Chris, hi
My belief, based of facts but not theorem or formulae is we interpret things very differently to linearly based instruments, we are not linear and incredibly insightful with our environmental analysis. Just one example is low frequencies, I was running in another 18" driver last year and I was interested to see if there was a small amount of mechanical noise, I dialled in a very low F sweep, I run down to 4-5Hz when EQ'd and getting close to the driver, at modest SPL, but still quite loud, as soon as I raised my head I could now here outside traffic noise significantly louder, details, information and arguably resolution was increased. I then made sense of some of the benefits of low frequency outside of just the low frequencies, the improved believability and acoustic surrounding and positioning is probably not only the result of picking up low frequency ambiance but triggering a little more alertness in out brain. I did find a white paper on this it is a 'thing' and probably part of our evolved defence mechanism
Any way why am I rambling ?
Because I trust and mistrust my ears, I know my brain can mislead and I can be mislead. BUT the best instrument I have and the ultimate recipient of all the hard work in audio is your ears and brain. To rely only on measurements is only utilising 50% of your data is not the best solution. I hear your suggestion that you can measure everything and more than you can here, but that might be something we have no benefit from hearing and the measurement has missed the point.
Another example, I EQ and measure my system using microphones and REW, I then have compromise choices about phase alignment, something we appear to be very sensitive to. I dial this in close and the choose by ear, often the measurements suggest I have not been as 'clever' or 'accurate' as I think, so I then adjust to remove a small misalignment and re-listen, changing the setting listening, rechanging and so on. I have a 33 Hz lift and 55 Hz dip I can remove easily, it sounds better when I have made the final tweak by ear. So what ? Well the SPL, phase, spectrogram, impulse and so on aren't the right measurements, or rather the balance of compromises is complex, what's the formulae, will that change with other variables ?
I though the modern world was interested in warm and fuzzy, not being left out in the cold and flares.....
Don't take this as a front, I've just relied more on my best instrument for the last 50 years, my first Sondek was playing in my bedroom in 1983 (not because a 16 year old boy was spoilt, but because I worked for 2 years washing up, waiting tables and filling shelves after school and saved up to buy it)
My belief, based of facts but not theorem or formulae is we interpret things very differently to linearly based instruments, we are not linear and incredibly insightful with our environmental analysis. Just one example is low frequencies, I was running in another 18" driver last year and I was interested to see if there was a small amount of mechanical noise, I dialled in a very low F sweep, I run down to 4-5Hz when EQ'd and getting close to the driver, at modest SPL, but still quite loud, as soon as I raised my head I could now here outside traffic noise significantly louder, details, information and arguably resolution was increased. I then made sense of some of the benefits of low frequency outside of just the low frequencies, the improved believability and acoustic surrounding and positioning is probably not only the result of picking up low frequency ambiance but triggering a little more alertness in out brain. I did find a white paper on this it is a 'thing' and probably part of our evolved defence mechanism
Any way why am I rambling ?
Because I trust and mistrust my ears, I know my brain can mislead and I can be mislead. BUT the best instrument I have and the ultimate recipient of all the hard work in audio is your ears and brain. To rely only on measurements is only utilising 50% of your data is not the best solution. I hear your suggestion that you can measure everything and more than you can here, but that might be something we have no benefit from hearing and the measurement has missed the point.
Another example, I EQ and measure my system using microphones and REW, I then have compromise choices about phase alignment, something we appear to be very sensitive to. I dial this in close and the choose by ear, often the measurements suggest I have not been as 'clever' or 'accurate' as I think, so I then adjust to remove a small misalignment and re-listen, changing the setting listening, rechanging and so on. I have a 33 Hz lift and 55 Hz dip I can remove easily, it sounds better when I have made the final tweak by ear. So what ? Well the SPL, phase, spectrogram, impulse and so on aren't the right measurements, or rather the balance of compromises is complex, what's the formulae, will that change with other variables ?
I though the modern world was interested in warm and fuzzy, not being left out in the cold and flares.....
