Answering a “recurring” question

Normally it would not make much sense to reply to anonymous messages with fake email accounts, but this question comes up from time to time and therefore it is worth clarifying a few points, so that anyone who may have the same doubt in the future can find a complete answer. The message received says:

Do you think you are some kind of big shot by ruining vintage electronics and making them lose their collectible value?

First of all, the devices shown on this website are not mine, they belong to customers. They are the ones who decide whether to invest in one type of work or another, evaluating costs, goals and the condition of the device. My role is to carry out the requested repairs in the most competent and transparent way possible, not to act as the moral referee of the entire vintage audio sector. If a customer wishes to preserve originality, I explain it and we proceed accordingly. If it is not possible, alternative solutions are adopted. And if I did not perform certain interventions, they would simply go elsewhere.

Collecting, spare parts and technical reality

The reference probably concerns some Luxman units whose output transformers I replaced with parts that are not aesthetically identical to the originals. It is important to remember that the transformers of the Luxman MQ70 and MQ3600 models (especially those of the MQ70) are known for failing very frequently. Their construction, embedded in tar, makes rewinding them identically extremely long, expensive and above all fragile exactly like the original. For practical and safety reasons, I no longer accept this type of work today. Just consider the amount of vaporized tar I would have to breathe during the process.

The so called “original” spare parts available online, when they exist, almost always come from the dismantling of other perfectly intact amplifiers. In other words, using a non original replacement requested by the owner would be “ruining an object”, but dismantling a fully working device to sell its parts would instead be perfectly acceptable? In the end, the result is that from two units only one survives.

In other cases I have examined replacement transformers that were completely counterfeit: original shells emptied and filled with unsuitable cores, electrically non equivalent and often with poor sonic performance. With a modern non original but well designed replacement, on the other hand, the owner can have a working amplifier and listen to the music they prefer. And that should be the primary purpose of an amplifier, not to remain motionless behind a glass.

Of course every customer can always choose. I never perform anything without consent and I propose the most suitable solution based on the condition of the device and the expectations of the owner.

However, I would like to highlight a point I often encounter. Some people accept calmly that an object with decades of life may require interventions that are not always aesthetic. But others seem more concerned with hiding the replacement of a component than with ensuring its correct operation. Questions like “can you remove the label from the original transformer and put it on the new one?” are not innocent requests. It would mean participating in a falsification aimed at future non transparent sales. The same applies to those who ask to build a modern transformer hidden inside the original casing. Due to the non standard dimensions, this inevitably leads to using a smaller core, compromising the sonic quality and turning the intervention into a technical and aesthetic scam. It is the same principle I have seen in various fake spare parts circulating online.

Unfortunately some negative comments about non conservative repairs seem to arise more from market logics of collecting than from interest in technical quality or listening. This, however, is not part of my job. I take care of making devices work in the best and safest way possible.

Anyone who defines themselves as a collector and wants an object perfectly original in every component can certainly do so, but in that case the device should remain switched off, displayed on a shelf. If instead it is to be used, one must accept that a device 40, 50, 60 or 70 years old may require non conservative interventions. Original spare parts are rare exceptions and often unreliable. Just think of the carbon composition resistors “NOS”, deteriorated even without having been used, which compromise valve biasing and worsen performance. Or the case of the “original” YO transformer purchased from a dismantled Luxman, that failed again after just a few months.

As for some more visible modifications shown on this site, these are often recovery projects built starting from chassis without real collectible value, devices that would have ended up in the trash anyway. In these cases giving them new life with a new configuration does not take anything away from the historical heritage, but on the contrary avoids waste and restores functionality.

In conclusion, when it is possible to preserve originality, it is right to do so. But when it is not, a working, safe and enjoyable amplifier always has more real value than an unusable wreck. A modified but reliable device is still infinitely more useful, honest and appreciable than an object “intact” only in appearance but no longer able to serve its purpose. This is the technical and practical approach I follow and will continue to follow.