What's interesting I've found doing lots of audio tweaking over the years and many listening experiments with regards to material and part selection comparisons and its effect on sound, is that all possibilities are not really created equal in all ways. Keep in mind, these are just my thoughts on what I've noticed over the years and may be subject to change. Sometimes new information comes in that changes my understanding or associations, but for the most part, I've noticed consistencies that have become relatively reliable to the point of predicting how something will turn out sounding (specifically regarding the effect of changing caps, resistors or wiring IF the effect will be audible within the circuit).
It's easy to think everything is the same in a functional sense, and while this is true as most good options will "work" as long as they meet the basic criteria and requirements of the circuit using the same general specs as originally supplied components, the actual sound you get from using different component material can vary. There's a performance hierarchy of materials you can use to implement a circuit. In addition to the dielectric characteristics of film insulators (dielectric constant, dielectric loss, dielectric absorption and even dissipation factor) effecting the audio signal in cables and capacitors with regards to smearing/ blending/ leeching and loss of the musical signal with less delineated lows, mids, and highs; the same general effect occurs with metals in conductors as it relates to their conductivity ratings in the sense that metals/ alloys with a lower IACS (conductivity) rating will present the same irregularities in signal response from input to output; i.e. less musical separation compared to the best, most conductive metals available -such as silver. Copper-clad aluminum wire vs. silver wire for instance (around 66% IACS for the CCA compared to about 107% IACS for the silver).
Yes, the myriad of available material options will transit the same signal, but to varying degrees of interaction with the original signal and subsequent performance of sound that is heard through them.
Also, impure or low-grade metals and cheap alloys as conductors are much more likely to present as bright or sibilant which I believe to be a result of distortion. Sometimes, this edgy sound may come across as exciting or "revealing" at first but you may have to turn the volume down to continue listening to them over extended periods as they cause listening fatigue.
The best materials don't aim to "add" anything to the signal, they simply prevent loss and minimize interaction with it as much as possible. Some products are better at it than others from an electrical performance perspective -while others aren't and try to use deceptive marketing and inflated prices to re-package cheaper, under performing materials as "new" or "better" which leads many unscrupulous listeners to doubt that anything even matters or could make any difference or that everything claiming to be any different than anything else must always be "snake oil" just trying take more of your hard-earned money. This is why it's always good to focus on base materials used instead of name brands, marketing claims and inflated prices, while understanding there's a definite hierarchy of material performance and characteristics that every part or component may be subject to when it's effect may be audible within a circuit.
Some examples of this may include the following:
Polyester (mylar) caps have a lower performance threshold compared to polypropylene or teflon, but may also be preferred because they may tend to present as more "natural", "vintage", or have have better "tone" or fuller midrange according to some. When listening to music, not everyone is looking to get every last detail out of the recording from a technical perspective and it doesn't mean they're wrong or that only one size fits all, i.e. only the best materials should be used for all people and equipment at all times. This is why music and listening can be subjective. Some people want to take it as high as they can go from a technical or performance sense (like me), while others simply want to enjoy the experience and are content to not think about it or worry about it as much and want it to feel good or sound "right" as determined by how it has sounded to them in the past and how they are use to hearing it since they're familiar with what it's supposed to sound like which (again) is based off past experience with familiar tracks for instance.
Another example is that metal film resistors are more precise and accurate, some would say cold, clinical or sterile (modern as opposed to vintage); but only when compared to carbon film, or especially the older carbon composition types which may become so warm with time as they drift out of spec as to become thick and syrupy sounding.
Silver will bring out the most detail and sense of space, speed, and lightness to the sound with the highest performance ceiling to convey small details and a larger soundfield with the best musical separation and delineation of lows, mids, and highs with special emphasis on HF extension that wasn't heard or experienced before using lesser material.
Gold, copper or oil in cables or capacitors will sometimes present a richer, more natural midrange dominant type of sound with less HF extension than silver with none of the edgy hash or excitement (distortion) masquerading as detail that is often heard with some of the lesser conducting metals and alloys.
It is amazing to me how sound works in the sense that it's very easy to get used to what we have as sounding perfectly fine and normal -there's nothing wrong with it. It generally remains this way (ignorance is bliss) until we hear something else. It is only then do any differences begin to emerge that we may notice. It is only at that point can we begin to see (and hear) the possibility of how different equipment or components can actually sound different. Up 'til then, it's just a hypothetical that is subject to our innate skepticism. This is why if you're happy with what you have, it's best to just leave it alone because the more you dig, the more you'll realize what is possible that you were missing before.
