Reprise NOS Old Dale RN65D vs NEW Dale RN65D

[erwin_ve]

Recently I got some Old Dales RN65D from Charlie Wilson, these resistors are almost unobtanium, so a big thanks to CW for parting with these!
I replaced the 4 plate resistors on V1 and 2 and the 2 resistors on the PI on my 2nd gen hybrid. The amp was built 2 years ago and my best sounding. A bit scary to go in a good sounding amp again.
Curiosity rules

My personal thoughts after putting the old ones in; Less spikey, smoother and they have an open, airy feel while playing. The last thing was the most surprising to me.

Before the change I made a recording using a looper pedal feeding the amp.
And after the change I used the same looper pedal feeding the amp and recorded it.
To maintain the same micing position a external EVM12L Thiele cab was used.

Time for a poll, do you hear any difference or non? Suggestion; use good headphones or speakers.

Sample 1


Sample 2


Please keep this topic nice, airy and respect other opinions!
After some time I will reveal which one was new and old.

Erwin

[10thTx]

I could not tell any difference with the overdrive tone. I listened to each one thru. Then carefully A/B-d different sections of both tracks with one another. I think the speakers I used to listen are reasonably good.

I thought sample #2 on the clear sounded somewhat smoother and more open/airy.

To clarify things, please …………………. are you saying the looper was played thru the amp before and after.

OR

That you played thru the amp with the original set of resistors and then played the looper thru the amp with the new set of resistors.

Just trying to understand.

With respect, 10thtx

[erwin_ve]

Jeff,

Thanks for taking time to listen!
The looper was played thru the amp before and after. So guitar taken by the looper and later recorded in the before and after setting.

btw if anyone is interested in higher quality wav file, I can put them up externally.

Erwin

[pompeiisneaks]

I always qualify this with a caveat, I'm partially hearing impaired from too much time in the military and loud bands

I can't seem to tell a clear difference. They both sounded outstanding. i could sense 'a difference' in the tone between the two, but neither sounded better to me at all. neither sounded bad, both sounded great.

My 2c

~Phil

[norburybrook]

Erwin,

This is what i should have done on my test so thanks for doing it 'properly' this time.

I'm on the road at the moment but will use my IEM's tomorrow from the gig to listen properly


M

[10thTx]

I should have mentioned that your guitar playing was great! And I enjoyed it.

10thtx

[dimitris]

To my ears sample number 2 sounds slightly smoother.
Both samples definitely sound great!

[jam-mill]

Erwin - nice playing. Thank-You for taking the time to generate the samples.
I sincerely struggle to hear any tonal difference between the two.

[akuster777]

Thanks for your work on this!

Are the NOS Dale RN65Ds indeed metal film? I read a post on this forum speculating that some may have been carbon film.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[markusw]

Thanks a lot Erwin for your efforts!
I also A/B-ed various sections of the two files using a pair of reasonably good AKG headphones and to be honest I can't hear a difference....but maybe my ears are not that great anymore.
It would be great if you could upload the wav files externally.
I would love to give the uncompressed files a try.
Thanks again!
I agree, great playing !!
Best regards,
Markus

[martin manning]

My personal thoughts after putting the old ones in; Less spikey, smoother and they have an open, airy feel while playing. The last thing was the most surprising to me.

While you are not revealing which is which, here you are contaminating the results by planting the suggestion that there is a difference between the samples, and even describing what it is that participants should be listening for.

[norburybrook]

My personal thoughts after putting the old ones in; Less spikey, smoother and they have an open, airy feel while playing. The last thing was the most surprising to me.

While you are not revealing which is which, here you are contaminating the results by planting the suggestion that there is a difference between the samples, and even describing what it is that participants should be listening for.

Martin I had the same thought this morning when re visiting this thread

I thought that a good way would be to make?edit together one continuous file but flip it at various points between A and B and then ask people to tell where the sound changed if they could and flip back and forwards between the before and after versions through out.

I think even with Erwins 'suggested' differences that would be easier to hear differences or not.




M

[martin manning]

Yes, flipping back ad forth is the best way to detect a difference IMO. You can sort of do that by switching between the two files and clicking on the same section (time reference) to hear the same phrase from each sample back-to-back. Perhaps the best way would be to present the samples with the phrases interlaced A-B, A-B, etc.

[10thTx]

While you are not revealing which is which, here you are contaminating the results by planting the suggestion that there is a difference between the samples, and even describing what it is that participants should be listening for.

That presumes the TAG guys following this thread are susceptible to the "power of suggestion"? My respectful opinion is that there are enough opinionated varying positions held by enough different members (with strong personalities) here that I'm not thinking that the "power of suggestion" is all that much of a concern.

This is enough of a "soft science" of people's opinion & hearing that a controlled "empirical" environment for a "test" may not be warranted or even truly feasible, IMO.

With respect, 10thtx

[erwin_ve]

My personal thoughts after putting the old ones in; Less spikey, smoother and they have an open, airy feel while playing. The last thing was the most surprising to me.

While you are not revealing which is which, here you are contaminating the results by planting the suggestion that there is a difference between the samples, and even describing what it is that participants should be listening for.

Yes not very scientific.
On the other hand: The question is not which is the old or new, merely if you hear a difference and which one you like best.
My description is very subjective and in my experience interpretation vary by person how it is perceived.
There is certainly a difference: one was using the old Dales and one was using the new Dales. I can give more clues but for the love of this thread I wont.
Have fun!