"audiophile" components in pedals?

[slowpogo]

I've made a bunch of pedals, most with standard components that many people use like Xicon resistors, Panasonic electrolytics, etc.  They've all sounded good.

By traditional wisdom, high-end audio components don't even make sense in a pedal.  All the old pedals that today's makers are trying to emulate used ordinary components that might have crappy specs in comparison to today, and we covet their sound.  And many supposed benefits of high-end components, like lower noise floor or flat frequency response, are not necessarily relevant or desirable in a guitar pedal.

That said, has anyone used premium "audiophile" components in their pedals? 

I've tried using premium audio resistors like PRP or Takman, which have sounded great in hi-fi headphone amps I've made.  They're 3x more expensive than Xicons, but in typical pedal builds that will not be an outrageous amount (maybe $10 extra).  There are also audio electrolytics like Elna Silmic and Cerafine, or Nichicon Muse or Fine Gold.  Those are actually more comparable in price to the standard stuff, and you can even find them places like Mouser or Digikey.  They tend to be larger though.

I don't have multiple pedals to compare, but I can say the ones I've made with fancy components sound fantastic.  The audiophile stuff certainly didn't ruin them.  Some things, like a huge $10 gold foil film capacitor, would obviously be dumb in a pedal (and possibly dumb anywhere).  But some options might be worth exploring.  Curious about people's thoughts and experiences on this.

[antonis]

I should start from high quality cables, jacks, plugs, pots, board tracks and solder.. 

[EBK]

Audiophile components work entirely on the placebo effect.  If you are one of the people who have faith in these things, then there might be some value to you personally in using them. However, it is very very often the case in pedal building (in anything guitar related, really) that non-ideal characteristics of components are what adds mojo. Trust the traditional wisdom of your second paragraph, which I've mostly just paraphrased. 

One risk of using audiophile stuff is that it encourages manufacturers to make more of it, which can become cheaper and more profitable to them than actual innovation.

[Mark Hammer]

Audiophile components in pedals destined for plugging into distorting amps in order to play rock and roll is a bit like leaving neatly-trimmed morsels of Wagu beef in a plate for the mongrels in the alley, who wolf it down with everything else when you're not looking.

If it's music reproduction, and the objective is to have flat frequency response, zero coloration of source material, and barely measurable noise levels, knock yourself out.

[Digital Larry]

I'm still of the opinion that 99% or more of what matters about audio components can be measured, predicted, and put on a spec sheet.  For some things like tight tolerance components, additional cost comes from sorting or something like laser trimming and so, INSIDE, they are the same materials and construction as components with wider tolerances.  It's not like 0.5% resistors never go out drinking on weekends.

So when you say "audiophile" components, I don't even know what you mean since the only special attribute you have given them is that they are "audiophile".  For passive components, we typically assume that they are linear, i.e. their values don't depend on the voltage across them, but in the real world that's not always entirely true.  However, as a designer, I would expect that passive components are mostly linear and that active components (or at least obviously non-linear ones like diodes) are the ones that will be used intentionally to create distortion.

I'm sure there are some well known examples of such and such a passive (ostensibly linear) component which has some desirable non linear characteristics, but as a designer I would not like to count on such things because that gets you into the realm where Jimi Hendrix's ghost buys 100 of your pedals to get the 2 that really sound great, and puts the other 98 up on eBay as "formerly owned by Hendrix's ghost".

Another thing that has happened is that there are some parameters of components such as LEDs that do not matter for the most common applications (such as making a little light go on).  The application of an LED in a distortion pedal depends very little on its ability to make light and more on its ability to gradually start drawing a lot of current when the voltage across it goes past a certain threshold.  This COULD be measured, and spec'ed, but since variations in that aspect are not critical to the most common applications, all you will get on a spec sheet is "nominal" behavior.  This causes a BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR MOJO INJECTION (BOFMI).  People may represent that because such a thing is not described on a spec sheet, it exists in a parallel universe and can only be harnessed by those in the know with application of cloth covered wire.

Pardon my flippant attitude if needed.  I'm not picking on you.  I act this way all the time.

