Inigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:43 am
But the important thing is that it has been cleaned and put into proper function, and it has been renovated, has s good old aspect, while showing some war bounds and history of use, and it is ready for another 100 years of enjoying! Nice work!
Don't be cruel with yourself... You got this result with what you have at hand, and MUCH LOVE, and this can be seen at the instant...
It's a Marvel!!!!
Thank you.
Inigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:43 am
Don't be cruel with yourself...
Yes. There is nothing
crueller than a perfectionist with limited but developing skills.
Better a
cruller than
crueller:
- 2024-03-06 07.17.07 en.wikipedia.org ed05b55b84f3.jpg (15.4 KiB) Viewed 224 times
Other notes:
1) I did not take the crank shaft down to the non-threaded section, which would have been best for strength. I could have done this; the shaft is long enough, but seeing how the Garrard 3 motor destroys cranks, I thought I would leave this option open for later.
2) The reproducer.
The vendor of the mica diaphragms came through with a new and much nicer diaphragm. Another retraction and another apology to the vendor.
I read EdgarFB's thread on the weak-bass HVM 5a with great interest:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=57434
The Bestone reproducer, with the right needle and record combination, is very good from the mid mid-range up into the treble, very bright and very clear. It does, however, lack bass response (which may actually be a boon with the smallish aluminium sheet metal horn). I am wondering if the silicone weather stripping I used as needle bar dampeners is not too thick and is thus keeping the bar too tight and thus limiting bass response I may redo this later with 1/32" gum rubber.
I like the natural gum rubber I used for the washer-gasket between reproducer and the tone arm. Being relatively soft, it both seals well and dampens well. I have tried the old original washer and the new gum one with the same record. I
think (possibly imagine) that I can hear a positive difference with the new gum, but whether I could actually hear it in a double blind test ... hmmm ...
When I redo the reproducer again, I will replace the old internal back flange gasket with a new gum one--the old one is sealing perfectly put it is so hard that it will have practically no dampening effect at all. The entire back flange assembly is isolated from the reproducer back plate by this washer gasket. The screws that affix the assembly to the back plate cannot be driven fully into the plate so there is always a gap between the retainer and the plate--it sort of floats off the plate. Someone in the past had
tried to seal the gap with bees' wax--whether this was done at the factory or by someone servicing the machine at a later date I do not know.
3) The O-ring seal between the tone arm and the horn needs to be replaced with something else. It is starting to disintegrate from too much use. I go shopping today.
4) The leather hinge for the lid is not faring well, either. Too much use. I will need to take the case into a leather specialist shop.
5) The motor. My colleague from CAPS, donor of the crank, said the Bestone is a 100-year-old gramophone. It works without any major problems. The motor is noisy. So what? Leave it alone.
If I really wanted to do something I could take the top and bottom plates and the spindle shaft to a clock maker and have them drill out the bearings, centring them, put in bushings, and then burnish the spindle shaft. This would probably be cheaper than going to a machinist who would have to make the bushings because a clock maker would most likely have bushings already in stock.
And the spring, which is not causing any problems at the moment besides being small and weak, could be cleaned and re-lubed, but getting more power out of the spring will also put more stress on the old motor.
![[The Talking Machine Forum - For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings]](/styles/we_universal/theme/images/the_talking_machine_forum.png)
