I hate to bite on the troll bait, but since this was pretty obviously a dig at me... First let's look at your love of using the word "scientific". To begin with, I never purported to conduct a "scientific analysis of tone caps". As much as I'd love to, this would involve a lot more in the way of test equipment, material research, electrical engineering expertise, time in the lab, etc, than I could afford to dedicate to an inquiry such as this. So your repeated criticisms of my testing as not being scientific enough is really quite baffling. First is because I do not recall me claiming my work to be a 'scientific test', although I do believe I did a decent job in following the basic principles of scientific method (within limitations of time and resources I was willing or able to devote to this work). Still this alone does not make for a perfect or ideal scientific test, which is why I never attempted to sell it as such. Secondly, with your repeated assertions that my results are not credible because the tests were not 'scientific enough', one can only assume that you value reliable science so greatly that you demand a higher degree of scientific validation on which to take a firm position. Please tell me then, since you seem to hold the highest scientific standards as the benchmark by which to judge my conclusions, on what tests of superior scientific standards do you anchor your position behind? You seem quite firm that my conclusions are "crap", and my methods not to be scientific enough for your standards, so where is the scientific testing which renders my conclusions as invalid and yours to be true? Surely with the standards you seem to hold for good evidence you must have some you can share with me. I may be going out on a limb here, but what the heck. If I conducted the exact same tests as presented here, and the results came back with a statistically significant positive identification of different dielectrics, I have a hunch that you would be much more likely to embrace my tests as reliable validation (perhaps even 'scientific' validation) of your personal position. At the very least, I'd bet you would not be so vociferously attacking the test methods. This of course leads to a hypothesis that it is not the test methods which bother you so much, but rather that the results do not align well with your predispositions on the matter. Let's test that hypothesis by looking back at other posts and discussions since you've joined which argue cap type does make a difference, based on casual anecdotes and comparisons with virtually no reasonable attempts at good controls or being remotely 'scientific'. Give me a minute..... Nope. There are plenty of posts arguing in favor of cap differences which fall fathoms below my loose standards of scientific inquiry. If lack of adherence to high scientific standards were indeed your primary motivation for criticizing my tests, no doubt you would have tore some of these other posters to shreds due to their complete irreverence toward objective scientific testing. I suppose this must leave me to conclude that you're not raising such a stink because I violated the sanctity of science, but rather just because you didn't like my results. I'm telling you (though I don't quite know why anymore), that I have done near everything I can to prove cap material does make a difference, and have borrowed the ears of some pretty great players in hopes of finding someone who can in a well controlled blind test. It is only in my failure to be able to find anyone able to identify a difference, that I have been left to conclude that even if there is a difference, it must be much, much, much smaller than the changes so many purport to hear. So small in fact as to be considered insignificant. Back to what I ask of you though (evidence which does meet your high scientific standards), I also have to inquire - since you would never consult a guitar repairman for their experience on such issues, who would you go to? This topic came up over lunch with Lindy Fralin a few months ago, and his position was the same as my own. It came up when I was at the bar with Seymour Duncan some years back, and he'll tell you it's a load of crap. Jim Rolph didn't give much credence to the influence of cap type when he presented in a seminar at our shop some time ago. Joe Glaser and I have had some good discussions on testing methods for this issue as well as others. I'll be presenting at a seminar with Roger Sadowsky in a few months, and could ask his opinion on the matter if you like (pretty sure I already know what he'll say). And Dan Erlewine was pretty impressed with my methods when he spent a few days in my shop last year. If my opinion is worthless to you, as well as those of my colleagues who happen to agree with me, then who's advice exactly would you seek as the final word? Not trying to just name drop here, but these are my colleagues who I've spent time with, truly top experts in their fields, and I know their positions on this are the same as the conclusions I've finally come to. If the positions of top experts and / or those who have gone out of their way to do honest, unbiased controlled testing mean nothing to you, then who would you consult with? My guess - anyone who you know will reinforce your predispositions, regardless of the merits of evidence on which they've arrived at their position.