[Phono-L] Reproducer parts
I've gotten them from APSCO several years ago. I presume they still have them. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "phonolist" ; "Phono-l" Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:28 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Reproducer parts Hello, Who sells the thin red gaskets for the Edison CHK reproducers? Does anyone have the short screws for the type 1 Edison diamond C reproducers hinge blocks? Model that is like small DD reproducer. On the Edison recorders I have seen the gaskets held in place by wax, how is that done? Thanks, Steve ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Opera like Phonograph?
Yes, it appears that the 1A motor will fit into the Opera or 1B or III cabinet. The 1A motor deck is about 1/2 inch longer and about 1/8 inch deeper, but the three mounting points seems to be in the proper location for either to mount in the same cabinets. I don't know about the Opera cabinet, but the console cabinets have spaces large enough around the motor deck to allow either motor to fit. And the crank locations also seem to be about the same. To exchange a 1A for an Opera, you would also have to exchange the horn connector stanchion to change from an inside to outside horn configuration. The late production of M and O reproducers were made with the trowel shaped weights. I think the factory actually re-worked some of the round weights into the trowel shape. I am working on an M now that clearly has had the weight cut down - the nickel plating is missing from the cut edges. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Albert" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:16 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Opera like Phonograph? >I am curious about the Almost Opera that just appeared on Ebay. Will an >Amberola 1-a mech. fit that well in an opera case? of course the serial >plate is gone, but the bedplate color is opera correct, my 1-A is much >darker. Also I have never seen a model M reproducer that has been shaved >like a trowel, any comments? AL Menashe > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Edsion 30 Echos - What To Do?
Hi Brantley, Echo when playing Edison records (DDs or cylinders) is usually a sign of a worn stylus. It could also be caused by the hinge block not moving freely. You should check your stylus under a fairly powerful microscope and look for the formation of shoulders on either side of the center of the tip. These are signs of excessive wear and you should replace the stylus. Check the hinge or pivot at the back of the reproducer that allows the weight to move sideways within the limits of the limit loop at the front. This pivot should move freely. Clean it and lubricate it if it feels sticky or tight. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Edsion 30 Echos - What To Do? > Hi. I just purchased an Edison 30 machine. Many of the 4 minute > cylinders > echo when playing. I can take these same cylinders and play them on my > Edison > 75 and they play perfect. There are some cylinders to do play fine on the > 30 > machine, but about 70% of them echo. It is really noticeable with a Cal > Stewart or vocal record. Is there anything that I can do to adjust the > reproducer? > Any assistance with this annoying problem would be much appreciated. > Thanks. > > Brantley > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] wire wound link cord -DD reproducers
The Edisonic reproducer was a later refinement of the Dance reproducer. You can read the patent disclosure for the Dance in US patent #1,711,265 which details the claims for the additional weight and the springs that were added. Much of this description is technological baloney, but it served to get Edison yet another patent. The claim made for wrapping the link between the stylus bar and the diaphragm was that this damped the spurious vibrations and resonances in the link. It probably did that, but it also added more moving mass to the system which served to lower the overall resonance. I have found that none of the additional dampers and springs serve any real, useful purpose. When I change the diaphragm in a Dance or Edisonic, I use one of my standard DD diaphragms with the same link and remove the additional springs. The performance is better than what you get in a standard DD reproducer because of the additional tracking force created by the bigger weight. The additional weight adds more mass to the stylus bar fulcrum so that bass performance is also improved by lowering the weight/fulcrum resonant frequency. That's all there really is to it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" ; Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 8:43 PM Subject: [Phono-L] wire wound link cord -DD reproducers > The Edisonic reproducers that I have seen have fine wire wound along the > length of the cord linking diaphragm to needle bar. Why? Was it to make > the cord stronger? Was it for some sonic reason or for another reason I > have not though of? > > Ron L > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Capehart
Jim, you might get more response on your Capehart questions by posting to the Electrola list. Electrola is dedicated to owners of just the kind of early electric phonographs that you own: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electrola/ But I can answer some of your questions. Yes, the early magnetic pickups do exhibit considerable "needle talk" compared with modern pickups. But if your pickup has not been rebuilt, it CERTAINLY needs to be. If it is not rebuilt, the rubber suspension parts have hardened and the lack of compliance with ruin your records in just one play! Yes, you need to find something other than common steel needles for use with record changers. The Victor Tungstone needles (and similar tungsten wire needles from other manufacturers) were the best choice for changers of this vintage. The electric record players of the mid 1930s up to WWII were notorious for inducing massive record wear, mostly due to the poor characteristics of the electric pickups and the improper needles used with them. In spite of the preponderance of the sapphire so-called "permanent" needles often found with these machines, these needles are the WRONG choice. These early pickups are much too low compliance and track at too high a force to use a hard jewel-tipped needle correctly. I recommend using tunsten wire needles for ALL of these record players if you want to preserve your records. Unfortunately, nobody makes these needles any longer, so you are faced with the choice of using steel needles and changing them with ever one or two plays (which negates the advantages of owning a record changer), buying tungsten wire needles when you can find them, or making your own needles. Since I am a record changer collector and have a number of these old electric players, I make my own tungsten needles. I'm not geared up to make them in quantity, so it's a tedious process. But they are worth the effort if you really want to use these players. The circuit diagrams for nearly every early consumer electronic product and quite a lot of mechanical repair information concerning the Capehart (and other early) record changers can be found in the Rider's Perpetual Troubleshooting (PPT) Manuals. These manuals were the mainstay of radio repair shops during this period up to WWII when that information business was taken over by Howard W. Sams. (Sams is the place to look for info on most postwar electronics, but they didn't publish anything on prewar models.) You can find the individual PPT manuals offered on eBay (there were 23 HUGE volumes in total), but the simplest and cheapest source of this information is to buy the scanned and digitized PPT manual collections complete on CD or DVD. These are also offered by several sellers on eBay and can usually be had for $10 or less for the ENTIRE collection. Another good source of early record changer info is the Rider's book titled "Automatic Record Changers and Recorders". This was a single volume published in 1941. These also appear often on eBay. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Capehart After many years, my 1937 Capehart 404G (serial number 10627E) is now functioning & sounds great & is fun to watch as it changes records. I have noticed quite a bit of "needle noise" in the magnetic pickup when the volume is turned down even though the pickup has been restored. Is this endemic to a properly performing Capehart as I suspect because all the doors to the record playing compartment are sealed with rubber gaskets, presumable to contain mechanical noise or does the pickup need further work? Also, where can one obtain needles for playing large numbers of 78s without being changed in the Capehart or Orthophonic Victrola 1050? I have Mr. Baumbach's excellent book on the Capeharts without which the repairman who usually works on 1950s & 1960s hifi gear would have been completely at sea in working on the Capehart changer but would like to obtain copies of the owner's manual & schematics of the tuner & amplifiers. Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jim...@earthlink.net ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Capehart
Walt, the tracking force used in the early Capehart 16-E changer which used the "fan head" black pickup was very nearly the same as that of the other early horseshoe-magnet magnetic pickups. They track at 120 - 150 grams or so, making the tungsten wire needles the only good choice for multiple-play use. That would include the changers thru about the E or F-line Capeharts (ca. 1938 and earlier). The G-line series was about when the later, smaller brown pickup heads came into use on the Capeharts. The early versions of these were also magnetic and tracked at around 100 grams or so. The later versions of the 16-E changer with the similar-looking brown pickup head were fitted with the early Astatic crystal cartridges which tracked at 40 - 50 grams. Still, this is too high a force to use with a hard jewel-point needle, even though this was common practice at the time. As you say and as I say in my other post on this subject, jewel-point needles were really never the correct choice for these cartridges that tracked at anything much over 12 grams or so. You record collectors might have noticed that the records you get from the mid to late 1930s tend to be more worn, distorted, and noisy than the records from the 1920s and earlier. This is because the record players made from the mid '30s to the early postwar period often used jewelled needles in these crystal cartridges that tracked at 30 grams or more. The advertising of the day called this "featherweight" tracking at only one ounce! That's a pretty heavy feather. But they ground up the records mercilessly. Unfortunately, this situation continued until the advent of the GE variable reluctance (VR) magnetic cartridge that tracked at around 10 - 12 grams and which came into common use with the Capehart 41-E changer and other top-end record players after WWII. Even after the war, most cheap record players continued to use crystal cartridges tracking at 30 grams or so until microgroove vinyl records came into use after 1948. This brought the need and application of much better cartridges that could track at 8 grams or less. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Walt Sommers" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Capehart Bob, Do you know the approximate tracking mass of the Capehart pick up? I am guess it is probably 25 to 40 grams? The RCA Chromium needles would be a concern on the 10-50 or other Victor automatics that use the #5 acoustic Orthophonic reproducer (tracking at a whopping 130 grams or so) but assuming that the Capehart's pickup is something like 25 to 40 grams I can't imagine the RCA Chromium needles would be an issue. I recall reading an RCA patent (which I can't specifically call to mind right now) concerning the use of chromium on the needles which briefly discussed the issue of the relatively low mass of electrical pickups versus the higher mass of the acoustic reproducers. The Victor Soft or Full Tungs~Tone stylus would be ideal for the Capehart as well as most of the early electrical pickups. I can't say I would recommend the Extra Loud Tungs~Tone stylus simply because they are quite aggressive. Others swear by them. Whatever you choose, I would stay as far away from jeweled styli (sapphires, diamonds, etc.) as possible. Sapphires and diamonds would be great if only the designs of the early pickups were better. I have a feeling I am in Dr. Bogantz's area of expertise here...Perhaps he will jump in. Walt RBaumbach wrote: Tungstone needles are probably the best choice for either the 10-50 or the Capehart, and were recommended by both manufacturers. In the mid-thirties Capehart recommended the RCA Chromium needles, but some collectors feel that these are hard on records. Both the Tungstone and Chromium needles are still rather plentiful. There is a more comprehensive discussion of needles on the bonus page for the Capehart book (see page 5). Contact me privately regarding the owner's manual and schematics. Bob On TuesdayJuly 14, 2009, at 10:11 AM, jim...@earthlink.net wrote: After many years, my 1937 Capehart 404G (serial number 10627E) is now functioning & sounds great & is fun to watch as it changes records. I have noticed quite a bit of "needle noise" in the magnetic pickup when the volume is turned down even though the pickup has been restored. Is this endemic to a properly performing Capehart as I suspect because all the doors to the record playing compartment are sealed with rubber gaskets, presumable to contain mechanical noise or does the pickup need further work? Also, where can one obtain needles for playing large numbers of 78s without being changed in the Capehart or Orthophonic Victrola 1050? I have Mr. Baumbach's excellent book on the Capeharts without which the
Re: [Phono-L] Capehart
e center of the record. This is not too much of a problem relative to the high tracking forces used in acoustic players. But it became a significant problem in the early days of stereo LP playback. This skating force causes the stylus to bear with more force on the inner groove wall compared to the force imparted on the outer groove wall. In stereo records, the outer groove wall represents the right channel of the audio, so record listeners noticed more distortion from mistracking in the right channel than in the left. The solution was the introduction of the "anti-skating compensation" which was fitted to all modern high-end stereo record players, starting around 1966 or so (the Dual 1019 and the Garrard Lab 80 were among the first turntables to have this compensation). This compensaton is a mechanism (with weights, magnets, or springs) which imparts a slight outward torque on the tonearm designed to balance out the skating force. As you would expect, the anti-skate force needs to be adjusted to different values to properly compensate for whatever the tracking force is, so you will see these adjustments marked with tracking force numbers on turntables so equipped. It also matters what stylus shape is being used, so anti-skate adjustments are often calibrated for more than one stylus shape. Doug, I think you are probably concerned with LTA error in old phonos more than I am. As I've mentioned, the most significant problem with LTA in old phonos is the damage to records that can be caused by LTA error. But this isn't so much of a problem when using steel needles since the needle is relatively soft. But, as you say, some early designs have so much LTA error that the players can actually mistrack or skip grooves due to the large skating force that this causes. The wear problem becomes more significant when you are using harder needles such as Tungstones or any of the jewelled styli. Like you, I reserve a special stack of lesser quality records to be played in my old players so that I'm not going to worry too much about record wear from the use of tungsten needles. But as I've said earlier, I don't recommend the use of jewelled needles EVER in these old players, regardless of their LTA error. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Capehart Greg: I was waiting for you to address tracking angle. I can't put my finger on it just now, but I recall seeing some mighty goofy tracking angles on some record players. There can be little doubt that the designers of a lot of phonographs had little or no idea what tracking angle is, or if so, what to do about it. A couple of years ago, someone got hold of some Victor field service bulletins, and they told of a product campaign to correct tracking angles, and they gave serial numbers of the Electrolas that needed correction. My Victor 9-18 was in one of those groups. I looked at it, and it appears to be OK now, so possibly, it was retrofitted. One can just imagine what those 5 pound magnetic pickup heads would do to a record! Oh, now one comes up. The RCA Ejector changer. As far as I know, they were all the same, and the tracking error on my RCA 381 is pretty crumby. Unless they changed the pickup arm length, they were bad from beginning to end. [Original Message] From: Greg Bogantz To: Antique Phonograph List Date: 7/14/2009 3:25:29 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Capehart Jim, you might get more response on your Capehart questions by posting to the Electrola list. Electrola is dedicated to owners of just the kind of early electric phonographs that you own: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electrola/ But I can answer some of your questions. Yes, the early magnetic pickups do exhibit considerable "needle talk" compared with modern pickups. But if your pickup has not been rebuilt, it CERTAINLY needs to be. If it is not rebuilt, the rubber suspension parts have hardened and the lack of compliance with ruin your records in just one play! Yes, you need to find something other than common steel needles for use with record changers. The Victor Tungstone needles (and similar tungsten wire needles from other manufacturers) were the best choice for changers of this vintage. The electric record players of the mid 1930s up to WWII were notorious for inducing massive record wear, mostly due to the poor characteristics of the electric pickups and the improper needles used with them. In spite of the preponderance of the sapphire so-called "permanent" needles often found with these machines, these needles are the WRONG choice. These early pickups are much too low compliance and track at too high a force to use a hard jewel-tipped needle correctly. I recommend using tunsten wire needles for
Re: [Phono-L] An interesting observation
Robert, I'm not quite sure what's going on in your reproducer experiment. The needle mounting cavity in the Victor ortho reproducer's needlebar is nothing special, it's merely a triangular bore with a setscrew located approximately halfway along the length of one of the flat sides to clamp the needle into the opposing "V" trough of the bore. But I can guess at several things: (1) You could have some dirt inside and at the very end of the bore that is causing the needle to not seat firmly into the V groove when you insert it fully. This will cause some decoupling of the needle with the needlebar. When you don't insert the needle fully, you don't engage the dirt which then allows the needle to seat into the V more tightly. (2) You don't mention which direction the loudness changes. Inserting the needle less fully into the bore will result in it's sticking out farther which changes the mechanical "gain" of the needlebar system. The longer the distance from the needle point to the pivot of the needlebar, the less loudness you will get. Just a small change here can be audible. (3) If you are inserting the needle just enough so that the thumbscrew just engages the blunt end of the needle, you are not securely clamping the needle against the V groove. As it wiggles, the needle itself will lever against the thumbscrew as a fulcrum and flex against the V groove, causing some error in transmitting the vibrations to the needlebar. This will cause a loss of volume. Any of the above scenarios will change the volume as well as change the frequency response and may cause distortion which can be interpreted as "improved" high frequency response. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 5:00 AM Subject: [Phono-L] An interesting observation Been meaning to post this for a few days now... I was recently spinning some discs on my Victor Orthophonic suitcase model, and it dawned on me to try something out. I slipped a new needle into the shank, and I pulled it back out maybe a millimeter or so, just enough to keep the blunt end from resting against whatever it rests against before tightening the thumbscrew. I immediately heard a noticeable difference in volume (maybe 1 to 2 dB), slightly wider frequency response, and most significantly, an openness (for lack of a better word) I'd never heard before on any windup phono. It seemed like all this time, something was slightly constricting the diaphragm, just like pretty much every windup phono I've ever heard in person, and suddenly there was a whole new freedom to the sound pouring out of it. Has anyone else ever tried/noticed this? Mr. Bogantz, is this my imagination? Best to all, Robert _ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Type of Finish on Victor VV-100
I think that is probably what was known as "Flemish oak". Very, very dark, almost black with a semi-gloss finish. I have an Edison C-250 in flemish oak which is a very rare finish for a DD machine. I've seen only one other example. It's the only Edison finish that looks remotely this dark. The other possibilities shown in Baumbach's latest LFTD book might be "gunmetal" (perhaps a bit greenish or bluish) or "driftwood", but I think those finishes were both less glossy than what's seen in this video. Or perhaps it is "Early English" as the owner speculates in the video. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: "MOCAPS" Cc: "Phono-L" Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:23 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Type of Finish on Victor VV-100 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8cj7MOCdpk I am looking to try an pin down what type of Victor Finish this might be, but it is hard to determine from the small samples that are shown in Victor Data Book. Anyone care to offer an opinion. Thanks, Bruce ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] What did I buy? Ebay item 220523099867
The motor is a modern electric type - you can see the rubber idler wheel, and the platter is a modern type, probably matching the motor assembly. The cabinet looks homemade. It appears that the only collectible part on it is the ID tag. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] What did I buy? Ebay item 220523099867 Sorry, I came in late on this. Someone obviously attached the ID plate for an Orthophonic table model to another Victor. But which Victor did they attach it to ? and what was that crazy little turntable from ? - Original Message - From: "Barry Kasindorf" To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:29:51 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Phono-L] What did I buy? Ebay item 220523099867 I think that many Ebay sellers claim ignorance about what the phono they are selling really is when they know full well it is junk. If this was a real onsite auction or estate sale you could more closely examine a piece, get a better feel for it and make a decision. No matter how many pictures you have on Ebay you really don't have the same feeling for an item as you do in person. Saying buyer beware is simplistic in this situation. You still need some sense of honesty and cooperation from the seller if there was a misunderstanding of what the item is instead of the usual glee taken when a novice collector or even a older collector in a hurry misunderstands what is for sale and gets taken. -Barry On 12/15/2009 11:26 PM, brice paris wrote: I am a little shocked here. Not sure who is being taken, item does not seem to be misrepresented and the pictures are clear. A bidder has a responsibility to follow through on their contract win or lose. What am I missing??? From: William Buchanan To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 6:20:44 PM Subject: [Phono-L] What did I buy? Ebay item 220523099867 Friends, It's a hard thing to admit that you've been taken, but the good thing is that it was not for much and I have not paid him yet. But if this is at least a real Victrola I will have no problems paying him. Can somebody tell me what I purchased? Ebay item 220523099867 They said it is a Victrola VV I-90 but it's not so what is this? Thank you Bill ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Columbia Grafonola Electiric motor shutoff question
I'm not familiar with this type of Columbia electric motor, but it sounds like it may be a variant that includes the Columbia "non-set auto-stop" mechanism that was used on the more expensive spring motor models. I have a Columbia electric motor model, but the switch mechanism is simple and is merely coupled to the tonearm by a lever. Some of our readers have probably worked on the non-set auto-stop spring motors and can perhaps help you to figure out how it works. It's a clever design and somewhat complicated. I don't know if there is any documentation available on how to service these, but it would be a valuable addition to the phono literature. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Daniel Melvin" To: "Phono-L@oldcrank.org" Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:47 AM Subject: [Phono-L] Columbia Grafonola Electiric motor shutoff question Does anyone have any information on the rather complicated geared switch mechinism on an electric Columbia motor? I have a machine where that mechinism seems to have frozen up which was keeping the motor from running. I took it apart and stared at it quite a lot and cannot even figure out how it works. It has a bunch of gears and a cam that turns the motor off and on. To get the machine working I disconnected the gear attached to the tonearm and rigged a manual switch for the motor. It works great, but I would really like to restore the original switch mechinism if anyone has suggestions or information on it. I have all the original parts, but the switch lost me in the dust. And, I thought Edison made complicated machines! This switch is amazing. Thanks Dan ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Allen Hough
As some of you may know, Allen Hough made a peculiar record changer that was used on only a few radio/phonos in the late 1920s, the Columbia 990 and the Zenith 75 being the only two that I know about. Here's a strange electric portable acoustic machine made by them: http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Allen-Hough-Turntable-Record-Player-Phonograph_W0QQitemZ320475016810QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item4a9dccae6a Note the busted casting which reveals what appears to be a multi-pole induction motor rotor. Note the escutcheon around the spindle hole in the platter says "Allen Hough Rotor Corp." in Milwaukee. Wonder what a "rotor corporation" was? Maybe they specialized in gear hobbing or making multi-pole induction motors. Anybody know more about this company? Greg Bogantz ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Allen Hough
Thanks for that link, Allen. That is, indeed, the Allen Hough record changer that was used in the Columbia VivaTonal 990 and Zenith model 75. I had not known about this Carryola jukebox before. The Columbia and Zenith models are quite rare - the Carryola juke must be even more so. Several bidders must have thought it pretty special to jack the sale price up so high. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Allen Hough In a message dated 1/19/2010 5:31:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, gbogan...@charter.net writes: http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Allen-Hough-Turntable-Record-Player-Phonograph_W 0QQitemZ320475016810QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item4a9dc cae6a - See this for comparison: _RARE CARRYOLA CABARET COUNTERTOP COIN OP JUKE BOX for sale_ (http://www.hydroponicsonline.com/store/RARE-CARRYOLA-CABARET-COUNTERTOP-COIN-OP-JUKE-BOX_ 200394548733.html) Allen _www.phonobooks.com_ (http://www.phonobooks.com) ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Need Address for Tim Fabrizio
Tim Fabrizio's mailing address is: 396 Westminster Rd. (or: P.O. Box 747) Henrietta, NY 14467 Or, you can email him at his phonophan webpage: http://www.phonophan.com/ Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 1:16 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Need Address for Tim Fabrizio I attempted to send some copies of some excerpts from an article on Charles Sumner Tainter's 1881 Home Notes that appeared in "For the Record" the organ of the City of London Antique Phonograph and Gramophone Society that suggest that Tainter, not Berliner, was the originator of lateral cut wax disc recording as well as the acid etched duplicating process to obtain Mr. Fabrizio's thoughts on the matter but my letter, sent to P.O. Box 10307 in Rochester, New York came back.Can anyone provide me with Mr. Fabrizio's current mailing address?Thanks! Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jim...@earthlink.net ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Cleaning a phonograph. Wax removing.
I wish people would stop recommending WD-40 as an all-purpose lubricant.
It is particularly UNSUITABLE for lubricating fine mechanisms with small
parts. It was originally designed as a waterproofing agent, hence, it's
name "WD-40" refers to the fact that it is a "water displacement" product,
this being the "40"th attempt. It was invented in 1953, before which time
plenty of other products were found quite suitable for lubrication purposes.
The long-term ingredient is a VISCOUS oil that is carried by a light, highly
volatile mineral oil carrier, similar to kerosene. The kerosene acts as a
penetrating agent which serves to carry the heavy oil into cracks and
crevices, the better to waterproof the treated object. So, yes, the
kerosene performs as a penetrating oil for about 5 minutes. Then the
kerosene evaporates, and you're left with the sticky oil worked into the
cracks and crannies. See the description and ingredients here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
This description has fit my experience exactly. After the carrier
evaporates, you've got a sticky, tacky mess left on the object you're trying
to "lubricate". Bad choice for small gears and pinions. I find that WD-40
is useful primarily for exactly what it was originally intended -
waterproofing. And it functions as a lubricant for heavier mechanisms,
although a proper oil or grease is far preferable.
If you want a penetrating oil, use pure kerosene. I use an automotive
product that consists of a very light volatile carrier with suspended tiny
graphite particles called "Part-Ease". It's particularly good for stuck
rusty parts. Don't know if that brand is still available - the can I'm
using is one I bought 30 years ago. Works good on exhaust manifold bolts on
cars and motorcycles. If you want a proper lubricant for fine mechanisms
like clocks and similar low-torque mechanisms, use a proper very light oil
such as can be purchased from clock repair parts suppliers. Proper light
clock oil does not dry up or get tacky. And it's available in various
viscosities for light, medium, and moderately heavy torque applications.
For most phonograph mechanisms, I find that ordinary 20 or 30 weight
automotive motor oil works quite well. For sliding surfaces such as the
reproducer bearing bar surfaces on many Edison cylinder machines, I use a
mixture of 30 weight oil and a PTFE (teflon) product such as "Slick 50".
The PTFE provides long lasting surface penetration into the metal for
superior reduction of sliding friction and stiction. Actually, I like this
oil-PTFE mixture so well that I now use if for all my medium-duty
lubrication needs. For very heavy torque applications such as the main bull
gears of phonographs, an ordinary automotive grease is appropriate. I use a
molybdenum-disulfide based grease ("molly dum-dum" for you motorcycle
wrenches out there) for most applications. It doesn't dry out, channel, and
get stiff like many lithium based greases.
Greg Bogantz
- Original Message -
From: "Curt Angstman"
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Cleaning a phonograph. Wax removing.
Hi Gabriel,
For basic motor cleaning, remove the motor from the machine and find a
container large enough to fit it in. Fill the container with kerosene and
let it soak for several days. Use a toothbrush to remove sludge from gears
and small parts. Kerosene will not harm your motor and will actually
lubricate it. When you are through, you need to re-grease the spring, if
possible. Grease will continue to leak from the motor for awhile, since the
kerosene dissolves it, so you will want to put a rag under it after it is
re-installed. I also use WD 40 and spray lithium grease to re-lube the
motor. WD 40 also will remove crud from the wood cabinet or painted surfaces
without harming the finish - I use it on my BMW to remove tar, etc. It's a
great product and has many uses, like removing sticker glue, tar and grease.
It is also wonderful for re-energizing the paint on a horn. On black horns,
I touch up scratches with a Sharpie marker and/or liquid gun bluing (gun
bluing works great to "age" metal parts) and then clean the horn with WD 40.
