• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Does recapping make an audible difference? The shoot out & you're invited

Isotonic said:
There are so many variables in comparing audio products that a strict test is impossible...
Click to expand...

This is a myth propagated by those who find themselves and others unable to design good experiments, and sometimes by those who profit from a widespread belief in mumbo-jumbo. As in medicine, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to tease out the truth, but it is far from impossible. I think it's important to pursue and encourage any efforts to uncover the facts, however modest. The other path ultimately leads to madness.
 
BinaryMike said:
This is a myth propagated by those who find themselves and others unable to design good experiments, and sometimes by those who profit from a widespread belief in mumbo-jumbo. As in medicine, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to tease out the truth, but it is far from impossible. I think it's important to pursue and encourage any efforts to uncover the facts, however modest. The other path ultimately leads to madness.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we're starting from madness, what with our obsession with this kind of thing in the first place.

IMHO, when it comes to something that is subjective in the first place, it is unlikely that a test could be construed that determines what is "best" when we can't define what is in fact best.
My best may not be your best.
We could test for what sounds the closest to the original source or has the lowest distortion but again - that may not sound the "best" to me.
And keep in mind that many guitarists strive for a "likable" form of distortion in their amps in the first place - because they like how it sounds.

Again, we're not sending a guy to the moon (and back) here - just an excuse to have fun and drink more beer (and we're not even sure what the best beer is either - but we have our people working on it).
 
BinaryMike said:
This is a myth propagated by those who find themselves and others unable to design good experiments, and sometimes by those who profit from a widespread belief in mumbo-jumbo. As in medicine, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to tease out the truth, but it is far from impossible. I think it's important to pursue and encourage any efforts to uncover the facts, however modest. The other path ultimately leads to madness.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with this.

Everyone should read this : http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

Thierry
 
w1jim said:
IMHO, when it comes to something that is subjective in the first place, it is unlikely that a test could be construed that determines what is "best" when we can't define what is in fact best.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, this experiment has just one simple goal: to establish whether wholesale capacitor change in a typical vintage receiver, by itself, is clearly audible to some fraction (hopefully documented) of a large sample of listeners in various states of inebriation. I'm perfectly happy to have just this one simple but reliable datum, even though I would like to see more detailed data on the cap changes actually involved and any measurable difference in performance between the two receivers. If one listener choice is consistently preferred over the other, then it would be nice to find some correlation in the data, but this result couldn't possibly be meaningful without further investigation.
 
BinaryMike said:
...this result couldn't possibly be meaningful without further investigation.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I am striving for meaningful. Really just to share a unregulated experience.
The clear reality is that even though one was recapped we won't know the condition of a myriad of other variables within either of the samples.
 
w1jim said:
The clear reality is that even though one was recapped we won't know the condition of a myriad of other variables within either of the samples.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a good point. Ideally, a similar product comparison party should have occurred before the recapping. Still, distortion measurements after the fact would help to establish that gross defects didn't color the results.
 
BinaryMike said:
Well, that's a good point. Ideally, a similar product comparison party should have occurred before the recapping. Still, distortion measurements after the fact would help to establish that gross defects didn't color the results.
Click to expand...

Did it many times. Here are a few examples :

Marantz 1040 before : http://www.dcx2496.fr/1040/Comparison.htm
Marantz 1040 after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/1040/1040.htm
The work is documented with what has been changed and why : http://www.dcx2496.fr/marantz1040.php

Another example, a Marantz 2220BL before and after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/2220BL/Comparaison Marantz 2220BL.htm

Did it also on an analog active crossover :
Behringer CX2300 low output before :http://www.dcx2496.fr/LOW.htm
Behringer CX2300 low output after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/TWEAK LOW.htm
Behringer CX2300 high output before :http://www.dcx2496.fr/HIGH.htm
Behringer CX2300 high output after :http://www.dcx2496.fr/TWEAK HIGH.htm

In all cases the improvements were audibly noticeable.
 
BinaryMike said:
This is a myth propagated by those who find themselves and others unable to design good experiments, and sometimes by those who profit from a widespread belief in mumbo-jumbo. As in medicine, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to tease out the truth, but it is far from impossible. I think it's important to pursue and encourage any efforts to uncover the facts, however modest. The other path ultimately leads to madness.
Click to expand...

