NAD 1020 recap questions?!?

[Goldie99]

While you can bend leads (a little), you also need to watch the overall cap dimensions - the original 10uf/25V polarized cap is quite small, at ca. 5mm diam. X 10mm ht., the Pana ECQ is MUCH larger @ 26mm X 11.5mm rectangular, and 26mm ht, and simply will not fit the pcb. You will see photos of peoples attempts to fit massive caps in minute spaces, in some vain hope of achieving 'audio nirvana' - don't do it - always go for parts that'll 'fit' the pcb properly !

My personal preference for C421 (phono amp, output coupling cap) would be the ES (bipolar electrolytic), on the basis of Bateman's work, and the fact that I've had good results using ES on other NAD 3020's. The FR or KL caps will also both work fine, at least as well as the original and probably better, although the differences we're talking about are (very) small.

It may be worth noting that these caps only affect the phono input - they have NO effect on any other input, so unless you are a heavy phono user, i wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[ccrnnr9]

The ECQ are very nice caps but all have lead spacing that is too wide for pcb through hole work. Painttoad's recommendation is spot-on. It can be hard to get mkp >1uF at times. Don't worry, we're all learning as we go. Nobody knows everything. ES and Wima would be fine and are both bi-polar types. FR,KL and others also work as long as the original you're replacing was also polarized. Some reading I'd recommend are Cyril Bateman's articles on capacitors/ sound. It helped me think differently about some of the choices I had been making with recaps in the past.

https://linearaudio.net/cyril-batemans-capacitor-sound-articles

Thanks for the article! Regarding LS, my thought was simply using a small clamp and hemostat setup on the bench to gently perform two 45* bends to the leads while isolating the cap itself so as not to interrupt the connection to the leads per the rudimentary drawing:

 

[ccrnnr9]

-My personal preference for C421 (phono amp, output coupling cap) would be the ES (bipolar electrolytic), on the basis of Bateman's work, and the fact that I've had good results using ES on other NAD 3020's. The FR or KL caps will also both work fine, at least as well as the original and probably better, although the differences we're talking about are (very) small.

It may be worth noting that these caps only affect the phono input - they have NO effect on any other input, so unless you are a heavy phono user, i wouldn't worry about it too much.

good to know. At the moment I’m enjoying listening to it as is with the FR in there. I do feel I notice a nicer listening experience overall after recap compared to stock. I can’t say I noticed a dramatic difference if any of swapping the r82 for WIMAs last night. I’ll have extensive listening time this weekend.

I only use the 1020 as a phono pre amp. At home I hardly do deliberate listening on anything but vinyl. For digital playback I just go through the WiiM amp’s DAC and live with the results.

 

[ccrnnr9]

After many hours of listening it feels like the most distinctive change is that the bass response is stronger. Previously the bass control felt very come and go where a small turn of the knob counterclockwise resulted in somewhat significant decrease in bass response and after that there wasn’t a significant change until the knob was most of the way down. Now it feels that there is more control but the bass response is much stronger at 12 o clock resulting in me turning it down more than previously. Is there any merit to this given the cap changes? I much like the current state of my 1020 though I still prefer the nuances on the low end that my 1600 preamp gives though there’s a meat to the 1020 that sounds and feels much thicker. The 1600 feels thinner, perhaps more harsh? Maybe it’s all in my head but it does feel like changes occurred.

fwiw Im driving Boston A200’s and prefer the 1020 on a majority of the records I listen to though with certain records the lack of nuance on the bottom end leaves me wanting. I’m curious to hear if the 1240 that will soon arrive splits the gap between the 1020 and 1600.

Then there’s the question of the amp I drive with…

 

[onanysunday]

After many hours of listening it feels like the most distinctive change is that the bass response is stronger. Previously the bass control felt very come and go where a small turn of the knob counterclockwise resulted in somewhat significant decrease in bass response and after that there wasn’t a significant change until the knob was most of the way down. Now it feels that there is more control but the bass response is much stronger at 12 o clock resulting in me turning it down more than previously. Is there any merit to this given the cap changes? I much like the current state of my 1020 though I still prefer the nuances on the low end that my 1600 preamp gives though there’s a meat to the 1020 that sounds and feels much thicker. The 1600 feels thinner, perhaps more harsh? Maybe it’s all in my head but it does feel like changes occurred.

fwiw Im driving Boston A200’s and prefer the 1020 on a majority of the records I listen to though with certain records the lack of nuance on the bottom end leaves me wanting. I’m curious to hear if the 1240 that will soon arrive splits the gap between the 1020 and 1600.

Then there’s the question of the amp I drive with…

It depends whether you're referring to e'lytics or film caps. I wouldn't usually associate that with a film cap swap but have experienced it many times when replacing e'lytics (bulk capacitance) with ones which have competitive LF current ratings. This is what I refer to as "emphasis". E'lytics typically have some form of emphasis, whether it's LF dominant, neutral, HF dominant or both LF/HF dominant. I've found the most neutral sound to typically come from an e'lytic with a competitive LF current rating and an unlisted/non-competitive HF current rating. Our ears are more sensitive to midrange frequencies so you need a bit more LF to compensate to make it sound neutral or flat when crossing over from low to mid. The latter (both LF/HF competitively listed) can sometimes provide a sort of 'larger than life' presentation where both frequency extremes may be over emphasized from what would be considered normal or neutral which is more impressive or exciting to listen to especially at lower volumes (like a smiley face EQ curve) but hurt my ears at a louder volume over prolonged periods causing sibilance and listener fatigue moreso than caps that are non-competitively listed at HF.

