Vintage "Stuff" and Other Myths

[ChrisK]

Hovland Musicap Capacitors

"Hovland MusiCaps enable sensitive audio circuits to achieve their ultimate level of performance. By far the most musically accurate capacitor available, MusiCaps provide a dramatic improvement in clarity, focus and dynamics when used in critical new designs, or as an upgrade to existing tube or solid- state components. The no-compromise design of MusiCaps dictates a painstaking manufacturing process using costly materials. The result is a quality product which, while not inexpensive, delivers immediately discernible benefits and will over the long run prove an exceptional value. 5% tolerance. Available in .022, .047 and .1 values for guitar and bass."

$15.00 each


Bumblebee Capacitor, .022

"Bumblebee .022uF, 400V Capacitor, Vintage Reproduction of a classic Tone Capacitor as used by Gibson in the 50's."

$60.00 each


I'd like a reel of each, please. (Or a bunch of folk to reel in......)

[jkemmery]

My pet peeve, more than paying 15 or even 60 bucks for a cap is to insist on having cloth covered wiring, to get that "vintage tone" ... 'cuz that's how they did it back then ... how ridiculous.

[JohnH]

Good idea, this thread has much scope.

I get amused by audio-speak as applied to cables. The following serious study into guitar cables had me rolling around in hysterics:

www.lavacable.com/myweb/CableSummit4.pdf

It seems cables need to be assessed in terms of the following:

Dynamics: Measures how softly and loudly the cable can accurately produce all of its qualities. This is more than just volume; a compressed signal can be loud all the time, but a dynamic cable will only be loud when you hit the strings hard. Clarity in the bass has a large effect on the dynamic ability.

Dimension: Depth and multi-dimensional quality. This is noticed when notes do more that strike you directly in the face. Rather, they envelope the player and listener.Primarily affected by the middle bass.

Pitch definition: Accuracy, fidelity and note separation. Intervals are a clear indicator of pitch definition. This upper bass and low mid section of the response is difficult for a cable to define and more clarity in this area will be responsible for better separation and higher degrees of accuracy.

Balance: This is more of an absolute/ideal based on what we expect to hear, related to the acoustic sound of the guitar and years of shaped perception. Most classic guitar sounds have excellent clarity in the low mids, providing an emotional resonance, without heavily impacting the upper frequencies. This balance can work in conjunction with and
in contrast to neutrality.

Feel: What we hear, largely in the midrange, causes the perception of a slinky or stiff feeling in the strings, especially on bends. The cable should ideally not change the feel of the instrument as it’s experienced acoustically. Although commonly the sum of balance and transient response, it requires a category of its own. This is how the sound is
translated to the hands.

Stylistic range: Rates how the cable performs over the broad range of styles. Clarity in this central area of the frequency response certainly has some overlap with other categories, but is a good determinant of how many styles the cable will competently handle.

Signal strength: This part of the upper mid response curve relates to punch and perceived strength. While noise may be a part of the signal measured here, it’s an unavoidable contributor to the overall level. However, too much noise in ratio will result in lower scores in other areas.

Transient Response: This is basically speed and tracking ability and has some effect on feel; too much speed can shift the response upwards and cause the strings to feel stiff. Too little speed and overall definition suffers. With its neighboring categories, this is a heavy contributor to punch.

Presence: Treble definition and attack. Presence is a balance of treble and upper midrange. An overabundance will smear the highs and cause glare, while lower levels will negatively affect definition and impact detail.

Transparency: This represents the noise floor and resolution, noticed heavily in harmonics when distorted and air around the note when clean. This is primarily dictated by clarity in the top-end. Try listening to the T.V. with a fan on. Turn the fan off and the dialogue and subtleties become clearer. This analogy relates transparency to accuracy and dimensionality. An unclouded signal reveals clarity, complexity and upper end dimension.

All of that is plotted out on graphs without a single piece of measuring equipment used(other than some ears)!

I would prefer some simpler measures of cable performance:
Does it work?
How long is it?
Does it screen against noise?
Flexibility?
Durability?
Capacitance (which I reckon is the main tone factor on a working cable)

John.

