[HAM] Wax caps measured and then placed in four pans at theHammondfactory, was Recapping

[Don Erickson]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Harold wrote:

> So if you put in new caps you have a likelihood of needing to recalibrate
> because the original caps *were not as uniform as your replacements*.

Ah HA!  This has to be correct, because if the inductors were calibrated 
to the caps AND the caps were all the "same" value, then wholesale cap 
replacement of the "same" value caps would have to approach restoration of 
the original sound.

It has been recorded that there were four possible value ranges of caps 
(pans) at the Hammond Factory, correct?  So, if for example, an organ that 
originally had caps from the highest value pan gets recapped with caps 
correlating to the lowest value pan, could that be a factor explaining why 
that particular recap job sounds like Doggy Poo, while others result 
in sound ranging from good to great?

There's no record on the organ as to which of the four pans values the 
original caps came from, but dammit, ALL CAPS WERE HAND MATCHED _before_ 
the organ was calibrated, and so getting a matched set of caps with values 
close to the original cap values HAS to approach getting back to the 
original sound...

So assuming "hand matched" means the same four tolerances of value ranges 
that Hammond used originally, then you've got a 1 in 4 chance of getting 
the same range value of caps.  The probablility of being on the edges of 
the tolerance scale is what, one in 16, but it might account for the 
occasional horrid sounding recap job, especially if the donor organ was 
originally capped from the "high" value pan and then gets recapped from 
values corresponding to the "low" value pan, which of course WOULD be too 
harsh & shrill & out of balance because the inductors were calibrated for 
high value caps.


Something to think about...


Regards,

-Don, or I may be full of Doggie Poo