Don't take this as a front, I've just relied more on my best instrument for the last 50 years, my first Sondek was playing in my bedroom in 1983 (not because a 16 year old boy was spoilt, but because I worked for 2 years washing up, waiting tables and filling shelves after school and saved up to buy it)
No offence, but this reminds me of the late '60's, when solid state Hifi started to poke their (ugly) heads.
The pitch then was: "... now that we've got everything under control, just go ahead and buy amp you please (mine preferably), as long as they do 20-20KHz +/-3dB and 0.1% THD @1KHz, they all sound the same". Even guys I personally respect, e.g. P.J. Walker, P. Baxandall et al, fell for that.
Then the subjectivists, the like of The Absolute Sound & Stereophile, came up and said: "we hear the difference!"
Then the science guys said: "we can explain": M. Ottala with the TIM, PIM, etc., and C. Bateman with his work on caps, and so on.
We're getting closer every round.
But I don't think it ever ends.
especially with audiophil hifi tube drived devices these days we are experiencing! Total old new bad idea
Hi Zung,
It is with all the care in the world that I say to you ... yes. At this juncture and for quite a while we have been able to both measure and determine how things will sound to listeners. Today, all signal processing (reproduction of music included) is a science that is well known. There is absolutely zero that you can hear that we can't measure -30 dB or more below without any difficulty. None at all. I have this instrumentation sitting here on my bench in front of me and have used it for yuears. Before that I used a spectrum analyzer hung on the monitor output of my THD analysers.
This is an unpopular concept simply because there is a cost to enter this club. The equipment is not cheap! So, there is a strong desire (or need) for some people to hang onto the concept that they can hear things we cannot measure. Mostly true in the 70's, less true in the 80's and today completely false. Very good solid state is the more accurate, lowest distortion reproduction equipment you can get -period.
I design with tubes and solid state, and have tube equipment I enjoy listening to. But my system of choice is a nice solid state system. The tube stuff is fun, but has a definate "voice" (read distortion). Now if you want to argue that some like or prefer the sound of tube equpment, okay. That's cool. But, do not make the argument you are trying to, because you are dead wrong there. I enjoy both, but low distortion (without other problems) is prefereable to me and most of the population. By the way, tube enthusiasts really like my solid state system. Some have purchased the same equipment and I've gone over them.
-Chris
It is with all the care in the world that I say to you ... yes. At this juncture and for quite a while we have been able to both measure and determine how things will sound to listeners. Today, all signal processing (reproduction of music included) is a science that is well known. There is absolutely zero that you can hear that we can't measure -30 dB or more below without any difficulty. None at all. I have this instrumentation sitting here on my bench in front of me and have used it for yuears. Before that I used a spectrum analyzer hung on the monitor output of my THD analysers.
This is an unpopular concept simply because there is a cost to enter this club. The equipment is not cheap! So, there is a strong desire (or need) for some people to hang onto the concept that they can hear things we cannot measure. Mostly true in the 70's, less true in the 80's and today completely false. Very good solid state is the more accurate, lowest distortion reproduction equipment you can get -period.
I design with tubes and solid state, and have tube equipment I enjoy listening to. But my system of choice is a nice solid state system. The tube stuff is fun, but has a definate "voice" (read distortion). Now if you want to argue that some like or prefer the sound of tube equpment, okay. That's cool. But, do not make the argument you are trying to, because you are dead wrong there. I enjoy both, but low distortion (without other problems) is prefereable to me and most of the population. By the way, tube enthusiasts really like my solid state system. Some have purchased the same equipment and I've gone over them.
-Chris
Curious phraseology. Does this mean you had to "fix" their new equipment and then they liked it or... ?
Hi von Ah,
Well, there is equivalent equipment and my choices are not exclusive or the absolute best. My system has been stable for years, and I have the advantage of being able to improve original circuitry and hand match parts where it matters. So my equipment is not stock and has improved performance both measured and opinion from others. Originally I didn't like the amplifier and thought the tweeters were the issue. Nope. Once I "went over", or improved the performance of the amplifier everything changed. Small change in the measured performance, but in a critical area. So, I will list what I have but the stock versions will not perform to the level it can.
