Bennic - Dayton Cap review!

[Collin1141]

Here's a stock 802 crossover and nicely done modified one.

View attachment 947090

Clean work!

 

[F1nut]

Clean work!

Just to be clear, that's not my work.

This is some of my work.

 

[woofercooker]

Hey, folks! I noticed that Humble Homade hifi reviewed two more Bennic caps... They are electrolytic type. He also tested the Cornell Dubilier SF poly in oil motor run caps, http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html

 

[StimpyWan]

Love them or hate them, I always enjoy the Humble Homemade HiFi capacitors reviews. Tony Gee seems (to me) to truly want to provide usable information, though I too wish he'd provide more testing and comparison details.

Now, out of curiosity, I tried ClarityCaps on my last speaker rebuild (AR58S). I used Clarity CSA's on the tweeters, and ESA's on the midange domes. And to give Tony Gee credit, what I heard after my recap, completely matches his descriptions of the sound of the Clarity's. That completely surprised me, as I wasn't expecting such similar results. To quote:

"Sound: The Clarity Cap range has an overall similarity in tonal balance, going up the range you gain a bit in clarity and spatiality. I find the SA to be neutral with a slightly warmish presentation but also a bit closed-in. Compared to the Clarity Cap PX definition and separation are better, the stereo-image is also little larger. I did find the top end to be slightly rolled-off, not that they lacked detailed but on some recordings I wanted a fraction more transparency - but all in all still very nice. On the downside the "S" and "T" in vocals can be a bit plasticy, this is probably due to the lack in transparany in the top octave, making the octaves below sound a little masked. Making a capacitor using about 90% Clarity Cap SA and about 10% Mundorf Supreme works very well, this tends to open up the top end just nicely without altering anything else."

"Sound: Similar in overall character to the Clarity Cap SA but with more clarity and therefore a fraction more spatial. Like the SA they could still do with a bit more transparency but with a small capacitor placed parallel to the ESA this can be improved. The ESA also has a slightly warmish presentation and also benefits from making a total value using about 90% Clarity Cap ESA and about 10% Mundorf Supreme. This opens up the top end just nicely without altering anything else. Good overall qualities and an upgrade from the standard Clarity Cap SA."

So, maybe there is some worth to the reviews? I know I'll use Tony's reviews again, when researching cap info.

 

[F1nut]

Hey, folks! I noticed that Humble Homade hifi reviewed two more Bennic caps... They are electrolytic type. He also tested the Cornell Dubilier SF poly in oil motor run caps, http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html

Bennic, 5+ and 6-.......not good.

 

[StimpyWan]

Bennic, 5+ and 6-.......not good.

Well, they are NPE's. You can't expect too much...!

 

[R Swerdlow]

Last order I did with PE I ordered 28 caps, half in 5% and the other half in 1%
The 5% caps all measured just as well as the 1%
I've had this result on a lot of Dayton caps and at all values from 2.0uF to 8.2uF and a bunch of others, so it's not just dumb luckand I've soldered in a bunch
Go with the 5% and save your money, even at this price point

I've had similar experience with Dayton caps. I've never found a 5% cap that didn't measure exactly as the printed label said.

As far as I know, the Dayton 5% and 1% caps are made the same, but the 1% caps are checked more carefully.

 

[R Swerdlow]

The only meaningful way to determine how ANY electronic passive part is going to affect sound, good or bad, is to try it in the circuit
Reading other people's impressions of parts can be interesting, maybe helpful, even informative, but in the grand scheme of things it's really a waste of time
You have to try something in what you're actually working on and parts rolling can easily become an obsession
Good circuit design is more important than passive parts with the given that you use good quality parts in general

I completely agree.

The problem I have with that HHH article on capacitors, is the writer seems to assume different caps always generate different sounds. He never considers the possibility that different caps do not sound different.

He then goes on to discuss, at great length, all the different sounds he hears. He may have a great imagination, but his approach is anything but scientific.

 

[F1nut]

I completely agree.

The problem I have with that HHH article on capacitors, is the writer seems to assume different caps always generate different sounds. He never considers the possibility that different caps do not sound different.

He then goes on to discuss, at great length, all the different sounds he hears. He may have a great imagination, but his approach is anything but scientific.

However, the fact is they do sound different and of the caps I've tried I've found his descriptions to be pretty much spot on the money.

Science is great, but it can't tell you what a cap sounds like in a given piece of gear.

 

[Zonker92]

the writer seems to assume different caps always generate different sounds. He never considers the possibility that different caps do not sound different. He then goes on to discuss, at great length, all the different sounds he hears. He may have a great imagination, but his approach is anything but scientific.

I agree. Troels Gravesen also has an interesting take on the impossibility of describing sound:

I often have the quest for describing the difference in sound from two speakers. The thing is that describing sound just doesn't make sense. I might write a book on both speakers and still you wouldn't have a clue to how they actually sound. Potent bass is no bass to some people, smooth midrange may be harsh to others and balanced treble is no treble to others. I know that magazines are filled with sound descriptions and still, you won't know what they sound like before you have heard it yourself. It's no different than describing the taste of two good wines. You won't know the taste until you've tasted it yourself.

And then there's the problem that echoic memory is exceedingly short-lived:

This particular sensory store is capable of storing large amounts of auditory information that is only retained for a short period of time (3–4 seconds). This echoic sound resonates in the mind and is replayed for this brief amount of time shortly after the presentation of auditory stimuli. Echoic memory encrypts only moderately primitive aspects of the stimuli, for example pitch, which specifies localization to the non-association brain regions.

Unless you can do the whole recap process instantaneously, or A-B compare two otherwise identical speaker pairs, how on earth can one change caps on a pair of speakers and compare the sound before and after?

My takeaway is that Mr. Gee is simply wanking it, and to quote Zilch, "More data, less wank."

 

[StimpyWan]

I don't think I'm anything special, or even have great ears, but so far, I've never had any problems in hearing differences in gear, including recaps. Now, if I'm different in any way, it's because I know how to listen.

I worked in CD & DVD replication and pressing, for over 20 years. Eight of those years were spent auditioning master tapes. All day, every day. That included listening for recorded faults and transfer faults. So, tics, pops, mutes, drop outs, Averages, Hold errors were noted. Poor mastering was noted. All issues reported. Meyer Sound HD-1's were used as monitors. Extremely accurate speakers. A flat frequency balance. As such, faults were easily noticed. After working in the QC listening suites, I worked in full audio mastering, again with Meyer Sound speakers.

For me, those years of listening trials made proofing crossover upgrades simple to audition. Even without A/B comparisons. Though, I do A/B comparisons where ever I can.

Not bragging, not special. But, it's not that hard. It's kind of like learning Algebra. Once you realize what you're doing and why, it's easy after that.

 

[F1nut]

This particular sensory store is capable of storing large amounts of auditory information that is only retained for a short period of time (3–4 seconds). This echoic sound resonates in the mind and is replayed for this brief amount of time shortly after the presentation of auditory stimuli. Echoic memory encrypts only moderately primitive aspects of the stimuli, for example pitch, which specifies localization to the non-association brain regions.

If that is true then it's proof that A/B quick switch testing is worthless, which of course it is as proven by the average 50/50 results.

Mr. Gee does it the proper way by extended listening and taking notes.

 

[krautmaster]

Thanks, that's what I suspected, Nice to have it conformed. I have a pair of the 5.1uF 1% Daytons I ordered a while back to recap a pair of Dynaco A25. That project has been on the back burner, but whenever I feel the inspiration to tackle the black tar from Hell to remove the woofers, I'll give it a go.

As I've been moving up the speaker food chain, I've also been moving up the capacitor food chain when I recap the crossovers. I started with Daytons and Audyns from Parts Express and have moved up to ClarityCap PX and Sonicap Gen 1. I really like both of these, especially the Sonicaps bypassed with Vishay-Roderstein MKP 1837s for tweeter circuits.

Still, it's always nice to have good sounding low cost options. I suspect the Dayton 1% should sound fine in the Dynacos.

The A25's will sound horrid with the Dayton caps for 1/2 hour or so until the cap reforms... so don't freak out on their first play, give them a little time and they sound great.