RCA Victrola Reproducer Repair HELP!

[brianu]

who did you send it to? and did they completely rebuild it? and what exactly did you do to it?

also, do you have a photo?

[OrthoFan]

I tried to reduce a slight rattle… which turned into a big problem. .... I tried to have it fixed by a gentleman in PA, but it came back sounding as bad as it did when I sent it off! He replaced the original diaphragm with an Orthophonic diaphragm, and (good lord, he honestly tried) it sounds horrible!

Based on what I've personally observed over the past 30 years, the rattle was likely caused by one or more of the following:

1) An improperly adjusted pivot that allowed the needle bar to move very slightly sideways instead of back and forth--in the direction to required to track the record groove.

2) Hard, shrunken gaskets that transferred the vibrations of the diaphragm to the shell of the sound box, or caused the diaphragm to move unevenly.

3) A loose or cracked/crumbling seal between the needle bar's "foot" and the center of the diaphragm.

4) A slight line crack in the diaphragm, itself, or a dented/distorted diaphragm.

While new production Orthophonic diaphragms are available, the type used in the later RCA sound boxes are relatively hard to come by. I know that some members of various boards have experimented with making their own out of everything from disposable aluminum pie pans to the (diamond etched) stiff aluminum seals used on food containers, such as peanut cans. It would be best, however to locate an original, NOS diaphragm, or one culled from another (junker) RCA sound box. You might check with these folks to see if they have anything available at this time -- http://www.phonographs.org/

In the meantime, one thing you might try is to re-adjust the needle bar pivot screws. Loosen them and then gradually tighten each one until the needle bar is not only centered properly, but shows no signs of sideways movement. It should be free, however, to move in the direction required to track the record. You can test this by inserting and tightening a steel or fiber needle. You'll feel the needle bar plunge slightly.

Good luck.

O_F

[OrthoFan]

Thanks for the detailed photo. One other thing to check out: make sure that the needle bar is not touching any part of the "guard." If it is, it will cause a buzzing tone, especially on louder passages.

I also wanted to point out that since the spider is not installed, the diaphragm may not be responding evenly to the movement of the needle bar. If you've ever seen an Orthophonic diaphragm in action, the entire center--the portion inside of the corrugated outer ring--plunges on an even plane, in a piston fashion, with the movement of the needle bar. (Orthophonic Victrola owners can easily see this by inserting a needle and gently and slightly pumping it back and forth.) There used to be an animated *.gif image that illustrated this, but I can't find it now.

The later style diaphragms used in the RCA portable Victrolas basically functioned the same way, but in place of the spider, they used a stiffened center cone. (I've been told that the aluminum used in the center is slightly thicker than the outer rim, but have yet to verify this.

[brianu]

pre-war craptrola? I don't understand. what you have is genuine. and are you saying that what came after the war (I or II) was better?

also, I'm assuming that the restorer actually DID do the rebuilding properly, and that it was some tinkering after the fact that caused the problem (the vaguely defined buzzing? which, you should know, doesn't seem all that uncommon, even with perfectly rebuilt soundboxes, when playing very late 78's on them which they weren't designed to handle).

[brianu]

I’m assuming that “pre-war” means before WWII. (Please forgive me if I’m wrong.) It’s a neat little portable, but in no way is it “the genuine article,” seeing as how RCA greatly let the quality of their acoustic machines slip after they took over Victor in 1929. I’m setting my sights on a nice late 20’s Victor “Orthophonic” portable, and giving up on these particular models.

Yes, the person who rebuilt the reproducer did a great job… I just didn’t take the time to tweak it on my machine, thus the “frustration.” Each one of these machines is its own beast, and they require a lot of attention, no matter what the model or make of manufacture. If you’ll read post #4 completely, I clearly stated that “He may want it back, and I don't want to do anything to it before hand.” I thought I made it clear that I hadn’t “tinkered” with it after getting it back. But, to answer your question, I didn’t tinker with it ‘till I talked to the gentleman in question, and performed the necessary tweaks.

In response to your last statement- I was playing electrics pressed between 1925 and 1937 on this… but seeing as how it was manufactured during the late 30’s through the early 40’s, I think it was designed to play whatever would have been pressed at the time- i.e. “late electrics.”