Marantz 300DC amplifier, Marantz SC-9 preamp (currently a Yamaha C-70, the SC-9 has switch issues), Denon DCD-S10 CD player, Thorens TD-126 MKII + Ortofon 540 MKII turntable, Revox B-261 tuner, BluSound Node 2i Audio Streamer - wired network connection, PSB Stratus Gold (original) speakers and a Nakamichi CR-5 cassette deck. Had a Tascam BR-20, tape is ghasty expensive!!! Looking at maybe Klipsch RF-7 III speakers, these are in fact flat response and I have other Klipsch reference series speakers in other systems. 99 db/watt - fun! I do listen to music quite loud at times and really enjoy the system, other times down to normal listening levels. I do push things. Music ranges from classical, jazz and rock / pop throught the 60's to at least 80's. Other types of music also.
So as I said, there are other great pieces out there. I have had Carver TFM-75 and Lightstar (original), plus other equipment that was very good. The Marantz equipment I have has been with me for decades, since the early 80's. I have audioned just about everything at home since I have the advantage of servicing high end gear - plus after I have improved performance. Speak selection will depend on personal taste and your space. I have a good sized listening area, but the PSBs are about 86 dB/watt. More power will bottom the woofers and burn them out, so I need another solution.
My bedroom (Luxman M-02 / C-02) and bench (Marantz 170DC / Yamaha C-50) systems are similar (both use Klipsch reference ssystems), the surround system also uses the PSB Stratus gold system speakers, Denon surround receiver. But sound quality isn't nearly as important for watching TV as your attention is on the screen. It does sound reasonably good though.
What is right for me doesn't mean it is right for you or anyone else. There are cosmetics to consider, and the visual with the speakers. Luckily my late wife valued sound quality over having unseen speakers. She wasn't that way went we met! lol!
-Chris
Well, there is equivalent equipment and my choices are not exclusive or the absolute best. My system has been stable for years, and I have the advantage of being able to improve original circuitry and hand match parts where it matters. So my equipment is not stock and has improved performance both measured and opinion from others. Originally I didn't like the amplifier and thought the tweeters were the issue. Nope. Once I "went over", or improved the performance of the amplifier everything changed. Small change in the measured performance, but in a critical area. So, I will list what I have but the stock versions will not perform to the level it can.
Marantz 300DC amplifier, Marantz SC-9 preamp (currently a Yamaha C-70, the SC-9 has switch issues), Denon DCD-S10 CD player, Thorens TD-126 MKII + Ortofon 540 MKII turntable, Revox B-261 tuner, BluSound Node 2i Audio Streamer - wired network connection, PSB Stratus Gold (original) speakers and a Nakamichi CR-5 cassette deck. Had a Tascam BR-20, tape is ghasty expensive!!! Looking at maybe Klipsch RF-7 III speakers, these are in fact flat response and I have other Klipsch reference series speakers in other systems. 99 db/watt - fun! I do listen to music quite loud at times and really enjoy the system, other times down to normal listening levels. I do push things. Music ranges from classical, jazz and rock / pop throught the 60's to at least 80's. Other types of music also.
So as I said, there are other great pieces out there. I have had Carver TFM-75 and Lightstar (original), plus other equipment that was very good. The Marantz equipment I have has been with me for decades, since the early 80's. I have audioned just about everything at home since I have the advantage of servicing high end gear - plus after I have improved performance. Speak selection will depend on personal taste and your space. I have a good sized listening area, but the PSBs are about 86 dB/watt. More power will bottom the woofers and burn them out, so I need another solution.
My bedroom (Luxman M-02 / C-02) and bench (Marantz 170DC / Yamaha C-50) systems are similar (both use Klipsch reference ssystems), the surround system also uses the PSB Stratus gold system speakers, Denon surround receiver. But sound quality isn't nearly as important for watching TV as your attention is on the screen. It does sound reasonably good though.
What is right for me doesn't mean it is right for you or anyone else. There are cosmetics to consider, and the visual with the speakers. Luckily my late wife valued sound quality over having unseen speakers. She wasn't that way went we met! lol!
-Chris
Hi mhenschel,
What I do is measure the "as found" performance and have a good look at the construction of a piece before doing anything. I try to determine what problems (if any) exist first.
