Lingo 1 recap result

Hardware and software, modifications and DIY

Moderator: Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
Linntek
Active member
Active member
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-15 11:42
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Contact:

Lingo 1 recap result

Post by Linntek » 2019-09-07 23:32

Lingo fun facts

Late last year i recap'ed my 30 year old lingo 1
I never turn it off.
I was pretty sure that after all these years the capacitors were close to fail.
The result actually surprised me a bit. None of them were bad.
Note that C6 where replaced about 5 years ago - it failed...
I know capacity is only one parameter - but anyway.
I will share my results - just for info.

Part > Desc > Farnell # > Old value > New value

C3 > 33uF/350V > 6997575 > 38,96uF > 35,00uF
C20 > 33uF/350V > 6997575 > 39,39uF > 35,77uF
C21 > 33uF/350V > 6997575 > 39,15uF > 34,85uF

C12 > 1uF/350V > 8813167 > 1,07uF > 0,95uF
C13 > 1uF/350V > 8813167 > 1,06uF > 0,95uF

C17 > 100uF/63V > 2079295 > 95,76uF > 96,46uF
C22 > 100uF/63V > 2079295 > 96,10uF > 97,28uF

C9 > 22uF/50V > 1973510 > 23,52uF > 22,34uF
C10 > 22uF/50V > 1973510 > 23,88uF > 22,34uF
C15 > 22uF/50V > 1973510 > 23,74uF > 22,20uF
C18 > 22uF/50V > 1973510 > 24,14uF > 22,04uF
C19 > 22uF/50V > 1973510 > 24,02uF > 22,06uF

C2 > 2200uF/25V > 1848443 > 2298uF > 2306uF
C4 > 2200uF/25V > 1848443 > 2198uF > 2318uF

C5 > 220uF/16V > 1848429 > 236,4uF > 219,6uF
C6 > 220uF/16V > 1848429 > NA > 225,4uF
C7 > 220uF/16V > 1848429 > 235,0uF > 227,0uF

Meassured out of circuit with a Peak Atlas LCR40

User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4417
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by lejonklou » 2019-09-08 00:57

Those little Peak Atlases can be useful instruments! Cheap and effective.

But please note that the LCR40 doesn't say all that much. Neither about the ESR nor the leakage current. Those caps can be in quite bad shape even if they seem to measure OK with the LCR40.

Recapping a Lingo is really tricky if you want it to perform better. Ten years ago I spent quite some time fixing one (a Lingo 1 on which I tested by ear which model of capacitor sounded best on each part of the circuit) and after the recap it performed better than a Lingo 3! Hey, I thought I'd nailed the perfect recipe! Then I did the same procedure with another one, which turned out a big disappointment. So the recipe wasn't that great after all.

Lingo 4 has not impressed me very much, by the way.

pdcman
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 2009-11-01 11:19
Location: Wales

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by pdcman » 2019-10-12 19:18

In which way didn't the L4 impress Fredrick? Was the unit 'run in' by the way?

User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4417
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by lejonklou » 2019-10-13 11:50

I've heard the Lingo 4 a bunch of times, but only once a proper comparison with a Lingo 3.

Lingo 4 sounded clear, sharp, detailed and seemed to focus on delivering every individual sound accurately and in order.

Lingo 3 sounded dull in comparison. Far less detail and less perceived accuracy. What instead became apparent was that the musicians played together, creating a song. That song carried an emotion and a meaning. It boogied!

Faulty Lingo 4? I don't know. Not "run in" enough? I have never heard "run in-differences" of that magnitude. Usually one can sense right away when a change carries promise.

There's a widespread misconception in the world of HiFi that when reproducing an orchestra, the listener should be able to count every violin. That is plain wrong. A good reproduction will let you hear the number of voices that the violins play. Every violin playing the same notes will be perceived as one voice. And the message of those voices - the musical story they collaborate in telling - will move you.

More perceived detail is a trap.

beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1269
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by beck » 2019-10-13 14:02

lejonklou wrote:
2019-10-13 11:50

There's a widespread misconception in the world of HiFi that when reproducing an orchestra, the listener should be able to count every violin. That is plain wrong. A good reproduction will let you hear the number of voices that the violins play. Every violin playing the same notes will be perceived as one voice. And the message of those voices - the musical story they collaborate in telling - will move you.

More perceived detail is a trap.
Amen!

In a misled profit hunting hifi world where real progress is almost absent your words Fredrik tell me that there is still hope.
............in our thoughts.............

User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4417
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by lejonklou » 2019-10-13 19:19

Thank you beck!
lejonklou wrote:
2019-10-13 11:50
Faulty Lingo 4? I don't know.
I should add: I hope so!

Because the alternative is Radikal and although fantastic, it's just too expensive for some entusiasts. Old Lingo's are sometimes good, sometimes tired, so it's a gamble. Recapping them is a gamble too.

I have heard one Valhalla copy and it was OK, but not great. Without having done a proper comparison, I had the feeling that it wasn't as good as an original. It's really strange that just changing one seemingly unimportant component on a Valhalla can alter its musical performance quite drastically. Did that in the late 80's when I had a look at one and thought "these are not the best components available, I'm sure I can improve it". Turned out each and all of those "improvements" made it worse.

Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 733
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by Spannko » 2019-10-13 19:55

IMHO, not only is there nothing wrong with being able to hear more detail; it’s something I quite enjoy. However, as we know, musicality is way more important than any other HiFi evaluation criteria, and of course they may, or may not be related to one another. So, more or less detail doesn’t necessarily make something more or less musical. Something can reproduce more detail and be more musical, reproduce less detail and be more musical, reproduce more detail and and be less musical or (you guessed it) reproduce less detail and be less musical. From a musical perspective, the common denominator is musicality, not detail.

I do accept that detail can be very seductive though, and a big step up in detail can easily obscure a slight step down in musicality. Also, enhanced detail isn’t the only “trap” set for the unsuspecting audiophile. Let’s not forget clarity, imagery, slam, tonality and the rest. Personally, I love all that stuff, but never at the expense of musicality. The difficult thing is avoiding being temporarily blinded by the ‘improvements’.

User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4417
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Lingo 1 recap result

Post by lejonklou » 2019-10-15 11:04

Good points, Spannko!

However, I believe that "more detail" is worthy of a more critical evaluation. Why? Because it's not just a positive quality of the reproduction, it's also an illusion created by errors in the reproduction. That's why I wrote "perceived detail".

For instance, if one adds a time delay to parts of the frequency spectrum, we perceive the music less as a whole and more as independent sounds. When judging this musically, we feel there's confusion and that's negative. But if we focus our listening towards detail, we can easily fall into the trap that there's more of it and that it's positive.

Same thing with many types of distortion; less of it makes the music more natural and easier to understand. More of it can in many cases appear impressive, as in more powerful or more detailed. Hence my example with the violins in an orchestra. Being able to hear them as many individual instruments is often related to a confused and unmusical reproduction.

Maybe you hinted at the same thing, but I just wanted to clarify that not only can more detail obscure a decrease in musicality, but a decrease in musicality can actually cause more perceived detail.

Post Reply