[sumgai]

John,

Oh Gawd, man, that's just too much for me to handle this early in the morning! I need a doctor, my sides are splitting so hard! ;D This guy needs to be hunted down and awarded a Nobel prize for the most wickedly satirical technical writing I've ever seen! He makes George Carlin look like a kindergartner! If only I'd been born with that much "phunny"!

I am now convinced that I would have been sucked in by the previous century's most hated madman, Adolf Schicklegruber. I honestly did not think, not for a moment, that anyone would be so insane as to truly believe the "Monster cable credo", and then go on to do it one better. This guy's website is devoted to treating musicians (mostly guitar players) as if they had the money of Bill Gates, and the IQ of a raw carrot. For example take this quote from your linked "paper" (The Carver/Fender entry):

........ with the ability to smooth over some of a player’s and guitar’s flaws, for a rewarding playing experience.

I'd feel richly rewarded too, if I could just find that magic wand to wave around, the one that smooths over my flaws! Well now, for the low, low, LOW price of merely 8 bucks a foot, I too can sound just like my favorite guitar hero! Why, that's chump change - ChrisK spends more than that on just a Warmoth body, just ask him! ;D

Hmmmmm, I wonder what I'd sound like if I just bought one or two feet's worth? Do ya suppose I could pull off a quick hack of, say, Allan Holdsworth?


sumgai


p.s. John, you owe me for the increased portion of my Chinese laundry bill!! ;D

[Ripper]

This is all true guys.....but do most of you not still use all tube amplifiers?

I love cars, but dont drive a model- T ;D

I am in soooooo much trouble now!

[ccso8462]

Well, Deep, I like my old Fender tube amp but I like my POD through a keyboard amp, too. That's why I have an A-B switch, so I can be really schizoid! There are just never enough options... Dang! Another case of multiple overchoice!

[ux4484]

deep,

A few years back when the caps started going in my tube PA (after I had stored it in the garage for a few years, the garage had heat, but no AC), I didn't run out to find "vintage" ceramic disc caps or a multi-wound electrolytic. I toddled on down to Newark and bought new cheap same value modern caps after which it sounded much better than ever previously (and took up a fraction of the space). Tubes do actually have a different tone. Unlike monster cable babblings, the average human ear can hear and tell the difference in sound and distortion of a tube amp vs. solid state. like ccso said, thats a reason to have one of each .

[ChrisK]

There is a catagory of igNobel prizes awarded yearly for the best Tomfoolery afoot and aboot.

Nomination is.

[sumgai]

deep

I love cars, but dont drive a model- T ;D

Because you couldn't afford it! (Insurance, leaded gas, absolutely no spare or replacement parts left on the planet, can't meet any safety standard set in the last 50 years, not to mention the collector's value...... the list goes on and on.)

Sorry, but tube amps aren't yet in the same boat.


sumgai

[sumgai]

Chris,

This would need it's own, new, category - Delusionary Advertising, or some such. ;D

Oh, wait...... all advertising is delusional, ain't it? Sorry, I spoke out of turn.

Never mind.
</latella>


sumgai

[lavaman]

I know the author of that article personally and he's an accomplished guitarist with a good set of ears who did his best when tasked by a major guitar magazine - Vintage Guitar to do a cable shootout.

His criteria are valid and his results repsected - Belden, the largest cable manufcaturer in the U.S. just sent him some cable to test as a result of this article.

Unfortuantely, most guitarists around the world only know the cheap copper coax that has flooded the market for the last 30 years.

All it takes is doing some simple A/B tests (you have to have some criteria) and audible differences in cables can be heard.

Capacitance is important, but not the only factor contributing to a good sounding cable. Flexiblity and Durablity are improtant as well and I use these as criteria on my website.

So, you can laugh all you want, but I challenge you to find another comprehensive cable shootout...you will not find one...trust me...

Lava Man
www.lavacable.com

[JohnH]

Hi Lava man

Thank you for posting, and in such a reasonable way. I see you are a in the business of premium cables and I’m glad you are here.

I’m all for good quality cables and I know there are good and bad cables out there. Admittedly I know this more through my experience with bad cables than with high-end good ones. I had a look at your site and like the sound of your products – with high quality connectors and durable low capacitance cable. Unless I run through a buffer (which I often do), I don’t like to use longer than 10’ of normal cable and I find 20’ sounds muddy. With your 15pF/ft cable, I could have the freedom of a 20’ cable with the sound of a 10’ cable. Your prices seem reasonable too.