Once I form a plan, I will make certain changes in circuits to reduce distortion. Other approaches is to change component types to more linear types, lower noise in certain locations. Some parts are hand matched, diff pairs to below 1% (not trivial) and occasionally I have to adjust trace layout if that was messed up. This I see most often in boutique amplifiers. I do not use "audiophile approved" parts. I do have test equipment used to characterize individual parts and select the parts most suited to the circuit location.
Once done I measure the completed performance.
So what I do is not a repair, although I can and do that limited service often. For those who purchased the same or similar equipment i repair and optimize it. I do not touch brand new equipment as I do not want to spoil the warranty, and service infomation is not typically available. I need that to do a responsible job. Everything I do is done with care and never results in reduced reliability (like I see so often from "modification experts").
At this moment I am rebuilding a McIntosh MC240 that an idiot "improved". I have been forced to strip the tag board completely down and will have to rewire it. This is extensive work caused by someone who clearly did not understand how circuitry functions. the person even left the defective parts in! No, it did not operate properly at all!
-Chris
What I do is measure the "as found" performance and have a good look at the construction of a piece before doing anything. I try to determine what problems (if any) exist first.
Once I form a plan, I will make certain changes in circuits to reduce distortion. Other approaches is to change component types to more linear types, lower noise in certain locations. Some parts are hand matched, diff pairs to below 1% (not trivial) and occasionally I have to adjust trace layout if that was messed up. This I see most often in boutique amplifiers. I do not use "audiophile approved" parts. I do have test equipment used to characterize individual parts and select the parts most suited to the circuit location.
Once done I measure the completed performance.
So what I do is not a repair, although I can and do that limited service often. For those who purchased the same or similar equipment i repair and optimize it. I do not touch brand new equipment as I do not want to spoil the warranty, and service infomation is not typically available. I need that to do a responsible job. Everything I do is done with care and never results in reduced reliability (like I see so often from "modification experts").
At this moment I am rebuilding a McIntosh MC240 that an idiot "improved". I have been forced to strip the tag board completely down and will have to rewire it. This is extensive work caused by someone who clearly did not understand how circuitry functions. the person even left the defective parts in! No, it did not operate properly at all!
-Chris
Ahhh... got it.
A long while back TVO (I think) had a documentary on violins and why some sounded so good. They talked about wood and varnish (the usual suspects) but they had one guy who claimed to be able to make pretty much any ordinary violin sound extraordinary by adjusting the sound post inside. Tap, tap, tap and you had a Guarneri. Tap, tap... a Strad. Well not quite!
Were your tweaks more in the nature of proper set-up -- like a turntable -- or more substantial changes... super regulators, grounding changes, etc?
Your "meanwhile" post seems to have answered that! Thanks.
- Mark
A long while back TVO (I think) had a documentary on violins and why some sounded so good. They talked about wood and varnish (the usual suspects) but they had one guy who claimed to be able to make pretty much any ordinary violin sound extraordinary by adjusting the sound post inside. Tap, tap, tap and you had a Guarneri. Tap, tap... a Strad. Well not quite!
Were your tweaks more in the nature of proper set-up -- like a turntable -- or more substantial changes... super regulators, grounding changes, etc?
Your "meanwhile" post seems to have answered that! Thanks.
- Mark
Hi von Ah,
Simple. Reducing distortion and noise floor. The details are not discussed, others who do similar work do essentially the same things I do. Sometimes to a lessor degree, sometimes just as good. Anything and everything I do follows the rules of physics and good electronics design, so anyone with similar understanding can do what I do. I also have an in-depth knowledge of component and component types. Much also comes from the world ot test and measurement.
-Chris
Simple. Reducing distortion and noise floor. The details are not discussed, others who do similar work do essentially the same things I do. Sometimes to a lessor degree, sometimes just as good. Anything and everything I do follows the rules of physics and good electronics design, so anyone with similar understanding can do what I do. I also have an in-depth knowledge of component and component types. Much also comes from the world ot test and measurement.