However, with any recap replacing old capacitors that are out of spec, musical separation is enhanced and the lows, mids and highs become more delineated from each other with less mushiness of bass blended with mids -less of an 'averaged' sound where all frequencies just sort of combine together to create one uniform "noise".

 

[ccrnnr9]

It depends whether you're referring to e'lytics or film caps. I wouldn't usually associate that with a film cap swap but have experienced it many times when replacing e'lytics (bulk capacitance) with ones which have competitive LF current ratings. This is what I refer to as "emphasis". E'lytics typically have some form of emphasis, whether it's LF dominant, neutral, HF dominant or both LF/HF dominant. I've found the most neutral sound to typically come from an e'lytic with a competitive LF current rating and an unlisted/non-competitive HF current rating. The latter (both LF/HF competitively listed) can sometimes provide a sort of 'larger than life' presentation where both frequency extremes may be over emphasized from what would be considered normal or neutral which is more impressive or exciting to listen to especially at lower volumes (like a smiley face EQ curve). Our ears are more sensitive to midrange frequencies so you need a bit more LF to compensate to make it sound neutral or flat when crossing over from low to mid.

However, with any recap replacing old capacitors that are out of spec, musical separation is enhanced and the lows, mids and highs become more delineated from each other with less mushiness of bass blended with mids -less of an 'averaged' sound where all frequencies just sort of combine together to create one uniform "noise".

That's interesting - does that just relate to the caps in the respective output locations or does it relate to others as well? I'm particularly curious about the caps that are located directly behind the various tone/volume controls and how they affect sound if at all. For example C529/30 that I just replaced or 517-20 which are listed as the output caps.

Also you mention that you wouldn't associate that with a film cap. Is there anything you would associate with a film cap? If not, what makes them so desirable by so many? Neutrality and reliability?

 

[onanysunday]

That's interesting - does that just relate to the caps in the respective output locations or does it relate to others as well? I'm particularly curious about the caps that are located directly behind the various tone/volume controls and how they affect sound if at all. For example C529/30 that I just replaced or 517-20 which are listed as the output caps.

Also you mention that you wouldn't associate that with a film cap. Is there anything you would associate with a film cap? If not, what makes them so desirable by so many? Neutrality and reliability?

I don't know the details of your circuit or which of your caps are effecting what, but these are just general observations I've picked up throughout the years of recapping and listening closely before and after with regards to how inputs effect outcomes. However, any output caps or caps within a tone circuit could most definitely impact sound. The emphasis part can relate to all e'lytics all the time, but not all caps in all positions within in a circuit are in a position that would even effect sound, so it all depends. The tone bypass feature provides a nice glimpse into how your tone section (and component choices there) are effecting sound. Also, sometimes caps you wouldn't assume are in a direct audio path do effect sound, especially regarding the power supply and the several amps of current that may be stored and released there (at both LF/HF).

The difference with film is that you get ultimate fidelity. You're able to achieve enhanced SQ over the best e'lytic options -especially with regards to increased HF detail, extension and even better musical separation. This shows up as perhaps hearing fingers pluck strings (for instance) or hearing certain limitations (or noise) of the source material you hadn't noticed before. The sense of space within a soundfield and other instruments placed within it also seems better with the best film caps. They don't age out like e'lytics and can last a very long time if proper operating conditions are maintained. You can sometimes enhance an e'lytic's HF characteristics through bypassing it with film. This is especially important because film types max out a much lower capacitance compared to e'lytics due to size/cost limitations. In this way, it allows you to get some of the HF benefits of film while still using e'lytics.

Emphasis only seems to show up regarding bulk capacitance, i.e. e'lytics replaced with other types of e'lytics. A 1uF e'lytic replaced with a 1uF film isn't going to give you monster bass no matter which replacement you use. This is interesting, because while current is related to voltage through Ohm's Law (some films have extremely high voltage ratings) it doesn't automatically mean that a low capacitance, high voltage film cap is going to alter or shift current/ emphasis nearly as much as a larger capacitance e'lytic does with a much lower voltage rating (power filter caps for instance w/ high capacitance but relatively low voltage ratings effect emphasis much more).

 

[ccrnnr9]

My first 1020 recap is complete. After the initial/partial recap I went back in and replaced some generics with WIMAs where appropriate - same with some KLs in specific spots. Even though I don't ever use the headphone jack and don't plan to, I went ahead and threw a set of KLs @ C305/306 and Panasonic FR at 301/302 since the KLs were a very tight fit and I want to use those on a future project.

I've spent about 2-3 hours listening and I have to say it's been well worth the time, research, etc. This thing really sings! It sounded very pleasant to begin with but there is a large degree of improvement in terms of musicality and depth according to my ears particularly in regards to to various high tones throughout a wide range of recordings. The bass seems to be less muddy, maybe still not as nuanced in that department as the 1600 I have but overall I find the depth and warmth to feel more to my liking for listening.

For those curious I'm running a Technics 1700mkI w/ Shure M97HE into the 1020 and using a standard WiiM amp to drive a set of Boston A200s. I'm quite pleased with it. I'll be interested to try some different power amps in the future though I've found the WiiM to be quite nice and versatile.

N