When replacing old AUDIO PATH components in a UREI 1776LN Rev. F that’s now exceeding 40 years of age, what’s the best policy?
1. Replace all the polarized caps and just stick with replacements that are the same type and ratings to preserve the sound signature that was there.
2. Put in replacement polarized caps that are the same type and values but have BETTER temperature, voltage, and/or lifetime ratings.
3. Replace ALL caps with either polypropylene caps where size or expense aren’t prohibitive or elsewhere use Nichicon MUSE bi-polar or Elna Silmic caps. Also replace the Q2-3-4 2N3391A transistors with lower-noise 2N5089s.
4. Replace JUST the obvious broken caps; changing other parts won’t help and may make it sound WORSE---just leave the damn thing alone and STFU!!!
1. Replace all the polarized caps and just stick with replacements that are the same type and ratings to preserve the sound signature that was there.
2. Put in replacement polarized caps that are the same type and values but have BETTER temperature, voltage, and/or lifetime ratings.
3. Replace ALL caps with either polypropylene caps where size or expense aren’t prohibitive or elsewhere use Nichicon MUSE bi-polar or Elna Silmic caps. Also replace the Q2-3-4 2N3391A transistors with lower-noise 2N5089s.
4. Replace JUST the obvious broken caps; changing other parts won’t help and may make it sound WORSE---just leave the damn thing alone and STFU!!!
It worked OK for 40 years? Then why does it want "upgrade"?
It has not been state of the art since 1999.
The value of an un-bodged 1176 can only go up now.
Fix whats broke and STFU.
It has not been state of the art since 1999.
The value of an un-bodged 1176 can only go up now.
Fix whats broke and STFU.
It was always a "bit" noisy. If it meets original specs, don't modify it.
Nothing. It wasn't "state of the art" then either. There were better (or at least different) devices for a couple of decades already. It's a late 1960s design that, with revisions, has stood the test of time because it did one thing well, predictably, and in a way that became so well known it was the "go-to" peak limiter for decades. For some, it still is. But state of the art? Not since the mid 1970s when there wasn't much competing product that was any good.
Fix what's broken, replace electrolytics with equal or better types of the same values, don't try to modify or upgrade it. If you don't like it, sell it as a re-capped original 1176 F and get your $2K out of it.
You can do it with a nice quiet digital plug-in replication now.
You forgot to tell me to STFU.
If I wanted a digital audio ANYTHING, I wouldn't use an 1176. But, I DON'T.
If I wanted a digital audio ANYTHING, I wouldn't use an 1176. But, I DON'T.
I guess so far you've been told that your UREI 1776LN is no good and never was, but at the same time it's somehow "holy" and must not be messed with. I would personally just go for it, unless you need to sell it for $2K anytime soon or unless you want to start a professional audio equipment museum. Oh, and don't STFU.
Thank you very much!
Since I basically LIKE the sound of this limiter and think it's better than most, I think I will just change the electrolytics to slightly higher (temp/life) ones and leave the rest of the caps be. I may experiment with some 2N5089s in the Q2-3-4 input stages (it's easy, as these were socketed parts from the factory). The NOISE is what's always bothered me (a little), so I will also try substituting a quieter power supply to see if it makes any difference. I'll do it in a manner which is easily reversed (NO cut traces, etc.). The STOCK power supply is Zener-diode regulated which is just injecting noise into the entire circuit.
Didn't think it appropriate. If you don't ask, you won't learn.
Your choice. The digital processing options far surpass the capabilities of analog, but can replicate them if desired. "Look Ahead" limiting alone is worth the effort. But I can't usually sway a digiphobe.
I've used real 1176's for decades, I know it very well, and it's easy to apply for some very specific applications. But it's also quite a narrow range of applications, being basically a sloppy peak limiter with a specific sound. Perhaps it's one virtue is the program-dependent attack/release, but that's not unique to the 1176, and frankly there are far better tools today, both analog and digital.
> Really? What happened in 1999?
We partied like it was.....
The nature of the creature is to hiss less than FM/LP but more than CD. It is excellent for some things, over-obvious in other work. I had not noted any fancy attack/release (program-dependent is much older). For pop-radio work there are FAR more complicated signal smashers. Also around 1999 digital look-ahead (not just 50uS like an old BBC global limiter) made a difference.
We partied like it was.....
The nature of the creature is to hiss less than FM/LP but more than CD. It is excellent for some things, over-obvious in other work. I had not noted any fancy attack/release (program-dependent is much older). For pop-radio work there are FAR more complicated signal smashers. Also around 1999 digital look-ahead (not just 50uS like an old BBC global limiter) made a difference.
Wow! Had NOT heard THAT term before---"digiphobe". I guess that would make the other camp then "analphobe"??😛
Don't call me Frank. Or Lee.😀. And no---I don't like digital audio generally, particularly on the music PRODUCTION side of things. But it has its uses. A 192 KHz 24-bit file of a classic album provides an excellent source to record onto my 15ips 2-track tape recorders, as I don't have access to the original masters---it's the next best thing.
Not "the" other camp, just another polarization.
Ah. Well that explains everything then. "Generation loss? What generation loss?" Have it your way then. I like my music without noise, distortion and time-base errors added to it, but everybody has their preferences.
Actually, it doesn't explain everything, some mysteries remain. Like why a hard core tape head would want to modify a vintage limiter. Puzzled.
As I posted EARLIER, it's all about lowering the NOISE.
Besides, just because something is "vintage" and sounds good, doesn't mean it can't be improved. I've modified my vintage tape machines with very good results.
Noise...yeah, that was my point. You're going to tape, right? What's the problem with its stock noise?