[HAM] The recapping controversy

[Scott Hawthorn]

At 03:47 PM 6/2/2007, David Anderson wrote:

>I don't know if anyone else has noticed that discussion on the topic
>of recapping Hammond tone generators seems to be permanently stalled
>at a level that, at least to me, is a source of perpetual
>disappointment, verging on disgust. For something that seems so
>important to some people, it seems odd to me that many of the
>discussants, on all sides, have apparently not spent a great deal of
>time learning about the circuit or the components involved.

Believe me, David, the discussion has been at a much higher level at times 
in the past, particularly when one who called himself "Desert Bob," who was 
an engineer for Bell Labs, I think, was contributing posts. Part of the 
disgust you see (not your own) is based on the fact that Bob Scarborough's 
(his real name) contribution has been largely ignored these days, but not 
forgotten by some of us. IOW, the discussion sometimes goes back to square 
one and starts over. Have you looked for his posts? They have more to do 
with generator calibration and cap values than with certain types of 
capacitors. In fact, the cap type has never been the major bone of 
contention on these lists, at least until this last round. The discussion 
has been largely centered around whether "caps-in-a-bag" is a good approach 
to recapping, or not.

>For example, when we are told that certain capacitors work better
>than others but are given no hard data from which to generalize, it
>is helpful in that it tells us something, but it does not tell us
>very much.

Those of us who hear tonal nuance very well but lack an engineer's 
education find ourselves in a tough position in defending what we think we 
hear, with almost no factual basis from which to argue. And, don't forget, 
this category of, uh, "discussants" may comprise the majority of posters 
with an opinion. If you are an engineer, I can well imagine that you would 
find the discussions frustrating, this being a mailing list made up of, for 
the most part, musicians, not scientists.

>[snip] Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think the conclusions I'm reaching may
>enable us all to get along. At the very least, I hope it may raise
>the level of discussion from the hurling of insults to the level of
>scientifically objective explanations for subjective observations.  [snip]

The "hurling of insults" has to do with personality and shooting from the 
hip without careful thought, and so is not scientifically quantifiable 
:-)  (Does a smiley serve as a period? This I wanna know.) One thing you 
could try to study but could never nail down are the various subjective 
responses that different players and techs have to what they think they 
hear. It's a variable you not only can't measure, but cannot 
control.  Having said that, I will be fascinated to read your conclusions. 
Based on my own limited experience, I have a definite opinion of how 
"caps-in-a-bag" (that is, caps that have not been measured in relation to 
their specific inductors) sound, and it's not a pleasant impression. It 
interests me why that is, but I can't ever shake my personal opinion that 
it's true, data or no data.

-Scott
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits."  -Albert Einstein