Vitamin Q 0.022

[CTN]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

How do you ever get any enjoyment from art ?

first he designs an experiment to measure relative enjoyment of art vs amount of time spent exposed to stimulus, contrasted against other control studies such as relative enjoyment of watching paint dry, and relative enjoyment of posting useless stuff on the internet.

Then a graph of the dataset follows.

An analysis of the graph will indicate the amount of enjoyment the subject may or may not have received. His enjoyment can be measured in units of something abstract, like widgets, or rat whiskers.

[AlexR]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

It just seems like groundhog day.

Somehow some people still don't get the idea that opinions are just that, and they all have equal validity. Why can't this blindingly simple notion be obvious to all??

[CTN]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

It just seems like groundhog day.

Somehow some people still don't get the idea that opinions are just that, and they all have equal validity. Why can't this blindingly simple notion be obvious to all??

it is obvious to most on this forum, which is why it used to be a pretty chill place where everyone got along.
some people, however, think their opinions are worth more than others' which inevitably brings up the "wtf are you going on about??"-type arguments.

[jon the art guy]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

first he designs an experiment to measure relative enjoyment of art vs amount of time spent exposed to stimulus, contrasted against other control studies such as relative enjoyment of watching paint dry, and relative enjoyment of posting useless stuff on the internet.

Then a graph of the dataset follows.

An analysis of the graph will indicate the amount of enjoyment the subject may or may not have received. His enjoyment can be measured in units of something abstract, like widgets, or rat whiskers.

Not necessarily qualifying it with mentioning that he actually LOOKED at the artwork.

[CTN]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

nope that'd be too biased an observation.

he would have to rely on an objective observation in the form of a photograph of the artwork taken by someone who knows nothing about photography or artwork.

[DreX]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

Thank you. That is exactly where I'm coming from. I'm simply presenting a possible third scenario, after 'exotic caps make a difference' and 'exotic caps make absolutely no difference'. My scenario is ' I don't know, but i've spent so much upgrading instruments that it would be foolish NOT to install what could be the best cap'. The typical costs to upgrade a guitar has been $300-350 (quality pickups, pots, switches, wiring, pickguards for Strats), so it would be a bad move to use a poor quality cap. If the extra $10 expense for a supposedly good cap is wasted, well .... you certainly won't hear me complain about that. Whilst the cap's performance remains unproven either way, I sleep well at night knowing my guitars sound stunningly good and i can't make them any better.

What I disagree with specifically here is where the word "quality" is used here, and the logic that follows from that premise. I've Googled around to figure out what makes Sprague Vitamin Q Paper in Oil Capacitors of a higher quality than caps of other dielectrics, and I can only find info suggesting they are high quality in relation to other PIO caps with regard to their construction, but nothing to suggest they are higher quality with respect to sound, or in relation to ceramic or other types of caps.

I'm not trying to force my view onto anybody else, simply relating another possible alternative. Guys like Edgecrusher (and i suspect most of the forum) get it ... they may or may not agree or think my way is valid, but they give me the credit for having my own take on it without deriding me or taking me to task over it. Neither are they making money an issue, as (hopefully) I've made the point that the cost of the 'experiment' is only a small percentage of the overall cost.

I would agree that, as an experiment, $4 is cheap, but you're not conducting an experiment when you do something as a matter of routine.

And when you talk about "small percentage of the overall cost", suck-cost-fallacy does enter the discussion, because you're saying that the size of a prior investment serves as the justification for further investment into uncertain outcomes.

And i've said all this more than once in this thread. No-one seems to feel the need to pursue me over my approach.

When you post something on a forum, you should expect that people will read what you write and respond with their own contrasting opinion and views. This is the only forum where I ever seen a plurality go to such great lengths to shape the discourse, and enforce a particular kind of propriety when it comes to how people respond, and what they respond to. Apparently in this forum, it's OK to call someone "captain obvious", but it's not OK to challenge someone's opinion. It's somewhat bizarre, to be honest.

Ultimately, this is substantive, on topic conversation. The merits of spending extra money on guitar components is very worthwhile topic and appropriate for a message board such as this.

[CTN]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

DreX, on an unrelated note, I am excited for when you finally get to the point of acquiring gloss/glaze. It will be a wondrous day.

[Big Flannel]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

I have some suggestions for that!

[Big Flannel]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

What I disagree with specifically here is where the word "quality" is used here, and the logic that follows from that premise. I've Googled around to figure out what makes Sprague Vitamin Q Paper in Oil Capacitors of a higher quality than caps of other dielectrics, and I can only find info suggesting they are high quality in relation to other PIO caps with regard to their construction, but nothing to suggest they are higher quality with respect to sound, or in relation to ceramic or other types of caps.



I would agree that, as an experiment, $4 is cheap, but you're not conducting an experiment when you do something as a matter of routine.

And when you talk about "small percentage of the overall cost", suck-cost-fallacy does enter the discussion, because you're saying that the size of a prior investment serves as the justification for further investment into uncertain outcomes.



