**********************************************************************************
May Belt
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/
From: Regarding my 1998 talk
Just recently (16th November 2009), Giuseppe Scardamaglia sent an e-mail detailing the results of some experiments he, and a group of audio enthusiasts, had been carrying out with the Cream-Electret. Giuseppe had also published these results on an Italian audio Internet Chat Forum. I have copied below this e-mail because it coincides with observations made some 22 years ago by Keith Howard (the Editor of Hi Fi Answers) and Jimmy Hughes.
Copy of Guiseppe's E-mail on Creaming Capacitors :-
----- Original Message -----
From: Giuseppe Scardamaglia
To: pwb@belt.demon.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:10 PM
Subject: Cream electret in Rome.
Dear May
Another mammoth thread about the unconventional. Can be found at the link below
http://www.videohifi.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=123499
Here are the results (in English) of Guiseppe's experiments
This time, a demo in Rome at home of Ouragan 66 (Stefano Correnti), ten people and me.
A very expensive system, Accuphase transport and dac, Gryphon top of the line preamp and power amp, Vienna Acoustics Klimt speakers, top of the range.
Object: demonstration of influences on sound quality caused by the presence in the room of some objects, and application of cream electret.
How a a cream can improve the sound quality shocked many audiophiles, the have never heard something like.
Was detected:
Sensitivity to the presence of a magnetic cartridge at 3 meter from the listening seats.
Sensitivity to the presence of different capacitors, all degrading the sound quality standing on the flloor near the speaker, all except one yellow chinese polypropilene (like other tested) but with a beneficial influence.
tested, present in the room, near the speaker but not in use.
Philips mkt (too soft sounding, deadened the music)
Solen mkp ( bright but a little harsh)
Mundorf M cap (very expensive, used on BW Nautilus 800 series, soft, dark sound)
Mundorf mkp white (like Solen)
Audyn cap ( good , small influence on sound)
Chinese yellow mkp (sound improving by their presence in the room )
Wima mks ( very bad, dull and lifeless)
Wima mkp ( bright, a little harsh)
About the last two Wima, it's interesting to note that the two capacitors were identical in size and colour (red), the difference is only on the different dielectric inside ,
mks= polyester, mkp= polypropilene.
Knowing the sound of capacitors when they are working setted on crossover board, its astonishing to find that the sound of every cap electrically connected was very similar to the sound perceived when they were present in the room, not connected.
The presence in the same place , near the speaker, of a copper stripe degraded the sound, changing the copper with teflon, a stripe of the same dimension, was perceived beneficial.
The presence of an motorcycle helmet, polycarbonate and polystirene, was considered very sound degrading.
Step by step, the application of the cream, was considered beneficial by all listeners, with a progressive improvement of the system.
My nick is Leonida
***************************************
Keith Howard's and Jimmy Hughe's comments ...................
Reading Guiseppe's recent experiences, people will be able to understand, much better, Keith Howard's comments in the "Hi Fi Answers" audio magazine, November 1987 issue - 22 years ago !! And also Jimmy Hughes comments in the "Audiophile" audio magazine, December 1990 issue - 19 years ago !!
Keith Howard was, in 1987, the Editor of "Hi Fi Answers" and Peter Belt 'treated' the "Hi Fi Answers" demonstration room at the September 1987 London Hi Fi Show. Peter then 'treated' both the "Hi Fi Answers" demonstration room AND the "New Hi Fi Sound" demonstration rooms at the following October 1987 Bolton Hi Fi show.
To quote Keith Howard :-
>>> "Dateline: 2nd October, Bolton. Next door to us were "New Hi Fi Sound", who were planning CD versus DAT demonstrations. They came armed with numerous amps and speakers, and had begun the depressing task of trying to find a combination that would work acceptably. By the time they came into our room to witness Peter Belt at work, they were almost suicidal. When they'd witnessed what he achieved for us, though, they asked politely if he would do the same next door. He agreed, and two hours later they were all smiles.