On painted or flowered horns, it cleans and deepens the colors. Neither
kerosene or WD 40 will harm painted or nickel finished parts. WD 40 also
restores and cleans 78 records and Amberol cylinders. Some people will
disagree with that, but take a dirty, scratchy 78 record and try it - it
will improve the sound and make it look better - and absolutely NO damage to
the record - spray it on and wipe it off. I have used this method for over
30 years and have never had any damage to my records. It will not dissolve
78 rpm records or celluloid, but DO NOT use it on wax cylinde
Re: [Phono-L] Tungsten needle questions
Hi Mark,
I make my own tungsten needles. Your observations are pretty much the
same as my own. The original Victor Tungstones were made from wire that
measures about 0.0065 inch or 6.5 mils in diameter. Today, that wire size
is marketed as "7 mil". Yes, I've made needles with this size wire and they
work OK when used with acoustic reproducers tracking at around 140 grams
such as the Victor orthophonic (#5) and the Columbia VivaTonal #15. Even
though the wire is really too large to accurately fit inside the groove, the
extra width that forms shoulders on the edges of the wire gets ground down
reliably due to the heavy tracking force. But when used in lighter force
reproducers such as the Victor Exhibition or #2, the tracking force is
sufficiently lower (80 to 100 grams) that the needles tend to rattle and
distort because the shoulders of the wire are not being ground off reliably.
So, I tend to prefer the "6 mil" wire (actually about 5.5 mil) as it fits
the groove better and can be used with these lighter tracking force
applications. But you are correct in noting that the 6 mil is noticeably
more inclined to bending than the 7 mil. I'm sure that Victor used the 7
mil wire because of this very need for robustness. I've also tried "5 mil"
diameter (actually around 4.5 mil), but that is just too flimsy to be
useable in anything tracking at more than about 40 grams or so.
I don't know if the annealing process is the same as that used in the
original Tungstones. But I've obtained tungsten wire from several sources,
including SmallParts, and it all behaves about the same way. So I'm
guessing that annealed wire is probably the only kind that is sold.
As I commented on the Talking Machine Forum recently, HOW you cut the
wire has a LOT to do with how long it lasts as a needle. As the tungsten is
hammered and drawn into the fine wire shape, it's structure becomes that of
elongated crystalline threads. If you cut the wire by nipping with
conventional wire nippers (diagonal cutters), you smash the crystal threads
at the cut which significantly reduces their strength. The proper way to
cut tungsten wire would be to grind it, then snap it. That is very hard to
do with wire this fine, but you can probably use a Dremel tool with a cutoff
grinding disc. The next best method is to SHEAR the wire. This does not
smash the crystal threads nearly as much as nipping the wire. If you have
experienced variable playback longevity with your needles, this may be the
reason: the wires with the frayed crystals will break and fray quickly
which reduces the needle life. The problem with shearing this wire is that
you really need a shear made with VERY hard blades as you are cutting
tungsten which is the hardest metallic element. Using a shear with tungsten
carbide blades would be the most practical solution. Using an ordinary pair
of shears with hardened steel blades works, but the blades will be nicked
and banged up pretty quickly. That's what I've been doing, but I'm aware
that I'm abusing my shears. Oh well, it's all for a good cause.
Greg Bogantz
- Original Message -
From: "mark french"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:58 AM
Subject: [Phono-L] Tungsten needle questions
I was looking at a thread from last year that included talking about some
collectors making
their own tungsten needles ("Victor vs. Columbia big guns"). I've been
making my own needles too for use in my Victrola 10-50, the big acoustic
machine with the auto changer.
I wanted to bounce off what I'm using to everybody and see if I am ok with
what I'm using...
maybe not ideal, but at the least, ok. I'm using .006" wire from
SmallParts.com, it comes in
straight 5-foot long pieces. However, in the specs on the website, it
says 'Temper -
Annealed'.
There was a mention about annealed wire being too weak for use as needle
tips.
I have been using my needles for many months now, and as long as I make
sure I don't
go overboard with the length of the tungsten tip, I am not having
significant problems with
the wire tips being too weak. Since they have thinner wire than the
factory "Tonofone"
needles I have, which I measured at .007", I make sure that my .006" tips
are somewhat
shorter than those. There is also the factor that since I can make as
many of these as I
want for only about 2 cents each, I can afford to make the tips as short
as I want.
I mean I don't need them to last 50-100 records like a Tungstone - just
enough to be able
to play 2 or 3 or 4 12-record stacks.
Anyway - comments/suggestions? Would annealed vs. not really make a
significant difference
in strength in this application? Smallparts was the only place I could
find to buy a small
Re: [Phono-L] Wood finishes
Many of the early oak finishes were done by using a very dark wood grain filler prior to putting on the shellac or lacquer final coating. This made the grain stand out more and is different from later techniques where a clear filler is commonly used such as untinted shellac. The "fumed oak" finish was, indeed, accomplished by exposing the wood to a vapor cloud of ammonia for a period of time. This produced a uniformly dark finish on the wood rather than just making the grain stand out dark. You probably want to experiment with a dark filler. If the cabinet is from the teens or earlier, the final finish was probably shellac, usually orange shellac which will produce a golden oak finish. Cabinets in the late 1920s and later began using lacquer rather than shellac. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Tom Jordan" To: "'Tom Jordan'" ; "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:29 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Wood finishes Let me start me saying that this is a bit off of topic (I apologize in advance), but I need some advice from the experts. I am rebuilding and refinishing the case on an old machine for a friend. Some of the wood is dry rotted and can't be salvaged. It will be a mix of original pieces and new replacements. The old finish was done in a way where the striations in the oak are very dark compared to the rest of the wood. I have heard that this was done by tenting the wood with ammonia to obtain those results. That sounds a bit out there to me, but wondered if any of you have heard of this or know of a safer and less dangerous method of obtaining those results? Thanks, Tom ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Electrically Cut Edison DD's
The popular series of DDs above record number 52088 are electrically recorded. This is why the "52000 series" is so much in demand and commands much higher prices than the earlier record numbers. Electrical recording was also done on some of the other series, starting with numbers 57025, 59305, 60063, 80885, and 82351. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "harvey kravitz" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:04 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Electrically Cut Edison DD's Hi fellow collectors, Does anyone know what series numbers Edison used for his electrically cut DD's? A good friend of mine bought an Edisonic Schubert in Portland last week. If anyone has any electrically cut DD's for sale, let me know, and I will pass it on to him. Harvey Kravitz ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Vehicle?
The elephant in the room that NOBODY ever talks about with these hybrid cars is the cost to replace the battery pack. Anybody who has ever owned a rechargeable anything knows that the battery is only good for about 3 years, advertising claims to the contrary. The published cost of the battery pack for the Toyota Prius is about $3,000. Anyone who has any thought of buying a used Prius had better be prepared to shuck out another 3 grand very quickly to actually keep the thing on the road. And the estimated battery cost of the new Chebby Volt is about 8 GRAND! No wonder the car is set to retail for 40 grand. Until there is an economical way to lease or trade in these battery packs, the whole "economical, money saving" baloney about operating one of these cars is just a pipe dream. It makes good advertising malarkey, but owners of these cars are in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "john robles" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vehicle? Are there charging stations for these types of cars? I don't know how long they take to charge, but I would imagine at some point there will need to be places where they can be charged publicly. 100 miles is not a lot of ground to cover when you are scouring the countryside for phonographs! John --- On Mon, 3/8/10, DanKj wrote: From: DanKj Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vehicle? To: "Antique Phonograph List" Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:57 AM They say 100 miles under ideal conditions. That's more than I drive each week, so such a car would suit me - except that I have no driveway so no place to plug it in ! The 'LEAF" doesn't look Victrola-sized, either - Original Message - From: "john robles" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vehicle? I just saw a commercial last night for Nissan's new all-electric vehicle. I wonder how far you get on a charge.. John Robles ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Coin machine or jukebox needles?
Osmium tipped needles were a transitional style. They were the cheapest "permanent" needle typically marketed in the late 1930s thru the '50s. The more expensive varieties of "permanent" needles were sapphire or ruby and the most expensive were diamond. People were using record changers and didn't want to mess around with changing steel needles all the time, so these styles became popular. The problem with all of these needles in that time period is that the pickups tracked at too high a force for any of them to be optimal with regard to record wear. The magnetic and crystal pickups of that period typically tracked at between 30 and 80 grams. Although that's less than the 80 to 150 grams of the earlier acoustic reproducer period, it's still just too high for any of these hard needles. They were especially deadly when used with the early vinyl 78s that were beginning to appear after WWII. The proper technology for high tracking forces was the steel or tungsten wire needle when used with shellac records that contained abrasive fillers that were intended to quickly wear the needle into conformance with the groove shape. But, of course, the steel needles needed to be changed with every record side or two. Tungsten WIRE shaped needles are superior to the osmium tipped needles because the cylindrical wire shape retains the same cross-sectional area during the entire lifetime of the needle. The osmium needles were tapered and as they wore they got a bigger cross section. This is fine until the cross section gets too big to fit into the groove width which happens after just a few records are played. Then the needle forms shoulders that ride outside the groove and on the land of the record. This lifts the needle out of close contact with the groove walls which leads to mistracking, distortion, and high record wear. These hard needles, especially the sapphire and diamond ones don't wear down quickly, and instead wear the records. These needles that were typical in this time period are the main reason that records that have survived from the '30s thru the '50s look worn and sound more distorted and worn than records that have survived from the teens and '20s and that were played properly with steel or tungsten wire needles. The use of these hard needles only became proper when pickup tracking forces were reduced to 10 grams or less in the 1950s. I don't feel comfortable using them even above about 5 grams. Tracking forces of 1 to 2 grams became commonplace in the early 1960s, and jewel-tipped needles are perfectly satisfactory when used in these pickups. The bottom line is, I would NOT recommend using hard needles in any pickup tracking at more than 10 grams if you want to preserve your records. When new, these needles will sound good for a while. But they will be grinding the bejeezus out of your records if you are tracking them at 30 grams or more. If you have a jukebox or record changer that operates at high tracking force, use tungsten wire needles. Or change the pickup (and tonearm if necessary) to allow tracking forces below 10 grams if you want to use jewel-tipped needles. Osmium would also work in this application, but it will wear out after 20 sides or so, even at this tracking force. Osmium is just a bad idea for just about any application. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Chris Kocsis" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:47 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Coin machine or jukebox needles? Can anyone give me the lowdown on jukebox needles? I bought some new old stock Cole's coin machine needles with osmium tips. The package says the needle lasts many plays and doesn't have to be rotated. I'm also curious about the shape of the needle. A couple of millimeters up from the point, the metal is flattened into a pointed oval like a cobra head and then resumes being cylindrical. What is that for? Osmium is nearly as hard as tungsten and I've seen some references to people cutting their own needles from tungsten wire and forming the point by rubbing the cut end in a record groove while rotating it (which seems astonishing). Is such hardness a good idea in a needle, or does it cause excessive record wear? If these jukebox needles are safe to use, how do I tell when it's time to change one? Best regards, Chris ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Coin machine or jukebox needles?
Hi Chris, Yes, that's right. There was no shaping of the end of the wire on Victor Tungstones. I just confirmed that by looking at a couple of NOS Tungstones that I have. The wire was sheared to essentially a flat end shape. Victor advised playing a junk record first to shape the end of the wire before using a new needle to play good records. Likewise, Victor advised reshaping the needle by playing a junk record if the user ever removed the needle and then remounted it in the reproducer. The wire wears into the shape of the groove in just a minute or so of play, so the initial shape of it is irrelevant. I failed to comment earlier specifically on the claim that osmium and other hard needles could be removed and remounted without a problem. This is NOT correct, for the same reason that Victor advised reshaping their tungsten needles if they were remounted. The needle tip wears into the "V" shape of the groove fairly quickly, depending on the hardness of the needle. Remounting the needle with exactly the same orientation as when it was removed is almost impossible. After remounting, there is a very high probability that the misoriented needle will severely gouge the record for a while until it is reformed to fit the groove, the moreso with the harder needles. This is not so much of a problem with the tungsten wire needles as they can be reformed in only about a minute of play with a junk record. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Chris Kocsis" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Coin machine or jukebox needles? Thank you, Greg! Are you saying that tungsten wire shaped needles are just clipped lengths of tungsten wire, without a point being formed on them before being used to play a record? Chris Greg Bogantz wrote: Osmium tipped needles were a transitional style. They were the cheapest "permanent" needle typically marketed in the late 1930s thru the '50s. The more expensive varieties of "permanent" needles were sapphire or ruby and the most expensive were diamond. People were using record changers and didn't want to mess around with changing steel needles all the time, so these styles became popular. The problem with all of these needles in that time period is that the pickups tracked at too high a force for any of them to be optimal with regard to record wear. The magnetic and crystal pickups of that period typically tracked at between 30 and 80 grams. Although that's less than the 80 to 150 grams of the earlier acoustic reproducer period, it's still just too high for any of these hard needles. They were especially deadly when used with the early vinyl 78s that were beginning to appear after WWII. The proper technology for high tracking forces was the steel or tungsten wire needle when used with shellac records that contained abrasive fillers that were intended to quickly wear the needle into conformance with the groove shape. But, of course, the steel needles needed to be changed with every record side or two. Tungsten WIRE shaped needles are superior to the osmium tipped needles because the cylindrical wire shape retains the same cross-sectional area during the entire lifetime of the needle. The osmium needles were tapered and as they wore they got a bigger cross section. This is fine until the cross section gets too big to fit into the groove width which happens after just a few records are played. Then the needle forms shoulders that ride outside the groove and on the land of the record. This lifts the needle out of close contact with the groove walls which leads to mistracking, distortion, and high record wear. These hard needles, especially the sapphire and diamond ones don't wear down quickly, and instead wear the records. These needles that were typical in this time period are the main reason that records that have survived from the '30s thru the '50s look worn and sound more distorted and worn than records that have survived from the teens and '20s and that were played properly with steel or tungsten wire needles. The use of these hard needles only became proper when pickup tracking forces were reduced to 10 grams or less in the 1950s. I don't feel comfortable using them even above about 5 grams. Tracking forces of 1 to 2 grams became commonplace in the early 1960s, and jewel-tipped needles are perfectly satisfactory when used in these pickups. The bottom line is, I would NOT recommend using hard needles in any pickup tracking at more than 10 grams if you want to preserve your records. When new, these needles will sound good for a while. But they will be grinding the bejeezus out of your records if you are tracking them at 30 grams or more. If you have a jukebox or record changer that operates at high t
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Gaskets question...
The Victor orthophonic reproducer (or #5 as it is sometimes known) was designed to have all the diaphragm flexure accommodated by the pleats stamped into the metal diaphragm. Unlike earlier designs, the gaskets were not intended to provide flexure - they were strictly there to seal the air leaks where the diaphragm joins the body of the reproducer. This design was purposely done to make the flexure and, therefore, the mechanical resonance more consistent from one unit to another and to ensure that it remains constant over time. This provided a much more consistent and predictable performance from one production unit to another. It was known to the designers of this reproducer that the earlier designs employing rubber gaskets deteriorated over time which resulted in decreased performance. The correct replacement gaskets for the #5 would be those that seal well without providing any flexure. If you do use rubber gaskets, the flexure that they provide will lower the diaphragm resonance frequency. This will emphasize the bass frequencies, but at the expense of the treble. The resulting sound will be more bass-heavy and with less treble and brilliance. The amount of this change in frequency response will be dependent on the softness of the gasket rubber and on the amount of clamping force you have when they are in place. In other words, the difference will be somewhat unpredictable and will vary from one implementation to another and with how the clamping force has been adjusted. This is exactly what one has to deal with when rebuilding the earlier designs such as Edisons and the early Victors that require flexure in their gaskets, and good restorers are aware of this. Some owners may prefer this more bass-heavy sound in the #5, but it will not be representing the intended frequency response of the original design of the reproducer. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "john robles" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Gaskets question... My gaskets don't appear to have anything to do with flexibility since they are so thin. I can't imagine how they do any more then keep the metal backing from touching the diaphragm directly. John Robles --- On Mon, 3/22/10, Ron L'Herault wrote: From: Ron L'Herault Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Gaskets question... To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 9:15 AM In theory, they only make an air seal, rather than playing a part in compliance/flexibility, right? Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Steven Medved Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:34 AM To: Phono-l Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Gaskets question... Hello Al, The original looks like paper coated with shellac to me. I have spoken to people who rebuild them and they tell me you get better sound from neoprene. I would assume Ron Sitko is selling them. Steve From: clockworkh...@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:26:27 -0400 To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic Reproducer Gaskets question... Does anyone on this learned list know what material was used as gaskets on the Victor Orthophonic reproducer? I have been asked to make a punch and die to cut them out but if someone is already making them I don't intend on reinventing the wheel. Thanks and best wishes to all on the list, Al ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] O/T: Capehart 414N-1
I realize that electronic phonos are a bit off-topic for this forum, but for those of you who can really appreciate a fine Capehart, here's a rare find: A 414N-1 with the VERY hard to find 41E-2 flipover changer: eBay Item #150426006960 This is the last version of the 41E changer that has the interchangeable tonearms and plays both 78 and 33rpm microgroove records, circa 1949. I'm posting this here to try to rescue this unit from the grimy clutches of the Western Weenies who are going to buy this console ONLY to rip out the Western Electric speaker from it so that they can mount it under glass and drool over it. Note that there is already a bidder question posted about wanting to see the speaker. Then they'll sell off the N-1 power amp with the 2A3 output triodes to some golden ear tube yahoos. Then they'll simply junk the rest of the console or turn it into a liquor cabinet. That would be a particular shame since this is appears to be a really nice and complete original example of a fine, RARE Capehart. Trust me: the 41E-2 machines are RARE! Let's see one of our Phono-L members give this complete unit the home it deserves. This model is particularly easy to enjoy while you're not playing records as it has t he modern FM radio band which means you can actually listen to good radio programs on it. In glorious monophonic sound, of course. I don't have a problem with collectors mounting things under glass to admire, but to destroy a perfectly good, working piece of fine equipment just to preserve one part of it really grinds my gears. I'd bid on it, but I don't have room for it. Greg Bogantz ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] O/T: Capehart 414N-1
Abe, the Capehart radio/phonos made from the mid 1930s to about 1950 were among the very finest, most exclusive models available in the USA. With very few exceptions such as the D-22 and the QU-8 which actually used a Capehart 16E changer and the postwar Berkshire series, ALL of which are very rare, RCA had nothing to compare. Aside from a very few other specialty makers such as E.H. Scott and McMurdo Silver, there were were no radio/phonos available in the USA that compared with the Capeharts. That's why these Capeharts are held in such high regard by collectors today. There were two common series made during these years, the 100 and the 400 series (model number were in these ranges). The 100 series was the cheaper one with smaller amplifiers and less elaborate cabinetry. The 400 series looked similar to the 100 series, but they usually (not always) had more and/or larger amplifiers and more expensive speakers and more elaborate cabinets. There was also a much rarer 300 series which were "tall-boy" cabinets with the components stacked vertically, and the EXTREMELY RARE 500 series which were the SUPER deluxe models available usually by special, customized order only. All these series used the exclusive Capehart flipover record changers. The early (prewar) record changers were the 16E models (several variations), and the postwar changers were the 41E models which are easily identifiable by their chromed, tubular tonearms. All these changers played only 78rpm until the 41E-2 model which came out about late 1948. This model had interchangeable TONEARMS (not just headshells) that provided for either 78rpm or for microgroove 33rpm playback. The 41E-2 was made for only a short time (probably less than 2 years) before Capehart discontinued the flipover changers completely and went to cheaper drop-type changers, most of which were furnished by VM (Voice of Music). These later Capeharts (starting around 1950) used a different numbering system and were cheapened considerably from the early 100 and 400 series. These later Capeharts are not very collectible and do not bring high prices from collectors. The B-1002-F model that you have mentioned in Arizona is an example of one of these later, post 1950 models. It would probably bring around $200 in nice condition. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Abe Feder" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] O/T: Capehart 414N-1 Greg, I have noted that you and several members like the Capehart units . I have seen a few of them here in Arizona from time to time.-I know nothing about them. There is one for sale now on Craigslist a model # B-1002-F. Owner says that it has been in his family for 60 years. He has original instruction manual as well as bill of sale and is asking $750.00. Any comments about it or price? Thx Abe Feder On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: I realize that electronic phonos are a bit off-topic for this forum, but for those of you who can really appreciate a fine Capehart, here's a rare find: A 414N-1 with the VERY hard to find 41E-2 flipover changer: eBay Item #150426006960 This is the last version of the 41E changer that has the interchangeable tonearms and plays both 78 and 33rpm microgroove records, circa 1949. I'm posting this here to try to rescue this unit from the grimy clutches of the Western Weenies who are going to buy this console ONLY to rip out the Western Electric speaker from it so that they can mount it under glass and drool over it. Note that there is already a bidder question posted about wanting to see the speaker. Then they'll sell off the N-1 power amp with the 2A3 output triodes to some golden ear tube yahoos. Then they'll simply junk the rest of the console or turn it into a liquor cabinet. That would be a particular shame since this is appears to be a really nice and complete original example of a fine, RARE Capehart. Trust me: the 41E-2 machines are RARE! Let's see one of our Phono-L members give this complete unit the home it deserves. This model is particularly easy to enjoy while you're not playing records as it has t he modern FM radio band which means you can actually listen to good radio programs on it. In glorious monophonic sound, of course. I don't have a problem with collectors mounting things under glass to admire, but to destroy a perfectly good, working piece of fine equipment just to preserve one part of it really grinds my gears. I'd bid on it, but I don't have room for it. Greg Bogantz ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Vitaphone Tone Arm
I have a Vitaphone consolette that looks different from most of the pictures that I see. It's a model 60 and is similar to the model 100 but the cabinet is much simpler. But the significant difference is the tonearm which does not have the large "C" shaped weight at the front end. Mine has a number of differences that allow the wooden piece to be placed above the metal rails of the arm. Instead of the large C weight, mine has two chunks of heavy metal (presumably lead) mounted between the two metal rails of the arm. Like the model 100, this model 60 has the horn in the lid which leads to lots of fancy plumbing and joints inside the record compartment required to allow the lid to raise and lower while the soundbox remains stationary and mounted to the motorboard. The horn is always connected to the soundbox, so it can be played with the lid open or closed. A bit of a plumbers nightmare. But interesting. The sound of these machines could best be described as "mellow". The wood arm is not really comparable to a conventional tonearm but is actually analogous to the stylus bar of a conventional acoustic reproducer as it couples the stylus tip to the diaphragm. The ENTIRE long piece of wood vibrates just as the stylus bar on a more conventional reproducer. The proper tonearm of the Vitaphone is actually comprised of the two metal rails that run along side of the wood bar. The idea was very bizarre. But the upshot of it is that the wooden arm functions as a lowpass filter. The sound produced is soft and unusually smooth in response with a diminished treble (the "anti-scratch" feature touted in the advertizements) - quite unusual for an acoustic phono. Although they play rather softly, I would not recommend using "loud" needles with these Vitaphones. The compliance of the wood arm is nearly nonexistent - all the compliance, such as it is, is produced by the flexing of the needle itself. To mount a loud needle would be akin to mounting it in a rock on a stick and expecting that setup not to tear the bejeezus out of your records. And, yes, it is capable of playing vertical modulation about as well as lateral. This is because the connection from the wood arm to the soundbox diaphragm is accomplished with a string that is oriented at approximately a 45 degree angle to the center of the diaphragm. This arrangement causes either vertical or lateral motion of the wood arm to be transmitted (rather poorly) to the diaphragm. So it's an interesting machine to own and demonstrate, but I don't recommend using it often as it's a record grinder. I can't remember if Phono-L has a photo hosting page. I can furnish photos of the model 60 if someone can advise where to post them. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Keith Wright" To: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vitaphone Tone Arm I have updated the Vitaphone page with a brochure and some machine images. BTW: if you can contribute any images before you part with the tone arm, I would be grateful. Thanks, Keith Presumably not many. I have recently bumped into a collector who has a couple of them and will be putting more pictures up on that CAPP Vitaphone page shortly. (So many machines, so little time...) Cheers, Keith Wright Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:23:08 + From: bruce78...@comcast.net To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vitaphone Tone Arm Good Luck with your sale Bob, I went to the link and that is really fascinating alternate sound technology for its time. Wonder how many of the actual units still survive. Bruce - Original Message - From: "Bob" To: "Phono L List" Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 10:15:31 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Phono-L] Vitaphone Tone Arm I am in the process of downsizing and am selling off miscellaneous phonograph items. I have a complete tone arm and diaphragm for a Vitaphone phonograph. I know this design was manufactured and sold in Canada from 1913 to 1916. It is unusual in that the tone arm did not contain the diaphragm. It was mounted in a stand at the rear of the arm. The arm is made of wood and it vibrated. The vibrations were transferred to the diaphragm which is mounted at the rear of the arm. My arm is similar to those shown at http://www.keithwright.ca/CAPP/Vitaphone/vitaphone.html According to this web sight the tone arm was capable of playing both lateral and vertical cut records. I can supply pictures of my parts to anyone that is seriously interested in it. I don't have an idea of the value of this piece so I will sell it to the highest offer I receive. If you are interested, email me at rvu...@comcast.net and I will provide detailed pictures of my part. __
Re: [Phono-L] Unreleased Diamond Disc?