-Chris
Hi mhenschel,
Well, creation of music is a different thing again. I have done work in recording studios and the goals are totally differnt. My favorite guitar amp is a Fender Twin Reverb. Same for effects units. However tape machines strive for accuracy. Once the mix has been committed, everything from then on is to recreate that experience, same for live recording of music. I find some audio people confuse these two issues, then you end up with all kinds of nonsense being posted and repeated. In fact, after the early 80's the audio industry mostly depends on mis-information. The high end industry especially.
Basic setup is required, if the basics aren't right you may as well give up. Same for circuit operation in any piece of equipment. You know, I never wanted to be a turntable tech. I have serviced the electronic since the early 80s in turntables. However lately I have had to rebuild tables like the Thorens TD-125 MKII since so many are hacked. I have one of these myself, so I have learned kicking and screaming all the way! There are better turntable techs out there I am sure, but the average guy doesn't seem to be too good. Not from what I have seen.
Grounding must be carefully done, it takes great care and hopefully the original designers got it right. The basics are simple. Grounding your equipment is very easy to follow. If your gear isn't grounded normally - don't. Avoid cable ground like the plague!!! Use isolators religiously for cable connections. Do not install a "tech ground". Just don't.
"Super regulators" are not a magic bullet and may not improve anything depending on circuit design and the performance of the original regulator. What I do is enhance the existing regulator design, but intelligently. There is zero point in a regulator that performs so far past everything else, that is wasted money. Also if you start cutting traces or adding stuff, you often create a reliability issue. Increasing capacitance is another no-no. Sometimes you are way further ahead reducing it in fact. Normal rectifiers are the best by the way. They are highly engineered for the job they do. They are inexpensive because they are produced in very high volumes. A 1N400x is not a cheap part unless you buy off-brand junk. Fast recovery and all kinds of variations are not designed for mains rectification. They can cause problems in fact.
Hopefully that answers some questions. This is engineering, and engineering involves compromise to achieve the best result. There is no "best component", there are parts that best suit the application however.
-Chris
Well, creation of music is a different thing again. I have done work in recording studios and the goals are totally differnt. My favorite guitar amp is a Fender Twin Reverb. Same for effects units. However tape machines strive for accuracy. Once the mix has been committed, everything from then on is to recreate that experience, same for live recording of music. I find some audio people confuse these two issues, then you end up with all kinds of nonsense being posted and repeated. In fact, after the early 80's the audio industry mostly depends on mis-information. The high end industry especially.
Basic setup is required, if the basics aren't right you may as well give up. Same for circuit operation in any piece of equipment. You know, I never wanted to be a turntable tech. I have serviced the electronic since the early 80s in turntables. However lately I have had to rebuild tables like the Thorens TD-125 MKII since so many are hacked. I have one of these myself, so I have learned kicking and screaming all the way! There are better turntable techs out there I am sure, but the average guy doesn't seem to be too good. Not from what I have seen.
Grounding must be carefully done, it takes great care and hopefully the original designers got it right. The basics are simple. Grounding your equipment is very easy to follow. If your gear isn't grounded normally - don't. Avoid cable ground like the plague!!! Use isolators religiously for cable connections. Do not install a "tech ground". Just don't.
"Super regulators" are not a magic bullet and may not improve anything depending on circuit design and the performance of the original regulator. What I do is enhance the existing regulator design, but intelligently. There is zero point in a regulator that performs so far past everything else, that is wasted money. Also if you start cutting traces or adding stuff, you often create a reliability issue. Increasing capacitance is another no-no. Sometimes you are way further ahead reducing it in fact. Normal rectifiers are the best by the way. They are highly engineered for the job they do. They are inexpensive because they are produced in very high volumes. A 1N400x is not a cheap part unless you buy off-brand junk. Fast recovery and all kinds of variations are not designed for mains rectification. They can cause problems in fact.
Hopefully that answers some questions. This is engineering, and engineering involves compromise to achieve the best result. There is no "best component", there are parts that best suit the application however.
