Started on the Roberts Bestone

[Inigo]

Logically, vibrations put everything in its place.
Have you tried to wind up it opened, in horizontal position, but with your left hand inside the motor department, pressing down the bottom of the case against the table? Although this method could stress the attachment screws of the frame on the bottom of the case. The best way would be to find where to put your hand on the motor frame itself... but the large turntable doesn't leave much space...
And what if you make a new crank of larger size for daily use?
It makes me sick to find such small silly things that could have been implemented so easily in the original design and make it much better...

[Lah Ca]

Have you tried to wind up it opened, in horizontal position, but with your left hand inside the motor department, pressing down the bottom of the case against the table? Although this method could stress the attachment screws of the frame on the bottom of the case.

There are only three screws which attach the aluminium frame/motorboard to the case, one on either side of the case near the front at about the same level as the crank escutcheon and one in the middle at the back at about the same level. The one screw at the back also holds the back of the triangular aluminium grease/oil drip tray in place. The four legs of the frame rest firmly in the corners at the bottom of the case. The aluminium casting is quite heavy, and the sleeves of the Chicago screws go through the casting like rivets. It is all quite secure. I would be more worried about stressing the damaged leather that forms the hinge for the lid.

And what if you make a new crank of larger size for daily use?

I could do this, modify a larger throw crank, but this would impose its own limitations. The only place the machine could then be wound would be at the edge of a table with the crank sticking out over the edge.

It makes me sick to find such small silly things that could have been implemented so easily in the original design and make it much better...

Yes, the machine could have been greatly improved if had been made 3 or 4 inches taller to allow the insertion of a thin plywood box for record storage. Such a box would have greatly stabilised the leather/cardboard case and would have allowed the use of a crank with a longer throw.

Sturdy rubber feet would have nice, too, but then they probably would have disintegrated or have worn off by now. The metal feet are intact and in good condition.

Leather over wood (rather than cardboard) would have made a much better case, too.

Don't be sick. The machine is what it is, quite delightful if frustratingly eccentric. What portable has no obvious place for the secure storage of the crank!!!!!!

[Inigo]

Undoubtedly, it is VERY beautiful...

[CarlosV]

Undoubtedly, it is VERY beautiful...

Certainly the main design criteria for this machine were the good looks and ability to play with the lid on, both were selling points that distinguished it from the competition. The rest was secondary, so all the shortcomings we identify from our perspective 100 years later were certainly not of concern to the people that made it. Acoustically I find it very primitive, even for the standards of the time, so in my collection it occupies the place of those that are to be seen, not heard.

[Lah Ca]

Acoustically I find it very primitive, even for the standards of the time, so in my collection it occupies the place of those that are to be seen, not heard.

Well .. this is jut a bit sad. The lovely Art Deco machine definitely deserves to be seen. It also deserves to be heard, IMHO.

My as-of-yet only partially rebuilt reproducer sounds quite good and seems to be improving slightly with use.

Improvements that made a large difference, I think:

1. New gasket tubing and mica, obviously.

2. New dampener pads on the needle bar retention springs.

3. New tubing gasket between the throat and the retention cone, a dampener.

4. New reproducer/tone arm gasket of soft, compliant gum rubber, both sealing and dampening.

5. New tonearm/horn gasket, both sealing and dampening, Again the soft natural gum rubber makes a big difference here.

The reproducer back flange assembly, as you know, is composed of two components, a throat that enters the tonearm and a retention cone. The throat is isolated from the reproducer with a rubber gasket. It should probably be a soft, highly compliant gum rubber gasket, which both dampens and seals rather than the rock hard old one which is in place now and which only seals. The retention cone is isolated from the throat by an tubing gasket, which is a mechanical dampener. It is also somewhat isolated from the reproducer in that it does not sit flush against it.

It is all a rather eccentric design, but the result is that the whole reproducer floats (or should float) on soft compliant gum rubber in almost complete mechanical isolation from the tone arm. The reproducer is also a bit flexible on the end of the tone arm, which I suspect might improve its tracking.

The horn is also largely isolated from the tonearm post and therefor also from mechanical vibration from the motor/motor board and tonearm. The leather/cardboard case does not transmit much noise.

All in all, the quirky machine can sound very good with the right record/needle combination. It seems to favour medium and soft tone needles. It seems to sound better in smaller rooms than in larger ones.

I must say that all the Bestone machines I have heard being played on Youtube do not sound very good, quite rattly and thin sounding--acoustically primitive might describe them as they are now but not perhaps as they were new.

What remains to be done on my reproducer? I want to replace the dried up, rock hard gasket between the reproducer and the back flange assembly throat. I need to make one. I have the rubber sheeting. I might also try replacing the the slightly too thick and perhaps too hard silicone pads on the needle bar retention springs with thinner and more compliant natural gum ones. No time at the present, sadly.

[CarlosV]

Acoustically I find it very primitive, even for the standards of the time, so in my collection it occupies the place of those that are to be seen, not heard.

Well .. this is jut a bit sad. The lovely Art Deco machine definitely deserves to be seen. It also deserves to be heard, IMHO.

My as-of-yet only partially rebuilt reproducer sounds quite good and seems to be improving slightly with use.

Improvements that made a large difference, I think:

1. New gasket tubing and mica, obviously.

2. New dampener pads on the needle bar retention springs.

3. New tubing gasket between the throat and the retention cone, a dampener.

4. New reproducer/tone arm gasket of soft, compliant gum rubber, both sealing and dampening.

5. New tonearm/horn gasket, both sealing and dampening, Again the soft natural gum rubber makes a big difference here.

I only replaced the tubing of the soundbox and added a gasket to the interface between arm and horn, as the one that came with machine was not the proper one and interfered with the playing. The mica on mine is in good condition, so I left it. I did not touch the other gaskets: when I played it with the new tubing I was quite disappointed with what I heard, so I did not try to make new gaskets for the other interfaces. Maybe now with your feedback I will try to replace the others and hear the improvement. I rarely play my portables, so I do not invest much time in optimizing their sound reproduction, but the rarity of this machine may be worth the effort. It certainly paid off in your case, given the outstanding results you achieved!