When you post something on a forum, you should expect that people will read what you write and respond with their own contrasting opinion and views. This is the only forum where I ever seen a plurality go to such great lengths to shape the discourse, and enforce a particular kind of propriety when it comes to how people respond, and what they respond to. Apparently in this forum, it's OK to call someone "captain obvious", but it's not OK to challenge someone's opinion. It's somewhat bizarre, to be honest.

Ultimately, this is substantive, on topic conversation. The merits of spending extra money on guitar components is very worthwhile topic and appropriate for a message board such as this.

K.

[ErikH]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

I'm one of those that has done the different types / same values testing to listen if I can hear the difference. I can't. Reason? Well, for one, the signal going through the cap is shunted to ground so obviously I won't hear that. What I do hear is what is left of the signal after those highs are pulled out through the tone circuit. Now, in a high voltage amp, there are many caps and several of them where the signal goes in one end and comes out the other, not going to ground. In that scenario, yes, the type will definitely matter and have an effect on the sound. If anything, I could see where the type of cap used in a guitar circuit might affect the tapering off of the high end, but as far as the tone itself, not so much.

[DreX]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

I'm one of those that has done the different types / same values testing to listen if I can hear the difference. I can't. Reason? Well, for one, the signal going through the cap is shunted to ground so obviously I won't hear that.

This could be like wood though, where it's contribution to the tone is characterized by what it doesn't adsorb. But that's just playing devil's advocate, it's very unlikely that there's a tonal difference one way or another. This was an entertaining read http://www.aqdi.com/tonecap.htm

[ErikH]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

This could be like wood though, where it's contribution to the tone is characterized by what it doesn't adsorb. But that's just playing devil's advocate, it's very unlikely that there's a tonal difference one way or another. This was an entertaining read http://www.aqdi.com/tonecap.htm

That is a nice read.

I've yet to meet anybody with the ability to hear any type of signal that is grounded out.

[jumble jumble]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

That's true, of course, but one can definitely hear the difference between a 0.022uF cap and a 0.047 cap, and the only difference there is signal that is grounded out.

The "I might as well spend extra if I'm upgrading" argument doesn't really hold water with me. First, it assumes that if there is a difference, the more expensive capacitor will be the better one. That doesn't necessarily follow - the cheaper one might be better. Second, it assumes that there is such a thing as "better" when it comes to tone, to which I say, which is "better" - a 0.022uF or a 0.033uF cap?

Finally I would like to take the opportunity to announce my new line in diamond-encrusted potentiometers. The micro-diamonds around the pot casing are carefully arranged to give the tone more sparkle and clarity. They're expensive, of course, at $95 per pot - but if you're already spending $2000 on a guitar, it's silly not to go with the best stuff.

[CTN]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

fwiw, i will concur with crusty's statement that (paraphrasing) suggests that if you're dealing with an expensive build or upgrading an expensive guitar, you may as well spend a few more bucks on a *supposedly* quality capacitor.

Why?

Well, because you can. Because they are supposedly better, and will improve resale value (minutely, but still). Despite any scientific proof that suggests that there are no electric differences between a $0.20 cap and a $5 or $30 or if you're Gibson, $125 capacitor, there are legions of people who don't know squat about how capacitors work or why they are electrically the same (with the exclusion of tolerances, and polarized caps). And to them, all they know is that someone on a forum somewhere said that so-and-so booteek capacitor is better for t3h t0anz. So they will buy into it, and seek it out. Blues lawyers, whatever. But that only applies for resale.

In terms of functionality, I cannot see any point in buying Gibson's dumbass insanely priced bumblebee caps. The cost-vs-benefit ratio is so humongously skewed on the cost side, that I would actually think less of a person if they bought those.

But I can see spending a bit more than $0.20 to get a well made paper-in-oil or polyester/mylar/whatever film capacitor on the grounds that the manufacturing process of a reputable company is likely to be more consistent and QC'd more intensively than some no-name crumbly ceramic disc that comes from who-knows-where. And in that regard, I'd rather have a well made cap than a crappy one, despite the cost.

[ErikH]

Re: Vitamin Q 0.022

That's true, of course, but one can definitely hear the difference between a 0.022uF cap and a 0.047 cap, and the only difference there is signal that is grounded out.

The "I might as well spend extra if I'm upgrading" argument doesn't really hold water with me. First, it assumes that if there is a difference, the more expensive capacitor will be the better one. That doesn't necessarily follow - the cheaper one might be better. Second, it assumes that there is such a thing as "better" when it comes to tone, to which I say, which is "better" - a 0.022uF or a 0.033uF cap?

Finally I would like to take the opportunity to announce my new line in diamond-encrusted potentiometers. The micro-diamonds around the pot casing are carefully arranged to give the tone more sparkle and clarity. They're expensive, of course, at $95 per pot - but if you're already spending $2000 on a guitar, it's silly not to go with the best stuff.

Of course you will hear a difference between two different values because the roll-off frequency is different between the two. The .047uf cap has a lower roll-off which shunts more highs to ground thus making the sound darker. Using .033uf vs .022uf is a matter of taste as to whether the player likes a darker roll-off or not.

I admit, I like the Sprague Orange Drops simply because they are easy to work with, I can read the values easily, and they're plenty cheap too. In the past I've used the Radio Shack green chicklet poly film caps and recently found another local source of caps on the cheap in bulk.