mikebse2a3 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) another useful piece of data is service life rating. I can't believe you picked black Beauties as an example. Those caps are the first thing anyone in the industry yanks out of gear since they an so prone to explode... guess what makes them explode.... moisture contamination!! those old plastic cases are so old and distorted your just making me laugh my arse off here.. Glad I can amuse you..! Please see my previous post as to why I posted them. Since you seem to have the time why not see if you can dig something up on cheapo ceramic disc caps that were left in place all over the amp in question... Please reread my post again I did post data on ceramic disc caps. Edited May 5, 2015 by mikebse2a3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Like I said we use ultra sonic cleaning where I work on freshly welded parts prior to painting, and on PCBs in our electronics business. I think everyone knows this is really an accepted process. It just seems odd to me to see it applied to 50 year old electronics that are not as well suited for getting wet and submerging. It seems more common sense to submerge a modern PC board in a cleaning solution much more so than an HH Scott chassis with pots, sockets, discreet components of age, cloth covered wiring, etc. While it is obvious that you can get away with it............it doesn't necessarily make it right, or smart to do........you could also probably wash the thing in Coke or Gatorade and rinse well enough to get away with that too. It just doesn't seem smart and I would never take my amp to anyone who did this to clean vintage equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Like I said we use ultra sonic cleaning where I work on freshly welded parts prior to painting, and on PCBs in our electronics business. I think everyone knows this is really an accepted process. It just seems odd to me to see it applied to 50 year old electronics that are not as well suited for getting wet and submerging. It seems more common sense to submerge a modern PC board in a cleaning solution much more so than an HH Scott chassis with pots, sockets, discreet components of age, cloth covered wiring, etc. While it is obvious that you can get away with it............it doesn't necessarily make it right, or smart to do........you could also probably wash the thing in Coke or Gatorade and rinse well enough to get away with that too. It just doesn't seem smart and I would never take my amp to anyone who did this to clean vintage equipment. Mark did you even bother to read their complete website or call and talk to them about the restoration options before forming your conclusion? My understanding is the ultrasonic cleaning is an optional service they offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 No I didn't. Just read this thread. My tube equipment goes to Craig, my s/s Macs go to DeWick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 No I didn't. Just read this thread. My tube equipment goes to Craig, my s/s Macs go to DeWick. That's all fine but why judge and condemn someone that you don't know and haven't bothered to get to know them...? I hope people never treat you that way my friend...!!! miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 another useful piece of data is service life rating. I can't believe you picked black Beauties as an example. Those caps are the first thing anyone in the industry yanks out of gear since they an so prone to explode... guess what makes them explode.... moisture contamination!! those old plastic cases are so old and distorted your just making me laugh my arse off here.. Glad I can amuse you..! Please see my previous post as to why I posted them. Since you seem to have the time why not see if you can dig something up on cheapo ceramic disc caps that were left in place all over the amp in question... Please reread my post again I did post data on ceramic disc caps. Yup I only opened the picture files. But again I see nothing that would lead me to think its okay to subsonic cleaning. You seem to have a bunch of time call Cornell Dubilier and Sprague ask them if they think subsonic cleaning is wise. I bet they get a chuckle out of it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) No I didn't. Just read this thread. My tube equipment goes to Craig, my s/s Macs go to DeWick. That's all fine but why judge and condemn someone that you don't know and haven't bothered to get to know them...? I hope people never treat you that way my friend...!!! miketn Who the heck judged or condemned anyone? Mark as every right to his opinion. I have not conversed with Mark about this at all. He did email me today after reading this thread to warn me not to do it to his amplifier. Edited May 5, 2015 by NOSValves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 No I didn't. Just read this thread. My tube equipment goes to Craig, my s/s Macs go to DeWick. That's all fine but why judge and condemn someone that you don't know and haven't bothered to get to know them...? I hope people never treat you that way my friend...!!! miketn Mike, I didn't condemn anyone. I just stated that my opinion is that this is not good for old equipment and I am surprised to be seeing a more modern process promoted on vintage equipment as I stated in other words. I did not condemn anyone nor mean to. I said I would not take my equipment to someone that does this to vintage equipment. I did not get personal in any way and I have no idea why you would mention me "getting to know" them. What difference would that make? I like you and an I would not let you soak my amp in a tub of dawn dish soap for an hour and then bake it in your easy bake oven. I hope people don't condemen me either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Maybe instead of naysaying yourselves through this thread, you guys could spend some time reading. http://www.icsmag.com/articles/84535-ultrasonic-cleaning-and-electronics-myth-vs-reality Edited May 5, 2015 by Crankysoldermeister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Already read that and not impressed a bit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I've been reading about this off and on all day, and I think I've decided to start saving for a really nice ultrasonic cleaner. I have a few things over here about ready for the graveyard because I can't find anyone who will work on them, and I'm looking forward to seeing if this process can save them. If it works out, the thing will pay for itself pretty quick. If you guys need any help pulling your heads out of the sand - ah never mind - I like your heads right where they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 The video also shows a computerized spectrum analyzer being used to do a live comparison of the input (orange) and output (blue) signals: It's great to see performance testing after your rebuild to verify the unit is operating within or above specifications. This is clear evidence that your ultrasonic cleaning has done zero harm to the unit as some fear might happen. The test you posted and especially the Video of the dynamic live (input vs output) test is very impressive..!!! Can you elaborate on this particular test and others your using after a rebuild? miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEA Audio Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 Yes, this is the same AEA, and the same people who designed the 520. My name is Ken Leonard and I was the lead designer. Thanks! Always nice to hear from someone who remembers the 520. And I'm always happy to answer any questions about the old AEA line. There is an interesting story about the 520 preamp and how I came to design it on our site at http://aeaaudio.com/legacy-page/. It was actually very much as you described - a crazy startup challenging the SP3. My son, Lloyd Leonard, who convinced me to recently restart AEA and who now works for the company, originally wrote and posted this thread, sharing the method of cleaning and the restoration process we currently use. Well, nice to meet you Ken, even if it is electronically. You guys made a cool splash in one of the greatest eras in HiFi. Of course, us old guys always think it was better back in the day! Looks like Lloyd did a marvelously detailed job of assembling the tutorial. It's really nicely done and the photos are quite appropos along the way. I avoid antique electronics like the plague, myself, but I know there is an adoring fan base for that old school sound. Personally, I praise the day Stewart Hegeman schooled the world on wide-band tube design with H-K. Now those, I'll listen to! I also admire Bill Johnson for having the cajones to buck the SS trend as long as he did in the era. He made it possible for guys like me to introduce tube stuff "under the glow" which he was creating with a 1000 watt torch! Anyway, good to see the old names pop up here and there. I wish you and your son great success with your new venture in resto-mods. Have fun. Thanks very much! It is nice to be back in audio after spending nearly 40 years designing computer systems. We had a lot of fun, and of course learned a lot, along the road to designing the first generation of SS gear that could give the best tube designs a real run for their money. In a way, the result was an even deeper appreciation for just how well tube gear can perform. My involvement with vintage restorations seems like some sort of karmic full circle: Going from designing SS to beat the best tube equipment to breathing new life into the old tube classics to show that they can still outperform most SS designs. We may have won the battle back then, but it looks like we lost the war… 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEA Audio Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 Yes, this is the same AEA, and the same people who designed the 520. My name is Ken Leonard and I was the lead designer. Thanks! Always nice to hear from someone who remembers the 520. And I'm always happy to answer any questions about the old AEA line. There is an interesting story about the 520 preamp and how I came to design it on our site at http://aeaaudio.com/legacy-page/. It was actually very much as you described - a crazy startup challenging the SP3. My son, Lloyd Leonard, who convinced me to recently restart AEA and who now works for the company, originally wrote and posted this thread, sharing the method of cleaning and the restoration process we currently use. Ken I've noticed you included Tone Controls (selectable if desired) in the AEA 520 pre-amp which I consider valuable features due to non-standards in the recording-playback-listening room chain. I actually run the EV DC-One DSP unit for my Jubilee system for bi-amp operation but also I have filters programed to simulate the Cello Palette Tone Control adjustment features which I find invaluable for my enjoyment of many less than ideal recordings. Just curious due to your background have you used or experienced any of the Cello equipment with tone controls and how do you feel about Tone Controls today? miketn Yes, I still feel tone controls are a useful feature, especially if they are by-passable when not needed. Having designed mixing consoles used in many recording studios, I also agree with statements made by Cello that the tonal balance of recordings is "manipulated" by the recording engineer based on both their “taste” and on their monitoring environment. Every mixing board I designed had tone controls (with at least 3 bands) on each input, and often included graphic equalizers on the output channels, and they did get used. The best engineers usually did a good job of trying to use equalization to only correct for recording defects. Some engineers went to great lengths to listed to several different monitors to be sure they were not over correcting based on one particular speaker/amp combination. But not all recording engineers are equal when it comes to their ability and time allowed to correctly compensate. Plus there are things like room acoustics, speaker performance, and personal tastes that can sometimes benefit from tone controls. So I would have to say that if done correctly, they can be quite helpful in recreating the playback tonal quality originally intended by the artist and recording engineer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 There's no point in tube gear if the source is digital files and digital streams. expand on this thought please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEA Audio Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) The video also shows a computerized spectrum analyzer being used to do a live comparison of the input (orange) and output (blue) signals: It's great to see performance testing after your rebuild to verify the unit is operating within or above specifications. This is clear evidence that your ultrasonic cleaning has done zero harm to the unit as some fear might happen. The test you posted and especially the Video of the dynamic live (input vs output) test is very impressive..!!! Can you elaborate on this particular test and others your using after a rebuild? miketn Thanks! We certainly believe in rigorous testing, as well as critical listening, to be certain things are working correctly after ultrasonic cleaning, restoration, and/or modification. Here are the performance graphs we made for this Fisher X-100B after ultrasonic cleaning and the rest of our restoration/modification process: The technique of comparing the input and output signals while an amplifier is playing actual music was something we pioneered back in the late 70’s. We used what were called mini-computers (forerunners to the PC) to digitally sample the audio signals and run complex mathematical analysis of the difference. I might add that these tests are done while the amp is playing music into speakers and not into a dummy load. This type of computerized testing was unheard of back then. Computers were very crude and couldn’t do the test in real time as you saw in the video. Back then it literally took hours of number crunching to analyze a minute of music. Now A to D conversion is pretty easy to do, and we can do analysis in real time and display it directly on the screen as the music plays. However, what is still unique about our technique are the methods we developed to mathematically take out errors caused by the amplifier’s frequency response and phase shifts, to find the underlying distortion components produced from live music. What we found was quite interesting. And also proved why traditional steady-tone THD and IM tests are next to useless for measuring how an amplifier will actually sound in the real world with music playing through it. Basically we found new types of what we refer to as “transient intermodulation distortion.” It is distortion that changes with conditions in the music signal such as combinations of signal levels, wave forms and spectral content. We also spent a lot of time figuring out what it was about each particular circuit type that caused these transient anomalies. This new insight allowed us to create IC preamps back in the 70’s that could sound as good as the best tube preamps. Something most thought impossible. Unfortunately we became so interested in what could be done with computers that we stopped developing audio gear and went full time into designing computer systems. I say "unfortunately" because I think we could have had a greater positive impact on the development of audio systems if we had stayed in that field… Oh well. But now we are back into audio again, after a long sabbatical, and we have plans to go back into developing systems utilizing computers tor help make analog audio more enjoyable. Edited May 6, 2015 by AEA Audio 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 There's no point in tube gear if the source is digital files and digital streams. expand on this thought please. I'd like your thoughts as well. Tube gear can't play digital files or streams as they are. As a matter of fact, neither can SS but I know that's not the point you were trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 The reason I'm asking is because there is a trend in DAC's and integrated DAC/Pre's to use a tube or two in the signal path and it is touted as "softening" "cleaning up" the digital stream's sound. I myself have noticed a difference in playing my digital files through a tube amp vs. solid state (it's less clinical in nature) and just want to hear how you can expand that single sentence into a fully thought out opinion. i value those, even if I don't always agree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven1963 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 There's no point in tube gear if the source is digital files and digital streams. expand on this thought please. Yes, Please! I'm just finding my way into tubes but all I have is digital files. I'm not well-versed enough in this to know if what I am hearing is only half of what I should be hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twk123 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 There's no point in tube gear if the source is digital files and digital streams. expand on this thought please. Yes, Please! I'm just finding my way into tubes but all I have is digital files. I'm not well-versed enough in this to know if what I am hearing is only half of what I should be hearing. I have a tube in the buffer stage of my DAC and it makes a huge difference in the sound, it is much more warm and closer to analog than without the tube. I think the DAC is the best stage to have the tube as it puts warmth into the signal at the line level and the SS amp just reproduces that at the speaker volume. Its fun to be able to upgrade and switch out the tubes too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.