumpy, maybe have some chocolate it might make you feel better

But try something other than your American chocolate... my sister and her family were in Florida for Easter... the kids couldn't eat the chocolate... said it tasted like it had wax in it or something

What's up with that?

Originally Posted by Armitage

"Myth #1 Will Lower value capacitors make my guitar brighter?"

The semantics thing that's been causing alot of confusion though is... brighter than what? I know the anser to that. Just sayin'

[lukemacauley]

Originally Posted by SkunkWorks

But try something other than your American chocolate... my sister and her family were in Florida for Easter... the kids couldn't eat the chocolate... said it tasted like it had wax in it or something

What's up with that?

They're called candles mate, candles.

[lukemacauley]

Originally Posted by Armitage

Nah, I think it's the difference between a salesman and an skeptical electronic repair tech whose been chasing tone for 40 years...

And what have you been doing? Theorising.

Bugger off home.

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by lukemacauley

They're called candles mate, candles.

My nieces were eating candles for Easter?... yummy!

[lukemacauley]

Originally Posted by SkunkWorks

My nieces were eating candles for Easter?... yummy!

Sounds like it!

[Indyclone]

yeah, easter candy isn't really meant to be eaten...