Now those tests. I know that article was serious piece of work, but if all of those many empirical sonic criteria are important, why can they not be backed up with some simple objective bench tests? A lot of us around here have a technical background. It should be possible in this century to make simple tests that describe the properties of a cable. Tests such as a frequency response test measuring the signal received at the amp should reveal the some basis for those differences. With capacitance as a key criterion affecting the cable tone, it’s simple enough to measure it. Ears are the final test but they can very easily be tricked, and the subjective results are extremely difficult to relate in a written piece.

I'd like to know about the screening properties of the cables. This is a real practical point, particularly with high gain and could be objectively measured. Just yesterday, I was rehearsing with friends, and one of the other guitars was making an excessive hum. We traced it to the cable, which was brand new, not cheap and basicly working, but not effectively screening.

Also, I’m dying to know, does anyone really think that it is necessary to ‘burn in’ a cable to make it sound better?

Cheers

John

[lavaman]

John,

The problem with non-subjective measuring tests with cables is that they will not necessarily be representative of the tonal qualities of a given cable, which like any other piece of gear are subjective...

Screening or resistance to RFI/EMI and AC Hum is generally a function of the shield of the guitar cable. Shielding density varies from cable to cable. The best shielding is a double spiral. One of the things I do with my twin or quad conductor cable is lift the shield on the guitar end - a practice typically referred to as "floating the shield" and it is common in may studios around the world. The idea is the any AC line noise will be dissipated in the shield and not reach your guitar...a poor or cold solder joint on either end of the cable can also negatively affect RFI/EMI and hum rejection...

Many companies I buy from believe in the "burn in" of cables, and I have had a lot of cutomers give me feedback that their cables did indeed sound better over time...enough for mne to think that there is something credible to it...

[lunaalta]

Hey,
Welcome to the active side of GuitarNuts, Lavaman
Nice to see a viewpoint from someone other than an end user.
This really is a good forum and I'm glad to see it (in my view) take another up step.

Back to the thread...

Years back, I sold high end stereo gear in London. Mostly brands like Naim, Linn, Meridian, Quad, Elite, Gale, etc. Occasionaly, a magazine would ask to use our demo facilities (my suggestion) to run a side by side product review. Something like, the best 150 pound speakers, etc. Great publicity, 3 or four pages of magazine review set in my shop, and they brought the wine
I was also offered many beta versions of amps, speakers, PU cartridges, cables, etc, to listen to and give an opinion.
I learned that different pieces of a chain of equipment will intereact in different ways. In this case we have guitars, amps and speaker combinations, with cables as interconnectors (not to mention older joints).
I, personally, never got too involved in the technical side of these issues, leaving it to other tech type guys, just on the listening side (I was running west end shops at the time including marketing, sales, orders, etc.).
I figured that the higher the general quality level of each piece of equipment in the chain, the easier it should be to find sound differences in items such as cables and connectors.

When I left this industry there was discussion about the sexing of cables, LOL
That being ensuring that the cables run in the same direction, then try reversing them to see which is best.
One guy suggested running the whole system out of phase to improve the sound.

Some combinations seemed to show up cable differences better than others.
Do you think the same happens with guitars, amps and speakers?
</ramble>

[lavaman]

Your guitar cable is a low pass filter in the audio chain that includes your guitar, effects, amp and speakers. Because pickups, effects and amps are all different, unlike some hi-fi situations with the same reference music as a source, differences in cable design can easily be heard - especially when plugging straight into amp.

The other interesting thing is that we musicians are hyper-sensitive to the sound of our own rig, so we will typically notice to positive or negative effect of anything new in the chain - and with the quest for good tone being supreme, it makes sense that a good cable can improve that...and it does typically opening up more usable tone/EQ range on your amp.

[wolf]

lavaman
Unfortunately, most guitarists around the world only know the cheap copper coax that has flooded the market for the last 30 years.

However, if those were the types of guitar cable that ceased production in the late 1950's then you'd see those selling for $1,000 each so you could get that vintage tone. "That higher resistance and higher capacitance allowed the guitarist to achieve tones that are totally unobtainable with today's modern cables." ;D

[lavaman]

wolf said:

lavaman
Unfortunately, most guitarists around the world only know the cheap copper coax that has flooded the market for the last 30 years.