Whether we like it or not, we effect the frequency response of our equipment simply due to the fact we combine different pieces of equipment together using different cables which all have an inherent sound and limitation to them, the end result of which is that every equipment combo we put together has a frequency response shaped by everything that went into to creating a final sound and is somewhat unique. For instance, we may say we prefer a linear sound with all tone controls bypassed, but the equipment we've put together in the listening space and speaker positioning it is presented in creates a unique sound with it's own frequency response that will not be perfectly linear or flat and would be slightly different than the next person using the same equipment in their own space with their own cables (for instance). If nothing else, we are the EQ -whether we use an actual equalizer and choose to acknowledge that, or not.
Since we're the EQ, the next step after recognizing that is to use it to our advantage through part selection as it relates to voicing equipment if we find the equipment lacking, or almost perfect, with something that is "off" with the sound that we wish could be slightly different or better. Original parts have a sound to them whether we realize it or not. Additionally, the way something sounded forty years ago when it was new is no longer the way it sounds now because parts have degraded or drifted with time, while we mistakenly assume it still has an "all-original" sound we don't want to mess with.
Sometimes, all possible materials that could be used were considered by the engineers who created the product. Sometimes you will hear things like "don't mess with that, the engineers knew what they were doing". While this is true, you also have to take into consideration the age of equipment and whether some of these newer, better performing materials were even available at the time. In many cases, they weren't. In other instances, the equipment was built to a price point and even if the engineer knew something sounded better, they weren't always able to use the best materials at all times so it was somewhat of a compromise from the very beginning. Not because they wanted to create something average sounding, but because they were working within the budget of a larger framework or business model that had limitations on production cost. They did the best with what they had available to them at the time, but it doesn't always mean it was the best it could've been. In most cases, it isn't.
The way you prove this or make it better is to replace average sounding (old) materials and components with newer, better performing ones and compare them in real-time by doing L/R stereo listening comparisons. I do this by starting with something perfectly functional while looking for circuit symmetry and keeping one side original while slowly replacing other specific parts on the experimental channel with the same values and ratings as the originals and observe the results. Sometimes you will hear no difference as not all parts are audible within a circuit. Other times, you will. Doing this over and over you begin to form associations and an understanding of how materials (can) effect sound.
It's easy to think everything is the same in a functional sense, and while this is true as most good options will "work" as long as they meet the basic criteria and requirements of the circuit using the same general specs as originally supplied components, the actual sound you get from using different component material can vary. There's a performance hierarchy of materials you can use to implement a circuit. In addition to the dielectric characteristics of film insulators (dielectric constant, dielectric loss, dielectric absorption and even dissipation factor) effecting the audio signal in cables and capacitors with regards to smearing/ blending/ leeching and loss of the musical signal with less delineated lows, mids, and highs; the same general effect occurs with metals in conductors as it relates to their conductivity ratings in the sense that metals/ alloys with a lower IACS (conductivity) rating will present the same irregularities in signal response from input to output; i.e. less musical separation compared to the best, most conductive metals available -such as silver. Copper-clad aluminum wire vs. silver wire for instance (around 66% IACS for the CCA compared to about 107% IACS for the silver).
Yes, the myriad of available material options will transit the same signal, but to varying degrees of interaction with the original signal and subsequent performance of sound that is heard through them.
Also, impure or low-grade metals and cheap alloys as conductors are much more likely to present as bright or sibilant which I believe to be a result of distortion. Sometimes, this edgy sound may come across as exciting or "revealing" at first but you may have to turn the volume down to continue listening to them over extended periods as they cause listening fatigue.
The best materials don't aim to "add" anything to the signal, they simply prevent loss and minimize interaction with it as much as possible. Some products are better at it than others from an electrical performance perspective -while others aren't and try to use deceptive marketing and inflated prices to re-package cheaper, under performing materials as "new" or "better" which leads many unscrupulous listeners to doubt that anything even matters or could make any difference or that everything claiming to be any different than anything else must always be "snake oil" just trying take more of your hard-earned money. This is why it's always good to focus on base materials used instead of name brands, marketing claims and inflated prices, while understanding there's a definite hierarchy of material performance and characteristics that every part or component may be subject to when it's effect may be audible within a circuit.
