I don't think precision would really improve sound quality unless the circuit relied on balanced components of some kind. But thin film resistors tend to have less noise. But when I say thin film, I actually mean vacuum deposited thin film resistor, and not a paste-deposited thick film resistor which still produces a thin film to human eyes.Hello all,
Lately I've been doing some personal research on passive components using tantalum (and its close cousin: niobium). It's come to my attention that there are many people in the audio field who state that tantalum resistors (yes, resistors) offer a better quality of sound compared to other metal oxide or carbon film resistors.
Without going into great detail: I've seen the tantalum sound described as being anything from "less dry" to "happier" than other options. This seems like an overly-subjective way to put things. Although we've also seen from the "Yannie vs. Laurel" and "Brainstorm vs. Green Needle" viral videos earlier this year, human audio perception is extremely subjective anyway.
After searching through a lot of data sheets, journal articles, patents, and related books; I wasn't able to find a satisfying explanation for why tantalum resistors might be favored. From what I gathered, tantalum resistors are a thin-film type of resistor using tantalum nitride in place of the more-commonly-used nickel-chromium (nichrome) material. Since thin-film resistors are generally more precise and stable than other constructions; could the improvement in audio quality simply be due to having a high-precision part in the signal chain? Or is something else at work here? Thanks in advance.
Hello all,
Lately I've been doing some personal research on passive components using tantalum (and its close cousin: niobium). It's come to my attention that there are many people in the audio field who state that tantalum resistors (yes, resistors) offer a better quality of sound compared to other metal oxide or carbon film resistors.
Without going into great detail: I've seen the tantalum sound described as being anything from "less dry" to "happier" than other options. This seems like an overly-subjective way to put things. Although we've also seen from the "Yannie vs. Laurel" and "Brainstorm vs. Green Needle" viral videos earlier this year, human audio perception is extremely subjective anyway.
After searching through a lot of data sheets, journal articles, patents, and related books; I wasn't able to find a satisfying explanation for why tantalum resistors might be favored. From what I gathered, tantalum resistors are a thin-film type of resistor using tantalum nitride in place of the more-commonly-used nickel-chromium (nichrome) material. Since thin-film resistors are generally more precise and stable than other constructions; could the improvement in audio quality simply be due to having a high-precision part in the signal chain? Or is something else at work here? Thanks in advance.
Took the word right out of my mind; "audiophool" was what I thought immediately upon reading the original query here.Do we get to make fun of an audiofool in this thread. I'm really looking forward to it. PT Barnum would have had a field-day with the opportunity to make a buck off of audiofools. No need to haul around a three-ring circuis, just some oxygen-free copper, Tantalium resistors and big, fat Monster Cables.
Something else.Or is something else at work here?
But is not platinum known for it's resistance change over temperature? Hence it's use in RTDs. That doesn't sound very ideal to me.Surely audiofools would settle for nothing less than platinum resistors? The more they cost the better the perceived sound quality.
The only 'incorrect' kind of resistor I can think of in audio is a wirewound in a zobel network, the inductance might be an issue.
If this thread was about what types of capacitors to use in audio ........... but resistors?this entire thread is ludicrous
This was roughly my thinking as well. A parasitic inductance would be unwanted in many resistors. After doing some more digging, it looks like the tantalum nitride thin film variety is also featured as "non-magnetic," and this time, there were some reputable data sheets to support it. By non-magnetic, I'm guessing this is referring to ferromagnetism, meaning they would avoid materials like iron, nickel, cobalt, and some lanthanides. Even a non-wound resistor can have inductance, so this would really eliminate thin film resistors with nickel or nickel-chrome in their construction that would make things even worse. Unfortunately, no one seems to publish any detailed (proprietary) diagrams showing how much magnetic material is or isn't included in their resistors; so an actual physical measurement may be the only way to tell for sure.The only 'incorrect' kind of resistor I can think of in audio is a wirewound in a zobel network, the inductance might be an issue.
Right, so far what I've been finding seem to refer to sputtered or vacuum-deposited thin films around 100 to 1000 angstroms thick. But they mostly refer to the depositing process itself and don't describe the resistor performance in circuits.I don't think precision would really improve sound quality unless the circuit relied on balanced components of some kind. But thin film resistors tend to have less noise. But when I say thin film, I actually mean vacuum deposited thin film resistor, and not a paste-deposited thick film resistor which still produces a thin film to human eyes.
Could just be placebo effect or confirmation bias as a result of tantalums being harder to obtain that even metal film resistors.
Well yeah, I was going to mention that. Mostly I'm looking for an unbiased opinion on these since it would be a cool/niche component to test out if the "legends" are true.
Good job guys. Really great. The original poster asked a serious question, supposedly of people with knowledge in the field.
One reply attempting to provide some education, the rest of the posts mocking the OP. If your goal is to drive people away, you've done an awesome job. How far down is participation from previous years? Gee, I wonder why.
well, the first article just puts tantalums in the same category with metal foil thin film which the pro-tants specifically delineate between. The second article doesn't seem to have a control to compare against?The problem may be with current noise. I found two relevant articles:
1. http://www.vishaypg.com/docs/49997/49997.pdf
2. http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/view...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2754&context=etd
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?