According to the book "Edison Diamond Disc Re-creations, Records & Artists, 1910-1929" obtained from Tim Gracyk's website, the DD #50067 is indicated to have been coupled (R and L sides selected) on July 21, 1913 and listed in the catalog in August 1913. The selection was cut out of the catalog on December 6, 1916. There is no indication that this disc was unreleased. There is only one matrix number listed for the R side as #1250 "On the Road to Mandalay" by Thomas Chalmers & Chorus. The L side matrix is #1105 "Danny Deever" by Marcus Kellerman. No other matrix numbers or artists are shown for this selection. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Glenn Longwell" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:39 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Unreleased Diamond Disc? This list has been helpful before in my finds of Diamond Discs. This time the story has a twist. A colleague of mine's ancestor (I think great Uncle) was Marcus Kellerman, a baritone. Here's a little bit of info on him (http://sdrcdata.lib.uiowa.edu/libsdrc/details.jsp?id=/kellerman/3&page=1&ui=1). We found a copy of a cylinder he did, Danny Deever, on the UCSB website, an Amberol from 1911, number 682. In the documentation I have it shows that he also sang this song on Diamond Disc, 50067, with matrices 1105-A, B and C in June 1912. All were shown as rejected. So I assumed this was never released commercially. However, what I found was 50067 with matrix number 1105-5. Unfortunately, in this small collection I saw this is the only disc I brought home because I knew that Danny Deever was sung by Kellerman (there was another version sung by Arthur Middleton) and was hoping this was the one by Kellerman for my friend. If not for that I wouldn't have bought it because most of the records, including this one, had lam cracks. Having a number for the matrix makes it a quite interesting find. My question is whether this record 50067 with Kellerman's version of Danny Deever ever released commercially. I know there are people on this list with the right Edison books to probably tell this. I'm not sure how accurate my information is. If it truly wasn't released the rest of the records might be of similar nature - perhaps another dealer stash find. There were probably 10-12 of them and didn't really take a closer look because of the lam cracks on them. Thanks for any help. Glenn ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Yankee Prince Phonograph
Ron, I second that emotion. APM was already a has-been when I started collecting some years ago, so I haven't seen any of the information that has been published there. I'm probably not alone as I suspect many of our current collectors don't have any or much knowledge of APM or The New Amberola Graphic and its articles. I don't know what kind of copyright issues there may be, but I'd like to see some of the more timeless articles and studies from these early newsletters and magazines republished in ITG. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Yankee Prince Phonograph Maybe a "From the files of the APM" would be a good column for "In The Groove." Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of phonop...@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:34 AM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Yankee Prince Phonograph Hi, all --- The complete story of the "Yankee Prince" talking machine and its relation to other I'Neill-James products and the entire Chicago talking machine scene can be read about in (some would say excruciating) detail in a number of articles I wrote beginning in the early 1970s for publications like the APM (Antique Phonograph Monthly) and the Talking Machine Review International. Many older collectors have these publications in their libraries, but if you don't know anyone who might have them, the story will also be found in a few of the books George Paul and I wrote, primarily "The Talking Machine, an Illustrated Compendium" and "Discovering Antique Phonographs." These books are commonly available from a variety of sources, including www.phonophan.com and eBay. It depends on how much you really want to know about O'Neill-James, because I got into it on the obsessive level -- I mean, right down to quoting from the amateur poetry of Arthur J. O'Neill. But if all you want it a one-paragraph precis of the story, e-mail me off-line and I'll send you the quick and slick version. Cheers, Tim Fabrizio phonophan PO Box 747 Henrietta, NY 14467 TEL 585 582 1586 FAX 585 582 2624 Web site: www.phonophan.com ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Need Power Transformer
I believe that McIntosh still makes replacement transformers for their old tube equipment - they made the originals. But be prepared to get up off a good chunk of change to buy one. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:54 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Need Power Transformer One of my MacIntosh MC-60 amplifiers has blown its power transformer (M-171) & the repairman has requested that I look for a replacement. I realize that this piece of equipment may be a few decades too new for most of those who post on "Phono-L" but thought I'd give it a try.Many thanks for whatever help in finding a replacement power transformer you all may be able to provide! Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances, Inc. jim...@earthlink.net ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Diamond D and heavy weight C reproducer
Steve, I've never actually seen either a Diamond D or a heavy weight C. What's the difference between them? Can you post some pictures of them? Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Phono-l" ; "phonolist" Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 7:30 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Diamond D and heavy weight C reproducer Hello all, This will have a very narrow band of interest and will likely not produce any responses but I will try anyhow. I collect photos and serial number of reproducers, below are ones I am interested in. First I am interested in diamond B reproducers with serial numbers above 108,000. Second I am interested in any diamond C with the brass sound tube that is painted black. Third I am interested in any diamond C above 300,000. If you do not want to provide photos a description would be appreciated. All info will be kept confidential. You can cut my e-mail and just reply to me if you like. I am interested in information about the Amberola 60 and 80. First if the reproducers are rebuilt how do they sound when compared with the Amberola 50? I have heard the Diamond D does not sound that good but I wonder how much difference the larger horn makes. Do you have any idea how many were made and how many survive? I just recently noticed the extra weight on the Diamond D and the Heavy weight C is made of lead. I have only 2 of the heavy weight attachments and just the weights from 2 diamond D reproducers and 2 of the heavy weight C reproducers. The serial numbers from the Diamond D reproducers I have seen and my weights are in the 307,000 and 308,000 range. The serial number of the only heavy weight C I know of is in the A31000 range. Fortunately for me the diamond D weights have the serial numbers. I also noticed both the diamond B and C weights started out narrow and were widened. I will have to see if I can tell when this happened. Regarding the 80 I know of one in New Zealand, one in Canada, two that people I of know own in the US and one that sold on eBay. The NZ one has a serial number of 1015. 1033 and 1071 are the serial numbers I have for two of the machines I am aware of. If the serial number started with 1000 then at least 71 were made, but this is merely an uneducated guess on my part. The heavy weight is made universal so it will fit both the diamond D or the heavy weight C. I have not seen any Diamond D or C above 309,000 and they share serial numbers. I have seen a diamond C nickel plated and made of pot metal with a serial number over 308,000 so Edison made the diamond C and D at the same time. Any information on the heavy weight diamond C would be appreciated. My black pot metal one is 306702. Some facts about the diamond C. All the tops are made of pot metal, according to the Frow book the sound tubes were brass for about two years. 82804 is the highest nickel plated one I have seen with the brass tube, all of them appear to be nickel plated up to 93169 which is painted black and has a brass tube, I do not know who painted it. 95497 has the pot metal tube and is painted black. I do not know when the diamond B A series started, but 108700 is the highest of the regular series. The first ones have the same limit pin as the model O, but by 11965 the later limit pin was used. The late O and N reproducers also have the later pin. Steve ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Help with reproducer ID
That's from a Victor RE-45 or RE-75, most likely. It's the standard horseshoe magnetic pickup that was used on many early electric machines of the 1929 - 32 period. The drawn metal cover would usually be embossed with the appropriate logo for whatever set maker was using it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Dennis Back" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:09 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Help with reproducer ID Can anyone identify this reproducer and what machine is goes on? I know it's from a Victor machine, as it obviously has the Nipper. It also says "Victor" under the Berliner phono, so I assume it is from the USA, a pre-dates the RCA takeover. http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l523/Dustcollectors/vicelrep1.jpg http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l523/Dustcollectors/vicelrep2.jpg http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l523/Dustcollectors/vicelrep3.jpg Thanks for looking, Dennis ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Early cygnet horn without the spring
I have an early 10 panel cygnet horn and springless crane on an Edison Fireside. As you surmise, the system doesn't work very well as the force placed on the carriage by the horn varies with the position of the carriage. It happens to work on my particular example because the rubber coupling from my reproducer to the horn is old and somewhat loose. This allows the rubber coupler to move vertically a bit as the carriage moves which results in a more uniform carriage pressure. But this original setup was not satisfactory, I'm sure, and that's why the later versions use the spring to suspend the horn from the crane. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "phonolist" ; "Phono-l" Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Early cygnet horn without the spring Hello, Does anyone have an early cygnet horn without the spring? How do these work without the coil spring? I have seen them but it does not look like a workable system to me. Steve ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Lionel Phono Parts/Reproducers???
Yes, Lionel made cheap childrens' phonos for a period of time in the 1950s. Yes, this was the same company that made the model trains. Some of the phonos were acoustic and some were electronic models. They turn up on eBay regularly. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Vinyl Visions" To: Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:57 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Lionel Phono Parts/Reproducers??? Anybody ever hear of a Lionel phonograph or reproducer? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350430821863&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123 ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram
Well, the English must have eventually figgered it out. As a biker and with a brother who still owns a 1970 Norton Commando, I know what you're saying. When I was in the engineering lab at RCA Records, we purchased from England an EMI record testing machine that contained a Garrard 401 turntable, sometime in the late 1970s. I took the tester apart to check on something (which wasn't working, of course) and just busted out laughing when I spied a puddle of oil underneath the platter bearing, pooled on the bottom pan of the cabinet. Yep, it's English all right. I called all my biker buddies over to have a look at it, and we all had a good laugh over it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "William Zucca" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram Did you hear the one about why there was never a successful phonograph industry in England? (answer:) Because they couldn't figure out how to make the machines break down and start leaking oil every week. Ha Ha, GrnMountain Bill On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, wrote: Did you hear about the dyslexic anorexic? She never thought she was fat enough. -Original Message- From: Tom Jordan Sender: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:25:25 To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Reply-To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram I can't help it! :0) Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist? He laid awake at night wondering Is there a dog? -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Peter Fraser Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:00 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram Dog is my copilot! Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com On Jan 20, 2011, at 2:48 AM, john robles wrote: > No rush..my god passed away and left me with $1600 in vet bills...my phono purchases have sort of taken a downturn for the moment... > Thanks > John > > --- On Wed, 1/19/11, D P Ingram wrote: > > From: D P Ingram > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 9:28 PM > > Hi. Still looking. Not found any (duplicates yet) but am sorting out our duplicate holdings so found a lot more other stuff (phono, gram, radio ) :) > > Best, Darren > > > ¦ D P Ingram ¦ Ab Ingram Oy ¦ > ¦ darren at ingram.fi ¦ www.ingram.fi ¦ > ¦ > ¦ MUSIC LIBRARY FINLAND - www.musiclibrary.fi > ¦ > ¦ +358 6 781 0275 (FIN) ¦ extn 8001 > ¦ > > > > > > > > > > On 31 dec 2010, at 19.05, john robles wrote: > >> Thank you Darren, no hurry. >> John >> >> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, D P Ingram wrote: >> >> From: D P Ingram >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] New Phonogram >> To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 8:27 AM >> >> Possibly a couple but I cannot check for a day or two until after the holiday. >> >> Darren >> >> >> ¦ D P Ingram ¦ Ab Ingram Oy ¦ >> ¦ darren at ingram.fi ¦ www.ingram.fi ¦ >> ¦ >> ¦ MUSIC LIBRARY FINLAND - www.musiclibrary.fi >> ¦ >> ¦ +358 6 781 0275 (FIN) ¦ extn 8001 >> ¦ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 31 dec 2010, at 14.23, john robles wrote: >> >>> Does anyone have copies of the New Phonogram available for sale?? Repros are acceptable. >>> Thanks >>> John Robles >>> ___ >>> Phono-L mailing list >>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Black Patti... Black Swan
I have to agree with you Glenn. I'm a little dismayed at all the dissing of poor old Guy Lumbago here. When I was a kid, Lumbago was already pretty much of a has-been, being relegated to performing once a year on a New Year's Eve TV show. The Beatles were "fab" and no kid would be caught dead listening to anything his parents would remotely have liked. That included Sinatra and Basie. I thought Guy was really "square" and didn't know anybody who listened to him with the exception of one of my tekkie friends. I still don't know what that was about, but as I have aged and mellowed and started collecting 1930s vintage radios, I find that hearing the Royal Canadians coming thru the speaker of an Atwater Kent just seems right. Together with Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller and all the rest of the performers of the day. I have actually come to even like Carmen Lombardo's vocals. They are so uniquely cornball that they define the Lumbago sound just as much as the trademark toodling saxophones. And I think Guy's "dueling" dual piano treatments are some of the most upbeat and enjoyable to be heard. These two pieanny bangers were really talented, despite the corny arrangements. You won't hear many "clams" from their spirited playing. Guy's music is just plain fun, and I enjoy it quite a lot these days. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Glenn Longwell" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Black Patti... Black Swan My neighbor, who is 45 and female, loves Guy Lombardo. So does her father. In general she likes the big band era and that "sweet" music. My mother-in-law also likes him. So, he certainly had his fans and still does. And, yes, many of the Decca Lombardo discs I've come across look like they were "loved" a bit. Takes all kinds... Glenn From: Steven Medved To: Phono-l Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 8:51:01 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Black Patti... Black Swan All the people that liked Lombarda are either gone or they refuse to admit it, have you ever seen one of his records that looked played? Somebody must have liked Lombardo - there sure are a lot of his records around... :) (although, they might have survived since no one played them) > From: steve_nor...@msn.com > To: phono-l@oldcrank.org > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:56:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Black Patti... Black Swan > > > They are not half bad they are half good. But to take a Black Patti and > a Black Swan and give Jerry a Welk and a Lombardo in exchange..that is sad. > > > I think the early Guy Lombardo's on the Okeh label from the late > > 1920s are not half bad actually. Same goes with Lawrence Welk from the late 1920s. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steven Medved > > To: Phono-l > > Sent: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 10:37 am > > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Black Patti... Black Swan > > > > > > > > hose are impossible to enjoy no matter what the song. > > > > ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4qcCIH0yg0 > > > > NAH ITS A GUY LOMBARDO > > > > That's right... you snatched a Black Swan out of my hands and gave me > > a Glen > > > > Miller saying I'd enjoy it more. Jerry > > > > __ > > hono-L mailing list > > ttp://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > ___ > > Phono-L mailing list > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] ristaucrat jukebox information request
These Ristaucrat tabletop jukes use a modified RCA RP-168 record changer, the first design developed by RCA in 1949. But the modifications are fairly extensive as they include a mechanism that returns the record stack back up to the top of the changer. So some of the changer parts will be the same as those of the RP-168 which is still pretty available on eBay. Service info on the RP-168 is available on Howard W. Sams Photofact data sheets. Sams probably also had a service info bulletin on the Ristaucrat model itself. For the more specific juke parts, you can check with one of the several jukebox boneyards and parts suppliers thru Google. Here's one of the better ones: http://www.victoryglass.com/ You might also want to visit the Electrola Group on Yahoo which is dedicated to the discussion of early electronic record playing equipment. We have several juke owners in that group who might be able to help you. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Bob Maffit" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:37 PM Subject: [Phono-L] ristaucrat jukebox information request Phono Folks: I apologize in the event this is viewed by some as off topic however, I think this lists expertise in locating phonograph related information is needed in this case. I have pasted a little information on the "ristaucrat mini jukeboxes made in the early 50s below. At present, I can't find anyone who can work on mine as those who I have approached state, no information is available which could be used to guide repairs or remanufacture parts. Since this list often can find Patten and other needed specifications, I placed my hope here. In the event you can assist, or have a referral for me, much appreciated. Later Bob The following small jukeboxes all use 45 RPM records, capitalizing on the shift to these 7" records by the release of the Seeburg M100B. These little jukeboxes were marketed as cost effective stopgap while major jukebox manufacturers were still scrambling to shift production to 45 RPM models. Ristaucrat 45 - 1950 Ristaucrat, Inc was located at 1216 E. Wisconsin Ave., Appleton, Wisconsin, USA and announced the 45 Ristaucrat 45 Non-Selective Ristaucrat in Billboard Magazine on June 24, 1950. Initially, over 1200 were placed on location and production was stepped up to 100 per day per "press releases". The Ristaucrat 45 was available in either light or dark hardwood finish. According to the manufacturer, it "Plays 12-45 RPM Records, restacks automatically ... is set for 5 cent play or 2 for 5 cents ... is lightweight, weighs only 30 lbs. Measures a compact 12" high, 12 3/4" deep and 16" high" The known serial number range (only 4 data points) for this model ranges from 1099 to 3435. Given a conservative estimate based on known serial numbers, then only 2400 were produced, it is more likely that the serial number range started at 0001, so an estimated production of 3400+ can be assumed. Ristaucrat 45S - 1951-52 About a year after the release of the Ristaucrat 45, the S-45 was announced. A July 1951 ad in Coin Ristaucrat 45SMachine Journal stated: "Low cost selective Music for all locations. 12 record, twin speaker 45 RPM Selective Phone ... the Ristaucrat S-45 ... Plays 12-45 RPM records with smooth, noiseless operation. Records Play in rotation - no long, noisy, restacking periods between selections. Twin Speakers - only the S-45 has two speakers to give a true, clear tone to any record" The specifications for this record play was: Weight, 40 Lbs, 13 1/2" wide, 16 1/2" deep and 17" high. The known serial number range (only 4 data points) for this model ranges from 50408 to 52898. Given a conservative estimate based on known serial numbers, then only 2500 were produced, it is more likely that the serial number range started at 50001, so an estimated production of 3000+ can be assumed. Block quote end ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Edison Diamond Disc Record NumberWanted
Tim Gracyk's book "Edison Diamond Disc Re-Creations" lists several pairings for this 1052 matrix number: One record number 50008 has it paired with matrix 1001 titled "No One to Love", Mixed Quartet Record #50018 has it matched with matrix 941 titled "Fairest Rose Waltz", Charles Daab Record #50021 has the same pairing as #50018 Record #50022 has it matched with matrix 1053 titled "Flower Song", Violin, Cello, Flute, Harp "Whispering Flowers" by Reed Orchestra is listed as matrix #2367, paired with matrix 2048 "Angel's Dream Waltz", Band, on record #50037. There are some other pairings of these in the 8 series: Record 80001 has matrix 1052 paired with matrix 999 "Berceuse-Jocelyn", Cello. "Whispering Flowers" is also listed as matrix 939, paired with matrix 1250 "On the Road to Mandalay", Thomas Chalmers, on record 80003. Record 80022 has this matrix with the same pairing as 50022. I have #80022, complete with the box that it originally came in. Some of the earliest Edison DDs were packaged in a flat chipboard display box rather than in a paper sleeve. These deluxe boxes had a color picture and written descriptions of the selections on the front. There may be other pairings, but I didn't find them in a cursory scan of the book. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Jim Cartwright" To: Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:57 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Edison Diamond Disc Record NumberWanted I am cataloging my records & have one of the early "etched" label Edison diamond discs that does not include the record number on either it's face or edge for which I have been unable to find a record number.It is: "The Bloom is on the Rye" Henry R. Bishop, Composer - Tenor & baritone Orchestra Accompaniment (matrix number 1052) (I've found other couplings of this listed as sung by Harry Anthony & Charles Harrison)// "Whispering Flowers" Von Blon, Composer Band - Reed Instruments (matrix number as best I can make out 939) I any of you know the number of this record, I'd like to know. Many thanks! Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances, Inc. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] six springs! count 'em
Astounding! Seems odd that with the ready-availability of Edison Standards years ago that somebody would choose to remake the entire deck plate and most of the top end mechanicals. But the 64 dollar question is: WHAT is with the 6 springs ??!! Maybe the guy wanted to wind it once and have it play for the rest of his life. WTF? Might make sense if it was a coin-op that got wound only once a month. I don't get it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Alan Wohl" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 3:29 PM Subject: [Phono-L] six springs! count 'em When I read about a six spring machine I remembered one that I had thirty years ago. I got it up at the Brimfield , Ma. flea market and thought it was quite a find. Had it for a little while before I sold it. Never did find out what or who made it. Hope I did this correctly. http://www.flickr.com/photos/58867556@N02/ ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] OT: clockwork automaton article in NY Times today
Congratulations, Andy, on getting this priceless piece of history restored to full functionality. That must have been a privelege as well as great fun to do. What a wonderful challenge in trying to figure out what each piece of the mechanism did. I'm constantly amazed at the delicacy and precision of mechanisms such as watches and timepieces that were made hundreds of years ago. I have often wondered how these precision mechs were even made so many years ago before the availability of modern materials and processes. I'm always fascinated by this stuff. Thanks for the link. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Andrew Baron" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:00 PM Subject: [Phono-L] OT: clockwork automaton article in NY Times today For those phonograph enthusiasts whose interests extend into other mechanical realms, Today's edition of the New York Times (Science Times section) ran an article about the drawing/writing automaton that restored for Philadelphia's Franklin Institute Science Museum. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/science/maillardet-automaton-inspired-martin-scorseses-film-hugo.html?_r=2&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimes&pagewanted=all Best to all, Andrew Baron ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Amplifier and speaker for an Edison R-7 Radio
Hi Don, The Edison R6 and R7 were 1930 model radios. They use the same chassis which are usually painted a gold color. But none of the other Edison models use the 1930 chassis. The model R8 was also offered in 1930, but it was a rebadged 1929 model R5 with more gingerbread added to the cabinet. It uses the 1929 chassis. You might want to post your request to the Electrola Group on Yahoo. Those readers are specifically interested in early electronic radios and phonos. Also, you could try posting to one of the several sites that specialize in antique radios. These Edison chassis are not common but they aren't impossible to find, either. They usually don't bring much money as there isn't as much interest in them as in other makes. All of the Edison radio products from 1928 thru 1930 used the Peerless single-turn voice coil speaker. These speakers must be paired with the correct output transformer which is significantly different from the typical transformer. Finding this pairing isn't usually a problem because the Peerless output transformer is usually enclosed in the base of the speaker assembly. So if you find the speaker, you've probably also got the transformer, providing that it's good. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Don Henry" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:40 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Amplifier and speaker for an Edison R-7 Radio Anyone out there know where I might find an amplifier and speaker for an Edison R-7 Radio? I have a lovely cabinet and tuner but am missing these items. Are any of the other models interchangeable with this one? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Don Henry ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_?
I believe the Motrola has a metal case. The danger can occur if there is electrical leakage from the internal wiring to the case and its attached metal parts which can occur due to carbonized insulation that can begin to develop a lower resistance. I would recommend first testing with an ohmmeter to determine if there is already leakage from either of the wires leading from the motor to the case. An ohmmeter reading should indicate a very high or infinite resistance from either wire to the case when things are correct. If you measure any significantly lower resistance, the internal wiring will need to be redone or repaired. If there is good isolation from the motor wires to the case, I would recommend replacing the line cord with a modern three-wire cord with a 3-terminal AC plug. Connect the black and white wires to the motor circuit as was done in the original 2-wire cord. Then connect the green wire to a screw on the metal case. This will privide a grounding connection from the case to your household earthing system. If electrical leakage should develop in the future, it will be routed thru the green wire to your household ground system (assuming you plug the cord into a modern 3-wire outlet). In the worst case, it will blow a fuse or circuit breaker rather than leaving the system a shock hazard. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I have a Jones Motrola I'm trying to rewire, but I read that they can be dangerous in their original ungrounded state? Any ideas on how I can deal with this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Philip Carli This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_?
An isolation transformer would not prevent getting a shock from the case of the Motrola if it develops internal leakage. Grounding the case of the unit as described previously is the best plan. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? Many thanks! Another suggestion I've had is the use of an isolation transformer at the plug - any thoughts on that? PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Greg Bogantz [gbogan...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:27 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I believe the Motrola has a metal case. The danger can occur if there is electrical leakage from the internal wiring to the case and its attached metal parts which can occur due to carbonized insulation that can begin to develop a lower resistance. I would recommend first testing with an ohmmeter to determine if there is already leakage from either of the wires leading from the motor to the case. An ohmmeter reading should indicate a very high or infinite resistance from either wire to the case when things are correct. If you measure any significantly lower resistance, the internal wiring will need to be redone or repaired. If there is good isolation from the motor wires to the case, I would recommend replacing the line cord with a modern three-wire cord with a 3-terminal AC plug. Connect the black and white wires to the motor circuit as was done in the original 2-wire cord. Then connect the green wire to a screw on the metal case. This will privide a grounding connection from the case to your household earthing system. If electrical leakage should develop in the future, it will be routed thru the green wire to your household ground system (assuming you plug the cord into a modern 3-wire outlet). In the worst case, it will blow a fuse or circuit breaker rather than leaving the system a shock hazard. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I have a Jones Motrola I'm trying to rewire, but I read that they can be dangerous in their original ungrounded state? Any ideas on how I can deal with this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Philip Carli This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_?
Potmetal can't be soldered, typically. You can use any screw anywhere inside the unit that is electrically connected to the case for the purpose of attaching the green grounding wire. Make sure that your connection point is NOT connected to the motor wiring - test with an ohmmeter. A motor frame screw might be more convenient. The metal motor frame is likely touching the case at some point which is sufficient to provide grounding. Or you can attach the grounding wire by clamping it or in any suitable fashion that provides a decent electrical connection. Test your chosen connection point with an ohmmeter measurement from that point to some outside exposed metal on the case to confirm that it is electrically connected to the case. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? Would soldering the green wire to the case do as well as a screw? I believe the case is pot metal and tapping it for a screw might shatter the whole thing. Philip Carli From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Greg Bogantz [gbogan...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:27 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I believe the Motrola has a metal case. The danger can occur if there is electrical leakage from the internal wiring to the case and its attached metal parts which can occur due to carbonized insulation that can begin to develop a lower resistance. I would recommend first testing with an ohmmeter to determine if there is already leakage from either of the wires leading from the motor to the case. An ohmmeter reading should indicate a very high or infinite resistance from either wire to the case when things are correct. If you measure any significantly lower resistance, the internal wiring will need to be redone or repaired. If there is good isolation from the motor wires to the case, I would recommend replacing the line cord with a modern three-wire cord with a 3-terminal AC plug. Connect the black and white wires to the motor circuit as was done in the original 2-wire cord. Then connect the green wire to a screw on the metal case. This will privide a grounding connection from the case to your household earthing system. If electrical leakage should develop in the future, it will be routed thru the green wire to your household ground system (assuming you plug the cord into a modern 3-wire outlet). In the worst case, it will blow a fuse or circuit breaker rather than leaving the system a shock hazard. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I have a Jones Motrola I'm trying to rewire, but I read that they can be dangerous in their original ungrounded state? Any ideas on how I can deal with this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Philip Carli This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_?