I can fairly say, I think, that together we made some of the best sounds at the show !! " <<<> >> "Similarly a local retailer recently experimented with sheets of corrugated card stuck the walls to try and dampen things down a bit, the sound being over-bright. Sound familiar ? It did to me ! In my retail days we had similar problems with our dem rooms..... Back in the seventies, we knew no better, and if it didn't work.... well, we'd tried our best.
We're now in the nineties but few people seem to have any more handle on the problem than we had 10 or 15 years back. The good news is that a technology now exists (i.e Peter Belt's techniques) that allows real control over the kind of adverse circumstances just outlined. The bad news is that most people within the industry have closed ranks on it, not wishing to involve themselves in something that - used creatively and imaginatively - could lead to the kind of improved results of which most of us have only dreamed." <<<
***************
This then leads back again to my 1998 talk. Looking at the subject of the Cream-Electret and Giuseppe's experiences with the 'sound' of different passive capacitors in the listening room and how these capacitors can be 'treated' with the Cream-Electret to 'overcome' the adverse effect they were having on the 'sound' !!
I outline a similar story in my 1998 talk :-
I describe Peter taking a jar of Cream-Electret to a well known audio journalist in the following story :-
I explain how an amplifier manufacturer had a Mark 1 version using a particular standard capacitor. How the manufacturer had tried a newly available 'special low tolerance' capacitor, found it gave an improvement in the sound over and above the standard capacitor he was using in his Mark 1 version amplifier. So, he decided to keep producing the (inexpensive) Mark 1 version amplifier with the standard capacitor but to now introduce a new (more expensive) Mark 2 version amplifier, now using the new, expensive 'special low tolerance' capacitor.
The particular journalist we were visiting had, much earlier, reviewed the Mark 1 version amplifier and now, had just reviewed the new, expensive, Mark 2 amplifier. He had described it as 'sounding' so much better than the Mark 1 version. This was the point at which Peter and I visited this journalist
Further from my talk:-
Peter told the journalist the story of discovering the chemical and making the Cream and the journalist could not wait to try the Cream. Peter said that he did not want to apply the Cream to the equipment that the journalist listened to regularly. Peter explained that once the Cream was applied, then that was it - it had done it's job and the effect could not be removed. So, therefore, it was not possible to do before and after and back to before experiments. Peter asked the journalist if he had anything that he did not like the sound of. Peter said "Let's give the Cream a really good test, let's try it on something you do not like the sound of". The journalist remembered the Mark 1 amplifier which had been put away, because after he had heard the standard of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier he no longer enjoyed listening to the Mark 1 amplifier.
We listened to the Mark 1 amplifier and we also did not like the sound of it because we had just become accustomed to the better sound of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier which the journalist had been using. Peter now removed the lid of the Mark 1 amplifier, creamed the polyester film capacitor, creamed the top of the transformer, creamed a small part of the printed circuit and we then sat down to listen to the Mark 1 amplifier. It was superb sound and we found that the sound of the 'creamed' Mark 1 amplifier was now better than the 'uncreamed' Mark 2 amplifier. The journalist was amazed. Peter and I now thought that our troubles were over, now the journalist had heard what our treatments could do, surely he would want to write about them.
No way !!
Our troubles were only just beginning. How could the journalist, three months after advising the magazine readers to beg, borrow or steal to buy the new Mark 2 amplifier suddenly write. "Oohps, sorry folks, all you really need to do is to buy a jar of Peter Belt's Cream, cream some of the components in the Mark 1 amplifier and it will sound better than the (expensive) Mark 2 amplifier which the manufacturer and the retailers are trying to sell you. And, as an added bonus, you will still have plenty of the Cream left to do many more things in your equipment and in your environment." Nor could the audio magazines print things like that. When the audio magazines rely for their survival on advertising revenue from manufacturers and retailers wanting to sell NEW equipment, then there is no way that an audio magazine wants to print articles telling readers how to improve their existing equipment so that it sounds better than new equipment the very manufacturers and retailers are trying to sell.
