Confusion of each Eneloop generation.

[RetroTechie]

I have now tried other batteries. For audio enjoyment:
NiZn > NiCd > NiMH > Eneloop

"Double blind" is the keyword here. Not saying ALW248 is talking out of his neck, but I'd like to see some double blind listening tests, that -without a doubt- show one battery type's superiority over another. Preferably including schematics of the equipment used.

Lacking that, any of the above is just hearsay to me (which I will ignore).

If IIRC, NiZn are just superior in that they have a higher voltage when starting out fresh. As soon as they become depleted for a large part, the "A is better than B" picture gets blurred... Read: maybe operating voltage is the only relevant factor here. :thinking:

 

[Power Me Up]

If IIRC, NiZn are just superior in that they have a higher voltage when starting out fresh. As soon as they become depleted for a large part, the "A is better than B" picture gets blurred... Read: maybe operating voltage is the only relevant factor here. :thinking:

NiZn cells hold a higher voltage throughout their discharge - when they hit 1.3V they're considered flat. Depending on the application, NiZn will generally give less run time on each charge since their capacity is lower than NiMH.

 

[mojo-chan]

Lacking that, any of the above is just hearsay to me (which I will ignore).

It's probably a misunderstanding that originated from the differences in voltage between cell types. I have built a few portable amps and it is certainly true that, for example, a simple unregulated one like a Cmoy sounds better with two cells in series to give a wider supply voltage for the op-amp. Any well designed amp that was built for use with, say, 3xAA cells should be designed to operate down to 3V without any noticeable loss though. Some bad designs may be affected by the choice of battery type and that then became "battery type A sounds better than B in all devices".

 

[ALW248]

I have now tried other batteries. For audio enjoyment:
NiZn > NiCd > NiMH > Eneloop

If you need transient power performance, e.g., for audio, it is in your own interest to try batteries other than Eneloop. It is not much trouble at all. Blindly believing those who have not tested it themselves would not do you any good.

 

[Etsu]

If you need transient power performance, e.g., for audio, it is in your own interest to try batteries other than Eneloop. It is not much trouble at all. Blindly believing those who have not tested it themselves would not do you any good.

As others have already pointed out, only a scientific double-blind study can back up what you claim. There's no reasonable explanation of why Eneloops would be worse than other NiMH cells, so your belief is just pseudo-science.

 

[cpfdemigod]

Well, thought I had fake eneloops as well, as I had purchased 3 8-AA packs directly from amazon last week, and the packaging surely said 1800x recharge and 70% after 5 years, but all had serial HR-3UTGA which is 2nd generation model number. So I called Panasonic, eneloop division, and the rep told me that the 3rd generation eneloops have 2nd generation model numbers on them and to not be worried.

I am thinking of returning them to amazon, as I could easily confuse them with my 2nd gen eneloops from years ago, and don't like mixing new with old!

 

[mojo-chan]

If you need transient power performance, e.g., for audio, it is in your own interest to try batteries other than Eneloop. It is not much trouble at all. Blindly believing those who have not tested it themselves would not do you any good.

For headphones the amount of energy you are talking about is easy for Eneloops to provide, and besides which any half way competent design will be providing that energy from capacitors and inductors rather than the cells directly.

The onus is on you to prove your theory with double blind tests. Where is your evidence?

 

[ALW248]

If you care about scientific truth, you should test it yourself, especially when it is not difficult to do. You should not believe anyone else, but your own experiments.

 

[mojo-chan]

If you care about scientific truth, you should test it yourself, especially when it is not difficult to do. You should not believe anyone else, but your own experiments.

If I tested every crackpot theory I heard myself I'd never do anything else. This isn't Mythbusters, if you make extraordinary claims that go against established and accepted notions you need to provide extraordinary proof. Otherwise it's just more audiophoolery.

 

[markr6]

I agree to some extent. There's a lot of info here I believe without trying myself. BTW, if HKJ told me you could improve battery efficiency by rolling it in dog poo, I'd probably do it :laughing:

 

[HKJ]

There's a lot of info here I believe without trying myself. BTW, if HKJ told me you could improve battery efficiency by rolling it in dog poo, I'd probably do it :laughing:

I believe it is word a try, get someone to take photos while you do it and post them here

 

[ALW248]

If I tested every crackpot theory I heard myself I'd never do anything else. This isn't Mythbusters, if you make extraordinary claims that go against established and accepted notions you need to provide extraordinary proof. Otherwise it's just more audiophoolery.

If I tell you that I can tell the difference in blind tests, would you believe me? If not, is it better for you to try it yourself, when the trouble is minimal?

It is well established that NiZn has better power performance than Eneloop.

I am saying that for anyone who care about power performance, especially transient performance, it is worthwhile to give NiZn a try.

 

[Etsu]

If I tell you that I can tell the difference in blind tests, would you believe me? If not, is it better for you to try it yourself, when the trouble is minimal?

It is well established that NiZn has better power performance than Eneloop.

I am saying that for anyone who care about power performance, especially transient performance, it is worthwhile to give NiZn a try.

You specifically said that Eneloops were worse than regular NiMH batteries in the following quote:

I have now tried other batteries. For audio enjoyment:
NiZn > NiCd > NiMH > Eneloop

That is garbage. There is no plausible explanation why that would be the case, nor is there a shred of evidence. You're simply spouting myths you made up yourself.

 

[ALW248]

I am willing to wage any bet that I can tell the difference between Eneloop and non-LSD NiMH in blind tests.

But now this only has theoretical importance.

Practically, NiZn sounds even better than NiMH. And it is becoming harder to make sure that NiMH is non-LSD.

 

[Power Me Up]

I am willing to wage any bet that I can tell the difference between Eneloop and non-LSD NiMH in blind tests.

So you're saying that you're certain that you could tell in a blind test - even though you haven't done one yet?

 

[Etsu]

So you're saying that you're certain that you could tell in a blind test - even though you haven't done one yet?

He's making a useless assertion. He knows nobody can test him on it, nor would anyone be bothered testing him on his nutty claims.

 

[uk_caver]

Well, it is possible that even ignoring supposed transient response, a particular piece of audio equipment intended to run from AAs is so badly designed that it requires the high voltage of niche and otherwise dubious-usefulness NiZn cells to operate properly, but that seems like a topic for a separate thread.

 

[Power Me Up]

He's making a useless assertion.

Agreed.

He knows nobody can test him on it, nor would anyone be bothered testing him on his nutty claims.

I don't think that he believes that his claims are nutty though. I'm curious to delve a little into his thinking on this...

 

[Etsu]

I don't think that he believes that his claims are nutty though. I'm curious to delve a little into his thinking on this...

People who spout nutty theories seldom believe they are nutty. I'm not sure what benefit looking inside the mind of a nut has, other than psychological interest.

Even if you could prove to him that his crackpot theory is wrong, he'd never believe it. His conspiracy theory would just expand to accuse you of running a flawed test. You'll never win. It's like trying to convince someone that believes the moon landing was faked he's wrong. Every bit of evidence you provide to show we really did land people on the moon, would be used against you as an ever-expanding conspiracy.

 

[Power Me Up]

People who spout nutty theories seldom believe they are nutty. I'm not sure what benefit looking inside the mind of a nut has, other than psychological interest.

Even if you could prove to him that his crackpot theory is wrong, he'd never believe it. His conspiracy theory would just expand to accuse you of running a flawed test. You'll never win. It's like trying to convince someone that believes the moon landing was faked he's wrong. Every bit of evidence you provide to show we really did land people on the moon, would be used against you as an ever-expanding conspiracy.

You could well be right, but I want to try giving him the benefit of the doubt and see where that goes.