Try it, Barry. I'll stand by and laugh. I just got a zap from a Fisher FM tuner that I routinely have plugged in to an isolation transformer (together with a variable AC transformer) as I do with all things on my workbench. Many old tube sets have capacitors from the line cord wiring to the chassis which can be pretty tickly, especially when these sets did not include the third chassis grounding wire in the line cord. I accidentally touched the output side of the Fisher transformer - that would be DOUBLE the isolation in place. 120 volts AC - or more - will bite you when you touch it, isolation xfmr or not. Isolation transformers are good for preventing large currents from flowing when you short things out which can blow fuses and start fires, but they don't do anything to reduce the voltage - that's what their purpose is. Greg - Original Message - From: "Barry Kasindorf" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? Not true Greg. You would have to touch 2 different places with potential to get a shock and the case can't have that. Unless the isolation transformer is bad it makers it safe. That is how you can use those AC/DC sets with the case hot safely. The isolation transformer isolates it from ground completely. On 2/16/2012 10:10 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: An isolation transformer would not prevent getting a shock from the case of the Motrola if it develops internal leakage. Grounding the case of the unit as described previously is the best plan. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? Many thanks! Another suggestion I've had is the use of an isolation transformer at the plug - any thoughts on that? PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Greg Bogantz [gbogan...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:27 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I believe the Motrola has a metal case. The danger can occur if there is electrical leakage from the internal wiring to the case and its attached metal parts which can occur due to carbonized insulation that can begin to develop a lower resistance. I would recommend first testing with an ohmmeter to determine if there is already leakage from either of the wires leading from the motor to the case. An ohmmeter reading should indicate a very high or infinite resistance from either wire to the case when things are correct. If you measure any significantly lower resistance, the internal wiring will need to be redone or repaired. If there is good isolation from the motor wires to the case, I would recommend replacing the line cord with a modern three-wire cord with a 3-terminal AC plug. Connect the black and white wires to the motor circuit as was done in the original 2-wire cord. Then connect the green wire to a screw on the metal case. This will privide a grounding connection from the case to your household earthing system. If electrical leakage should develop in the future, it will be routed thru the green wire to your household ground system (assuming you plug the cord into a modern 3-wire outlet). In the worst case, it will blow a fuse or circuit breaker rather than leaving the system a shock hazard. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Philip Carli" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Does anyone know how to make a Jones Motrola _safe_? I have a Jones Motrola I'm trying to rewire, but I read that they can be dangerous in their original ungrounded state? Any ideas on how I can deal with this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Philip Carli This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, inc
Re: [Phono-L] Paul Baker's email
Here's the email address I have for Paul Baker: pabcla...@aol.com Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Vinyl Visions" To: Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Paul Baker's email That adelphia.net email address is obsolete. Adelphia went out of business several years ago and were taken over by Time Warner. From: c5...@aol.com Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:40:21 -0500 To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] wanted to buy I think this is Paul Bakers e-mail _classm@adelphia.net_ (mailto:cla...@adelphia.net) . Thanks In a message dated 2/23/2012 10:56:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jdcoffm...@comcast.net writes: Hi,I'm am looking for a Columbia AG case & a Columbia BF lid.Any help would be greatly appreciated.Thanks,John ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Partly OT, Victor Theremin site
Hi Andrew, You may or may not know that Dr. Robert Moog, the inventor of the Moog synthesizer, started his career as a consequence of his fascination with the original RCA theremin. He started restoring them, then he decided to make new ones. One thing led to another, and the Moog Music company was formed. Today, Moog Music is alive, well, and thriving in Asheville, NC (my stomping grounds). They are still restoring original theremins as well as making and selling new ones, in addition to all their newer synthesizer equipment. A lot of musicians descend on Asheville to visit Moog Music and play with their toys. Asheville started a music gathering called "Moogfest" two years ago which is a celebration of all things Moog. It's been a huge success, and more are in the planning stages. You might want to contact Moog or one of their websites to spread the news of your website. Lots of musicians and others interested in the theremin should see your postings there. Here's the scoop on Moogfest. Another one will probably be scheduled this year around October: http://www.moogfest.com/ Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Andrew Baron" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:11 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Partly OT, Victor Theremin site Hi all ~ My Victor Theremin* colleague and I have just co-created a new website: rcatheremin.com For those who may be interested, here you will find practical but heretofore unavailable information about the original 1929 theremins, the first manufactured musical instrument to employ no acoustic or mechanical means of reproducing of sound. In Victor advertising, it was stated: "Not a phonograph---Not a radio---Not like anything you have ever heard or seen!" There are Victor records of this unique first electronic musical instrument that date from 1930 (Victor 25130 is one that some of you may have seen), and the instrument itself (which is played without touching it) was developed during the time that RCA was busy acquiring the Victor Talking Machine Company. If any of you own or know of someone who has one of these original Victor Theremins, please let me know about it, as we are actively researching the survivors. Both Mike and I own RCA theremins, and are not in the market to buy, but rather are more interested in documenting the survivors and sharing what we've learned about these rare and unusual instruments. I hope you enjoy the site, Andrew Baron Santa Fe (*As originally advertised in 1929, also referred to in brochures as the RCA Theremin) ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
[Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns
hat of a large table radio or small radio console - I estimate that it has about an extra octave of useful output, some above and some below the range of the Victor ortho. The bass is not window-rattling, but it's uncommonly good and the sound is well-balanced and wide-range without peakiness, and most listeners can't believe that they're hearing acoustic reproduction. So, yes, the big Victor horns are the best acoustic horns that I know of and are damn fine at that. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Portable phonos > Hi Greg, I agree, the bottom does sound like a typical Viva-Tonal though a > modern cartridge; I had read elsewhere that these machines were capable of > stunning amounts of bottom end extension for portables, but I didn't think > it would be as big a difference as what this clip shows. Too bad the gent > makes it clear it's his recording of his machine; hate to see dishonesty > and misinformation continuing to spread. > > Nonetheless, Greg, what are your experiences with the Columbia #15? In > terms of playing early electrical discs, namely Viva-Tonals and VE's, by > acoustic reproduction, what non-Credenza machines have you heard that > stand up to the Credenza? If we're talking about highest fidelity of an > electrical disc through an acoustic machine, is there a clear winner in > your opinion? > > I'd also like to ask you about your experiments with reproducers that > garnered better fidelity than any standard-issue sound-boxes. It may be > of interest to some of the List (I'd like Walt's input as well, and Steve > M's), so if we promise to keep it short and simple, I hope we can discuss > it here in the forum. > > Best, > Robert > > > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Bogantz" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:51 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Portable phonos > > >> Hi Robert, Thanks for your confidence, but I don't have personal >> experience with this machine. It is a Columbia 161 and uses what appears >> to be the #15 Viva-Tonal reproducer. I'm sure it probably sounds better >> than other, earlier portables, but I sincerely doubt that the audio clip >> that you reference was actually recorded from this machine. That clip >> has all the characteristics of a playback with a modern hifi phono >> cartridge. In particular, there is no midrange peakiness which is still >> characteristic of all acoustic reproducers that I know of. And the bass >> is far more extended than I've heard come from any acoustic reproducer >> played thru a horn, including the biggest exponential horns. Even if the >> recording was made by sticking the microphone well down inside the horn >> of an acoustic player, I don't thing the bass would be this good and the >> midrange would certainly be honkier than what we hear in this clip. I've >> been wrong plenty of times, but I still doubt that this recording was >> made from this machine. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Robert Wright" >> To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:03 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Herzog Peg Layout >> >> >>> Only rule I can think of is never trust the original handle! I've >>> always liked the Victor Orthophonic suitcase models, but there's a >>> Columbia Viva-Tonal model out there that sounds almost hi-fi, like a >>> Credenza. Anyone know which one I'm talking about? Here's a pic: >>> >>> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jlf/pho/18.jpg >>> >>> And here's the page associated with the pic, with a sound clip of it >>> playing. >>> >>> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jlf/enphonos.htm >>> >>> I don't know how this gent mic'd the phono or anything, but the bottom >>> end on this machine appears to be pretty amazing. Where's Greg Bogantz? >>> I bet he knows about this machine. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Thatcher Graham" >>> To: "Antique Phonograph List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:48 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Herzog Peg Layout >>> >>> >>>> And while I'm tapping the great knowledge ban
[Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns
Hi Steve, Threading the needle shank and having it screw into the needle bar is an option. I hadn't considered that before, but it would pretty well solve the extra mass problem. But it would make the needles pretty involved to manufacture. I'll keep it in mind. Greg - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:48 AM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns Hi Greg, Could you use a threaded needle bar and have the needle thread in? Steve > From: gbogan...@charter.net> To: phono-l@oldcrank.org> Subject: Re: > [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 > 18:38:11 -0500> > Hi Steve,> > I have built several of them. Each is a > slightly different experimental > version on the basic theme. The best one > is very good, but it is still "not > ready for prime time". It remains > pretty user-unfriendly, particularly in > that I haven't figgered out yet > how to make the needle change easy to do. > The common needle chuck > arrangement that is found on nearly all > commercially-made reproducers is > a lot of the problem with them. They are > easy to use but they contribute > too much moving mass to the system. I'm > still thinkin about how to > design a needle mount that is low mass and also > easy to use. Just as in > every other area of acoustic reproducer design, > this one presents > diametrically opposing requirements. Figgering out the > best compromise > is where the challenge is. And the head-scratching.> > Greg Bogantz> > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Steven Medved" > > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:27 PM> Subject: > RE: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns> > > Hi Greg and list,> > > You said:> > My design has a MUCH lower moving mass and quite a lot higher > compliance > than any other reproducer that was sold to the public.> > > Does this mean you are building them?> > > Steve___> Phono-L mailing > list> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > ___> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns
Jon, some of your points here have been addressed in my response to Walt. You are correct that the decreased mass at the reproducer could be replaced by increasing the mass elsewhere in the tonearm. RCA did just that in their "inertia arm" of the 1930s. With regard to needle hardness, you must keep in mind the two completely different principles of playing records with styli: The early acoustic system REQUIRES the use of heavy tracking force. This was and remains necessary because the record groove is required to perform WORK on the needle to move the diaphragm against the mass of the air that it needs to move in the horn. Significant power must be transferred to the needle which cannot be accomplished at a light tracking force without gross mistracking. The only way you can use heavy tracking force with the relatively soft materials found in records is to spread that force out over a fairly large area so that the PRESSURE (force per square unit of area) is kept down to a low enough value that the record material does not permanently yield. This means that the needle MUST have flatted contact patches with the groove wall of fairly significant size. Modern record playing technology, on the diametrically-opposed other hand, is completely different. The power required to move the air mass to achieve audible sound is provided by electrons and directed to the loudspeaker thru the amplifier and its power supply. The amplifier needs only the "instructions" of how to direct the electronic power. This means that infinitesimal power (even NONE in the case of tracing the groove wall with a laser beam) is all that is required from the groove. This allows the use of a pickup that can track at (almost) arbitrarily low tracking force, so long as that force is sufficient to transmit the tiny power required to move the VERY SMALL effective tip mass (ETM) of the modern hifi stylus assembly. The lower the ETM at the stylus tip, the lower the tracking force can be with no untoward effects on the signal pickup. This assumes, of course, that your tonearm is capable of holding the stylus in the groove properly without a bias against one wall or the other (skating or friction). Consequently, you can use the hardest material that you can find (diamond) for the stylus since it presents vanishingly low pressure on the groove walls, even though it is typically made to present very small contact patches (necesary to reduce tracing distortion). And doing so means that the stylus will retain its desired shape for MANY record playings. As you can see, the physics of the two record playing technologies is VERY different. You must keep in mind that you can't mix them up. In case you may be wondering about now, Edison got away with using diamond styli in his vertical recording systems because the shape of the groove was rounded at the bottom and that curvature was designed to fit the curvature of the playback stylus. This, together with infinitesimal, temporary deformation of the groove bottom during play caused the stylus to present a fairly large, elongated contact patch, thereby reducing the pressure on the record groove. The small amount of groove deformation was below the permanent yield point of the record material so that permanent record damage was avoided. As I said in the earlier response, the tip shape of the tungsten wire is irrelevant. It conforms to the record groove in a matter of seconds when first used. You just have to be aware that it is gouging the crap out of your record while this is happening, so you want to use a junk record during this shaping period. The harder the material used in the needle, the longer it will take to shape it to the record groove. So modern harder materials will probably never be a practical solution. And the problem of tonearm tracking angle error further adds to the likelihood that a super-hard needle would always be gouging your records even after it develops its flats. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Jon Noring" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > Walt wrote: > >> BUT, Greg made some other points along the way that must be considered >> and I >> will try to harness a few of them here for focus' sake. This means that >> the >> other not-so-short answer to the question would be, no, decreasing the >> mass >> of an acoustic soundbox will not necessarily result in a decrease of >> lateral >> inertia. How so? Theoretically, if the reduction in mass is compensated >> for >> by way of compliance, and if the tone arm pivot friction (not the tone >> arm >> weight) is not a factor (which I believe it would probably be in >> actuality, >&
[Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns
Bob, the tungsten needles that I make are designed strictly for their functionality. I have made no effort to make them look like the original Victors. Mine are made from aluminum stock rather than the brass that was used in the Victors. Mine are kinda ugly, actually, but they do the job. To remake the Victor design would require, I presume, the use of screw machines to shape the "waist" on the needle shank (which allows flexing to set the loudness of play) as well as to drill the hole for the tungsten wire. I haven't looked up the Victor patent on their design to see if it shows any details of their manufacture, but it may not. They could have originally been made of brass tubing which was subsequently rolled down on the wire to capture it and rolled to the desired diameter at the waist. Dunno. Regardless, quite an expense in tooling would be required to recreate this type of design for quantity manufacturing. Which would probably not make the project practical for the fairly small market which now exists for these needles. Maybe you can talk some Chinese entrepreneur into doing it - you won't find any munny-grubbing Murkan greedy capitalist willing to do it :o) Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Bob" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > Hi Greg, >I read with interest your two recent emails. While I agree that there > probably isn't much of a market for a better design orthophonic reproducer > when you consider the cost to make such a complicated item on a very > small scale. However I think that tungsten needles is a different story. > I think just about every phono collector would like a source for tungsten > needles; when you see what they go for on eBay. I'm sure quite a few of > us have old Victor tins for tungsten needles that we would like to refill. > I would think that someone with your mechanical talents could come up with > the tooling to automate the production process and turn them out in > quantity economically. Therefore I urge you to consider manufacturing > them and making them available to the phono enthusiast community. > RMV > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Bogantz" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > > >> Hi Robert, >> >>To answer your general curiosity, yes, I >> have tried many of the things you suggest. I have designed and made a >> complete "New Orthophonic" (with apologies to RCA who couldn't care less >> at this point since they're owned by the Chinese) reproducer to fit >> Victor >> ortho tonearms out of lathe-turned aluminum - none of the parts are >> recycled >> from old designs. The aluminum model weighs about half of the potmetal >> design. I don't want to divulge too much more of the design in case I >> eventually want to make and market it. But it really isn't ready for >> that >> yet. Even so, I don't know how much market there would be for a toy like >> this. Most phono collectors don't obsess about the audio performance of >> their acoustic machines like you and I do. Their attitude is that >> anything >> that isn't an original 100 year old design constitutes a "frankenphone" >> and >> they don't want anything to do with it. So I'm not encouraged that there >> are more than a dozen of us with this interest. >> >>As an adjunct to this design, I also have been making for some time >> now >> my own tungsten needles. This started out because I needed durable >> needles >> to use in my oldest record changers that are designed for steel needles. >> Steel needles are no good for these changers because they wear out >> completely after two record sides are played. So, what's the point of >> having a record changer if you have to change the needle every two record >> sides? Victor recommended their Tungstones for this purpose, and indeed, >> they were the best choice for this application at the time. But I didn't >> want to use up expensive, original, antique Tungstones so I designed my >> own. >> What I found out was that the original tungsten wire used by Victor is >> .007 >> inch (7 mils) in diameter. This is really too big for the typical groove >> which is around 5 to 5.5 mils in width. But they used it because >> anything >> smaller is too delicate and bends too easily. Also, the heavy tracking >> force of the early reprodu
[Phono-L] Portables
The add-a-tone and other such "features" that funnel the outside of the reproducer diaphragm in some purposeful way was all just marketing bilge. Several variations of this were tried, culminating in the Kalamazoo Duplex and other twin-horn designs. Yes, the wavefronts are largely out of phase and interfere with each other, even including those designs that have a fairly long horn loading one side of the diaphragm which does add a little time delay to that path. Depending on where the listener is positioned relative to the two sound outputs, the interference will cause comb-filtering of the audio spectrum which makes the sound quite different from place to place. It was merely a sales gimmick. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 1:16 AM Subject: [Phono-L] Portables > Here's another Carryola on eBay: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-1920S-ORNATE-VIOLIN-CRANK-PHONOGRAPH-COOL_W0QQitemZ300197975631QQihZ020QQcategoryZ1442QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > My question is about the add-a-tone patent of 1925 referenced on the > reproducer. It looks like a combination recorder/reproducer design from > the late 1870's (figuratively, of course)! Surely this wasn't intended > for home recordings. More likely, I assume, just another sound source for > more volume. This typically wouldn't be conducive to pleasant playback > (and certainly not accurate playback), as waves coming from the front side > of the diaphragm (the side not facing the tonearm tube/horn) would be out > of phase and time-misaligned with the waves coming from the horn, but > maybe they thought the extended length of that overly-curvy tonearm would > make the distance traveled by the waves coming out of the horn long enough > that phase issues would no longer have a detrimental effect -- thus by > amplifying the waves coming from the non-tonearm side of the diaphragm, > they were "add"ing more "tone". > > Or was it just another way to establish a BS patent/avoid a Victor patent > infringement? > > Thoughts? > > Best, > Robert > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] open question
I would agree with others' opinions on this. I have not actually tried a wear test on Metrolite or similar plastics, but I would hesitate to use a heavy reproducer (acoustic or early electric) at 100 grams tracking force or so on these soft records. And I'm also not comfortable using the 30 gram setups of the prewar period with them, either. I have a number of these early plastic 78s and I play them only with 5 grams or less tracking force with a modern hifi cartridge and get very good results from them. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Thatcher Graham" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:27 PM Subject: [Phono-L] open question > > I have a number of 78s that are not shellac or at least do not appear to > be. In many cases (depending on brand) their labels indicate they are > made of Metrolite I've read that Mercury used "Merco Plastic" MGM used > Mercolite and Savoy used Sav-o-Flex. > Do these have the same resilience as my shellac 78s? I am concerned that > normal play will wear them more quickly. If they are made of a a PVC/ENR > blend that is probably the case. > > -- Thatcher > > > > > Metrolite, Merco Plastic, and Sav-o-flex! >> >> >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] threaded needles
Bob, you're misunderstanding the situation. I admit things may be a little confusing here as we've been talking about two unrelated subjects in the same threads. There are two significant masses and two significant resonances that we've been talking about. The mass of the complete reproducer is significant in that it, combined with the effective end mass of the tonearm constitutes a resonant system with its spring constant determined by the compliance of the needle, needle bar, and diaphragm. The goal is to have this resonance be a very low frequency so that it is not excited by record modulation. In other words, we DO NOT want the reproducer and tonearm to vibrate with the needle. To do so robs some of the groove energy from being directed into the horn and lowers the volume at those frequencies where the tonearm is vibrating. Extreme vibrations of the tonearm can also cause the needle to skip out of the groove. This resonance can be lowered by either increasing the mass of the complete reproducer or by increasing the compliance of the diaphragm. But the more difficult resonance to control is that which is dependent on the effective tip mass at the needle point which we DO WANT to vibrate - that is we DO want the needle, needle bar, and diaphragm to vibrate while not allowing the complete reproducer and tonearm to vibrate. The effective tip mass here with regard to this resonance is determined by the mass of the needle, needle bar, and diaphragm. These are relatively low masses compared with the mass of the complete reproducer. Any part of this mass which is spaced at a large distance from the needle bar pivot will increase its inertia around that pivot and cause the EFFECTIVE mass as seen at the needle tip to be larger than if that mass was located closer to the needle bar pivot. You will note that the needle chuck itself and the needle screw constitute a significant amount of the above total mass. That is why we are not engaged in mere mental diddling to be concerned with this mass.A lower mass here allows the diaphragm compliance to be increased to produce the same resonance. Lowering this mass and increasing the compliance allows the groove to do less work because it doesn't have to move so much mass around. Placing the resonance at a higher, yet still midrange frequency is necessary to retain efficiency (loudness) from the reproducer. A slightly higher, well damped resonance together with a higher compliance also allows better treble AND bass response to be obtained from the system with no loss of loudness. It's all a delicate balance of masses and compliances to get the most blood out of the turnip that can be squeezed. So, the mass of the needle thumbscrew itself is only part of the problem with the typical needle chuck system. The thumbscrew has to screw into something rather substantial in order to produce a tight grip on the needle. That something is the needle chuck which is, itself, rather massive because it has to have enough "meat" in it to provide several threads in a fairly hard material that the needle screw can bind into. Eliminating the entire needle chuck and screw would be desirable as a way of lowering the moving mass of the needle system. Which is what we've been talking about. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Bob" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] threaded needles > Hi Greg, >I've read this whole discussion with interest. As I understand it the > goal of this exercise in "mental masturbation" is to reduce the mass of > the reproducer by the weight of the thumb screw. I do not have accurate > measuring tools to weigh a standard thumb screw and don't remember the > weight of your custom aluminum reproducer but emphericly I don't think the > thumbscrew makes up a significant proportion of the total mass which is > why I made the comment about mental masturbation. That being said, I do > have a practical solution to eliminate most of the mass of the thumbscrew. > I would think the majority of the mass of the thumbscrew is in the knurled > disk at the end used for tightening it against the needle. This section > and a good portion of the threaded shaft could be eliminated if you > machined a hex or a flat on the end that is left sticking out of the > needle bar after the needle is inserted and tightened. You would use > either a small pair of pliers or a custom hex wrench to tighten the > threaded piece. > RMV > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Bogantz" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] threaded needles > > >> Thatcher, >> >>
[Phono-L] threaded needles
Pathe uses two needle chuck arrangements that I'm aware of. One is basically the same as most others with the needle held in by a set screw or thumbscrew. Use of a setscrew is less massive because it lacks the large thumbwheel. The other Pathe type is what I call a "pin vise" - it uses a threaded cone nut to compress the fingers of the collet around the needle shank. Both of these systems are about the same moving mass. Again, these typical threaded systems require massive components to support the threads in a relatively hard material which is necessary to keep the threads from stripping easily. Refining such a system to move the massive bits as close to the needle bar pivot as possible would be an improvement. Worth thinking about. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] threaded needles Greg, maybe the answer lies in a needle chuck similar to the Pathe? Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bogantz Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 4:33 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] threaded needles Thatcher, That's essentially what I am now doing. The present design is a press fit of the needle shank into the hole (deep well, actually) in the needle bar. But the fit must be tight to prevent rattling. This makes the machining difficult, but more significantly, it makes the needle exchange difficult because you must use pliers, tweezers, or some similar tool to hold both the needle bar and the needle shank for both insertion and removal. Not user-friendly. Specialized tools and/or jigs could be furnished to make the job easier, but it's still a tedious task. A friend of mine has experimented with a similar design. His solution is to glue the needle shank into the needle bar. That works, but getting the worn needle out of the needle bar is a b*tch. He gets around this by using the "semi-permanant" osmium Pfanstiehl needles that were popular in the 1940s and can last for several playings. I don't agree with this because these needles are too hard, as I've commented before, and must be worn in over several playings on junk records to form their flats. He removes the needle by heating the glue with a soldering iron to cause it to flow. Still, very tedious. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Thatcher Graham" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] threaded needles > > As an engineer I could not help but to fixate on this "threaded needle > idea". I agree that threading needles solves the mass issue hence the > instinctive appeal, but the difficult manufacture is equally discouraging. > As an alternative, have you considered a sabot? > > -Thatcher > > > > Jon Noring wrote: >> Greg wrote: >> >> >>> Threading the needle shank and having it screw into the needle bar >>> is an >>> option. I hadn't considered that before, but it would pretty well solve >>> the >>> extra mass problem. But it would make the needles pretty involved to >>> manufacture. I'll keep it in mind. >>> >> >> Yes, it would be involved if all the needles are threaded by hand or >> in small numbers, especially at the diameter being considered. >> >> It is intriguing to consider using a very fine threaded rod, if even >> manufactured in the desired material(s). One would have to grind and >> polish to create the tip geometry. >> >> Which brings up the idea that if a needle is to be especially >> manufactured, one could consider tipping it with a different material >> that can be specially shaped (such as spherical or elliptical with >> no sharp edges at all. It is my understanding that most damage to >> grooves is due to a tip which is no longer smooth. Maybe the tip could >> be made from a material of the same hardness as the "grit" used in >> shellac discs (is it corundum?) to wear down the needle. >> >> Just thinking outside the box... >> >> Jon >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Victor Electrola Sheraton No.500 Owners - And a Story ofDiscovery