-Chris
@anatech
Going somewhat off topic, but I had a question on your previous post: you stated "A 1N400x is not a cheap part unless you buy off-brand junk." which implies that there are (possibly) significant performance differences, or issues, with off-brand parts vs mainstream ones. On thinking about it, it makes sense - but even though I should know better I still somewhat think of 1N400x parts as "jellybean" parts and throw them all in the same mental category regardless of the source. That this has not bitten me on the a$$ yet is probably due to the fact that, for what I do, the cost of the BOM isn't really factor so I always buy from the known manufacturers. My initial guess as to any issues would be related to reliability and the meeting of specifications but what other problems have you run in to?
Thanks,
Hal
Going somewhat off topic, but I had a question on your previous post: you stated "A 1N400x is not a cheap part unless you buy off-brand junk." which implies that there are (possibly) significant performance differences, or issues, with off-brand parts vs mainstream ones. On thinking about it, it makes sense - but even though I should know better I still somewhat think of 1N400x parts as "jellybean" parts and throw them all in the same mental category regardless of the source. That this has not bitten me on the a$$ yet is probably due to the fact that, for what I do, the cost of the BOM isn't really factor so I always buy from the known manufacturers. My initial guess as to any issues would be related to reliability and the meeting of specifications but what other problems have you run in to?
Thanks,
Hal
Hi Hal,
I have seen parts literally fall apart while preparing them for installation. The lead may pop off or the case crack. I have seen incomplete molding. This is with all off-brand parts, not just diodes or 1N400x parts. I have seen failures within the accepted specifications as well. Internal contact problems also. This shouldn't be any surprise to anyone.
The thing is, the 1N400x and 1N54xx parts are industry standards. Industry cannot tolerate failures or inefficiency at all. Most people fail to understand this. These parts have been heavily engineered to perform the best they can in that type of circuit. They literally ship train boxcars worth of these, the volumes are staggering. Therefore, you get economies of scale with the pricing. However, they are not by any means second rate parts at all! Everything about them is designed, including turn-on and off times. You are getting a highly engineered component where the materials used are first rate (assuming a good brand). Other parts have specific applications where the numbers used are a tiny fraction of the standard rectifiers. Guess what? They end up being much more expensive because of this. It's all silicon with doping from various materials. If a fast recovery was better for mains rectification, don't you think industry would jump on it? Power supply vendors certainly would.
-Chris
I have seen parts literally fall apart while preparing them for installation. The lead may pop off or the case crack. I have seen incomplete molding. This is with all off-brand parts, not just diodes or 1N400x parts. I have seen failures within the accepted specifications as well. Internal contact problems also. This shouldn't be any surprise to anyone.
The thing is, the 1N400x and 1N54xx parts are industry standards. Industry cannot tolerate failures or inefficiency at all. Most people fail to understand this. These parts have been heavily engineered to perform the best they can in that type of circuit. They literally ship train boxcars worth of these, the volumes are staggering. Therefore, you get economies of scale with the pricing. However, they are not by any means second rate parts at all! Everything about them is designed, including turn-on and off times. You are getting a highly engineered component where the materials used are first rate (assuming a good brand). Other parts have specific applications where the numbers used are a tiny fraction of the standard rectifiers. Guess what? They end up being much more expensive because of this. It's all silicon with doping from various materials. If a fast recovery was better for mains rectification, don't you think industry would jump on it? Power supply vendors certainly would.
-Chris
Hi Tony,
I respect recycling, but frankly my time is worth a huge amount more than what it costs to pull components from used PCBs. As long as they were the quality you'd expect from the large semiconductor companies, they should be good if pulled responsibly. It just is not worth it for standard rectifier diiode.
I warranty my work, and it has my name on it. I refuse to cut corners in any way.
-Chris
I respect recycling, but frankly my time is worth a huge amount more than what it costs to pull components from used PCBs. As long as they were the quality you'd expect from the large semiconductor companies, they should be good if pulled responsibly. It just is not worth it for standard rectifier diiode.
I warranty my work, and it has my name on it. I refuse to cut corners in any way.
-Chris
I have an opportunity to pick up a Yamaha C-70 preamp pretty cheap. Did you do any modifications on yours to imprive sound quality or is it stock?
I am considering looking at it for upgrades. It's in use now so I'll wait until I have something else in there first.