[EBK]

I wish I had more time to read up on what reputable manufacturers consider "audio-grade", but as an engineer (by training, not by profession), I wonder if audio-grade might sometimes be a subset of general-purpose parts that are junk at high frequency or high temperature or can't handle pulsed signals without failing.  Such parts would be cheaper, in theory, but only if you order a ton of them because the manufacturer likely would make many many more wider spec'd general purpose parts, making the audio-grade parts more expensive based on volume rather than quality.  Just idle speculation at this point.

[Mark Hammer]

By traditional wisdom, high-end audio components don't even make sense in a pedal.  All the old pedals that today's makers are trying to emulate used ordinary components that might have crappy specs in comparison to today, and we covet their sound.  And many supposed benefits of high-end components, like lower noise floor or flat frequency response, are not necessarily relevant or desirable in a guitar pedal.

Couldn't agree more.

Are there contexts in which trying to use "better" components might add value to the product?  Yes, I suppose so.  In recent years, we've seen the price of low-noise 1% metal-film resistors come way down.  As a result, they are no longer a rare beast in high-gain pedals, enabling them to be quieter and more consistent.

In contrast, in an effort to pack more "stuff" into a smaller footprint, we've gone from the 24mm better-quality pots that MXR used to use when two knobs was considered extravagant, to lesser-quality 9mm plastic-shaft pots, whose wipers tend to be poorer quality.  There is nothing about such pots that directly impacts on the sound, I suppose, but I question their lifespan.  At the same time, are folks willing to pay more for pedals with higher-quality pots having extended lifespans, or are they happy with something that will last long enough for them to become bored with it and put it on craigslist/kijiji/reverb/e-bay?  The sort of mentality that applies to an "audiophile" who wants the lust-worthy McIntosh preamp they bought when they had their first decent-paying job at 26 to last them until they're 66 (or longer) does not seem to apply in the world of stompboxes.

I suspect that when the subject of "audiophile" components comes up, the brunt of it really has to do with electrolytic capacitors.  And at this point, we probably understand about as much about the neurobiology of consciousness as we do about the voodoo underlying capacitors' role in sonic qualities.

[slowpogo]

Audiophile components work entirely on the placebo effect.  If you are one of the people who have faith in these things, then there might be some value to you personally in using them. However, it is very very often the case in pedal building (in anything guitar related, really) that non-ideal characteristics of components are what adds mojo. Trust the traditional wisdom of your second paragraph, which I've mostly just paraphrased. 

There is certainly snake oil out there, but I don't think the placebo effect is necessarily always at play.  Even among run of the mill components, there can be a difference in sound between brands and types of capacitors for example, no?  So then, I don't think the question with audiophile components is whether or not they can make a difference -- at least some of them surely can -- to me it's more about whether it's worth the extra cost, and whether that difference is valuable in the particular application. 

As far as what designates a component "audiophile," I admit that's subjective and wrapped up with marketing. Many people consider Vishay RN55/60 resistors to be great for audiophile projects, but they're not marketed that way.  And some things branded audiophile, like Kiwami resistors, are likely rebranded Xicons.

But some of the audiophile components may actually have benefits for audio applications, even in pedals.
 

Audiophile components in pedals destined for plugging into distorting amps in order to play rock and roll is a bit like leaving neatly-trimmed morsels of Wagu beef in a plate for the mongrels in the alley, who wolf it down with everything else when you're not looking.

If it's music reproduction, and the objective is to have flat frequency response, zero coloration of source material, and barely measurable noise levels, knock yourself out.

Well, if you're primarily a clean player those things might still matter in a guitar rig.  And audiophile components are not all geared toward ultra-clean hi fi sound.  Some capacitors are specifically meant to be colorful, more "sweet" or "musical" sounding, and in some cases they really are (usually by affecting the midrange).  If you have to use an electrolytic in the signal path I think the Nichicon Muse caps are worth trying, even in a pedal, because they're barely more expensive and they can sound more musical in my opinion.

I know the audiophile world is a tricky place and I certainly don't buy into it wholesale.  But I do think "it's all placebo effect and none of it applies to guitar pedals" is a bit dismissive too.  If people are curious and they're already spending $50-100 or more to build a pedal, I don't think an extra $10-20 is too big a hurdle to give some of these things a try.  And you never know...sometimes conventional wisdom is just wrong.

[EBK]

There is certainly snake oil out there, but I don't think the placebo effect is necessarily always at play.  Even among run of the mill components, there can be a difference in sound between brands and types of capacitors for example, no?  So then, I don't think the question with audiophile components is whether or not they can make a difference -- at least some of them surely can -- to me it's more about whether it's worth the extra cost, and whether that difference is valuable in the particular application. 

You are right.  I seemed to have been triggered by the word "audiophile" to sneer out loud.   

Sorry about that.   

As far as objective differences in parts, sure, they exist in some circumstances.  As Mark pointed out, using metal film resistors can reduce noise over carbon film resistors. For ceramic caps in the signal path, I will only* use C0G or NP0 ones.  Beyond that, I admit that I don't really know much, and perhaps ignorance is bliss if I happen to like the sound of the stuff I build.

*I probably break this rule more than I realize.   

[paul.creedy]

I'm always impressed by people who use Military Spec. components, they must be good, especially in a fuzz pedal.

[strungout]

This has been a regular thought going through my head, every once in a while. It's the imperfect we look for, because it sounds more 'natural' or 'organic'. Organic matter follows a general form, but rarely does it produce two of the same (or three or four, etc.) I.e., it's not perfect. Even true twins aren't exactly the same.

Think about it. In a 'what's more precise' enumeration, it would go like this: Tubes < transistors; analog < digital. Digital sound cold, calculated. Because it is! It's all 0's and 1's. And for now, digital can't mimic the imperfections of their precursor components. They eventually will, I believe.

The reason we like tubes is because they feel more natural. They feel more natural because they are imprecise, just like nature. A tree has roots, a trunk, branches, leaves... But the arrangement of those will vary a lot between trees of the same species. The closer you edge towards digital, the more precise and artificial and 'cold' the sound will feel (think about walking in a forest and all the trees are clones of each other, all arranged in rows and columns. It'S beautiful, still, but so damn boring...

There's use for both, IMHO, but I definitely like the randomness of 'natural' more than a 'precise' rendering of the sound.

To get tot the subject of the thread: 'audiophile' is a marketing ploy. Just like 'Mojo'. It tries to convince you that a decreasre of less than .001% distortion makes a huge difference. It doesn't. Especially not in stompboxe, or noise-makers, if you prefer.

Think about your favorite pedal. It sounds awesome. Your friend thinks it's awesome and wants one... well... He's not gonna get an exact copy of your pedal. Even if you measured each component and choose the exact values called for (using a multimeter or sum), you're not gonna get the exact same sound. Then that goes through HIS guitar and HIS amp and whatever else.

The Phase 90 I built doesn't sound exactly like an MXR Phase 90. Mine is different (because of component tolerances) and unique. No other unit will sound the same. Just like two units of the same batch.

All in all, build your pedal, modify it to what you like and you'll be the only one with THAT pedal with THAT sound. This is our priviledge as stompbox builders: make it how WE like it.

Me, I would never bother with 'audiophile' parts. They cost more and the return is abysmal. Sure, metal film resistors and box film cap make a difference in the noise to signal ratio, but regular resistors will work just as well and you won't really notice anything different. Maybe you will because those 2.2uF caps are actually 2.1 or 2.3. It just adds uniqueness. And btw, aside from wanting to get close to the 'sound' of you guitar heroes, you should find your own sound, as a guitarist. And every peice of gear that sounds different is going to help you achieve that. And we're builders, we can make everything sound like what we want.

Audiophile is another word for stuck-up purist, elitist. Or a buzz word to sell things to people who are ignorant, gullible or already convinced it will sound better. It's the equivalent of selling a car by having a hot chick parade around the car and wink at you, with a smile, tryin to get you to fork out the cash for that car.

In closing, a candle stick made of die cast aluminum will do exactly the same work as a gold plated one! The gold plated one will just look nicer!

[Mark Hammer]

I don't sneer at "audiophile".  I take it on face value that all electronic components, being made of something, are subject to variations in that something, that can impact on their performance characteristics.  The question arises for me, however, what the basis of identifying those performance characteristics is, or can be, within a context that introduces so damn many extraneous variables.

In the case of music reproduction, where the emphasis is on clean, quiet, equivalent processing across both frequency and input-amplitude, one can compare the outputs against known (usually) steady-state inputs, and measure the differences.  I stick in a sine-wave from a decent generator, sweep across the spectrum, and can measure the additional harmonic components or phase delay.  And even when the differences are not audible, if they are measurable, and you know what "better" should ideally consist of, then a "better" component is readily identifiable. 

When it comes to music generation, however, it's not at all clear to me what the benchmark is to compare against, in order to identify when one has landed on "better".  It becomes largely a matter of hit-and-miss, as well as personal taste.  Again, that is not to dismiss that some pricier components CAN sound better.  You just don't know when and where they will, and to whom.

[alanp]

Reliability is more important than audiophilia, I reckon.

I was given some good advice from a valve amp tech once, when asking about fancy caps -- if you want to change the tone of the amp, change the resistor or capacitor values in the RC networks.

[garcho]

Check out Small Signal Audio by Douglas Self. Might shine a little light on the subject, the whens and wheres and what-have-you. He's no "golden ears" chump.

[amptramp]

Capacitors have a characteristic known as dielectric absorption.  This an effect like an electret where you have a permanent electrostat, just like magnetic materials can be made into a permanent magnet.  If you short out a capacitor with bad dielectric absorption then release the short, there will still be a non-zero voltage on the capacitor.  This can colour the sound by a significant amount.

As for ceramic capacitors, there is data here:

http://diyaudioprojects.com/mirror/members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

showing how unsuitable ceramics are for audio unless you are trying to generate harmonics.

I don't buy into much of what is said about mojo components.  One of the most valuable types of mojo capacitor is the bumblebee capacitor with its black body and value rings (like a resistor).  These are valued as tone control capacitors on guitars because the inevitable leakage gives a different sound.  The Sprague Black Beauty capacitors were popular but tended to split along the join line of the outer case and let humidity into the interior wax paper capacitor, adding leakage.  No two Black Beauty caps degrade alike, so if you build more than one item with them, they may not sound alike.  If consistency and repeatability of characteristics is important, avoid them.

[Digital Larry]

Much as I love attempts to prove things with scope photos,

Thus, if you sample the voltage, and integrate the current, you get a curve that is proportional to the D-E curve of the part. Amazingly enough, real valued parts have a CURVE, not a straight line. They may also exhibit hysteresis, much as an inductor or transformer may. This introduces subtle forms of distortion and non-linearities, which can cause a loss of precision in musical reproduction. Note that there are also other mechanisms that can alter the sound, but this report concentrates only on the non-linearity introduced by the D-E curve.

None of his photos appear to show hysteresis.  Way to bring up something completely off base and then say (cough) we're not going to focus on that here.

I measured several different types of parts, and captured the results (simply by training a camera at the scope). The value of each of the capacitors was constant, 0.1uF. The signal level was held constant at about 70 volts RMS at 600 Hz across the capacitors. (for about 26mA signal current). This is probably more than you would normally expect, and serves to show the results better. A number of capacitor types were used in this experiment. The first series of curves show paper and oil, polycarbonate film, polyester film, polystyrene film, polypropylene, 100 v olt and 1000 volt ceramic and silver mica. Here's the results:

70 volts at 600 Hz right across a cap giving 26 mA?  The calculation is correct, but how close is that to any sort of real world condition even in a tube amp?  I don't doubt there could be some nonlinearity at higher voltages but it doesn't mean that under the kind of conditions one is really likely to encounter, say on a guitar tone cap or in a stompbox, you'll get that kind of effect.

Also I know I'm just a boring pedantic EE old fart but I always like to see what circuit was used to test this (a low impedance 70 V oscillator isn't exactly a common piece of test equipment).  I also like to see an attempt to explain things by at least a first order approximation of things we are already familiar with (like combinations of "ideal" components e.g. a cap with ESR.  Or a cap with voltage dependent ESR and then explain why that happens.).

[Rob Strand]

IMHO,

You can use "Audiophile" parts they just cost more and any benefits are usually wasted.  Consider putting a signal through any single active element amplifier (Tube/BJT/JFET/MOSFET).  The distortion is higher than all but the ceramic caps.  Despite the distortion people often quote the sound is better for an instrument amplifier.

Distortion in caps usually boils down to the how much voltage is across the cap.  If you have a large ceramic cap in a high-pass filter at 2Hz its effect is far less than in a filter at 1kHz.   In other words it's depends where/how it is used.

None of his photos appear to show hysteresis. 

I believe dielectric losses have a significant hysteresis component.   Hysteresis itself isn't a non-linear process it's a loss process whereas D-E curves are clearly non-linear.   Unless you are building A/D's or insanely high Q filters the dielectric loss isn't a significant issue for *audio signal* as such.

I'm still of the opinion that 99% or more of what matters about audio components can be measured, predicted, and put on a spec sheet. 

Even if you can measure something you still have to determine if the "measure something" is audible.   This is probably why audiophile stuff gets out of hand.  In reality you can always get a "measure something" that is non-linear.  The point is when you do need to stop worrying.  The bar is clearly lower for single instruments than hifi.

There's some more interesting stuff here,
https://linearaudio.nl/cyril-batemans-capacitor-sound-articles
(as well as the stuff from Doug Self posted above.)

[R.G.]

There is a part of the human mind that WANTS to believe in magic. That's actually a practical approach when knowledge about HOW something happened that was not obvious based on earlier experience.

Magic is what we call technologies we don't understand. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to class anything one doesn't (yet) understand as "magic". Note that advertisers are happy to cloak anything at all in the robes of pesudo magic for anyone to believe. The traditional wisdom is that masters of magic are very often old, because learning the details of magic can require decades, even an entire lifetime. There is apparently a huge amount of facts, data, methods and theory involved in really understanding magic.

Mark brings up a very good point. All components are made of >something< and the somethings may change the electrical characteristics of the parts. Or may not. How can one tell whether highly-touted parts made out of pure unobtainium and egad-olinium will sound any better? Or, my favorite, whether parts that have been cryogenically treated and this somehow imparts a glow to the sound through them, forever. But then, there really are some differences in components, or we could use anything at all for parts with no differences at all.

How can we ever figure out what's good and what's cra... er, fertilizer?

The way that has accepted by practicing electrical wizards is to measure as precisely as possible what each part and each material does, and to develop elaborate mathematical descriptions of how the parts interact. It's hard work, involved and tedious. It involves using a very fine brush, not a broad one

[Rob Strand]

There is a part of the human mind that WANTS to believe in magic. That's actually a practical approach when knowledge about HOW something happened that was not obvious based on earlier experience.

Magic is what we call technologies we don't understand. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to class anything one doesn't (yet) understand as "magic". Note that advertisers are happy to cloak anything at all in the robes of pesudo magic for anyone to believe. The traditional wisdom is that masters of magic are very often old, because learning the details of magic can require decades, even an entire lifetime. There is apparently a huge amount of facts, data, methods and theory involved in really understanding magic.

Good one!

The way that has accepted by practicing electrical wizards is to measure as precisely as possible what each part and each material does, and to develop elaborate mathematical descriptions of how the parts interact. It's hard work, involved and tedious. It involves using a very fine brush, not a broad one

That can take more time than we have so we use experience to focus on the things that matter - perhaps missing something small on occasion.    The theory that "doesn't work" is often the five line theory and the theory that does work is the 300 page PHD thesis, probably written in 1971.

[bool]

"For audio parts" ('lytics, film-caps, resistors, wire/cables) usually look better visually, and contribute to better performance where you want clean gain (mic pres, linear boosts, di-boxes, etc). Some parts have better parasitics which can truly be good in HV tube circuits.

Some 10yrs ago I have done some testing what really works in a final mix of recorded material; and chose my favorites from among good industrial performers over "hi-fi" parts. That goes also for "ceramics" in "hairy" circuits. Don't ask me which ones - I won't tell.

But nobody can deny muuuch better visual appearance of "hifi" parts, like f.e. those shiny greeny nichicons and let's say auricaps. Compare these to "dull-looking" industrial parts like Panny FR's or Nichi PW, and Kemet poly's ... it's obvious that a pedal with these can't be sold at the same price as a pedal made with shiny "hifi" parts...

It's also obvious that a pedal made with "hifi" parts won't sell for the same 4-digit price as f.e. a vintage TB made with shitty ceramics and a leaky germanium ...

I mean, a circuit made with "hifi" parts that will introduce juuuust the right amount of THD ("hair, grit, edge" ... etc etc). Come on.

With "hifi" parts, you usually "listen with your eyes".