Originally posted by Lefty
Gang;
I would like to throw out a frequent counter argument to the 'modify it to make it sound better' theory offered by EC and others.
A down side to modifiying a top of the line peice of equipment is the effect on possible resale value on a highly desirable collectable model. Many e-bay listings will state that the unit has no signs of modifications as a attribute for the unit, and I bet that a modified unit, if mentioned, is most likely to get fewer bidders or lower bids on the most seriously collected models. Hell look how high some pay for 'never opened' boxed equipment when they do sometimes show up! <snip>
I just ask you to ask yourself that if you were in the market for a Marantz 2600 receiver and you see two near identical e-bay listings where one has had modifications to it and one is stated to be unmodified, which one would you be more likely to bid market price on?
Lefty
A valid point, however, the 'modifications' I have discussed here are nothing more than a replacement of the original electrolytic capacitors (adding additional PS filter caps would indeed fall into the 'modification' catagory, but let's set that aside for now). Opening up the unit, it would take a quite knowledgeable technician to see that anything had actually been done (your average stereo shop repair guy wouldn't have a clue that anything had been done). I would even strongly argue the idea of labling it a modification. Would you be tempted to state that a receiver was 'modified' if someone had replaced a fatigued fuse? ..or even if blown output transistors had been replaced? How about a tube amp that has new tubes installed? Indeed, I feel the tube analogy is probably the most apt, since we all know tubes have a limited life.
A 'modification', to me, is changing the original design in some significant way to achieve a desired result. Electrolytic capacitors are unique in solid state gear as the only device which actually have a rated lifespan. The higher the voltage and temperature applied to these devices, the shorter the lifespan. Additionally, the quality of new devices,
particularly electrolytic caps, are light-years beyond the devices available to manufacturers in the 70's, as electrolytic chemistry has progressed through 5 or 6 significant generational leaps and bounds since then. The standard Panasonic FC capacitor that I use would have been an audio engineer's wet dream in 1975. My KR-9600 is a
stock receiver with new electrolytics and an upgraded opamp. Not modified at all. Were I to sell it (which I won't), only the technically ignorant would be concerned about something like a replacement of the original electrolytics. If I sold it to anyone who knows me and the work I do, it would only bring a higher price
As a last side-note, I am not fond of doing anything that cannot actually be undone
Your argument is also based on a faulty assumption of resale value. The biggest problem I have with this is looking at the equipment and seeing dollar signs instead of a treble clef
It's about the music, not the money. I also suggested that this is something to consider only for gear which has found a permanent home.
OK...to finish up my rant, I agree with you that doing something like adding additional power supply filtering or a soft-start circuit should probably be carefully considered, and in most cases should probably not be done. OTOH, replacing worn out components that no longer meet specifications not only makes sense but is necessary in order to allow the gear to sound as it was intended to sound.
Regarding the integrated's, most around here seem to be receiver fans. I have always had separates...the KR-9600 is my first receiver, but after a few mods and tweaks I'm pretty impressed.