Nope, not a myth. Speakers and room placement are widely variable and differ from living room to living room. Different runs of old stock capacitors, transistors, or even production runs might yield subtle variations. Even measuring instruments yield different responses based on factors such as humidity, atmospheric pressure etc. We cannot live in a vacuum, nor should we attempt to measure in a vacuum.

It is not always possible to design a perfect experiment. And science doesn't require it. There is a universe of methodologies perceiving shades of understanding in every science.

Just because mumbo jumbo exists, doesn't mean that all perception that is not provable within a known scientific framework leads to mumbo jumbo. All science is first an act of creativity. If you don't understand that, then you need to bone up on the your science history.

That last statement regarding madness strikes me as extreme and naive. In the social sciences it was long ago established perception itself is widely variable and largely constructed within the context of language and the historic origins of the given culture. And in the present time, homogeneous culture is long lost.
 
You guys act as if you need a measuring device to determine weather you can perceive an improvement. The measuring device is mode of perception, but the end result is squiggly lines and numbers. I don't listen to lines and numbers. I listen to music. When i recap, and do the other things I do during a restoration project I do it to ensure that the unit works as it was designed, with parts that are known to be in spec, and I do it to preserve the unit.

IF I want to listen to a before and after, that could be fun too. And why wouldn't I be able to perceive a difference? All the numbers and squiggly lines in the world don't change the limits of auditory perception. And ultimately a receiver is an instrument designed to be heard, not measured.
 
BinaryMike said:
As in medicine, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to tease out the truth, but it is far from impossible.
Click to expand...

Actually medicine is in a constant state of evolution. What was believed to be true 20 years ago was found to be true using strict scientific method and state of the art research methodology, yet here we are doing things very differently using the same data viewed from different paradigms, and new methodologies that transcend strict testing. Meta analysis and bundling show that unprovable methods can show statistically significant results despite lack of concrete evidence.
 
Bottom line: Concrete perception is a myth propagated by those that lack the creativity to perceive beyond a limited set of variables floating amidst an ocean of variables that are right under their noses. Not to mention the ones that we are simply not equipped to perceive.
 
do "better" or newer capacitors affect the THD numbers? I'm just curious if the topology of the amp determines distortion or if it's better components or a combination.

I'm wondering if you're exceeding factory spec, assuming they weren't being conservative with cap replacements.

Thierry said:
Did it many times. Here are a few examples :

Marantz 1040 before : http://www.dcx2496.fr/1040/Comparison.htm
Marantz 1040 after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/1040/1040.htm
The work is documented with what has been changed and why : http://www.dcx2496.fr/marantz1040.php

Another example, a Marantz 2220BL before and after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/2220BL/Comparaison Marantz 2220BL.htm

Did it also on an analog active crossover :
Behringer CX2300 low output before :http://www.dcx2496.fr/LOW.htm
Behringer CX2300 low output after : http://www.dcx2496.fr/TWEAK LOW.htm
Behringer CX2300 high output before :http://www.dcx2496.fr/HIGH.htm
Behringer CX2300 high output after :http://www.dcx2496.fr/TWEAK HIGH.htm

In all cases the improvements were audibly noticeable.
Click to expand...
 
When are you drunks, er, I mean Science Audiophiles gonna get this contest rolling? Alot of pregame hype, I think we're now ready for the rumble!
 
** results **

Yesterday we had the comparison between my stock and recapped Pioneer SX-850s.

The goal of this comparison was to have fun and interesting experience - by virtue of those goals I declare this test a success.
If anyone wants to criticize any aspect of this exercise then I can only say - chill out and learn how to have fun!

We had about 25 attendees at the get together of which most had the opportunity to listen to the 2 receivers.
11 people opted to listen critically for between 5 minutes and perhaps an hour and also fill out the questionnaire.

Each receiver was volume matched using a audio frequency generator and an inexpensive SPL meter (this to avoid the situation where the louder unit will often sound better).
Sources were a new NAD 515BEE CD player and a Teac 2300S reel-to-reel half track machine playing some jazz at 7.5 ips. This was a very high quality recording but did exhibit a little bit of tape hiss during quiet passages which is to be expected.
I did want to also compare FM signals but due to the poor reception in our semi-rural location that wasn't feasible. Also the recapped receiver had a more sensitive FM section - most likely due to differences in alignment parameters.