Your notation on your photo page about the lamp shade brings up an interesting point: I'm not sure that these earliest electric motor machines, including the "electrola" XVI were originally equipped with lamp shades. I've seen pictures of them with the elongated, "flame shaped" lamp fully exposed with no shade at all. The metal shades seem to have become standard fare with the orthophonic vintage models. Those shades were generally spherical and were meant to be used with the globe shaped, frosted glass lamps. Anybody else know anything about this? Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Walt" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Victor Electrola Sheraton No.500 Owners - And a Story ofDiscovery >I just bought a VE Sheraton 500 Period Victrola, Serial Number 559. I am > hoping to find another owner or others who are familiar with the Sheraton > model. I have a few questions about some cabinet hardware. > > Here is a link to some preliminary pictures of mine: > http://www.victrolaguy.com/sheraton500.htm > > If anyone has a Victor Sheraton 500 or can refer me to someone who does, I > would love to hear from you. I recall seeing one at the Victorian Mansion > last year during the Union Show, but I have to admit that it was the only > one that I had seen until I picked this one up. > > A while back there was a thread in phono-l whose subject was: "Stories of > Discoveries". In one of the replies my Uncle George (George Paul) told a > story of his hesitation to buy an Amberola 1A (I think) in Stroudsburg, PA > back in about 1973. I remember his mention of banjo music from a scene in > "Deliverance". Well, rather than hesitate, I immediately headed out in a > snow storm late last Friday night on a round trip of about 5 hours. I was > determined that even if I had to deal with a mentally-challenged banjo > picking hillbilly or his Uncle Dad, that I was going to come home with > that > Sheraton... George's 1973 close encounter with an Amberola 1A acquisition > keeps me stirred up. > > Walt > > From kb...@charter.net Mon Feb 25 18:03:42 2008 From: kb...@charter.net (Ken and Brenda Brekke) Date: Mon Feb 25 20:04:40 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Interesting Edison item on Craigslist In-Reply-To: <410-22008222614359...@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20080226020400.bgid17353.aarprv04.charter@your4dacd0ea75> Loran has a great site here so let's please keep this forum for phonograph related topics. The original topic was related to an "Interesting Edison item on Craigslist" The two links below are not called for. -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Houston Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:44 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Interesting Edison item on Craigslist Terrific copy that you've done here. No bout adoubt it, your head's screwed on right, and mighty tight, too. I feel that I may be preaching to the choir here, but I want to offer you two interesting and informative articles that spell out just who is running this country and, off course, the whole world. Try these for enlightenment: http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest82.htm http://www.newswithviews.com/Hayes/gianni8.htm And, if you can get an honest accounting on the Club of Rome, you may get shocked out of your shoes. > [Original Message] > From: Jim Nichol > To: Antique Phonograph List > Date: 2/25/2008 8:03:58 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Interesting Edison item on Craigslist > > No, Edison did not sell Edison General Electric. It was a hostile > takeover by the Thomson-Houston Company (they bought up a controlling > interest in Edison General Electric's stock). The merged company was > under control of Thomson's managment, and renamed General Electric. > Edison was allowed on the board of directors, but quit after he > realized he had no authority. > > By the way, I work for GE. > > Jim Nichol > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: > > > Consequently, he created the Edison General Electric Company, > > together with some fat cash investors to handle the drudgery of > > dealing with the whole lamp and power distribution business. When > > he needed more cash for his laboratory, he sold out his interest in > > the company to the fat butts, they dropped the "Edison" from the > > company name, and they went on to create one of the biggest cash > > cows in Murkan history. > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
y flat but rather broadly convex flatted portions at the contact points. 2000 to 3000 plays were about where I changed the 2 gram ellipticals, and the Shibatas could last for 5000 plays or more. And these vinyl record formulations contained no abrasives. But they DID wear the styli. Lastly, I think you need to take another look at the LTA issue with the Edison DD player. Yes, the Edison tonearm is pivoted in front of the pickup as opposed to being pivoted at the back as with all conventional lateral players. But it is still a pivoted tonearm and it DOES exhibit LTA error. It just occurs with the reversed tangency arc to that of the back-pivoted arm. In the typical DD player, the LTA is fairly low at the outside record diameter but becomes quite high at the inside music ending diameter. In fact, the LTA error was deliberately used to advantage in the development of the Duncan electric stop. The fact that the LTA is very high at the inner diameter of the DD player causes the stylus to skate toward the spindle with considerable force. When the stylus falls out of the groove at the inside end of play, the stylus and weight assembly swing inward until the weight limit pin hits the limit loop which makes the electrical contact that the Duncan stop relies on to close the circuit and operate the solenoid which stops the DD motor. If there were no or very little LTA error, the skating force would be minimal and the weight would not swing to the edge of the limit loop. Of interest here is that this LTA error on the DD player is basically irrelevant, assuming the stylus is in good condition. The Edison as well as the Pathe system relies on the conically shaped stylus tip sitting directly on the bottom of the groove to properly trace the vertical modulation. It can do this properly REGARDLESS of the tangency of the pickup head to the groove. You will note that some record players designed to play both vertical and lateral discs with their adjustable reproducers often present the Pathe stylus to the record groove at quite a radical angle to the tangent. The Brunswick Ultona comes to mind. Yet the system works because the LTA is irrelevant for purely vertical modulation. Also note that Pathe tonearms are often quite short. But the LTA that this causes poses no problem to the reproduction. Back to the case of record wear: The Edison DDs were specifically designed to have quite a hard surface compared with the shellac material that was used in lateral records of the day. That's why Edison chose the condensite material. The playback theory of the lateral records was to have the abrasive in the record material (which by the way was not diamond dust which was much too expensive - the abrasive was a combination of the cheap clay filler and pulverized limestone) wear the needle rapidly so that the "flats" developed which VASTLY increased the contact surface area and thereby quickly reduced the pressure on the sidewalls which reduced further record wear. If you were to play a shellac record with a new steel needle every few turns of the record (quite a tedious operation), you would find the record very quickly wearing out because you would not be allowing the use of a properly worn in steel needle with the right size flats. You may have noticed that some records sound particularly noisy during the first few revolutions of the starting grooves. This is because the use of a new steel needle causes excessive wear in this portion of the record. Contrary to this theory of operation, Edison wanted to wear the diamond stylus rather than the record surface. So he used a stylus shape that had a fairly big radius, AND which sat on the groove bottom with a large percentage of its circumference supported by the matching radius in the groove. This spread out the high tracking force over a fairly large contact patch at all times. There was no need to wear flats on the stylus. Note that even if the point of tangency changes due to the LTA error of the Edison tonearm, the spherical stylus tip merely rotates in the groove but STILL presents the same curved contact surface with the record which does not have any additional effect on record wear. The choice of the condensite material was such that it's elastic yield point (permanent deformation) was higher than the pressure presented to it by the rounded stylus sitting in the rounded groove. All is well and good until the stylus becomes chipped. When this happens, the sharp edge of the chipped area presents a much smaller contact patch to the groove which very quickly yields the condensite under this very high localized pressure and results in a very visible brownish-looking scratched appearance. The record surface has now been permanently damaged and the record will play that area with much increased noise. Regardless of whether you call it wear or damage, it
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
If you've spent much time playing with Shure and Stanton (and Pickering) cartridges, you've probably figured out that there actually aren't many variations in the basic structures of the styli. The Stanton and modern Pickering styli all share the same diameter cylindrical shank housing, the difference being only in the plastic bits that are molded onto the front. With these styli, the plastic bits do serve the purpose of aligning the stylus assembly and keeping it from rotating when inserted into the cartridge body. Aside from that, just about any stylus assembly can be put into any body. I have often swapped styli from the "proper" model for a given body model and replaced it with whatever fits or whatever I can make fit by cutting away the necessary plastic bits so that the shank housing fully inserts into the body. The results are quite audibly satisfactory, if not fully cosmetically pleasing. The reason this works is that regardless of what model they call the thing, the bodies are all essentially the same structure internally, made of four coils wound on four ferrous pole pieces. Although there are a few variations in coil inductance and number of turns among the models, this has very little to do with the performance in actuality. Stick a stylus assembly inside this structure and you have a magnetic (dynamic) phono pickup. The performance variations among the models are almost exclusively a property of the stylus assembly and have almost nothing to do with the cartridge body. So you can make a Stanton 681EEE out of any Pickering by simply plugging in a D6800EEE stylus assembly into the Pickering. Likewise, Shure made about three sizes of square stylus shank housings that covered the whole range of their models. You can make an M91ED out of an M75 by just replacing the stylus assembly. And vice versa. If I remember, you don't even have to do any surgery to the plastic parts. Shure was aware that their ruse had been found out by the time their V15-II and later series came out, so they changed (reduced) the size of the shank housing on this series so that the styli didn't fit their earlier model bodies. This forced the customer to shell out the BIG cash to buy the complete cartridge. And I believe that the very earliest models such as the M3 and M7 from the late 1950s had bigger shanks than the M91, M44, and similar models from the 1960s, so those parts cannot be interchanged. Shure was considerably more conniving in creating a very wide range of molded plastic front ends on their styli and cartridge bodies in an attempt to keep you from interchanging them. But if you don't mind getting out the ol' X-axto knife and cutting away the interfering bits, you can effectively replace quite a number of styli with different models. The point here is that since Stanton and Shure are not making replacement styli for most of their models anymore, you can usually make do with a similar new one or NOS one that you may be able to still find. Yes, there are some fairly good replacement styli available from third parties, but REALLY good ones are still hard to find in my experience and repurposing NOS originals sometimes works better. My main gripe at this time is the difficulty in finding line contact (LC) or MicroRidge (MR) styli. I know that there is one custom supplier who sells retipped Shures for several hundred dollars, but I'm just too cheap to fork out that much cash. I think Audio-Technica still makes new LC type styli, and the A-T Shibata cart models have always been excellent. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:49 PM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles >I know the cartridge is obsolete (if by that you mean, old). I bought it >in > 1974. It is on the downstairs turntable I now use only for 78s. If I'd > gotten a 500 series or a 6800 series, I could still get styli easy. After > I'd had the retip done I did find a source for new ones in Japan but the > retip turned out to be less expensive. > > Ron L > > -Original Message- > From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] > On > Behalf Of Rich > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:56 PM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles > > Your problem might be that the cartridge is obsolete. Try the link to > the current catalog. > > https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=11886&c=ACCT106601&h=ea8e > b7f71c2eceb07b71&_xt=.pdf&ck=0SLNvAETASXUXWIJ&vid=0SLNvAETAVXUXRX-&cktime=40 > 1&cart=4827670 > > Ron L wrote: >> AFAIK, Stanton
[Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles
Robert, I agree with you that the Shure V15 MR series are among the best cartridges ever made. So far as I have been able to determine there is very little difference between the V15-V (5) and the V15-III (3) except a slightly flatter frequency response with the V. I remember doing a frequency response run on these models many years ago when they were new (along with dozens of other models) and this was what I found then. As I have said before, the MicroRidge (MR) styli which are a line contact (LC) or micro-line (ML) type of design is the best design you can get. The tracking ability of the III and the V MR designs is virtually the same, even though Shure wanted you to pay more for the later V design. Actually, the MR styli began to be marketed with the introduction of the V model. At that time, it made the V-15-V the best Shure cartridge ever. But then Shure began to offer the MR styli for the III and the IV models as replacements and it became clear that they all performed equally well in tracking ability. So I was happy to save a considerable amount of money by using the III instead of the V stylus. As far as spending more money for any cartridge, I have seen no need for it. I have tested some of the early golden-ear cartridges, both moving magnet (MM) and moving-coil (MC) designs that are so revered by the terminally tone deaf. NONE of them could hold a candle in tracking ability to the scientifically correctly designed Shure V15s. The excessively priced audiophool models are meant to appeal to the golden ear crowd who wouldn't know mistracking if they heard it. I know this from first-hand (ear?) experience by noting that several of my golden-ear friends are completely clueless when it comes to setting up their tonearms for correct tracking force and anti-skate compensation. But they are more than willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money for a cartridge, preamp, amp, or whatever so long as that model has been "blessed" by J. Gordon Dolt or some other wack golden ear bloviator in one of the far-too-many magazines devoted to the cult of spending money. The only other cartridges that are on a par with the Shure V15 MRs are the Shibata-equipped Audio-Technicas (880 and 440ML). These carts have a little lower compliance due to their support of the supersonic frequency range, but they still track extremely well at 2 grams which poses no significant threat to records due to their ML stylus shape. I have found the occasional Ortofon (OM-30 and 40) and B&O (MMC-20CL and the later MMC-1 and 2) to be very good as well, but they are all out of production now, I believe, including their replacement styli. The golden-ear fascination with the moving coil types has always been overblown. Way back when, the MC types established their reputation because they had lower effective tip mass (ETM), but with more modern permanent magnet technologies, the MM carts actually exhibit lower ETM than the MC types. Consequently, the newest MM types work better and have the additional advantage that they have much higher output voltage which improves their signal to noise ratio. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles > Stantons I don't know about; if a modern cartridge is less than $500 and > doesn't have an easily replaceable stylus, I generally just by another > one. Fortunately, the best tracking I've found in any cartridge under > $2000 is in the $350 Shure V15VxMR. And of course, they stopped making > the V15 for the first time in decades a couple years ago or something. > Grr. > > But I digress; didn't mean to focus on modern gear for this long. :-) > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ron L" > To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:54 AM > Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles > > >>I had a Stanton locally retipped. The old diamond was completely removed >> and a new diamond was inserted, no re-grinding involved AFAIK. >> >> Ron L > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns
I want to add some important information to this posting. The "new" reproducer design that I talked about here was originally designed by Tom Kimble who is another phonograph and record collector. He has considerable design experience as he was a mechanical engineer at Baldwin Piano and Organ Company, and he holds a number of patents in piano mechanism design. He designed and made one of these reproducers eight or ten years ago. I saw this design and wanted to play around with it, so Tom gave me his original drawings. I have now received his approval to credit him with the original design. I haven't said much about it otherwise because I don't really have a product design that I feel is ready to market. I only mentioned it here originally to indicate that it is, indeed, possible to design an acoustic reproducer that outperforms all known early designs, including the Victor orthophonic. I have started with Tom's original design and made several changes to it, but I still don't have a product that I'm fully satisfied with. So this is not a product that I'm trying to hawk or to market. I just want to set the record straight that the design originated with Tom Kimble. Greg Bogantz ----- Original Message - From: "Greg Bogantz" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > Hi Robert, > >To answer your general curiosity, yes, I > have tried many of the things you suggest. I have designed and made a > complete "New Orthophonic" (with apologies to RCA who couldn't care less > at this point since they're owned by the Chinese) reproducer to fit Victor > ortho tonearms out of lathe-turned aluminum - none of the parts are > recycled > from old designs. The aluminum model weighs about half of the potmetal > design. I don't want to divulge too much more of the design in case I > eventually want to make and market it. But it really isn't ready for that > yet. Even so, I don't know how much market there would be for a toy like > this. Most phono collectors don't obsess about the audio performance of > their acoustic machines like you and I do. Their attitude is that > anything > that isn't an original 100 year old design constitutes a "frankenphone" > and > they don't want anything to do with it. So I'm not encouraged that there > are more than a dozen of us with this interest. > >As an adjunct to this design, I also have been making for some time now > my own tungsten needles. This started out because I needed durable > needles > to use in my oldest record changers that are designed for steel needles. > Steel needles are no good for these changers because they wear out > completely after two record sides are played. So, what's the point of > having a record changer if you have to change the needle every two record > sides? Victor recommended their Tungstones for this purpose, and indeed, > they were the best choice for this application at the time. But I didn't > want to use up expensive, original, antique Tungstones so I designed my > own. > What I found out was that the original tungsten wire used by Victor is > .007 > inch (7 mils) in diameter. This is really too big for the typical groove > which is around 5 to 5.5 mils in width. But they used it because anything > smaller is too delicate and bends too easily. Also, the heavy tracking > force of the early reproducers, both the acoustic and the early horseshoe > magnet electric types was sufficient to mash the fat wire into the record > groove and keep it working even though it was wearing "shoulders" on the > sides of the too-big wire. So when I tried to use these 7 mil tungstens > in > my new reproducer which tracked at half the force of the Victor (about 80 > grams versus 135 grams), the wire didn't wear down properly on the > shoulders > and stay in contact with the groove walls. This caused audible > mistracking. > I have since gone to 6 mil wire which works pretty well. I would rather > use > 5 mil wire, but I've tried it and it's just too fragile and bends too > easily. So this is yet another problem that requires some compromise. > >To address your suggestions about using large diaphragms: you are > faced > with a tradeoff between diaphragm compliance, resonance, and application > requirements. If you want to try a "Lumiere" type of very large > diaphragm, > or direct radiator cone really, then you can't effectively horn load it, > and > you probably don't want to anyway. You can simply let such a large > vibrating surface radiate direc
[Phono-L] Edison C2 performance
Oh, much more bass with the C-2. No acoustic consumer model machine made in the USA can deliver bass that extends much below 100Hz, mostly due to the fact that the horn is not big enough. Maybe some of the euro machines with bigger horns can do better, and presumably the Victor theater horns did better. There is a lot of bass information recorded on the electrical DDs and Victors that extends well below 100Hz and you simply don't hear it unless you play the records electrically. Some of the last DDs with the electrically-recorded pipe organ in the Lowe's theater in NYC have bass extending down to the 30Hz range, quite as good as much more modern recordings. And most of the recordings of string (standup) bass just hardly are audible when played acoustically but come alive with electric playback. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Peter Fraser" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison C2 performance > Thanks for the description. So is it fair to say you get far more bass > and far less treble on the C2 than when the same DD is played with a well > restored Edisonic reproducer? > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- Peter > pjfra...@mac.com > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:41 PM, "Greg Bogantz" > wrote: > >> I have a C-2. The pickup is essentially the same horseshoe magnet >> pickup design as used in most of the contemporary models sold by Victor, >> Brunswick, Atwater-Kent, etc. But Edison included a "scratch filter" >> (Edison may have had another name for this, but I can't remember what >> they called it) module located under the turntable motor board which was >> a resistive-capacitive low-pass filter. This was ostensibly to filter >> out the "needle scratch" noise which was supposedly indigenous to >> needle-cut records, according to Edison company blather. Truth be told, >> it filtered the noise from Edison DDs more effectively. DDs have >> inherently lower signal to noise ratio (are noisier) due to their low >> modulation level compared to the typical electrical Victor record of the >> day. This made the DDs sound particularly noisy when compared with >> laterals played on the C-2, so Edison included the filter which was not >> switchable. Consequently, all records played on the C-2 are somewhat >> lacking in treble response compared with, say, the superior sound >> obtained from the Victor micro-synchronous RE-45 or RE-75 of 1929 which >> also used a similar horseshoe pickup without the scratch filter. The >> C-2 generally has a tubby, boomy sound which is fairly common with the >> early large console radios. Again, the Victor micro- synchronous radios >> were a major exception to the rule. Their advanced speaker design is >> largely responsible for their superior sound - good, well-balanced sound >> over the audio spectrum without excessive bass boominess while still >> providing extended bass response to quite low frequencies. Curiously, >> this speaker (which is generally attributed to a Kellogg design) was >> used by Victor and/or RCA in only that one model year of 1929. The >> earlier and later speakers for many years were audibly inferior to the >> 1929 model. I don't know why RCA didn't continue using the better >> design from 1929 in their later models. Probably had something to do >> with patent royalties on the Kellogg design that RCA didn't want to pay. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Peter Fraser" >> > > >> To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison C2 performance >> >> >>> I've been meaning to ask this for some time now...how do the Edison >>> electrical reproducers sound, when playing diamond discs? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> -- Peter >>> pjfra...@mac.com >>> >>> On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:41 PM, "Bruce Mercer" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes to all of the above. A C-2 I purchased some time ago had both the >>>> 12"Roth and Martinelli records (among others) in the albums along >>>> with a bunch of pop black with gold lettering on the labels. Ha >>>> anyone ever seen a 10" classical with a gold label with black >>>> lettering? Needle cuts, as far as I remember were sold from mid July >>>> to mid October 1929. They were superior sounding records. >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Phono-L mailing list >>>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >>> ___ >>> Phono-L mailing list >>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12
There are a number of suppliers who specialize in jukebox parts, manuals, and accessories. One of the most complete selections, especially for Wurlitzer is Victory Glass Co. in Waukee, IA. They have a website: http://www.victoryglass.com Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ken and Brenda Brekke" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:01 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12 >I recently was able to purchase a 1934 Wurlitzer P-12 jukebox. Can anyone > on this list refer me to where I can purchase any service manuals or > parts? > Thanks in advance, Ken B. > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12
Doug, have you got a PAIR of Patricians? You're only the second guy I've heard of to own them. For those who don't know what these are, they were 4-way HUGE loudspeaker systems that employed a 30-inch! woofer in a corner-horn enclosure that was vastly efficient. My friend who had them in his basement could blow the windows out of the house with about 8 watts of audio per each. Needless to say, he liked to play pipe organ music. LOUD :o) Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12 > Thanks, Albert. I have one of those amplifiers, and I plan on re-capping > it. I worked in a radio store when I was a kid, and they had a record > counter. The audition amplifier was one of that model and, as you said, it > sounded good. Speaking in general terms, frequency response in Juke boxes > was strongly peaked in the low end. The customers loved it, and I'm sure > that the restaurant owners had the treble turned all the way to full cut. > Anyway, that amp will probably sound good with a preamp, such as a Fisher > 80 nseries feeding it. I have a feeling that it's better than commonly > thought. It's all about the transformers in it. > > Some time, immediately after the war, the Harmonicats did "Peg Of My > Heart" > on the VitaCoustic label. The record began with four notes, then a deep > bass string. Whatever the jukebox in that place was, that bass note almost > knocked stuff off the walls. It was in a neighborhood soda shop where us > kids congregated. I played that selection lots of times. I do have the > disc somewhere, and if I can find it, I'd like to play it on my E-V > Patricians some time. It'll probably crack plaster! > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Albert >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 3/26/2008 1:24:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12 >> >> No actually most WurliTzer amps after 1937 are painted red with the >> exception of the W-800 which was gold and the counter models which also > were >> gold. Yes the P12 and the 412 used the gold amps with the 45 tubes. > They >> really sound good considering the technology at the time. I had Jukebox >> Friday night restore the amp on my 412 and it is awsome. Funny you >> mentioned I had a mills for many years, I just loved watching the ferris >> wheel mech. I did however install an Astatic 51-2 cartridge and removed > the >> weight from the head. It didnt look as good, but at least I was able to >> play my Rhino records (reproduction 78's) >> - Original Message - >> From: "Douglas Houston" >> To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:13 AM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12 >> >> >> > Albert; >> > >> > Could you tell me which Wurlitzer box used the amplifier that had a > 45 >> > driving puish-pull 45's power amps? The chassis was painted gold > (as >> > probably all Wurlitzers were). >> > >> > I was was amused at your description of "going through grooves like a >> > plow". When I was a kid, one of my friends' family had a Mills DoReMi > in >> > their dining room. Rather unconventional place for it, but that's where > it >> > was. Now, talk about a record plow! The player had a Webster-Racine >> > horseshoe magnetic pickup and the stylus pressure must have weighed in > at >> > pounds. Sure as shootin', I'd never have put any of my records on that >> > thing. Lord, what a shellac grinder that thing was! >> > >> > But it had a really neat amplifier. Push-Pull 2A3's. >> > >> > >> >> [Original Message] >> >> From: Albert >> >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> >> Date: 3/25/2008 10:32:45 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wurlitzer P-12 >> >> >> >> The P-12 is a great early Jukebox. The only thing you will need to do > is >> >> lighten the tone arm and install a modern cartridge. This will enable >> >> you >> >> play your 78s without going through the grooves like a plow. If it > has >> >> the >> >> original amplifier you will find it has a very smooth tone with great >> >> fidelity and volume. Subscribe to Always Jukin' There are hundreds of >> >> dealers and jukebox enthusiasts out there. It is my passion. I have > 13 >> >> pre >> >>
[Phono-L] Researchers Play Tune Recorded Before Edison
The sound clip link, together with a clip from a 1931 recording of the same selection is available on this NY Times link already cited. Look for them on the left side of the page. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Daniel Melvin" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Researchers Play Tune Recorded Before Edison >I thought one day someone would figure out how to do this. It's pretty >cool. > > Has anyone found the link on the NY Times site with the sound clip? > > Dan > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Loran Hughes wrote: > >> http://tinyurl.com/36z5cj >> >> Loran >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Seeburg Home Library
Hey guys, here's a rare opportunity to score one of the most unusual home
phonographs ever made, the Seeburg Home Library:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Seeberg-Automatic-Record-Console_W0QQitemZ260223421468QQihZ016QQcategoryZ3283QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
In case you don't know what it is, this is the first 78rpm version of the
Seeburg Select-O-Matic record changer which was introduced as the M100A jukebox
in 1948. It is full intermix - you can use 10 and 12 inch records loaded in
any order anywhere in the record magazine with automatic size selection by the
mechanism. The M100A offered 100 selections, whereas this version holds 100
records for a total of 200 selections. This mechanism was offered as the
Seeburg Industrial/Commercial Music (SICM) system housed in a huge steel
cabinet as well as this home version as shown in the wooden console. This
model includes the preamp, power amp, speaker and 24-hour timer which can be
programmed to start and stop the music program numerous times over a 24-hour
period. This one looks to be in complete and nice shape, too. I have no
financial interest in this item, I just wanted it to find an appreciative
buyer. Somebody here on this list should give it a good home. It's very rare to
find one of these, never mind in this kind of good condition.
Greg Bogantz
From taediso...@aol.com Sun Mar 30 15:17:18 2008
From: taediso...@aol.com (taediso...@aol.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 15:17:29 2008
Subject: [Phono-L] Fw: EARLIEST recorded human voice?
Message-ID:
In a message dated 3/30/2008 12:27:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
allena...@aol.com writes:
But who managed to extract the sound from this phonautographic tracing at
the ENHS? Was it done at the Site (prior to Scott/Paris)? And what was the
actual date in 1878 for the MERR?
The scans were made by Jerry Fabris and David Giovannoni at the Edison Site
late last October. The sound was recovered by Earl Cornell and Carl Haber at
the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab at UC Berkeley, just like the Scott
recordings. We started out with the Edison phonautograms because they were the
most
immediately accessible, and they quickly allowed Earl and Carl to determine
how viable this project would be as well as how to go about reprogramming
their existing equipment to work effectively with phonautograms. There are
many
more Edison phonautograms to be deciphered, but that particular project was
put on hold when the Scott phonautograms came to light, thanks to Patrick
Feaster's research.