They are pretty decent preamps, by that I mean above average. I would certainly grab it. Switches and control cleaning would be the big thing. Don't go recapping the poor thing right off the bat.
People often sell some of the main stream manufacturers short on quality. Guess what? The joke is on them!
-Chris
They are pretty decent preamps, by that I mean above average. I would certainly grab it. Switches and control cleaning would be the big thing. Don't go recapping the poor thing right off the bat.
People often sell some of the main stream manufacturers short on quality. Guess what? The joke is on them!
-Chris
Gnerally speaking, only the capacitors in the power supply in good equipment are under stress. Those should be looked at and it depends on how warm it was running. One thing I do is make sure the replacement capacitors have the same lead spacing, which often means going up in voltage rating (a good thing anyway). That way the parts do fit properly. Some times an 85° part will perform better than a 105 ° part. I test them looking for dissipation rating, ESR isn't that important as they are similar with good parts. Do not increase the capacitance however.
We have some improved component types, but they have other characteristics that may impact the circuit. As I said, there are no "best" capacitors, just ones that suit a application better than some others.
To improve performance I may use specific metal film resistors in certain spots, and match those where it matters. The same holds true for capacitor types. I do modify power supplies for lower noise and higher stability. That sometimes involves changing parts values and using parts the consumer industry never sees. Things like changing RCA jacks (stupid! Those plasitic RCA jacks are actually highly engineered and give great performance if you don't abuse them), using silver or whatever wire absolutely will not improve anything. Nor will silver solder (it's hotter and may daamge foil). So there isn't much you can do to really improve performance that doesn't involve some engineering. It may even involve adding shielding in certain locations. But all that is way beyond most experienced audio technicians. Note I said most, there are some pretty sharp technicians out there.
Basically, what you can read on the internet is likely not going to help in any way. Following that advice may cause harm.
One note on cleaning controls. Use as little cleaner as possible! It attacks lubricants in the shaft and resistive element. What actually gets noisy is the metal slip ring, not the resisstive element. The slip ring is located close the the shaft in the centre of the control A non-residue cleaner is the very best thing to use. Same for switches unless you have a specific problem that requires a non-standard approach. I was actually trained on cleaning controls and switches early on. Never, never, never "pump" any control full of any type of cleaning fluid. Even types that have lubricants in them (they get gummy by the way).
I get my cleaning products through areospace or industrial distributors. They cannot afford to have gimmick products, they must work as stated on the can. A switch or control in a stereo has the same considerations as one for an aircraft, just more lightly built. I hope you find this helpful.
-Chris
We have some improved component types, but they have other characteristics that may impact the circuit. As I said, there are no "best" capacitors, just ones that suit a application better than some others.
To improve performance I may use specific metal film resistors in certain spots, and match those where it matters. The same holds true for capacitor types. I do modify power supplies for lower noise and higher stability. That sometimes involves changing parts values and using parts the consumer industry never sees. Things like changing RCA jacks (stupid! Those plasitic RCA jacks are actually highly engineered and give great performance if you don't abuse them), using silver or whatever wire absolutely will not improve anything. Nor will silver solder (it's hotter and may daamge foil). So there isn't much you can do to really improve performance that doesn't involve some engineering. It may even involve adding shielding in certain locations. But all that is way beyond most experienced audio technicians. Note I said most, there are some pretty sharp technicians out there.
Basically, what you can read on the internet is likely not going to help in any way. Following that advice may cause harm.
One note on cleaning controls. Use as little cleaner as possible! It attacks lubricants in the shaft and resistive element. What actually gets noisy is the metal slip ring, not the resisstive element. The slip ring is located close the the shaft in the centre of the control A non-residue cleaner is the very best thing to use. Same for switches unless you have a specific problem that requires a non-standard approach. I was actually trained on cleaning controls and switches early on. Never, never, never "pump" any control full of any type of cleaning fluid. Even types that have lubricants in them (they get gummy by the way).
I get my cleaning products through areospace or industrial distributors. They cannot afford to have gimmick products, they must work as stated on the can. A switch or control in a stereo has the same considerations as one for an aircraft, just more lightly built. I hope you find this helpful.
-Chris