However, if those were the types of guitar cable that ceased production in the late 1950's then you'd see those selling for $1,000 each so you could get that vintage tone. "That higher resistance and higher capacitance allowed the guitarist to achieve tones that are totally unobtainable with today's modern cables." ;D

Unfortunately that idea does not pass the simple logic test...those old cables actually "choked" tone - they did not know at the time because they did not have have any choices...now at least you have choices...

[wolf]

lavaman
My point was that anything guitar related was a zillion times better way back then. (or so they say). I remember we had a thread (perhaps it even goes back to the Guitar Nuts 1 Board) in which we basically invented the most outrageous "facts" about vintage guitars and amps.
You know why those "Vintage" Les Paul humbuckers sounded better than they do today? Because the copper in the wires was smelted in an obscure copper mine in Antarctica. Now long "mined out", that special copper produced a tone that is unmatched in today's modern humbuckers. Oh sure, you could say "all copper is the same". But the copper from that mine had minute traces of bismuth, osmium, Bosco™ and Vicks Formula 44™ in such precise percentages that it will always be impossible to replicate by artificial means.

The latest vintage news I heard (and this is for real), the wood in the older Gibson Les Pauls was dried slowly as opposed to the "kiln dried" crap they sell nowadays. (I forgot where I read that excuse reason to charge more money for Vintage Les Pauls but if I find a link I'll post it here.)
If the reverse were true (Les Pauls used to be kiln dried), someone would say that's why they sounded so good. Oh yeah they are kiln dried now but back then Gibson employed woodsmiths who were trained in the European Black Forest in the lost art of quality kiln drying, etc.

[Ripper]

For the record...

I like hybrid Marshalls....Not pure solid state.
I dont know if Marshall makes a 100% solid state amp do they?

[JohnH]

deepblue said:

For the record...

I like hybrid Marshalls....Not pure solid state.
I dont know if Marshall makes a 100% solid state amp do they?

Yes they do, the MG series, from 10W up to 100Watt. And they are not too bad either. The little ones are a good practice amp, and the larger ones populate many a teenage band.

John

[ChrisK]

I guess that for the technical folk among us (meself included), unless and until all characteristics of a cable (or anything) are completely definable in technical specification form agreed upon and used by those that practice professional electrical engineering with all of that there AC circuit analysis and calculus crap afoot (and therefore are repeatable in retest and production upon demand), any "special words or feelings" used to quantify and qualify such items are shite at best or marketing at (its) worst. (Technically speaking.)

Now, to be fair, the average guitar player is incapable of understanding said technical specifications to any significant degree and therefore must have a translation afoot to base decisions upon. Unfortunately, precise and repeatable specificity in a "tongue most foreign" (or at least requiring some research and learning), is disdained in preference for words "wiggly in definition" albeit cleverly spun that make one "feel special" upon the purchase thereof.

While most electrical components will have differing circuit effect due to their differing characteristics and hence specifications, until said specifications are "specified", they don't exist. Rumors come and go. Specs are forever.

This is a cheap cap, of the film type often found in guitars (note that these start at $0.175 each in a quantity of 10):
www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/abd0000ce7.pdf

This is a very nice cap, of the type found in my guitars (note that these are available for the unGodly price of $40 for 100 pieces):
www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/abd0000ce16.pdf

Here's a cap that's fairly pedestrian in specification, but the specification sheet is exemplary in data content (at $0.125 each):
www.vishay.com/docs/28108/mkt370.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitors


After all, what led me to start this thread was the;

"Bumblebee .022uF, 400V Capacitor, Vintage Reproduction of a classic Tone Capacitor as used by Gibson in the 50's."

WTF is a Vintage Reproduction of a classic Tone Capacitor regardless of who used it in the 50's? Was the reproduction done a long time ago (back in them there vintage days) just prior to that particular tone capacitor becoming a classic?

OR

Was the reproduction done recently in a manner to make the copy (gasp!) appear to look like that there classic capacitor chosen by Gibson due to its clarity, focus and dynamic characteristics in critical new designs it being cheap?

(I "feel" that I can use the same terms as the $15 cap for this one since it's $60.00 each.)


This is a Public Service Announcement to those aboot to spend $60 fer a cap with "special magical characteristics powers"

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?