The short Edison sound file that has been recovered, and posted at
firstsounds.org, was made on September 19, 1878, one of the last phonautograms
Edison
and Batchelor did for the MERR. Handwritten notations on the sheet indicate
the points at which test (vocal) calibrations were made, and where the sound
of the train begins and ends. When I first wrote about these phonautograms in
my book "Tinfoil Phonographs" in 2001 I commented on how exciting it would be
to hear the actual ambient street noise of a vanished New York if these
could be played. Well, that was a bit overly optimistic, at least as regards
this
particular sheet. What we hear is not even the clicking and clacking of
train wheels over the ties. It is probably the harmonic vibration of the
braces
and girders. Edison wrote about this in his notes on July 3, 1878: "We find
that the lattice girders some of which are weighted in middle acts as reeds
and
continue the vibration for a long time after the train has passed . . . We
find that the diagonal cross rods vibrate strongly."
Further work will be done on this recording as well as the remaining Edison
phonautograms, and there's hope that more clarity can be extracted from the
fog. It's very probable that other recordings may have recognizable sounds of
a
train passing over rails, as well as (we hope) recognizable human voices.
This is just the beginning, we were under a tight deadline to have as much as
possible in time for the already planned presentations at the ARSC conference
last Friday. The existence of the "Au Clair de la Lune" recording was only
discovered on Feburary 29th of this year, so you can see how little time there
has been to pursue this. There will be much more to come, and hopefully more
"eureka" moments.
Best regards,
Rene Rondeau
**Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom000301)
From allena...@aol.com Sun Mar 30 15:39:16 2008
From: allena...@aol.com (allena...@aol.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 15:39:33 2008
Subject: [Phono-L] Fw: EARLIEST recorded human voice?/thx
Message-ID:
In a message dated 3/30/2008 6:19:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[Phono-L] Seeburg Home Library
Doug, even though it's bigger than a Victor 10-50, it weighs about the same. The wood console cabinet was made and sold as two pieces. You could originally buy just the mechanism is you wanted to custom install it. Or you could buy just the wooden mechanism housing if you wanted it to be free standing. Or you could buy the lower record storage and speaker stand (also contained the power amp) as an option. Or you could order the entire ensemble complete as one model as you see it shown on the eBay listing. But the cabinets were still supplied as separate upper and lower sections. I have the mechanism and complete electronics for one of these which I've built into my own cabinet. I wasn't able to salvage the original cabinet. But from what I have and what I can see of the cabinet, I'm estimating that the entire upper section probably weighs about 200 pounds. And the lower section which is mostly empty probably weighs another 100 pounds for a combined weight of around 300 pounds. But it's still a BIG beast, even separated into two parts. You'd have to have a large pickup truck or a full-sized van to haul the thing. But it's a great toy. I use mine regularly. The mechanical design is beautiful, robust, and works like a charm. Despite the direct worm gearing (no rubber belts or drive pucks to wear out), there is no rumble, wow, or flutter in playback Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Seeburg Home Library > The thing is beautiful. I shudder to thnk what it weighs, though. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Greg Bogantz >> To: >> Date: 3/30/2008 4:11:13 PM >> Subject: [Phono-L] Seeburg Home Library >> >> Hey guys, here's a rare opportunity to score one of the most unusual > home phonographs ever made, the Seeburg Home Library: >> >> > http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Seeberg-Automatic-Record-Console_W0QQitemZ260223 > 421468QQihZ016QQcategoryZ3283QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem >> >> In case you don't know what it is, this is the first 78rpm version > of the Seeburg Select-O-Matic record changer which was introduced as the > M100A jukebox in 1948. It is full intermix - you can use 10 and 12 inch > records loaded in any order anywhere in the record magazine with automatic > size selection by the mechanism. The M100A offered 100 selections, > whereas > this version holds 100 records for a total of 200 selections. This > mechanism was offered as the Seeburg Industrial/Commercial Music (SICM) > system housed in a huge steel cabinet as well as this home version as > shown > in the wooden console. This model includes the preamp, power amp, speaker > and 24-hour timer which can be programmed to start and stop the music > program numerous times over a 24-hour period. This one looks to be in > complete and nice shape, too. I have no financial interest in this item, > I > just wanted it to find an appreciative buyer. Somebody here on this list > should give it a good home. It's very rare to find one of these, never > mind > in this kind of good condition. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Vertical on DD, Edison on saphire?
Doug, the lateral tracking angle (LTA) error that you mention as being indigenous to the Brunswick Ultona when playing vertical recordings (either Edison or Pathe) is of no consequence so far as reproduction fidelity is concerned. LTA error describes the situation whereby the direction of lateral stylus motion is not perfectly radial with regard to the record. LTA error is caused by the tonearm overhang not being perfectly set at a given record diameter so as to produce stylus motion which is perfectly parallel to the modulation axis of the diaphragm (or other transducer). LTA error will produce some undesired effects when playing lateral-cut records. But purely mono vertical recordings such as Edisons and Pathes produce the same stylus tip motion, regardless of LTA, which results in the same diaphragm (or other transducer) motion which means that LTA has NO affect on reproduction of purely vertical modulation. The situation is complicated in the case of modern stereo recordings where there are two channels of audio, each comprised of a lateral and a vertical component, and LTA (as well as vertical tracking angle, VTA) does affect the reproduced signal. However, LTA does have an affect on the skating force delivered to the tonearm which may cause mistracking or groove skipping or sticking. Note that the Edison DD players DO have a significant amount of LTA designed into them as well, although not as much as an Ultona. Which had no detrimental affect on the reproduction, so Edison ignored it. But it did pose a problem with groove skipping when Edison released the long play (LP) version of the DD due to the extremely small and shallow groove shape. Edison had to minimize the LTA of the LP reproducer the best he could while still utilizing his original DD player tonearm design. He was able to do this by canting the reproducer weight at an angle relative to the output sound tube. Again, this was done only to reduce the incidence of groove skipping, not for reproduction quality reasons. Trying to use a DD reproducer for playing other vertical-cut records will immediately present a problem of how to pull the reproducer across the record. If you use the feedscrew of the DD player, you will probably not get good tracking for very long because most other records were not cut at the same pitch (number of lines per inch) as the DDs and the reproducer weight limit pin will hit the limit loop within just a few revolutions of the record. Trying to disengage the feedscrew on a DD player is not reasonable because the tonearm is extremely massive (it also moves the complete horn assembly) and has way too much friction for the record groove to move the tonearm, again resulting in groove skipping. Mounting the DD reproducer on a different tonearm would be possible, but no original equipment was designed for this. Ignoring the very real issue of pulling the reproducer across the record, the question of using an Edison DD reproducer on other types of records then becomes one of whether the stylus fits the groove shape properly. Most other vertical cut records had a substantially different groove shape from that of the DD. Pathe grooves were much wider and the use of the smaller DD stylus will tear them up rapidly. Other vertical records had basically a V-shaped fairly deep groove much the same as that used in lateral cuts. They were designed to be played with steel needles which would quickly wear themselves into the shape of the groove and thereby reduce the pressure on the groove walls and keep record wear to a minimum, just as with lateral records. Again, use of a DD diamond stylus in one of these V grooves will rapidly wear the record. Likewise, use of a stylus shape different from the Edison when playing DDs is not recommended at the high tracking forces required by acoustic reproducers. Too small a stylus will tear up the DD and too large a stylus tip will not fit into the groove which will result in groove skipping and much echo. However, the use of modern pickups with very light tracking force poses no problem for playing DDs. With tracking forces of about 4 grams or less, even with a considerably undersized stylus, there is so little pressure on the hard condensite record material that the material will not yield and no record wear should result. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:00 PM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Vertical on DD, Edison on saphire? > Ron: Of all people on this planet, I'm probably the least to comment > intelligently about playing DD's on anything but an Edison phonograph. > But, since, for instance, the Brunswick Ultona head plays a DD, and the > disc carries the stylus across the record, it does so on an angle not > done on an Edison player. The modulaion of
[Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance?
Ron L is correct. But both of these springs were bad ideas to begin with. They were a lame attempt to account for the escessive bias placed on the diaphragm by the extra weight which causes the diaphragm to be stressed (and strained) downward even more by the tension in the stylus bar link. The extra weight used in the Dance and Edisonic models was required to reduce mistracking and distortion when playing highly modulated records, particularly the later electrics. It DOES NOT make the reproducer play "louder", contrary to the bilge in the Edison blurbs to that effect. The loudness can only be controlled by changing the mechanical "gain" of the stylus bar which is the ratio of the stylus tip distance to the bar pivot relative to the distance from the bar pivot to the link. This ratio is the same for ALL Edison DD stylus bars, hence they all play at the same loudness. You can confirm this to yourself by using the different models of reproducer to play very soft recordings which do not tax the reproducers - they will all sound the same loudness. The fact that they may sound different when playing loud recordings is due to the differences in mistracking and distortion that they exhibit on those records. This biasing of the diaphragm is indigenous to the tracking of vertical modulation and is one of the several problems with that technology. (This problem does not exist with lateral reproduction.) Having a permanent bias or bend in one direction while playing a record causes the diaphragm to exhibit assymmetric nonlinear behavior (due to it nonlinear elasticity) which is yet another contributor to the generation of even orders (2nd, 4th, 6th, etc.) of harmonic distortion. Edison tried to reduce this bias (or permanent bending offset under playing tension) of the diaphragm with the addition of these springs into his later models of DD reproducers. There is a lot of bloviation about the purpose of the springs in his patent disclosure for the Dance reproducer, but compensation for the bias was their intended purpose. It didn't work. Mostly because he didn't account for the added spring constants these springs introduced into the diaphragm resonance which changes and/or adds to the mechanical resonances of the system. In particular, he didn't damp the springs sufficiently or at all. The diaphragm spring was designed with some damping in it, but it was ineffective. The stylus bar spring has no damping that I can find. Consequently, you can hear this spring "ring" when you play records. If you pay attention, you can hear a ringing noise behind the music which is this spring boinging or oscillating. Bad idea. My advice is to just remove both of these springs. The reproducer will sound cleaner and clearer with fewer resonances and extraneous noises. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >I believe one has two springs and the other has only one. I think the > Edisonic has the spring only on the needle bar and the Dance has one on > the > diaphragm as well, hence the bolt-on neck. > > Ron L > > -Original Message- > From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at > oldcrank.org] > On > Behalf Of Peter Fraser > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:46 PM > To: Antique List Phonograph > Subject: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? > > can anyone expound on the differences between the Edison Dance > reproducer and its successor, the Edisonic? As near as i can tell, > it's just the bolt-on neck...but does the little spring have different > characteristics? is there anything else? do they sound appreciably > different when equally restored? > > thanks for anything you can offer... > > -- peter > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance?
Not in my experience. Take the springs off the reproducer and the ringing goes away. Contrary to the Edison propaganda, these springs don't do anything useful. Yes, you can damp the ringing by coating the springs in RTV or slipping a rubber sleeve over them, but you get better performance by just taking them off altogether. Note that Edison himself must have given up on the interior diaphragm spring of the Dance design because he eliminated it when he went to the later Edisonic design. These extra springs add additional peaks to the frequency response corresponding to their own resonance and their modifications to the diaphragm resonance. Neither of which is desirable. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >I think the "ringing" of the Edisonic Reproducer is due to the vibration of > the weight, acting like a bell, being transmitted to the stylus bar & thus > to the diaphragm by the spring, not by vibrations generated by the spring > itself. > > Jim Cartwright > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Greg Bogantz >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 5/8/2008 2:47:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >> >> Ron L is correct. But both of these springs were bad ideas to begin >> with. They were a lame attempt to account for the escessive bias placed > on >> the diaphragm by the extra weight which causes the diaphragm to be > stressed >> (and strained) downward even more by the tension in the stylus bar link. >> The extra weight used in the Dance and Edisonic models was required to >> reduce mistracking and distortion when playing highly modulated records, >> particularly the later electrics. It DOES NOT make the reproducer play >> "louder", contrary to the bilge in the Edison blurbs to that effect. The >> loudness can only be controlled by changing the mechanical "gain" of the >> stylus bar which is the ratio of the stylus tip distance to the bar pivot >> relative to the distance from the bar pivot to the link. This ratio is > the >> same for ALL Edison DD stylus bars, hence they all play at the same >> loudness. You can confirm this to yourself by using the different models > of >> reproducer to play very soft recordings which do not tax the reproducers > - >> they will all sound the same loudness. The fact that they may sound >> different when playing loud recordings is due to the differences in >> mistracking and distortion that they exhibit on those records. >> >> This biasing of the diaphragm is indigenous to the tracking of > vertical >> modulation and is one of the several problems with that technology. > (This >> problem does not exist with lateral reproduction.) Having a permanent > bias >> or bend in one direction while playing a record causes the diaphragm to >> exhibit assymmetric nonlinear behavior (due to it nonlinear elasticity) >> which is yet another contributor to the generation of even orders (2nd, > 4th, >> 6th, etc.) of harmonic distortion. Edison tried to reduce this bias (or >> permanent bending offset under playing tension) of the diaphragm with the >> addition of these springs into his later models of DD reproducers. There > is >> a lot of bloviation about the purpose of the springs in his patent >> disclosure for the Dance reproducer, but compensation for the bias was > their >> intended purpose. It didn't work. Mostly because he didn't account for > the >> added spring constants these springs introduced into the diaphragm > resonance >> which changes and/or adds to the mechanical resonances of the system. In >> particular, he didn't damp the springs sufficiently or at all. The >> diaphragm spring was designed with some damping in it, but it was >> ineffective. The stylus bar spring has no damping that I can find. >> Consequently, you can hear this spring "ring" when you play records. If > you >> pay attention, you can hear a ringing noise behind the music which is > this >> spring boinging or oscillating. Bad idea. My advice is to just remove > both >> of these springs. The reproducer will sound cleaner and clearer with > fewer >> resonances and extraneous noises. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Ron L" >> To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" >
[Phono-L] What is this? Atwater Kent Type 5V phonograph attachment
Several manufacturers made these, with Atwater Kent being one of the most popular. They allowed your radio to be played thru the horn of your phonograph. While this may sound silly to us now, in the 1920s the radio speakers were pretty feeble and rather poor sounding. And most radio sets of the day required that you separately purchase the speaker. For those owners who already had a nice phonograph with a good horn on it, these speaker drivers were a good solution. The speaker driver was less costly than a complete radio speaker, and in many cases the driver sounded better when played thru a good phonograph horn than any separate radio speaker of the day. This was especially true in the late 1920s if you had an orthophonic horn in your Victor console phono. The model number of the A-K drivers indicates the type of phono they were designed to fit. The 5V model indicates that it was designed for coupling to the Victor tonearm in place of the standard phono reproducer. I believe the ones designed for Columbia machines were a model number something like 5C. I don't recall if there were any A-K drivers made to fit Edison machines. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "ny victrolaman" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:01 PM Subject: [Phono-L] What is this? Atwater Kent Type 5V phonograph attachment > So I was cleaning out some storage and came across what looks like a large > 1920s radio horn speaker driver, which I must have picked up someplace > years > ago. It's about three inches in diameter, with a nine-foot cord, and it's > quite heavy for its size. (The driver itself tests very good.) On the > top > it is embossed "Atwater Kent, Phila" and Type 5V. After doing some > digging, > I found an old ad for it on that great AK website. The ad lists it as a > "Phonograph Attachment," but says nothing about what exactly that is, what > it does, and how exactly one would use it. I recall seeing some old ads > where something of this nature is sitting on a motorboard next to a > reproducer, but that tells me nothing. Does any out there know about > these > things? Anyone own one, or is anyone looking for one? I'll be happy to > send you pictures if it'll help clear this up. Thanks in advance. > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] What is this? Atwater Kent Type 5V phonographattachment
From my experience, the type 5V is the most common by far. I rarely see the other A-K variants of this driver. The 5V turn up moderately often on eBay and sell for 5 to 50 bux. They're probably the most in demand by people who collect both radios and phonos as they are a good crossover collectible. These were most popular in the period before about 1925. I suspect that not many of the later ones designed to fit the orthophonic phonos were sold due to the fact that radio speaker technology was improving very rapidly with the introduction of the Kellogg dynamic speaker in 1925. By 1929 the radios sets complete with built-in speakers were sounding better than the acoustic phonos and the reverse adapter become popular - an electric pickup that could be fitted to an acoustic tonearm and which was wired into your radio so that you could play records thru your radio! Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "ny victrolaman" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] What is this? Atwater Kent Type 5V phonographattachment > Well, that explains it, then. Thanks for the info. I tried it out on a > Victrola and it fit like a glove! According to this ad, AK also offered a > Type 6C, which I guess would have been for Columbias, as well as a Type > VE-O > and a Type VE-E, both of which were gold-plated. I imagine those must > have > been for Orthophonics, or maybe Electrolas? > > So would this type of thing appeal more to radio collectors or phonograph > collectors? (I'm both, but I don't have any 1920s sets anymore. I stick > to > the superhets these days.) Do they turn up very often? What do they > bring? > > > On 6/4/08, Greg Bogantz wrote: >> >>Several manufacturers made these, with Atwater Kent being one of the >> most popular. They allowed your radio to be played thru the horn of your >> phonograph. While this may sound silly to us now, in the 1920s the radio >> speakers were pretty feeble and rather poor sounding. And most radio >> sets >> of the day required that you separately purchase the speaker. For those >> owners who already had a nice phonograph with a good horn on it, these >> speaker drivers were a good solution. The speaker driver was less costly >> than a complete radio speaker, and in many cases the driver sounded >> better >> when played thru a good phonograph horn than any separate radio speaker >> of >> the day. This was especially true in the late 1920s if you had an >> orthophonic horn in your Victor console phono. The model number of the >> A-K >> drivers indicates the type of phono they were designed to fit. The 5V >> model >> indicates that it was designed for coupling to the Victor tonearm in >> place >> of the standard phono reproducer. I believe the ones designed for >> Columbia >> machines were a model number something like 5C. I don't recall if there >> were any A-K drivers made to fit Edison machines. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "ny victrolaman" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:01 PM >> Subject: [Phono-L] What is this? Atwater Kent Type 5V phonograph >> attachment >> >> >> > So I was cleaning out some storage and came across what looks like a >> large >> > 1920s radio horn speaker driver, which I must have picked up someplace >> > years >> > ago. It's about three inches in diameter, with a nine-foot cord, and >> it's >> > quite heavy for its size. (The driver itself tests very good.) On the >> > top >> > it is embossed "Atwater Kent, Phila" and Type 5V. After doing some >> > digging, >> > I found an old ad for it on that great AK website. The ad lists it as >> > a >> > "Phonograph Attachment," but says nothing about what exactly that is, >> what >> > it does, and how exactly one would use it. I recall seeing some old >> > ads >> > where something of this nature is sitting on a motorboard next to a >> > reproducer, but that tells me nothing. Does any out there know about >> > these >> > things? Anyone own one, or is anyone looking for one? I'll be happy >> > to >> > send you pictures if it'll help clear this up. Thanks in advance. >> > ___ >> > Phono-L mailing list >> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Edison DD record #370058046814
These thin ruby colored discs were made for the electronic Ediphone disc office dictation machine of the 1940s and 50s. A number of designs were produced over a fairly long product life, and the machines were among the last products produced by TAE Inc. in West Orange, and were produced even after WWII. The disc dictation machine was eventually replaced by the Edisette cassette tape dictation machine in the 1960s. The red discs are originally completely smooth and are then cut and recorded vertically with a very small groove and can be played on a modern turntable with microgroove stylus and wired for vertical response. Disc speed was about 20rpm. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "George" To: "Phono-L" Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:12 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Edison DD record #370058046814 I do not recall ever seeing one of these. What are they? Thank you, George http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370058046814&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D370058046814%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1 > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Copper cygnet horn
My guess is that this is a custom-made horn for a phonograph. It has the hanger hook at the top of the elbow for use with a crane which is required for the early phonos. No radio horns that I've ever seen used a crane and hanger arrangement - they were self-supporting. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:17 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Copper cygnet horn > This eBay item is a Fireside with a COPPER cygnet horn. Was such a horn > ever made, either for phonos or radios? > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Edison-Fireside-Model-A-Phonograph_W0QQitemZ330251905774QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item330251905774&_trksid=p3286.m14.l1318 > > Ray > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Styli
The "rule of thumb" here is the same as that for playing lateral-cut records: Use whatever stylus size sounds the best. That's not a flippant remark. Depending on where the wear has been inflicted on the groove walls, you can use a non-standard stylus size to ride on an unworn portion of the groove and get better sound. This may mean you need to use a smaller one to ride lower in the groove or a larger one to ride higher in the groove, whatever gets around the worn portion better. And you never know when you begin on a particular record what stylus is going to sound the best until you try several of them. The case with vertical cut records is a little different because the wear is nearly always at the very bottom of the groove. In this case, you can get better playback if you use a very large diameter or a special truncated stylus to try to bridge the worn area, but it's a bit more difficult. For vertical records in good condition, you can use just about any size stylus you want, so long as you are using a low tracking force, say 2 grams or less, which is no problem for modern cartridges and tonearms. I tend to use a conventional LP stylus (0.7 to 1.0 mil radius) for starters when playing DDs or Pathes and it usually works pretty well. You have to adjust your anti-skating force on the tonearm pretty carefully to prevent skating or groove skipping, especially when playing the VERY shallow Pathe grooves. Likewise, an LP stylus should work well for playing celluloid 2 or 4 minute cylinders. Use of a smaller stylus tip will reduce tracing distortion and improve high frequency performance. However, I would advise that you use a large, original sized stylus when playing any wax cylinders, even with low tracking force. This would be about 3 mil for 4 minute and 6 mil for 2 minute. The wax is so soft that a sharper stylus will cut the wax even at 2 grams tracking force. The 3 mil styli are fairly easily obtained from several sources for the popular Shure and Stanton/Pickering cartridges. But you just about have to go to Expert Stylus in England to get a 6 mil size. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:40 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Styli >A friend has asked me to record electrically some of my vertical-cut Pathe >records & I also want to record electrically Edison Diamond Discs & two & >four-minute cylinders.I have sophisticated equipment for playing 78s >electrically (for 17 years I produced a weekly show > for the local FM station of Classical 78s) including a Packburn Noise > Suppressor which has switch for playing vertical-cut recordings but I > need styluses to play Pathe, Diamond Discs, & two & four-minute cylinders > (using a Rabco tangential tracking arm & the mandrel & > motor from an Amberola 30) that will fit either a Shure M44 cartridge, > Shure M78S cartridge or Shure Model "V" cartridge If any of you all > have had experience in electrically-reproducing vertical-cut records of > various types & can advise me on sources for such styli I would greatly > appreciate it. (I know of Expert Pickups in England but their prices are > out of this world so I hope to find a more affordable source.0 > Thanks! > > Jim Cartwright > > Immortal Performances > > > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] AB's and gear oiling
The issue with using oil or grease on metal parts is whether it dries up and gets sticky over time. This can be especially detrimental on very low-torque mechanisms such as the escapement or verge of a clockwork. Also, oiling must be done with the right formula when applied to non-metallic surfaces such as the fiber gears on some phonographs. Some people prefer not to oil fiber gears at all. Some fiber gears are designed to run dry if they mesh with a highly polished worm gear. But high-torque gears such as the winding gears where the crank shaft meshes with the spring barrel and the output or bull gear on the spring barrel on phonographs should be lubricated with a heavy oil or grease. These are often steel-on-steel gears. I restore both clocks and phonos and I usually grease the high-torque gears on the spring barrel of phonos and use a 20 weight or so oil on all the other metal gears, including the high-speed governor gears and pivots. I actually use a mixture of petroleum oil and a PTFE additive such as "Slick 50" for my middle weight applications. The PTFE works especially well on sliding surfaces such as the ways that support the reproducer on cylinder phonos. Sliding surfaces lubricated this way hold their lubricity for a very long time. Clocks have considerably lower torque in their spring barrels, so a medium weight oil is all that's necessary on them. Then I oil the pivots and higher speed gears with a very light clock oil. These oils are designed not to gunk up and won't get sticky. I do not oil the escapement mechanism at all, whether pendulum or balance wheel type, although I do oil their pivots with the light oil. I agree that 3-in-1 oil is not good for these purposes. And WD-40 is a BAD idea as it gets sticky quite quickly when the solvent evaporates from it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] AB's and gear oiling > Why would oil "ruin" the phonograph? Is it an issue of uneven wear with > dissimilar materials? > > Ron L > > -Original Message- > From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at > oldcrank.org] > On > Behalf Of Rich > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:29 PM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] AB's and gear oiling > > You do not oil gears except in special cases. Many people are not > swayed by sound engineering practices and proceed to ruin good > phonographs. Clocks have brass meshed with steel and so do most > phonographs. IF you find similar materials meshed with each other then > an extremely light coat is beneficial. Use a synthetic oil or a clock > oil. The 3 in 1 oil is crap. > > Mike Stitt wrote: >> The recent thread about the AB MacDonald brings up a good question. Among >> the many things I collect includes clocks. Now in the world of clocks you >> never oil gears, no and no. Should you oil gears in phonographs? Would > the >> higher rate of speed of the governor be a rationale? Would the presumed >> higher loads from a larger spring dictate oiling? I do and have oiled >> phonograph gears. Should we? And break the clock rule? >> Mike >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values
Doug, it's especially ironic that you use the phrase "the base in the catalin game is crumbling". Not just the base, but the cabinets themselves. Catalin degenerates steadily and eventually falls apart with age. Shoving a bunch of money at catalin is like stacking time bombs on your shelf. Not unlike investing in Edison 4-minute wax amberols. Sit them on your shelf and listen for the steady "clink, tink, clunk" of the records self-destructing as the temperature and humidity changes in your house. "Investors" who sink a lot of money in these absurdities deserve what they're going to get - a pile of dust before it's all over. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values > Reading all these comments looks like the replay of a lot of collector's > panics over the years. I saw it with coins, back in the sixties, with a > friend who was into them, and I probably know of other similar situations > as well. The price level spirals up to the point that the only exchanges > are from dealer to dealer. Dealers begin to get tired of getting the same > item over and over, and somewhere, somebody stops buying. It is then, > that > the tower tumbles, and a lot of nspeculators lose a bundle on now-lowered > value stuff. > > One thing that comes to mind right now, is the hunger for radios with > catalin cabinets. They've gone thousands of bucks for some models. As far > as radios go, the chassis in them are 99.% cheap, and dinky. It's the > pretty plastic cases that are the real issue. It isn't radio collectors > that want them. It's those who want the pret-ty colorful cabinets, and of > course, the capital gains that result from the exchange of them. > > On the surface, at least, there has never been any short supply of them. > There are dealers in the big rado meets, who have 20 or 30 of them on > their > table. It's amusing that lots of sellers on the 'bay call a bakelite radio > cabinet Catalin. I'm sure that many a buyer has been badly jostled by one > of those shysters, but the buyer should research, and know what he / she > is > buying. Anyway, it's now beginning th look like the base in the catalin > game is crumbling. There are signs that prices are possibly on the way > down, and I'd be delighted to see it happen. The cabinets are pretty; the > radios are garbage. > > One of the things that killed Vogue records in the first place was that > they never had a hit. I also recall that they were priced at $1.05, while > the major labels sold for $.75 I bought a couple of them, new back then, > not for what was on them, but because they were pretty. Someone has > already said that Vogue discs are desirable, not so much for their > programmatic content, but their cuteness. Today, wise people are pulling > in > their horns, and hanging on to their mazuma. We are already in an economic > slump, and it promises to get slumpier. I can imagine other scenarios like > this in the days ahead. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Mike Stitt >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 8/13/2008 2:13:30 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values >> >> Vogues went high after Ed Curry's book. Before the book they were >> cheap. I even found them at Goodwill. >> The market is very soft across the board. High prices bring more to >> market. eBay helped to do that. Collectors get all they need. I >> suggest Vogues in the market exceeded interested or new collectors >> entering into that market. Most casual collectors are content to have >> a few as they define a genre. Few want a complete number run >> (production run) at a $100 a pop. IMHO. The Queen for a Day a few >> years back went for "stupid money." >> I have many Vogues and have little interest in them at those prices. >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Albert wrote: >> > for sure, I got bit by the bug and bought up as many as I could trying > to >> > complete the collection and I almost did, but have probably lost about > half >> > of my investment. I am missing the Transformer and Queen for a Day. I > have >> > to assume those are still worth a lot. Al >> > - Original Message - >> > From: >> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:20 AM >> > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values >> > >> > >> >> Thanks for your interesting c
[Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values
Yes, the vinyl records from the postwar period have held up surprisingly well so far. Certainly better than magnetic tape from that period. If you can manage to find a Vogue that hasn't been played or scratched to death, the sound quality on them is pretty good. But one of their potential problems is the oxidation of the aluminum substrate. I have more than one Vogue that has been severely cracked or chipped in years past which has allowed moisture and air to get to the aluminum surface. This causes mild to severe powderizing and bubbling of oxide to form on the aluminum which then bubbles up the paper and vinyl sheet laid on top of it. This damage can usually be heard before it's seen - the bubbling causes a noticeable increase in the rumble content when you play the record. I'm not sure why Vogues were made with an aluminum substrate rather than using a vinyl core as is done with modern picture records. Might have been a patent infringement thing since RCA and others had made picture records in the 1930s. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Douglas Houston" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values > Indeed. There have been very few plastics that have had any permanence. > Catalin has shown to be more stable than many others, but when the > plasticizer finally dries out of the plasticx, it's curtains for the > piece. > In the thirties, plastics were all the panic. There were things shown in > plastics that were downright sensational. I'm sure that a lot of people > thought that glass would soon be made obsolete by gorgeous plastic things. > Well, my mother and my aunt didn't throw out their cut crystal, and I now > have a couple of cabinets full of it. > > In those days (that I remember so well), the automotive industry went > ballistic over plastics too. Today, there are guys who re-mold steering > wheels for those cars. The big plstic was Tenite I, a plastic by Tennessee > Eastman in Kingsport, Tennessee. You'll travel long and far to see an > original steering wheel on a prewar car!. However, I have a '38 Cadillac, > with the original steering wheel, and still decent dash plastic, and you > just don't ever see that. > > Which brings us to the Vogue records. Tom Saffady, a tool and die maker > on > East eight mile road in East Detroit (Across 8 Mile from Detroit) got the > idea of making these pretty records. I understand that he used an aluminum > base, attached the artwork to it, and molded the plastic to it, pressing > the recording in the same operation. While I don't know for sure what the > plastic is, I'm sure that it's a vinyl, and of the best quality at the > time. When they hit the stores, they made quite a splash, and they sold > well, more for their novel character than anything else. No surprise, they > were priced higher than the major brand shellac discs, but their charm > gave > them their value. Sadly, the novelty wore off, and Saffady wasn't able to > get the price down to meet the competition. He had tried to have a > multiple > pressing rig, to perss (I believe) nine discs at once, but it never > worked. > He folded, unfortunately, and his building later housed a cutthroat > department store caled something like Hall of bargains. One day, I passed > there, and the place had been gutted by fire, and not all of the walls > were > standing. I believe that there is a fast food place on that site today. > > So, what about the plastic that Sav-Way Industries (Tom Saffady) used on > those discs? Astoundingly, it seems to have held up very well. Since Vinyl > plastics harden and shrink with age, I would worry about the Vogue discs > deteriorating at some time in the future. Plastics are not permanent, and > the newest Vogue disc is about 62 byears old. The aluminum core will not > shrink, but the plastic could. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Greg Bogantz >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 8/13/2008 5:02:57 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vogue Picture Records values >> >> Doug, it's especially ironic that you use the phrase "the base in the >> catalin game is crumbling". Not just the base, but the cabinets > themselves. >> Catalin degenerates steadily and eventually falls apart with age. > Shoving a >> bunch of money at catalin is like stacking time bombs on your shelf. Not >> unlike investing in Edison 4-minute wax amberols. Sit them on your shelf >> and listen for the steady "clink, tink, clunk" of the records >> self-destructing as the temperature and humidity changes in your house. >> "Inve
[Phono-L] Cheap Opera
I'm surprised that most of the fabulous phonos at the Skinner auction didn't bring more. This Opera with Music Master horn only brought $3500. Assuming these phonos were in good condition, which you couldn't really tell from the skimpy photos that were provided, the prices seem surprisingly low: http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/811-Edison-Opera-Phonograph-Type-SM-Model-A-No-981_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ72Q3a552Q7c39Q3a1Q7c66Q3a2Q7c65Q3a12Q7c240Q3a1318QQ_trksidZp3911Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem220266997472QQitemZ220266997472 Ditto the Vic VI with speartip horn, the Victrola XVIII, and the Edison Triumph E with 11 panel cygnet - the horn alone was worth the $950 price. That Columbia BC with huge horn was a steal at $1600. Assuming that 42 inch horn is correct and original, it's rare and unique to the BC having a large throat to connect to the large BC reproducer. The only thing that seemed to go high was the Class M, and that was said to be a cob job with a Triumph top and customized idler pulleys, yet it went for 22 grand. I guess the hard times have finally hit the hi end phono market. Apparently only the VERY RARE stuff is still commanding big bux. I guess when you've already got all the merely rare stuff, you've by definition got too much money, so you don't bat an eye when a super-rare piece crosses your path. "Jeeves, bring the checkbook 'round. I've just seen a trinket I don't yet have." Greg Bogantz
[Phono-L] Wide Columbia belts and more
The brass sliding sleeve is part of the telescoping drive shaft that turns the amber wheel. There are three sections to this driveshaft and when the reproducer is at the extreme start of the record, the brass section sticks out of the left side of the support casting. But when the reproducer has extended all the way to the opposite end of the long mandrel, the brass section is pulled with it as the driveshaft extends. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" ; Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:42 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Wide Columbia belts and more > Oh wise and learned members, Is there anyone who sells the wide Columbia > belts with stitching as found on machines such as the BG and BC? > > I saw my first BC today. It seems to have a modern replacement for the > vulcanite "shoe". Does anyone have an original instruction sheet for this > baby? I'd like to know what the sliding brass sleeve on the drive shaft > to > the amber wheel does, for instance. > > Thanks, > > Ron L > > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive
Ron, it's difficult to explain the BC friction wheel driveshaft system without pictures or handwaving :o) The drive train begins with a gear-driven piece of metal tubing which is enclosed in the stationary outer housing which is fastened to the gear housing casting on the side of the machine. This first piece of tubing (call it part 1) rotates but does not translate axially. Inside this rotating tubing is the brass coupling sleeve (part 2) which can rotate and also slide along its axis. And inside the brass sleeve is the solid rod (part 3) which connects with the amber wheel. This part 3 rotates and also slides axially. Part 2 has two slots, diametrically opposed and milled into its outside surface that run almost the full length of the part. Part 1 transmits its torque via two setscrews which extend inward from Part 1 into the slots milled in part 2. (Access to these screws is via a hole drilled in the stationary outer tube.) This allows Part 2 to be rotated by part 1 and also to slide axially inside part 1. Part 3 has a "T" shaped fixture at its end that engages two longitudinal slots milled INSIDE of part 2. This is what transmits the torque from part 2 to part 3 and also allows part 3 to translate axially. The slots inside of part 2 do not extend all the way to the ends of part 2. When part 3 is pulled along the mandrel with the reproducer, its T fixture hits the ends of the slots inside of part 2 and thereby drags part 2 along with it axially. All this assemblage has a purposefully sloppy fit to allow the amber wheel end of part 3 to wobble around radially so it can follow the stylus assembly as it is raised and lowered from the record surface. Clear as mud? Again, it's hard to envision what's happening without seeing the structure in detail. But maybe this helps understand it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wide Columbia belts and more > There does not seem to be any connection between the brass sleeve and the > inner steel(?) drive shaft. How is the brass sleeve supposed to be pulled > along? > > Ron L > > -Original Message- > From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at > oldcrank.org] > On > Behalf Of Greg Bogantz > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:32 AM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Wide Columbia belts and more > > The brass sliding sleeve is part of the telescoping drive shaft that turns > the amber wheel. There are three sections to this driveshaft and when the > reproducer is at the extreme start of the record, the brass section sticks > out of the left side of the support casting. But when the reproducer has > extended all the way to the opposite end of the long mandrel, the brass > section is pulled with it as the driveshaft extends. > > Greg Bogantz > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ron L'Herault" > To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" ; > > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:42 PM > Subject: [Phono-L] Wide Columbia belts and more > > >> Oh wise and learned members, Is there anyone who sells the wide Columbia >> belts with stitching as found on machines such as the BG and BC? >> >> I saw my first BC today. It seems to have a modern replacement for the >> vulcanite "shoe". Does anyone have an original instruction sheet for >> this >> baby? I'd like to know what the sliding brass sleeve on the drive shaft >> to >> the amber wheel does, for instance. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ron L >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive
Steve, I think the large mica diaphragms are available from somewhere, but I don't know who has them. Maybe Ron Sitko. Paul Baker makes the amber wheels and hard rubber (vulcanite) shoes, but I don't know if he offers them for sale individually. pabclassm at aol.com I suspect that Baker probably prefers to recondition the entire unit because getting the reproducer to work takes a lot of fiddling. I don't know if any of the other parts such as the weight, stylus bar, or any of the several other parts which are unique to the Higham reproducer are made as reproductions. Most of these parts are unusual, but they would not be too difficult to make by an experienced machinist. Probably costly, though, to have done. There aren't that many BCs around, but many of them need something or other. So getting into restoring these would certainly be servicing a niche market, and tooling up to make just a few of each required piece to meet the small demand would be costly. Anyway, Baker is the only guy I know who has much experience with these beasties. I have a 2&4 minute model (the latest version from about 1909), and it's all there but I haven't taken the time to get it working very well. But I've spent enough time fiddling with it to convince myself that these things are cantankerous and fussy and certainly not the kind of thing you want to mess with on a casual basis. I would like to experiment with completely different friction materials (rather than the amber and hard rubber), but that will take a lot of trial and error which I haven't decided to get serious about yet. And there's no guarantee that different friction materials would be any less fussy than the original ones. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive > Hi Greg, > > Does anyone make reproduction parts for these reproducers? > > Steve > > > > : [Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive> > Ron, it's difficult to > explain the BC friction wheel driveshaft system > without pictures or > handwaving :o) The drive train begins with a > gear-driven piece of metal > tubing which is enclosed in the stationary outer > housing which is > fastened to the gear housing casting on the side of the > machine. This > first piece of tubing (call it part 1) rotates but does not > translate > axially. Inside this rotating tubing is the brass coupling sleeve > (part > 2) which can rotate and also slide along its axis. And inside the > brass > sleeve is the solid rod (part 3) which connects with the amber wheel. > > This part 3 rotates and also slides axially. Part 2 has two slots, > > diametrically opposed and milled into its outside surface that run almost > > the full length of the part. Part 1 transmits its torque via two > setscrews > which extend inward from Part 1 into the slots milled in part > 2. (Access to > these screws is via a hole drilled in the s > tationary outer tube.) This > allows Part 2 to be rotated by part 1 and > also to slide axially inside part > 1. Part 3 has a "T" shaped fixture at > its end that engages two longitudinal > slots milled INSIDE of part 2. > This is what transmits the torque from part > 2 to part 3 and also allows > part 3 to translate axially. The slots inside > of part 2 do not extend > all the way to the ends of part 2. When part 3 is > pulled along the > mandrel with the reproducer, its T fixture hits the ends > of the slots > inside of part 2 and thereby drags part 2 along with it > axially. All > this assemblage has a purposefully sloppy fit to allow the > amber wheel > end of part 3 to wobble around radially so it can follow the > stylus > assembly as it is raised and lowered from the record surface.> > Clear as > mud? Again, it's hard to envision what's happening without > seeing the > structure in detail. But maybe this helps understand it.> > Greg Bogantz > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Columbia no. 5 reproducer repair for Columbia AO
Columbia made a special sapphire stylus for their 2&4 minute reproducers. It was a sapphire rod, rather like the concept of the tungstone wire. The diameter was small enough to fit properly in the 4 minute groove. Like the wire, the rod did not change shape during it's useful life until it wore completely down. The problem, of course, is that it is too small to work properly with 2 minute wax records, and it will gouge them. But Columbia didn't care if you wore out your Edison records on it because Columbia was selling only celluloid records by that time :o) Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia no. 5 reproducer repair for Columbia AO > What type of cylinder stylus did Columbia make beside the ball stylus? > > Steve > > > >> From: Zonophone2006 at aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:09:53 -0400> To: >> phono-l at oldcrank.org> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia no. 5 reproducer >> repair for Columbia AO> > hi ray et al> on mine i cant tell you > i still >> need to find an appropriate stylus> mine did not come with one> > > > In >> a message dated 9/5/2008 11:19:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > >> wilenzick at bellsouth.net writes:> > I have an AO, but not an AW. I have >> been told that the sound quality of the > > AW reproducer is inferior to >> that of the AO, so why would anyone want to > convert the machines. Is >> that true?> > Ray> > > - Original Message - > From: >> > To: > Sent: Friday, >> September 05, 2008 10:30 AM> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia no. 5 >> reproducer repair for Columbia AO> > > > HI> > I have an ao and an aow> > >> the reproducer and the neck it sits on are totally different on these> > >> so be careful in trying to convert one> >> >> > In a message dated >> 9/3/2008 4:3 > 7:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,> > valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com writes:> >> > > I'm looking for recommendations regarding someone who could expertly > > > repair> > the reproducer on my Columbia AO. It's the floating type, a no. > 5, I > > believe> > although it is not marked in any way. Would also be > interested in the> > conversion kit to install the model 8 reproducer, > which essentially > > converts an> > AO to an AW.> >> > Thanks,> > Bruce> > >> >> >> >> >> > -> > ___> > > Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org> >> >> >> >> >> > > **It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your > > > travel> > deal here.> > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547)> > > ___> > Phono-L mailing list> > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org> > > > > > ___> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org> > > > > > ** > Pt...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, > plus the > latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. > > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty000514)> > ___> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive
I just received this link to a forum thread devoted to the Columbia BC. Reid Welch has fitted new friction parts to a BC and has had good success with them. He even includes a video of his machine in operation! The only one on the internet, I think. There's hope for us BC owners yet! Good stuff. Enjoy: http://www.forum.condorcup.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20&p=59#p51 Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive > paul baker used to restore these but he takes a long time to do it > > > In a message dated 8/30/2008 3:49:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > steve_noreen at msn.com writes: > > Hi Greg, > > Does anyone make reproduction parts for these reproducers? > > Steve > > > > : [Phono-L] Columbia BC friction wheel drive> > Ron, it's difficult to > explain the BC friction wheel driveshaft system > without pictures or > handwaving > :o) The drive train begins with a > gear-driven piece of metal tubing > which is > enclosed in the stationary outer > housing which is fastened to the gear > housing casting on the side of the > machine. This first piece of tubing > (call > it part 1) rotates but does not > translate axially. Inside this rotating > tubing is the brass coupling sleeve > (part 2) which can rotate and also > slide > along its axis. And inside the > brass sleeve is the solid rod (part 3) > which > connects with the amber wheel. > This part 3 rotates and also slides > axially. > Part 2 has two slots, > diametrically opposed and milled into its outside > surface that run almost > the full length of the part. Part 1 transmits > its > torque via two setscrews > which extend inward from Part 1 into the slots > milled > in part 2. (Access to > these screws is via a hole drilled in the s > tationary outer tube.) This > allows Part 2 to be rotated by part 1 and > also > to slide axially inside part > 1. Part 3 has a "T" shaped fixture at its > end > that engages two longitudinal > slots milled INSIDE of part 2. This is > what > transmits the torque from part > 2 to part 3 and also allows part 3 to > translate axially. The slots inside > of part 2 do not extend all the way > to the > ends of part 2. When part 3 is > pulled along the mandrel with the > reproducer, > its T fixture hits the ends > of the slots inside of part 2 and thereby > drags > part 2 along with it > axially. All this assemblage has a purposefully > sloppy fit to allow the > amber wheel end of part 3 to wobble around > radially so > it can follow the > stylus assembly as it is raised and lowered from the > record surface.> > Clear as mud? Again, it's hard to envision what's > happening > without > seeing the structure in detail. But maybe this helps understand > it.> > > Greg Bogantz > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > > > **It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your > travel > deal here. > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547) > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Columbia BF Peerless
Columbia did make the BF in a 2&4 minute version. I have one. Or else they made an adaptor kit to convert the machines. The 2&4 minute gearing is accomplished the same way it is on other Columbias of this vintage - there is a spider planetary idler gear mounted inside the gear housing that is either engaged or disengaged via a lever that fits inside a slot on the gear cover over the feed screw. The Columbia #12 Lyric reproducer is used with the 2&4 minute machines. These have a single tubular sapphire rod instead of a button stylus which is the proper size for playing 4 minute records. Obviously, this small stylus will eat up 2 minute wax records, but Columbia didn't care as they were making celluloid 2 and 4 minute records at that time. I don't see the gear shift lever on this eBay machine, so it's probably the 2 minute model. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "BruceY" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia BF Peerless > Thanks, as I thought. I had never heard of a 4 minute BF Peerless, and I > have one exactly like it. yes indeed, must have some funky bidders out > there, funking up the prices. > > Bruce > - Original Message - > From: "Loran Hughes" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Columbia BF Peerless > > >>I agree with George. The price is as funky as the BA will sound ;) >> Loran >> >> On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:57 PM, George Glastris wrote: >> >>> It seems quite high, but all the bidders are fairly new. And no, >>> there is >>> no 4-minute attachment on it so that Blue Amberol is going to sound >>> funky. >>> George >>> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B
I have all three machines, the Amberola 1A, 1B, and III. The III is very close to the 1B in sound, but I think it's a little more midrangey due to the metal horn. But it does sound very good, and it's my second favorite 4-minute cylinder player on the basis of sound quality, the 1B being the best commercially produced 4-minute cylinder machine ever made in my opinion. George Paul and I are having this discussion currently over on the OTV board, and we both agree also that the 1A is the best sounding commercially available 2 minute machine. The horns used in all these machines were the best that anybody ever made for cylinder machines, the metal one in the III being a close derivative of the shape of the ones in the 1A and 1B. This metal horn has a fairly complex shape and was never used in any other Edison product. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B > How does it compare with the 1B sound wise since the horn is different? > > Steve > > > >> Hey Jim,> > My Amberola III is absolutely one of my very favorite >> machines. Sounds > superblooks superb..plays wax Amberols like no >> other vintage machine > I have ever heard... It makes me >> happy.> > Bestest,> > Michael Khanchalian (cyldoc)> > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B
Steve, the 1A and 1B horns are very odd. They're made of a fibrous material, molded or layed up against a form. Different from anything else that Edison ever did. Someone on one of these phono boards had the answer in a previous posting, but I can't remember the details. Hopefully they will respond with a clear description. Anyway, the horns are well damped due to this construction technique and don't exhibit the ringing and resonances that are common with metal horns, which is one of the reasons they sound so good. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B > Thanks so much, what was the 1A horn made of? > > Steve > > > >> From: gbogantz1 at charter.net> To: phono-l at oldcrank.org> Date: Mon, 27 >> Oct >> 2008 22:40:02 -0400> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and >> 1B> > I have all three machines, the Amberola 1A, 1B, and III. The III is >> > very close to the 1B in sound, but I think it's a little more midrangey >> due > to the metal horn. But it does sound very good, and it's my second >> favorite > 4-minute cylinder player on the basis of sound quality, the 1B >> being the > best commercially produced 4-minute cylinder machine ever >> made in my > opinion. George Paul and I are having this discussion >> currently over on the > OTV board, and we both agree also that the 1A is >> the best sounding > commercially available 2 minute machine. The horns >> used in all these > machines were the best that anybody ever made for >> cylinder machines, the > metal one in the III being a close derivative of >> the shape of the ones in > the 1A and 1B. This metal horn has a fairly >> complex shape and was never > used in any other Ediso > n product.> > Greg Bogantz> > > > - Original Message - > From: > "Steven Medved" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 PM> Subject: > Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B> > > > How does it compare > with the 1B sound wise since the horn is different?> >> > Steve> >> >> >> > >> Hey Jim,> > My Amberola III is absolutely one of my very favorite > >> > machines. Sounds > superblooks superb..plays wax Amberols like no > > >> other vintage machine > I have ever heard... It makes me > >> > happy.> > Bestest,> > Michael Khanchalian (cyldoc)>> > > ___> > Phono-L mailing list> > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > ___> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the "Ediphonic" and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with "first-ear" assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) > Greg, > > I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound > equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the > correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for > blue amberols)? > > Thanks, > Bruce > > Bruce Johnson > Pod Valem II, 870 > 252 43 Pruhonice > Czech Republic > > > Tel: (CZ) + 420 602 362 473 > Tel: (US) + 1 612 605 5242 > > > > > > From: "phono-l-request at oldcrank.org" > To: phono-l at oldcrank.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:00:05 PM > Subject: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 288 > > Send Phono-L mailing list submissions to >phono-l at oldcrank.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >http://oldcrank.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/phono-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >phono-l-request at oldcrank.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >phono-l-owner at oldcrank.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Phono-L digest..." > If you reply, please change your subject line and don't include this > entire digest in your message.Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Loss To Phono Collector Community (Zonophone2006 at aol.com) > 2. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Michael F. Khanchalian) > 3. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) > 4. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) > 5. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Rich) > 6. Re: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 287 (RROCRREC at aol.com) > 7. Dave Boruff (Mark Dawson) > 8. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) > 9. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B
George, I'll be sending the data on my 1A and 1B to you separately. But I got to thinking that there may be some more variations among these early amberolas that you ought to explore. Several years ago there was some discussion on some of the phono boards about the rarity - or not - of the "split hoof" foot on the early Pooley cabinet (third picture from left on page 163 of Frow). In my experience most of the Pooley 1As that I've seen have the split hoof. Whereas my 1B has the lion's paw feet. It would be interesting if you also gathered this information from our readers. Also, I think I've seen newer Pooley style cabinets (perhaps actually made by Edison) that did not have the grille louvers on the sides of the cabinet. Frow also mentions that variations of the Pooley cabinet were made such that the same cabinet could be used for both amberolas and the first disc machines. He says that there is a height variation of some 2 inches among these versions. And evidently only the earliest Herzog cabinets had the flat lock key whereas the later cabinets used the more common barrel style key. So I'm suggesting that you add four more items to your questionnaire: -- Style of front foot (split hoof, lion's paw, other) -- Presence and number of louvers on cabinet side -- Height of cabinet (not counting casters) -- Type of key (flat or barrel) Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:46 AM Subject: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B > > I'm asking for data from owners of Amberolas 1A and 1B. I'm > working on an article on the early Amberolas, similar to a study done > on suitcase "Homes" two years ago and published in "The Sound Box." > Data received will be compiled in an article scheduled to appear in the > March 2009 issue of "The Sound Box," and all contributors will be > acknowledged. (If you'd like your data/identity to be kept > confidential, I will of course honor your wishes. I can be contacted > directly at gpaul2000 at aol.com.) > > I'm looking for the following information from owners of Amberolas 1A or > 1B: > > 1) Type (1A or 1B)? > 2) Serial Number (and do data plate and mechanism numbers match? > 3) Lid: smooth or stepped? > 4) Upper front corner posts: plain or carved? > 5) Grille: Lyre, first rococo, or second rococo (all shown on page 163 of > Frow)? > 6) Apron (bottom of cabinet): wavy or more flattened (as shown on page 163 > of Frow)? > 7) Drawers: wooden separators or metal clips? > > I will gratefully accept data here at Phono-L, or at gpaul2000 at aol.com. > > Thanks in advance for your help! > > Best to all, > George Paul > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Amberolas 1A and 1B horns
Steve, it's not readily possible to compare the 1A and 1B horns with any others because of the unique fittings that they employ on the machines. Even so, there was no other horn shaped like the 1A & 1B horns which probably has the MOST to do with their sound. In other words, you would have to make a wood horn with the same unique shape as the 1A horn to properly compare the effects attributable to the construction materials. But I would imagine that the two materials would sound rather similar since wood is a more intrinsically damped material than metal and is similar in damping to the jute construction of the 1A horn. Also, a solid wood horn would have different damping from that of a plywood construction. But overall, I would agree that I like the metal horns the least of all the constructions because of their poor damping. This could be improved by overlaying the outside of the horn with some plaster or other material which would add mass and damp the metallic ringing. I have heard of people actually doing this with a Credenza. Even though these are wood horns which are already pretty well damped, some people believe that filling the volume between the horn and the cabinet sides with CONCRETE !!! makes them sound better. Good grief, the beast weighs enough as it is. Who needs to add another several hundred pounds of stone just to damp the wood horn a little better? Oh well, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Amberolas 1A and 1B horns > Hi Greg, > > Do they sound better than wood? I am very impressed by how much better > wood sounds than tin, what a huge difference. I always sound test > reproducers with my tin horn as all the defects are pronounced. Wood > makes them sound better even when they are not. > > Steve > > > >> Steve, the 1A and 1B horns are very odd. They're made of a fibrous > >> material, molded or layed up against a form. Different from anything else >> > that Edison ever did. Someone on one of these phono boards had the >> answer > in a previous posting, but I can't remember the details. >> Hopefully they > will respond with a clear description.> Anyway, the >> horns are well damped due to this construction technique and > don't >> exhibit the ringing and resonances that are common with metal horns, > >> which is one of the reasons they sound so good.> > Greg Bogantz> > > >> > - Original Message - > From: "Steven Medved" >> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:35 PM> Subject: >> Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B> > > > Thanks so much, what >> was the 1A horn made of?> >> > Steve> >> >> >> >> From: >> gbogantz1 at charter.net> To: phono-l at oldcrank.org> Date: Mon, 27 Oct > >> >> >> 2008 22:40:02 -0400> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Resea > rch: Amberolas 1A and > >> 1B> > I have all three machines, the Amberola > 1A, 1B, and III. The III is > >> > very close to the 1B in sound, but I > think it's a little more midrangey > >> due > to the metal horn. But it > does sound very good, and it's my second > >> favorite > 4-minute cylinder > player on the basis of sound quality, the 1B > >> being the > best > commercially produced 4-minute cylinder machine ever > >> made in my > > opinion. George Paul and I are having this discussion > >> currently over > on the > OTV board, and we both agree also that the 1A is > >> the best > sounding > commercially available 2 minute machine. The horns > >> used in > all these > machines were the best that anybody ever made for > >> > cylinder machines, the > metal one in the III being a close derivative of > > >> the shape of the ones in > the 1A and 1B. This metal horn has a > fairly > >> complex shape and was never > used in any other Ediso> > n > product.> > Greg Bogantz> > > > - Original Message -- > --- > From: > > "Steven Medved" > To: "Antique > Phonograph List" > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, > 2008 10:26 PM> Subject: > > Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B> > > > > How does it compare > > with the 1B sound wise since the horn is > different?> >> > Steve> >> >> >> >