Some examples of this may include the following:
Polyester (mylar) caps have a lower performance threshold compared to polypropylene or teflon, but may also be preferred because they may tend to present as more "natural", "vintage", or have have better "tone" or fuller midrange according to some. When listening to music, not everyone is looking to get every last detail out of the recording from a technical perspective and it doesn't mean they're wrong or that only one size fits all, i.e. only the best materials should be used for all people and equipment at all times. This is why music and listening can be subjective. Some people want to take it as high as they can go from a technical or performance sense (like me), while others simply want to enjoy the experience and are content to not think about it or worry about it as much and want it to feel good or sound "right" as determined by how it has sounded to them in the past and how they are use to hearing it since they're familiar with what it's supposed to sound like which (again) is based off past experience with familiar tracks for instance.
Another example is that metal film resistors are more precise and accurate, some would say cold, clinical or sterile (modern as opposed to vintage); but only when compared to carbon film, or especially the older carbon composition types which may become so warm with time as they drift out of spec as to become thick and syrupy sounding.
Silver will bring out the most detail and sense of space, speed, and lightness to the sound with the highest performance ceiling to convey small details and a larger soundfield with the best musical separation and delineation of lows, mids, and highs with special emphasis on HF extension that wasn't heard or experienced before using lesser material.
Gold, copper or oil in cables or capacitors will sometimes present a richer, more natural midrange dominant type of sound with less HF extension than silver with none of the edgy hash or excitement (distortion) masquerading as detail that is often heard with some of the lesser conducting metals and alloys.
It is amazing to me how sound works in the sense that it's very easy to get used to what we have as sounding perfectly fine and normal -there's nothing wrong with it. It generally remains this way (ignorance is bliss) until we hear something else. It is only then do any differences begin to emerge that we may notice. It is only at that point can we begin to see (and hear) the possibility of how different equipment or components can actually sound different. Up 'til then, it's just a hypothetical that is subject to our innate skepticism. This is why if you're happy with what you have, it's best to just leave it alone because the more you dig, the more you'll realize what is possible that you were missing before.
Whether we like it or not, we effect the frequency response of our equipment simply due to the fact we combine different pieces of equipment together using different cables which all have an inherent sound and limitation to them, the end result of which is that every equipment combo we put together has a frequency response shaped by everything that went into to creating a final sound and is somewhat unique. For instance, we may say we prefer a linear sound with all tone controls bypassed, but the equipment we've put together in the listening space and speaker positioning it is presented in creates a unique sound with it's own frequency response that will not be perfectly linear or flat and would be slightly different than the next person using the same equipment in their own space with their own cables (for instance). If nothing else, we are the EQ -whether we use an actual equalizer and choose to acknowledge that, or not.
Since we're the EQ, the next step after recognizing that is to use it to our advantage through part selection as it relates to voicing equipment if we find the equipment lacking, or almost perfect, with something that is "off" with the sound that we wish could be slightly different or better. Original parts have a sound to them whether we realize it or not. Additionally, the way something sounded forty years ago when it was new is no longer the way it sounds now because parts have degraded or drifted with time, while we mistakenly assume it still has an "all-original" sound we don't want to mess with.
Sometimes, all possible materials that could be used were considered by the engineers who created the product. Sometimes you will hear things like "don't mess with that, the engineers knew what they were doing". While this is true, you also have to take into consideration the age of equipment and whether some of these newer, better performing materials were even available at the time. In many cases, they weren't. In other instances, the equipment was built to a price point and even if the engineer knew something sounded better, they weren't always able to use the best materials at all times so it was somewhat of a compromise from the very beginning. Not because they wanted to create something average sounding, but because they were working within the budget of a larger framework or business model that had limitations on production cost. They did the best with what they had available to them at the time, but it doesn't always mean it was the best it could've been. In most cases, it isn't.
The way you prove this or make it better is to replace average sounding (old) materials and components with newer, better performing ones and compare them in real-time by doing L/R stereo listening comparisons. I do this by starting with something perfectly functional while looking for circuit symmetry and keeping one side original while slowly replacing other specific parts on the experimental channel with the same values and ratings as the originals and observe the results. Sometimes you will hear no difference as not all parts are audible within a circuit. Other times, you will. Doing this over and over you begin to form associations and an understanding of how materials (can) effect sound.
Last edited:
