No. 2 Reproducer Question...

[OrthoSean]

Well, I've got an adaptor for putting any of the non-ortho reproducer on an orthophonic machine. I've had Exhibitions, #2s and a #4 hooked up to my Credenza. They all sound very good this way, so I wasn't too surprised by the quality of the video above.

Sean

[SignatureSeriesOwner]

Nice! It does sound rather good, actually.





Looks like I might be better off having someone knowledgeable rebuild my Ortho. I took it apart, and the ball bears need replacing for sure...they are pretty rusty..

[frenchmarky]

The video poster told me he will be posting another video where he will explain more on this foam gasket modification, sounded very interesting.

As for the #2 box, I always figured it would be harder on records in general because it has both resistance from the mica diaphragm *and* the fact that the needlebar is spring loaded (with very stiff springs for such small parts too.) Plus it has no real bearings, the bar just pivots at two points so there is added friction there. Compared to say, a #4 box which still has a mica diaphragm, but the needlebar rides on real needle bearings, with no springs.
So the #2 is a super-simple design and has more friction and resistance, but the records in the early to mid-20s were designed to handle it without getting chewed up if you used a new needle each play. As the records gained more dynamic range and had less abrasives added to them, by then the reproducers were becoming slicker along with that - better and better bearings, diaphragms with larger range of movement, etc. Even the tonearms got better with all-ball-bearing bases and no overhead needle-type pivot.