[Phono-L] Vertical versus lateral records
orn and with recording in relatively acoustically "dead" environments. These preferences lead to capturing more high frequency content in the recording. Edison's engineers also are known to have been very careful to choose the recorder that best matched the nature of the music and the talent, that is different recorders were used for selections featuring a solo vocalist than were used for band recordings or were used for massed voices, etc. Victor and Columbia probably weren't as careful in the early days about these details of their acoustic recording setups. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) > With all due respect, how is vertical cut recording inferior to lateral > cut? > Certainly in the phonograph's first 25 years, Edison's machines sounded > substantially better than respectively contemporary lateral phonographs. > I > hear more treble extension on direct-recorded 4M amberols than any > acoustic > lateral recordings, as well as more general naturalness. I must > respectfully disagree that vertical recording can be regarded as > inherently > inferior to lateral recording, generally speaking. > > I should perhaps mention that I have no allegiance to one method over the > other whatsoever. Greg B., may I ask your thoughts on this? Any > information about specific frequency responses, and especially, the > physics > involved with both the recording and playback (and duplication if you care > to get that deep) processes, would be fascinating and greatly appreciated! > > > Best to all, > Robert > > > - Original Message - > From: > >> Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical >> cut >> recording)... > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Vertical versus lateral records
Bob, your earlier assumption of the vertical-lateral stereo record was correct with regard to some of the early stereo proposals. But that system would not have been compatible with playback of a stereo record on an older mono lateral cartridge. This was one requirement of any stereo record system that would get the blessing of the record companies. Thus, the 45-45 system was developed that does as you say - one channel is a combination of vertical and lateral motion of one groove wall and the other channel is the same on the opposite groove wall. To be compatible with mono lateral pickup cartridges, this requires that the SUM or in-phase conponents of the two stereo channels to be represented as the lateral components of both channels which will then cause pure lateral motion of the pickup stylus and which will present the stereo recording as fully "folded down" into mono and be playable on a lateral pickup. The DIFFERENCE between the left and right channels is represented purely as the total vertical component of stylus motion. This signal is not pertinent when hearing the stereo program folded down to mono, and this vertical signal is not detected by a lateral pickup. You ask how it's possible to separate the two channels in one groove in this manner. The answer is that each signal generator in the pickup cartridge is responsive to only ONE axis of modulation. So if you cause modulation on the axis which is purely perpendicular or orthogonal to the sensitivity axis, there is no component of the signal along the sensitivity axis and the signal generator does not respond to that modulation. By placing two such signal generators in the stereo pickup cartridge, each responsive to the 45 degree angle from the vertical as represented by one groove wall, note that one groove wall is 90 degrees differently inclined from the other - in other words, the groove is cut with a 90 degree angle between the sidewalls. Unlike the case with pure vertical or lateral cut mono records, this 90 degree angle of the groove is a REQUIREMENT of the 45-45 stereo groove. This allows the wiggles from one groove wall to move the stylus in a completely orthogonal motion relative to the modulation from the other groove wall. Thus, each signal generator is responsive ONLY to the modulation from the groove wall which causes stylus motion along its sensitivity axis, and that generator does not respond to stylus motion caused by the other groove wall whose axis of stylus motion is orthogonal to its sensitivity axis. This allows the two channels to exist in one groove, and the crosstalk between channels is theoretically zero. In practice, real world stereo pickup cartridges do not achieve perfect separation but they do a pretty good job, typically achieving from 20 to 40 dB of separation between channels over the entire audio frequency range. Separation above about 20dB when auditioned via loudspeakers is essentially indistinguishable from perfect separation by listeners. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Bob" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vertical versus lateral records > Hi Greg, >This is all very informative. I always assumed that in a stereo > recording, one channel responded to the vertical motion of the stylus and > the other to the lateral motion. If I understand you correctly, this is > not > correct. One channel responds to both by both the lateral and vertical > movement on one side of the groove and the other channel to the lateral > and > vertical movement of the other side of the groove. What I don't > understand > is how this is possible. It would seem that the motion in either > direction > on one side would affect the motion of the other side because the stylus > can't be in two lateral or vertical positions at the same time. I hope you > understand what I mean and can provide an explanation as to how this > works. > Thanks > Robert Vuillemenot > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Bogantz" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:00 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Vertical versus lateral records > > >>Well, Robert, with some trepidation do I want to open this can of >> worms >> again. I was involved in some knock-down-drag-out arguments on two other >> phonograph forums over this topic in the past. It seems there are some >> die-hards in both the Edison and Victor camps who want to retain their >> predjudices regardless of knowing the facts. But in the interest of >> showing >> some scientific light on this question, I'll try to cite the most >> important >> aspects of the physics governing the analog recording and rep
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Jim, I just talked with my friend who designed the Ediphonic and he said I could post some pictures of the horn and the complete machine. I'll try to get that done here shortly. I think I convinced him to join Phono-L, so you might see him contributing to our discussions here later. Regarding the use of a round link fastener on my diaphragms: I've tried several ways to make these, but the issue always comes down to keeping the moving mass as low as possible. The little piece of wire that I use is the simplest means of attaching the link and it sounds no different from the disc-shaped means that I tried. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) > Dear Mr. Bogantz: > Your friend's experimental exponential Amberola horn sounds fascinating - > wish I could hear it. > I tried playing diamond discs through one of my Orthophonic Credenzas > using > the Bruswick Ultona arm and soundbox & this was quite an improvement > over the diamond disc machines - am sure it would have been much better if > it had been possible to use an Edison reproducer. > Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical > cut > recording), both cylinder & disc, is that they, unlike their lateral-cut > competitors' acoustic machines, did not employ tone arms that by their > very > existance elogated the narrower portion of the tone passage, more closely > approximating exponetial shape. One would have thought that mathmatician > Theodore Edison would have exponentially elongated the narrow portion > of the horn in the Edisonic. > Wish your friend would market an "aftermarket" exponetial horn for both > Amberola & Diamond Disc phonographs.Let me know if he does. > I bought one of your diamond disc diaphragms several years ago & thought > it > might be improved by having the link attached to the diaphragm by > a round something against the diaphragm rather than the little straight > bar.Have you by any chance incorporated this improvement? > Am always interested in obtaining the best sound quality from my vintage > machines. > All good wishes... > > > Very truly yours, > > > Jim Cartwright > > > Immortal Performances > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > ... >> [Original Message] >> From: Greg Bogantz >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 28-Oct-2008 5:48:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) >> >> Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best >> cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur >> gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and > the >> III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever > I >> ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and > the >> only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. > Try >> to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some >> items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point >> where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big >> problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter >> and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the >> Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient >> flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that > you'll >> get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. >> Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the > total >> experience a little. >> >> However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 >> minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best >> overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit >> that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A > reproducer >> which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a >> commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear > 4 >> minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. >> >> I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines > because >> I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines >> that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I >> mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engine
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
The problem with the Pathe Diffusor as well as with the Pathe Actuelle is the absence of proper baffling around the reproducer cone or "diaphragm". The benefits of the fairly direct connection of the stylus to the diaphragm are unfortunately swamped by the poor bass response of both of these systems. The Actuelle also suffers from the extraordinarily long linkage from stylus to reproducer cone. This also causes a rolloff of the treble frequencies due to the high moving mass of this stylus bar connection. Putting a baffle (to keep the front sound emissions from cancelling with those from the back) around the Diffusor diaphragm or Actuelle cone would greatly enhance the bass performance, but it would make the phono quite large and ungainly. This is part of the theory of horn reproduction - the emission from one side of the diaphragm is GREATLY enhanced with respect to the emission from the other side and there is little opportunity for cancellation. And with typical cone loudspeaker reproduction, a baffle (the cabinet or box) helps keep the back emission separate from the front to reduce cancellations. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the possibility that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much harder for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do find it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, individual labels who issued records cut both ways. Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that being a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded groove, it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around -- true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular playback methodology? Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from time to time. Best to all, Robert - Original Message - From: "Thomas Edison" To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern > recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that > recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, > with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. > _ > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Player for 78 rpm records
The best deal on the best-sounding record players these days is to get one of the "commercial" or "institutional" models that used to be made for schools and churches. The best of these brands is Newcomb which has the best build quality, but similar models were made by Audiotronics, Califone, and Hamilton. These models are usually 4-speed manual players with turnover cartridges that have the 3 mil stylus for 78s and a 1 mil or .7 mil for 45s and LPs. Some of the models also have speed vernier controls. They also have considerable electronic equalization that makes them much better sounding than the common consumer players. Here's a good example of an Audiotronics: http://cgi.ebay.com/AUDIOTRONICS-338V-VARIABLE-SPEED-RECORD-PLAYER-WORKS-A_W0QQitemZ220302074193QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item220302074193&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318 Here's one of the smaller Newcombs: http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-NEWCOMB-SOLID-STATE-RECORD-PLAYER-MODEL-EDT-20V_W0QQitemZ260312311494QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item260312311494&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318 These players are robust, highly portable, and easy to repair. And you can often get them for $50 or less on eBay. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "buck Buchanan" To: Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Player for 78 rpm records >I need some help in finding a "cheap" record player that will play the 78 >rpm records. > I have an Emerson and I have also looked at the Crosley and both of them > just don't cut it. > They use the same needle for the 78's and for the 33's and the 78's sound > awful and it not because they are dirty because I have cleaned the > records. > My biggest problem is that I am a disabled vet trying to live on $1,000 a > month. > so I don't have much to pull from in the way of money. I know my in laws > want to buy me something but I can't ask them to spend hundreds of dollars > on this. does anybody know of a cheap player on the market that sounds > good! And where can I find it. > Thanks Bill > > > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] *** JUNK MAIL ***Bargain Victor 10-35 cabinet
I just stumbled onto this: http://cgi.ebay.com/Beautiful-wood-turntable_W0QQitemZ170285399152QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVintage_Electronics_R2?hash=item170285399152&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A1|39%3A1|240%3A1318 I'm pretty sure this is a Victor 10-35 cabinet. The seller doesn't say much about it, and there isn't much time to ask questions as the sale closes in 6 hours. There may be nothing inside it, but who knows. If anybody needs what looks like a fairly nice cabinet for a 10-35, you might at least get that for a song. Greg Bogantz From lhera...@verizon.net Sun Dec 14 20:54:29 2008 From: lhera...@verizon.net (Ron L'Herault) Date: Sun Dec 14 21:55:00 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Amberola VIII and cyl cabinet questions Message-ID: <2d412324c41e4e55a9d6e487b733c...@ronlherault> I have recently acquired an Amberola VIII that I think someone modified to run on an electric motor once. The electric motor was already gone though as was most of the original spring motor. Sooo, the questions are: 1. What is the original size (OD and diameter at the belt groove bottom) of the pulley on the spring motor. 2. Is this pulley very heavy for its size. 3. Should it have a cork lining to the pulley groove? 4. There is an oblong hole in the back plate to the right of the cut out for the horn neck. I suspect the on/off electrical switch was there but I am not sure. Has anyone seen a hole like this in their VIII? And on a separate note, I've been given a cylinder cabinet, a rather simple design with flat board shelves that have grooves in them into which one glues cardboard "pegs". Toilet paper and paper towel inner cardboard tubes are the right size, by the way. The hooks that keep the shelves from pulling all the way out are missing. Anyone have a source for replacement hooks. They are a rather critical component. Thanks, Ron L
[Phono-L] [Fwd: [CBI] Wet 78s and broadcast equipment - needrestoration help]
Well, assuming that the 78s weren't exposed to heat from the steam pipe break and that they have only a water soaking, there's probably nothing wrong with them except for some potential label damage. Check for obvious warpage or cracking and dispose of those records. The ones that appear undamaged otherwise should be removed from any damaged paper sleeves and rewashed as quickly as possible to remove any wet paper residue while protecting their labels from the washing. Shellac records (or vinyl or styrene 45s) are not damaged by washing in water. They should then be thoroughly rinsed with distilled water, dried, and returned to new record sleeves. The analog audio equipment is another story. About the only thing to do is to dry it out COMPLETELY, then check each piece carefully for any signs of water damage. Older equipment that does not contain circuit boards may well survive with little more than a good drying out, then maybe a brushing out of any foreign residue from the chassis. Circuit boards need to be checked for evidence of water stains that can cause short circuits. These stains can often be cleaned off with alcohol and a stiff brush. Some of the capacitors might need to be replaced, but that needs to be determined on an individual basis. Mechanical equipment such as turntables and tape decks will need to have their mechanics cleaned and relubricated. But most of this equipment is probably recoverable if there is interest in doing it. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Thatcher Graham" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: [Phono-L] [Fwd: [CBI] Wet 78s and broadcast equipment - needrestoration help] >A heartbreaking story of damaged 78s in Atlanta. > If any of you have experience in this matter please let me know. > > > > Original Message > Subject: [CBI] Wet 78s and broadcast equipment - need restoration help > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:21:38 -0500 > From: Thomas Shanks > Reply-To: College Broadcasters, Inc > To: c...@listserv.syr.edu > > > > From The Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) Listserv>> > > Our radio station's storage area was steamed in a sauna from a broken > steam pipe for probably 7 days before we were informed last week. We have > a full complement of high-quality used analog studio equipment (an entire > disassembled old studio) and a few hundred 78s that were too wet to handle > until today as the room was dried with a dehumidifier. They are still > damp, so it's time to do what we need to do to save what can be saved. > > What should we do to save the 78s? > > What should we do to save the reel tape? > > And the audio equipment? > > Thank you for any help you can give, > > Thomas Shanks > Chief Engineer > WREK Georgia Tech Student Radio > > > -- > Thatcher Graham > Senior Field Engineer > Mediaguide > 640 Freedom Business Ctr. STE 305 > King of Prussia, PA 19406 > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question...
If the record is vinyl (Gisele MacKensie recorded mostly in the postwar era), with an unusual handwritten label it is probably a test pressing. The word "master" probably referred to the master tape number(s). If the record is a nitrocellulose "lacquer" (thin plastic coatings on an aluminum substrate), it was probably a "reference recording". These were test cuts made on lacquer and submitted for approval by the A&R department before the pairing and final sound was released for commercial production. Cutting reference lacquers was standard procedure at most of the major record labels. They were especially common in later days when post-production "mastering" (meaning EQ tweaking and level setting) was routinely done after the "final" master tape mix was OKd by the producer. Which means the sound of the disc was routinely modified from the "final" mix and needed to be re-approved by the producer. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Vinyl Visions" To: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:38 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question... I discovered a record that I am not sure about and wondered if anyone might enlighten me on it. It is a Capitol Master #7623-10 "Wishin" by Gisele MacKensie / Flip side is Master #9624 "Good Bye Sweetheart" by Gisele MacKensieAll of the numbers and titles are hand written. The label has a date of 1/52 on the bottom and a sticker with "M2111" written on it.This was apparently published in 1983, as I found a record with these titles and that date on Capitol, but I can't find any info on it as far as being a Master copy... any ideas???Curt ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question...
One would think that test pressings would be valuable because of their scarcity - only a few were pressed for most releases, and those were distributed mostly to in-house production people, and maybe a few given to the talent. But if you follow them in various auctions, you find that they don't bring much in the collector market. The exception would be a test pressing that did NOT get commercially produced. But you have to be pretty savvy to know which pairings and/or takes in test pressings did not get commercial approval. So a commercially unreleased take from Elvis or Louis Armstrong might be worth something, but generally test pressings are not highly valuable. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Vinyl Visions" To: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question... Hi Greg,Thanks for the info... it is a vinyl record with handwritten entries on a printed Capitol label that appears to be made for these type of recordings. If it is, in fact a test pressing, do these records have any particular value or is it just an oddity? I have had some of the aluminum based reference recordings before - they seemed to be similar to the type that you recorded yourself. I am just not very familiar with the test pressings and couldn't find anything about them.Curt From: gbogan...@charter.net To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:49:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question... If the record is vinyl (Gisele MacKensie recorded mostly in the postwar era), with an unusual handwritten label it is probably a test pressing. The word "master" probably referred to the master tape number(s). If the record is a nitrocellulose "lacquer" (thin plastic coatings on an aluminum substrate), it was probably a "reference recording". These were test cuts made on lacquer and submitted for approval by the A&R department before the pairing and final sound was released for commercial production. Cutting reference lacquers was standard procedure at most of the major record labels. They were especially common in later days when post-production "mastering" (meaning EQ tweaking and level setting) was routinely done after the "final" master tape mix was OKd by the producer. Which means the sound of the disc was routinely modified from the "final" mix and needed to be re-approved by the producer. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Vinyl Visions" To: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:38 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Capitol Master recording question... > > I discovered a record that I am not sure about and wondered if anyone > might enlighten me on it. It is a Capitol Master #7623-10 "Wishin" by > Gisele MacKensie / Flip side is Master #9624 "Good Bye Sweetheart" by > Gisele MacKensieAll of the numbers and titles are hand written. The > label > has a date of 1/52 on the bottom and a sticker with "M2111" written on > it.This was apparently published in 1983, as I found a record with > these > titles and that date on Capitol, but I can't find any info on it as far > as > being a Master copy... any ideas???Curt > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Anyone know an early electric phono repair man?
Ron is correct that most idler wheel designs are such that the diameter of the wheel does not affect the speed at the platter. These wheels are common and used where the motor drives the outer diameter of the wheel and that same outer diameter drives the platter. The exception to the idler affecting the platter speed is when the idler has more than one outer diameter such as those wheels used the the early RCA 45rpm changers RP-168, RP-190, and some similar changers. These designs have two tires on them with different outer diameters. The motor drives one diameter while the other diameter drives the platter. On these type idlers it is critical to maintain the RATIO of the two diameters when resurfacing the rubber parts as it is this ratio that affects the platter speed. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Ron L'Herault" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Anyone know an early electric phono repair man? I'm sure someone will come in definitively on this one, but I am almost positive, that a true idler wheel is not an influence on the speed of the turntable. The rotational speed of the turntable is determined by the ratio of the motor shaft to the turntable. It might be motor shaft diameter or circuference -or maybe it doesn't matter which you choose. I'm math challenged. The function of the idler is to provide traction to transmit the rotation of the motor to the turntable but not to change its speed. Proof of this would be a stepped motor shaft driving one idler such that changing the position to a different step changes the speed of the turntable. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Baron Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 1:03 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Anyone know an early electric phono repair man? I would add to Ron's comment about substitute rubber for the idler wheel, that an O-ring will indeed provide sufficient traction and makes an attractive alternative to get your platter running smoothly and quietly (provided that the turntable bearings / bushings are well cleaned and properly lubricated). As Ron noted, size (I think in this case diameter) is not critical, as long as it fits the steel idler disc snugly so it can't slip. However the thickness of the O-ring or other alternative "tire" should be as close to the same as it is on the original tire, or your turntable speed will be too fast or too slow. Andrew On Sep 2, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Ron L'Herault wrote: And if it has an idler wheel between the motor's rotating shaft and the turntable edge, its actual size is not critical. You can substitute a rubber O ring. However, a little internet searching will turn up places that will replace the idler's rubber with new to the same size as original. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Baron Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:08 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Anyone know an early electric phono repair man? You're welcome Edward. The rubber idler wheel can sometimes be reconditioned -softened and surface-dressed with a chemical. If it has a notable flat spot (from decades resting against the inside of the turntable rim under tension), it will need to be replaced. When these get hard it transfers all kinds of noise to the platter which then acts like a diaphragm to magnify the noise. The motor board, if the motor is bolted directly to it, then acts like a sound board, further amplifying the rattle. The original stylus might have been a metal alloy. One such was called "Osmium", which would give more plays than an ordinary steel needle. It could also have been a jewel-tipped metal shank. Electric Admirals from that era with no radio are pretty rare. The repairs are pretty straightforward. Best of luck, Andrew On Sep 2, 2012, at 5:42 PM, keeper...@aol.com wrote: Andrew, Thank You for taking the time to respond as you did, with all that helpful information! I guessed aright that if the symptoms were described, someone who knows them would indicate a prognosis. I think that since these machines are fairly rare, and yet when working properly play records with a lovely, iconic sound, they should be restored. They're easier on the old records than a Victrola, also, if you like to play them a lot, as I do. I have a great GE phonograph, with an AM radio, that I would estimate to have been available in the 40s, extrapolating from your description of this Admir al. The original stylus must be gone. I got it with a standard steel needle in it. And yes, the garbled music was from the record. There is no radio with this unit, it only plays
Re: [Phono-L] Model L reproducer
Hi Steve, I have an original, untouched model L. The inside distance from the top of the weight to the peak of the limit loop is 11/32 inch. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Steven Medved" To: ; Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:08 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Model L reproducer Does anyone have a model L reproducer that they could give me a measurement of the space from the weight to the peak of the limit loop? I have an L weight someone turned into an N weight that I want to turn back into an L. Thanks, Steve ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Brunswick model AZ-944 with a model number AP-952amplifier. information needed
Hi Bob, I have a copy of the RCA AP-952 schematic in my Rider's Perpetual Troubleshooter's Manual, volume 1. I can email it to you as an Adobe .PDF file if you need it. You can view it and print it from the free Adobe Reader software. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Bob Maffit" To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:27 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Brunswick model AZ-944 with a model number AP-952amplifier. information needed Phono list: Some years back I had inquired about aBrunswick model AZ-944 phonograph, with a model number AP-952 amplifier. Someone had replied with a comment they had a "schematic" or documentation on the machine. I filed it away and ! can't find it now that I need it. *grin* If anyone has such, I would appreciate an E-mail / phone / address contact, so I could obtain such. I am getting around to considering restoring this with a phono companion. Sure would like "anything" on the machine etc. I trust this is not to far off topic as the phonograph was made around 1925 -1930? Thanks Bob ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Cutting records
Shawn Borri can probably best answer your questions about cutting a cylinder. He makes the wax blanks that you would need to cut. But cutting a 78 is a whole different kettle of fish and pretty much a pipe dream if your purpose is to be able to play it on an acoustic phonograph. NO practical means exists for recording onto a disc that has sufficient durability that it can be played with an acoustic reproducer. In the 1930s there were disc recorders that cut into aluminum discs that could then be played back with the relatively crude crystal pickups of the day. But these recordings were noisy and really only suitable for speech documentation or amateur use. Vinyl records are still too soft to be played without significant wear on an acoustic reproducer. But in order to make a vinyl or shellac 78, you have to go thru ALL the motions of recording a master in a soft material such as wax or the modern medium of nitrocellulose "lacquer". But these recordings are WAY too soft to be played by anything other than a very light tracking force modern pickup. To make a shellac record, these delicate masters have to be electroformed into at least a metal stamper (the typical process includes going thru a metal master and metal mother before making the stamper) which must then be put into a huge hydraulic press that compression molds the shellac material into the final record. You can pay to have vinyl records made this way, but nobody that I know of still molds shellac records. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:24 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Cutting records Any info on best way to cut a cylinder (or to cut a 78 disc) from a digital file (eg, .wma)? Any service or individual that does this sort of backwards transfer? I have one or two digital files of some music pieces (2 minutes each) that I'd like to have cut for playback onto cylinder and/or onto (78) disc. Or am I nuts? Thanks Kevin ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
