vintage components?

[flateric]

There's some very knowledgable guys on this forum, I wanted to hear what your views were on these vintage components for people seeking the 'ultimate' vintage tone. These guys that pay $40 for a NOS bumble bee oil and paper wrapped resistor to put in their Les Paul, or others that swear by Sprague caps or won't touch modern little ceramic ones as they can hear tonal inferiority.
Is it all a load of techno-[glow=red,2,300]snobbery[/glow] or is there some truth lurking behind it all?

[ChrisK]

Is it all a load of techno-snobberyor is there some truth lurking behind it all?

Absolutely! And no.

While I can't tell the difference between capacitors of similar types, I can tell the difference between reasonable caps and many ceramics. While one can get good ceramics, most aren't that good, especially those available at retail. I can get some really good ceramic caps, but only as an OEM manufacturer (and usually as "free" samples).

There are many film caps, which generally are the modern good ones and some of the old ones. It would take a few hours to denote all of these, and days to explain the differences.

The characteristics to look for in an audio cap are as follows:

Low dissipation factor (related to dielectric absorption),

Ultra-low leakage (why ceramics are bad),

Sealed.

There are many film types such as mylar (pedestrian), polycarbonate, polypropylene, and many others that I can't remember. I use polycarbonate 'cuz they're good and I have sample box assortments of many types.

[sumgai]

Eric,

To take Chris's reply back towards a more generic answer, I'd volunteer that 'snobbery' may be a bit harsh, but there is definitely a lot of emotion tied up in 99% of what you hear from these guys.

When someone (like Chris above) can justify with personal experience why he or she likes Product ABC, or Brand X, then that's a good thing. But IMHO, when a person just parrots what his/her favorite guitar hero of the week said 5 years ago, and said worthy was so deep into drugs that he still can't even spell electricity 4 times out of 5, then you can bet that you're hearing a load of horse patootie. ;D

And again IMO, unless you know the people real well, then I'd advise against calling them out. They're worse than Ford-vs-Chevy debaters - you ain't gonna knock 'em out of their mindset, no matter what, so let them have at it, and you don't have to lose any sleep over their idiocy


sumgai

[UnklMickey]

flateric said:

...These guys that pay $40 for a NOS bumble bee oil and paper wrapped resistor to put in their Les Paul,...

the ironic thing, is some of those guys never turn their tone controls below 10.
so the cap is just barely in the circuit, just the tiniest little bit.



whenever caps actually are used, Steve Bench lends a bit of insight as to why you might hear a little difference between types:


members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

[CheshireCat]

flateric said:

There's some very knowledgable guys on this forum, I wanted to hear what your views were on these vintage components for people seeking the 'ultimate' vintage tone. These guys that pay $40 for a NOS bumble bee oil and paper wrapped resistor to put in their Les Paul, or others that swear by Sprague caps or won't touch modern little ceramic ones as they can hear tonal inferiority. Is it all a load of techno-snobbery or is there some truth lurking behind it all?

In a few things there's truth behind it, and for a lot of it it's bunk and, in some to many cases, marketing spin.

In the case of a Fasel Inductor for a Wah Pedal, it's true. For issues such as a cap, it's either not true, or it is of such little significance that you couldn't spot any discernable difference unless you hooked up your signal to the audio equivalent of spectral analysis.

If some part was purported to have superior tonal qualities, then you'd need a very solid cause/effect reason as to why that's the case . . . a very solid rocks are hard and water is wet reason, and not some sort of woo-woo answer that borders on questionable science, not to mention metaphysics.

Chesh

[sumgai]

eric,

Let me take what Chris just said one step further.

When it comes to questionable science, aka the 'woo-woo' factor, I'm all for debunking it. But as I've also noted, it's best to not argue with the rightous, they can't be converted.

So I do what I'm sure will get Chris's approval, and that is, the so-called double-blind test. Just to be sure we understand each other, that's where the tester also does not know what's being tested, he or she is just following instructions, and presenting options to the testee.

Now, if one can sit down in an easy chair, listen to A or B, and consistently pick out B, no matter what, then it may be that B is better (or whatever....). But that's a single sample, and is statistically invalid. Better to check a cross-section of users (or the public, etc.) and see what the overall results are. After all, the first testee just might have those "golden ears".

In doing this, time after time, the high-priced spread has been shown to not have any significant advantage over the as-well-built but not-as-well-hyped products. Yes, there may be some parameter that may be measurable on labratory grade test equipment, but that's not where you and I sit when we're playing!! We're out in the real world, and that's where the testing has to be.... in the real world.

And if you've read this far, I'll finish with the fact that using double-blind testing eliminates what some call "the subtlety factor". This is where the tester knows what option he or she is presenting, and in some subtle way, they communicate it to the testee, thus biasing or skewing the results. Hard to do correctly, but it is accepted as scientific proof. IOW, it can be repeated at any time, with expected results. But the bigger the sample of testees, the more accurate the results.

Oooh, I've droned on too long, I've gotta go get din-din. Ciao.


sumgai