Bob Pease-What's All This C-R Stuff, Anyhow? (Coupling Caps)

[Svart]

interesting.. but as many of us have said in the past, if it sounds different it's because the circuit wasn't designed correctly.

I'm glad Pease is now getting up to our level.. :green:

 

[Gus]

I kind of like his rants. But there are some places caps make a difference. Often the change is very small.

Crossover networks DF makes a difference. In a old speaker builder there was an article were someone measured caps in crossovers with stuff like HP gear IIRC.

Condenser Microphones with 40 or more volts difference from capsule to gate or grid.

Polarized were NP should be used.

It is how the caps are used. It is so hard to setup a real good test for parts in audio circuits.

Now take a microphone a simple gain stage and headphones I think I hear changes with parts. Now use that microphone in a dense mix with the different parts you might not hear any change with the other stuff going on.

Maybe somepeople can't hear changes. FWIW I have no clue how anyone can use a Ipod.

 

[bcarso]

Pease is no saint---I was very disappointed after doing some FET measurements in response to his challenge (and after he was using his bully pulpit to slam his favorite target, Keats Pullen) and got the most paltry, non-crediting, inaccurate little snippet of a paragraph appearing in one of his "cleaning up loose ends" columns, in which he grudgingly admits he was a bit hasty. The man clearly HATES to be wrong. Now, none of us hardly relishes being found in error, but when you have devoted pages to an attack in print, it is rather shabby to not be a bit more penitent. A contributing factor may well have been his bitterness about "Japan Inc.", since the FETs I measured were (no surprise) Toshibas---although I did include an ancient Teledyne C413 I had kicking around, which was equally good.

Pease also sent a nasty latter to Analog Devices years ago, accusing them of lifting a number from a paper he had delivered and claiming that (1) they had stolen it and (2) he had intentionally put down the wrong value (!) of the correction factor to, in essence, entrap them (!!!). Dan Sheingold insisted that AD's error had been a typo, and quite reasonably questioned the ethics of publishing an intentionally wrong number to the community of engineers.

Anyway. I still read and appreciate Pease, and as I recall William Burroughs wrote, "a few things in my own life I'm not too proud of..." May we all learn from our mistakes, and even more from our successes.


BTW, (back on topic ) in the latest issue (9/06) of audioXpress, a lengthy and fascinating article about a MC pre-preamp by Paul Rossiter has the Cyril Batemen reference I've been looking for on nonpolar 'lytics and their superior lower-distortion characteristics: "Capacitor Sound 6", Electronics World, 44-51, Jan. 2003. In his circuit Rossiter even has pairs of nonpolars back-to-back!

His circuit is deceptively simple, but rewards scrutiny. Credit is given to Marshall Leach for a precursor, which includes the clever use of a floating supply to achieve zero d.c. into the cartridge. Rossiter's circuit achieves some enhancements over the original while preserving its virtues. A fine piece of work.

 

[Svart]

pairs of nonpolars back-to-back!

interesting.

On Pease:

I try to read Pease's stuff whenever possible, but I understand that like any high profile person, to be in that situation you likely enjoy bringing a degree of controversy to the table, be it in the form of concious or subconcious thought...

But.. like anyone else, I tend to read it and attempt to understand it. If it's something I can use I will investigate further and likely find out more than I need to know through other channels, I rarely take a single person's advice as fact. If it's something I cannot use or am not interested in.. File 13.