So, the journalist keeps quiet - and the magazines keep quiet !!
I now return to the story of the amplifier manufacturer but now we have new information, new knowledge. We see that there are more factors involved. Far more factors than what was originally believed by the manufacturer i.e. the extremely low tolerance of the new capacitors.
The chemical mix of the polyester film for the standard capacitors used in the Mark 1 amplifier is different to the chemical mix of the polyurethane film of the new, very low tolerance capacitors used in the Mark 2 amplifier. It so happens that we (human beings) react differently to the chemical mix for polyurethane than we do to the chemical mix for polyester.
Guiseppe's recent experiences confirm what we had been demonstrating 25 years ago !!
Further :-
In the particular circuit used in the amplifier, we (human beings) prefer the component layout of the capacitor - at right angles to the other components as in the prototype Mark 2 amplifier - rather than all the components laid parallel to each other as in the Mark 1 amplifier. But, very importantly, the prototype Mark 2 amplifier was the only one with that (new) component layout. Because, when it came to the production run for the Mark 2 amplifier, the production manager reported to the designer that when the operatives were bending the long wires of the new larger capacitor to be able to fit it into a space, they were breaking the wires. So, the designer was told that, for ease of manufacture, the layout of the components would have to be redesigned so that all the components could be inserted into the circuit board parallel to each other !!! The journalist had provided an excellent review on the prototype Mark 2 amplifier with the better component layout but all the subsequent Mark 2 amplifiers coming off the production line all had their components laid out parallel to each other. This meant that the production Mark 2 amplifiers were nowhere near sounding as good as the prototype one originally reviewed.
BUT, none of this was ever reported. The buying public had been told that the Mark 2 amplifier sounded better because of the new, low tolerance capacitor and that explanation went into the history books (mythology) and was never challenged. This sort of thing happens regularly in the audio industry. An engineer or designer hears an improvement in the sound, searches for an explanation, is satisfied with an explanation nearest to conventional theory and therefore looks no further for any other explanation. The observation (that the sound has improved) and the explanation go into the history books (mythology) linked together and it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) at some future date to challenge the original explanation without people reacting as though you are also challenging the original observation !!
The reason why the prototype Mark 2 amplifier sounded better than the Mark 1 amplifier was far more to do with the fact that we (human beings) react less adversely to the chemical mix of the polyurethane film than we do to the chemical mix of the polyester film and that we (human beings) react less adversely to the component layout of the prototype Mark 2 amplifier (the capacitor at right angles to the rest of the components) than we do to the component layout of the Mark 1 amplifier (all the components parallel to each other). To prove this you would have to do the following experiment ( we have done experiments similar to the one to be described many times over the past 15 years!!).
If, after listening to the Mark 1 amplifier with the new, low tolerance polyurethane film capacitor fitted instead of the polyester film capacitor, you then change back to the polyester film capacitor and listen again. Because you have already heard the better standard, you will not now like the sound of the Mark 1 amplifier with the original polyester capacitor. BUT, if you leave the polyester film capacitor in the Mark 1 amplifier and you now go to a passive (but identical) Mark 1 amplifier - one just sitting passively on a shelf - not connected to the AC supply or to the audio system and you change the polyester film capacitor in the PASSIVE Mark 1 amplifier for the new, low tolerance polyurethane film capacitor, you will hear an identical improvement in the sound as you had heard when it was fitted in the (working) Mark 1 amplifier !! showing that any explanation to do with "an effect on the signal" is no longer valid. There is no signal going through the low tolerance polyurethane capacitor in the passive Mark 1 amplifier !!!! but you are experiencing an identical improvement in the sound !!! So, there must be something else going on !!!!
That is why passive items of equipment, when present in the listening room, just sitting passively on a shelf, can be 'treated' in an identical way to the actual working equipment and gain a similar improvement in the sound.
May Belt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment