60 capacitors?

See the attached photo…

This to me looks like a way of selling unused stock, anyone happen to know if there’s any benefit to using this method ie 60 small caps vs several large capacitors instead? Except less soldering that is…

In theory, lower ESR and higher ripple current rating.

However, being that it's advertised for audio use, the primary purpose is to give audiophiles something to be excited about. "Look! Instead of one capacitor, I use 60! You should hear the improvement in spaciousness, tighter low-end, and effortless highs!"

Perhaps a lower ESR can also be achieved with just a single better quality capacitor. That might be more expensive than 60 dirt-cheap capacitors. There might be something there, it is a low ESR for a low price.
However, 60 capacitors means 60 times more chance for a leaking capacitor.

... Now that I gave it a second thought: It's completely nonsense.

cjdelphi:
See the attached photo...

This to me looks like a way of selling unused stock, anyone happen to know if there's any benefit to using this method ie 60 small caps vs several large capacitors instead? Except less soldering that is...

I see 68 capacitors on it. But, maybe larger caps would be too tall for the space it is to fit in.

SirNickity:
However, being that it's advertised for audio use, the primary purpose is to give audiophiles something to be excited about. "Look! Instead of one capacitor, I use 60! You should hear the improvement in spaciousness, tighter low-end, and effortless highs!"

LOL, I once read a review of a very pricey power cord that the reviewer swore improved the airiness, imaging, liquidity, etc. etc. etc. But I think it was because they had inked the edges of the CDs with a green Sharpie marker to reduce evil stray laser scatter. Or maybe they hadn't embraced CDs yet due to their digital stridency, I forget.

I though everyone knew that green sharpies are transparent to cd leds…
You need a red one.

I thought it was strictly black Sharpie? Yeah, I hang out in audio circles and there's no end to the lunacy. $1000 power cords, special multi-hundred-dollar wall outlets, dedicated circuits for 50W average listening levels, putting amps on UPSes and signal conditioners, you name it someone claims it helps.

I just about lost it though when I got into a debate about which lossless audio compression format sounded best. I even encoded a series of tracks in FLAC, wave, and ALAC ... then decoded them all back to raw PCM ... then used a binary comparison tool to check for differences. Not one difference in a dozen test files. Perfect bit-for-bit copies.

"I'm telling you, something sounded off with the FLAC version... Even my wife noticed it!" :drooling_face:

I even encoded a series of tracks in FLAC, wave, and ALAC ... then decoded them all back to raw PCM ... then used a binary comparison tool to check for differences.

If you really did that it may be time for an intervention. The lunatics are having way too much influence on you.

$1000 power cords...

But if people don't buy those crazy overpriced cables how will Noel Lee afford his new football stadium? We all want Mr. Lee to have his new toy, don't we?

Heh, yeah well. I did it for a few reasons.

One, I don't want to say something is impossible without good reason for believing it really is. After all, lossless might just mean "mostly" lossless. Who would miss a few bits here and there? CD audio is not perfectly flawless, for example. Defects on the disc might lead the player to generate interpolated samples. Usually, you would never notice it happening -- and CD-ROM drives doesn't always tell software when this is happening. That's why good ripping software reads sectors more than once and compares the output, and then generates checksums that can be compared with online databases.

Second, if lossless really means lossless, it should be relatively easy to prove the case. It does and it was. What shocked me was how, in the face of such evidence, there can still be some who staunchly contend they can hear otherwise. And even then, I'll concede that playback software is not guaranteed to be bug-free. But we're getting into murky waters there...

SirNickity:
And even then, I'll concede that playback software is not guaranteed to be bug-free. But we're getting into murky waters there...

Regardless of the water clarity, you have identified yet another market for the fools.

The true audiophile needs a system with 3 separately developed decoders. If two (or three) values match, that value is used. If there are no matches, one or more decoders is flawed. To signal the listener, output is stopped and a giant red LED is flashed at a rate that would give even a normal person a seizure.

I don’t suppose it would matter if all three decoders used a reference implementation – or even the same library? After all, all those $1k power cords use the same cheap 12/3 back to the breaker panel…

SirNickity:
I don't suppose it would matter if all three decoders used a reference implementation -- or even the same library? After all, all those $1k power cords use the same cheap 12/3 back to the breaker panel...

And even further back, the Supply Co. don't worry about audio quality on their underground cables and the National Grid.

Im actually tempted to buy one.

I have a high current pwm motor that keeps tripping the psu on startup and i wondering if this could sort the problem.

Would that run quieter though if i use oxygen free copper.
I mean copper rather than copper oxide wires.