Speakers were my Polk Monitor 7A's with an auxiliary ribbon tweeter with a 6db crossover that permitted frequencies above about 10khz. I decided that for this critical listening having a system with strong high frequency response would be a plus.

Each receiver was only identified as "ORANGE" and "GREEN" - nobody knew which was which. I was the only one to adjust the levels so someone couldn't determine which was which by seeing which one changed.

Below is the text of the form and the 7 parameters I asked people to consider.

Does recapping a piece of vintage gear change it’s sonic characteristics? Who knows - but let’s perform a completely non-scientific test and see if we can tell the difference and if it is for the better.
We have 2 – Pioneer SX-850s – one has been completely recapped except for the main power supply caps – the other has only had the power supply regulator PCB (which had issues) recapped.
Each will have a colored LED to identify the one you’re listening to. Which sounds better to you?


BASS
Recapped - 4
Stock - 2
No Diff - 5

MIDRANGE
Recapped - 7
Stock - 1
No Diff - 3

TREBLE
Recapped - 9
Stock - 1
No Diff - 1

SEPARATION
Recapped - 9
Stock - 0
No Diff - 2

BACKGROUND NOISE
Recapped - 3
Stock - 0
No Diff - 8

IMAGING
Recapped - 8
Stock - 0
No Diff - 3

SMOOTHNESS / MUSICALITY
Recapped - 7
Stock - 2
No Diff - 2


---------------------------

In my experience some people could form an opinion right away whereas others could discern no difference. Obviously everyone has different listening skills and abilities. Everyone seemed to be impressed with the sound of each system and the consensus was that the lesser system would have been fully acceptable in the absence of the comparison.

Also important to note was that the differences here were not "night and day". Even when a participant could quickly discern a difference nobody thought the difference's were extreme.

Additional comments from participants:
  • Regarding the recapped - Bass comparison was perhaps limited by source material and speaker size. Midrange very smooth, treble nice detail. Very musical.
  • Non recapped - sounds slightly grainy in the background noise.
  • Recapped - Bass is tighter, midrange effortless, treble smoother - non-recapped was a bit shrill.
  • Recapped - I think the bass was improved simply by everything being clearer, the treble was smoother with more detail and 'air'.
  • Both - no perceived difference, both sound fantastic in any case.

There were no hanging chads and all ballots have been destroyed by order of the officiating body (me).
 
Just my opinion - when re-capping a receiver, amp etc, I feel you are restoring it back to at least new performance, which makes an audible difference mainly because I am comparing something that probably has at least some caps which are not performing as they should.

I feel the biggest difference is when you get into the more expensive film caps such as Dynamicap, Mundorf, Sonicap etc. Usually it seems I see these caps used more in speakers and preamps. You could use them in the preamp section of a receiver, but the biggest problem you get into is space and trying to make room. These are not your tiny orange drop caps. The caps in my CJ preamp are mostly the size of 1/2 a roll of quarters and there are a bunch of them in there.
As I have mentioned to many times, I splurged (for me) and put this type of capacitor in a pair of speakers I really, really like. I do not think it was just me wanting them to sound good because they also made me a believer in burn in because after the initial sweetness - they did not sound all that great for about 50+ hours....
I know there is quite a debate about burn in, yet all I can do, for me, is go by my experience and what I believe to be a huge difference.

As for replacing electrolytics, I tend to believe it sounds better mainly because it has restored the receiver/amp etc to it's original specs.

I think if you really want to have a cap shoot out, it would be best to gather up some of the better reviewed film caps and swap those in as I tend to believe each of them does impart their own sound characteristic....
As a side not, I am a big Dynamicap fan.......
 
Cool, so the consensus is there is some difference.

It definitely wasn't much. Listening to material I didn't know made it very difficult to hear any difference, although when I put on my reference album (reference because I have listened to it so much) I could discern a subtle difference between the two. If jim did not have it set up to switch instantly and seamlessly though I could not have heard a difference. Switching wires back and forth would have just taken too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom