Intripped wrote: i agree with Shiny_Beast
Thanks, I just want to clairfy, while I tend to think there are differences, I'm not interested in proving it, my point is simply that this whole "burden of proof" business is BS in this conversation. It presumes that there being no difference at all is the rational stance, I just don't see it that way, in fact, I tend to see it the other way around, there is every reason to suspect subtle differences exist. The no difference guys claim their point of view as an unrefutable fact, so AFAIC they are the ones that need to prove it. Most of the rest of us simply have an open mind to the possibility.
After reading thorugh this thread again and reading through many of the liinks, I think it's obvious that sonic differences do exsit, at the very least dependant on the circuit and situation. The question is now, in what context are we talking about and can we hear them.
I bought mustard caps for my Marshall clone simply because that's what was in the originals, and I want it to sound like the originals, so why not cover all bases. there's other reasons, it's cool , fun, retro etc...Still I'm not willing to take the word of 50% if the internet gurus out there that say there's nothing to it, regardless of how much they poke fun at the other half.
Couple things here that should be straightened out for everyones good
Just because you think there is a difference between cap A and cap b doesn't mean you down with the $80 signal caps sold in the audiophile coommunity. It should be obvious this thread is trying to get to the bottom of the basic premise, but I don't think that's always clear to everyone.
Just because you think there is a difference between cap A and cap b doesn't mean you think it's because of pixie dust. Maybe it's certain kinds with the heat in tube amps, maybe it's certain types when the voltage swing is close to the limit, maybe it's certain types with high leakage in certain places in a cercuit, if it makes a difference it makes a difference.
A lot of the research done is blind listening tests, while the scientists will jump on me for this, these tests can only really prove that a difference exists. I know it sucks, but it's the truth. All they prove is whether the difference is there in a blind listening test, in the same way all IQ tests prove is how well one performs in an IQ test. Now if the argument is "can you tell the difference in a short blind test", well then that's a different argument, one that might be answered here in a test?
Here's my take on that. I doubt I could tell the difference beyween my old POS sony 5 disc loader cd player and my cambridge if you just jumped back and forth for 20 seconds at a time in a big average room. I might be able to pick one from the other but I doubt I could tell which was which under such circumstances. Maybe I could, I dunno, it's not important to me. I doubt anyone else could either except trained audio guys that know what to listen for. Now based on that pme could argue that my Canbridge is a waste of money, which I don't believe. I can hear the difference living with it day in and day out, less ear fatigue, general sense of enjoyment, more interested in playing CDs etc...not scientific, good enough subjectively for me.
I'm not trying to convince the world. I'm not saying blind tests are pointless, but because I hear a panel of 15 people couldn't hear the difference under some test, well that proves the difference either, doesn't exist, is too subtle to notice or is too subtle to be of consequence. While the latter is a reasonable conclusion, it's only valid in the context of the test parameters. Like did you take a room full of kids at a party listening to one stereo all night, then listening to another all the next night, then ask them which they prefered? We can only assume care was taken to provide comprehensive test results. Even so, what are we trying to prove here, that the difference is even remotely audible, or that the difference is of no consequence? I assume the former.
.