At any rate, you can’t compensate for what was essentially a bad design to begin with. This machine doesn’t deserve the name “Victrola.”

Shame, shame, RCA! The eyes of Nipper are upon you!

I don't know why you're assuming anything - you yourself referred to your machine as a "pre-war craptrola" - so I was wondering (1) which war you were referring to (although I figured you meant WWII, although referring to a phonograph as pre-WWII, especially when you're talking about wind-up acoustic machines, really doesn't mean anything as pretty much all wind-up acoustic phonographs are pre-WWII); and (2) why you were calling it a "craptrola" when what you had is a genuine phonograph from the period (rather than a more recent knock-off or reproduction), even if it's an RCA victor (post-merger) as opposed to simply a victor.

and I wouldn't say that RCA necessarily let the quality of their phonographs slip after the company merged with victor, rather they began to focus more on electric machines, both motors and amplification... they continued to make basic wind-up acoustic portables, as many other manufacturers did... and arguably, the company still produced those portables in a superior manner to several similar machines marketed both contemporaneously, and far earlier. also, just because a machine is not a victor doesn't mean it's not the "genuine article," it's just not a victor talking machine. I'm also not sure what you mean by referring to this particular model as based on a "bad design to begin with" when it actually falls within the same evolutionary line of phonographs as the earlier victor "real deal" machines that you consider so superior, such as the late 20's victor orthophonic portables that you're now setting your sights on.

[brianu]

I read your posts, and the other posts in this thread. you made some comments in them and touched on some things that went beyond a mere repair question (you also actually posted your thread in the general discussion section as opposed to the section intended for specific questions about repairs and restoration, where there have been discussions on reproducer restoration before - but whatever). those comments, among other things, alluded to a certain dealer/restorer's work as potentially questionable, and cast (not entirely accurate, but your opinion) aspersions on a certain class of phonographs, while comparing those to others that you considered superior. those are all topics of a nature that tend to be discussed regularly on this board, which is a forum for discussion, debate, etc. people post things to this board to get opinions and comments, it's not my problem if you don't care for all of them and quite frankly, I'll respond when I choose... responses and comments aren't always directed solely at the person who initiated the thread.

[gramophoneshane]

The best solution is to buy HMV

[MordEth]

While I am not Shane (and he may give you a better recommendation for an HMV—or perhaps Steve will see this thread and offer an opinion), after consulting with John, I’d suggest looking for an HMV 102 if you can find one.

— MordEth

[gramophoneshane]

If it's a portable you'd be after, definately an HMV 102.

[OrthoFan]

As an afterthought- Is the construction of the HMV #5B similar to the Victor #5? And if so, could you elaborate on the design? Simply put, does it incorporate the magnetic ball bearings and the “spider” and “bullet” sound-phasing design? I do my best to understand the design on this side of the pond, let alone what was happening in Great Britain! The #5B looks like it doesn’t incorporate the ball bearings, but… again, I don’t know.

The sound boxes most commonly found on the HMV 102 portable are the #5a and #5b, which derived from the earlier Orthophonic #5, used in the US and for a short time, on some HMV cabinet models.

The 5a & 5b both used a spider-driven diaphragm. The 5a's was identical to that of the Orthophonic, but for the 5b, the corrugated area of the diaphragm was changed to resemble etched diamond points.

Both the 5a and 5b were fitted with a back plate held in place by four screws, and a needle bar pivot identical to that used on the Victor/HMV #4 sound box, as indicated in this illustration:



I'm not sure about the 5a sound box, but the 5b sound box I used to own was also equipped with the bullet shaped phasing plug in its throat, similar if not identical to that used on some of the Orthophonic sound boxes.

BTW, there was a third sound box used for HMV 102 portables. When originally introduced, the HMV 102 was fitted with the #16 sound box, which was nearly identical to the one used on the less expensive Victor Orthophonic 2-35 portable. All parts were press fitted together which means that the sound box cannot be opened for repair. (I tried to repair one that came with an HMV portable I used to own and ended up destroying the sound box and cutting my fingers to ribbons.) Unlike any of the 5-series sound boxes, the 16 used a very simple needle bar pivot--basically a thin rod suspended between rubber gaskets.