Meltrope 3c Sound-box ?

[leels1]

The whole point of the screw back is to be able to alter the compression which allegedly alters the sound reproduction.

I have many Meltrope I, II and IIIs. There’s never been a problem with the I and II but the III have had the seized back ring.

Unfortunately the only way I managed to get the ring off is to use a dremmel to gently cut it off and then braize it back together with an extra piece of brass to bridge the small gap. It doesn’t look the prettiest but you can recreate the knurled effect on the ring and it’ll then screw back ok. Once the ring is back on, you can hardly tell it’s been altered.

I only realised recently that the III with the removable chuck was designed to fit with the needle sharpener for BCNs so you didn’t have to unscrew it all the time. Great design - especially given there were two designs of sharpener. The smaller one is a lot simpler and easier to use but the bigger one with the “crank” handle is engineered beautifully.

Yeah, but in my humble opinion, there is absolutlely no reaon at all ' to use a dremmel to gently cut it off and then braize it back together with an extra piece of brass to bridge the small gap' as a new soft rubber 'backing' and a bit of moving around will accomplish a perfect fit. The seized ring does not have to be removed at all.

No ?

How would you remove the old rubber (which 9/10 times is perished) and fit a new one properly without removing the back ring?
The purpose was to put the soundbox on the tone arm, then tighten the ring to achieve the compression needed by having an “oversized” rubber.

[chunnybh]

I did this to my 'daily play sound-box' (marked 'Meltrope 4') and it sounds very good indeed.

I'd love to see a pic of that, please.

I notice that the pics of the Meltrope 3C shows the top plate to have dimples instead of cups to hold ball-bearings.

[poodling around]

The whole point of the screw back is to be able to alter the compression which allegedly alters the sound reproduction.

I have many Meltrope I, II and IIIs. There’s never been a problem with the I and II but the III have had the seized back ring.

Unfortunately the only way I managed to get the ring off is to use a dremmel to gently cut it off and then braize it back together with an extra piece of brass to bridge the small gap. It doesn’t look the prettiest but you can recreate the knurled effect on the ring and it’ll then screw back ok. Once the ring is back on, you can hardly tell it’s been altered.

I only realised recently that the III with the removable chuck was designed to fit with the needle sharpener for BCNs so you didn’t have to unscrew it all the time. Great design - especially given there were two designs of sharpener. The smaller one is a lot simpler and easier to use but the bigger one with the “crank” handle is engineered beautifully.

Yeah, but in my humble opinion, there is absolutlely no reaon at all ' to use a dremmel to gently cut it off and then braize it back together with an extra piece of brass to bridge the small gap' as a new soft rubber 'backing' and a bit of moving around will accomplish a perfect fit. The seized ring does not have to be removed at all.

No ?

How would you remove the old rubber (which 9/10 times is perished) and fit a new one properly without removing the back ring?
The purpose was to put the soundbox on the tone arm, then tighten the ring to achieve the compression needed by having an “oversized” rubber.

Removing the hard rubber can be done quite easily by picking at it with a narrow sharp implement. (However, I seem to be the only one who thinks this though so ............).

I understand what has been said about the compression adjustment making a difference to sound quality and agree that to some extent it probably does ............... if you are a bat.

[poodling around]

I did this to my 'daily play sound-box' (marked 'Meltrope 4') and it sounds very good indeed.

I'd love to see a pic of that, please.

I notice that the pics of the Meltrope 3C shows the top plate to have dimples instead of cups to hold ball-bearings.

Oh, I don't really have a 'Meltrope 4' as such, it is just a 'sylvaphone IV CWS' which I call a Meltrope 4.

jamiegramo was correct earlier and funny when he said 'You must have quite a collection of Meltrope soundboxes if you have a ‘Meltrope 4’ as well as the ‘Sylvaphone IV’.' and I joked about 'You like potato and I like potahto You like tomato and I like tomahto'. In other words a 'rose by any other name etc'.

Sorry to have mis-lead you on this one. It does sound very good though

Just in case it is of interest I 'attach a photograph of the Sylvaphone 'below'.

A very interesting observation indeed about the 'Meltrope 3c' having dimples instead of cups to hold ball bearings.

I have taken a close up photograph of them 'below' in case they are of interest.

Interestingly, the Meltrope 3c is about half a centimeter wider than the Sylvaphone.

[Orchorsol]

I understand what has been said about the compression adjustment making a difference to sound quality and agree that to some extent it probably does ............... if you are a bat.

I find it makes more difference to the bass response than the treble.

[leels1]

Yeah, but in my humble opinion, there is absolutlely no reaon at all ' to use a dremmel to gently cut it off and then braize it back together with an extra piece of brass to bridge the small gap' as a new soft rubber 'backing' and a bit of moving around will accomplish a perfect fit. The seized ring does not have to be removed at all.

No ?

How would you remove the old rubber (which 9/10 times is perished) and fit a new one properly without removing the back ring?
The purpose was to put the soundbox on the tone arm, then tighten the ring to achieve the compression needed by having an “oversized” rubber.

Removing the hard rubber can be done quite easily by picking at it with a narrow sharp implement. (However, I seem to be the only one who thinks this though so ............).

I understand what has been said about the compression adjustment making a difference to sound quality and agree that to some extent it probably does ............... if you are a bat.

Just going by what the guidelines are on how to get the best reproduction. Out of about 12-15, only 2 or 3 were totally seized, and not the most pristine so thought it was worth doing.
I can’t honestly tell if it makes a difference with the adjustable compression ring or not!

[poodling around]

How would you remove the old rubber (which 9/10 times is perished) and fit a new one properly without removing the back ring?
The purpose was to put the soundbox on the tone arm, then tighten the ring to achieve the compression needed by having an “oversized” rubber.

Removing the hard rubber can be done quite easily by picking at it with a narrow sharp implement. (However, I seem to be the only one who thinks this though so ............).

I understand what has been said about the compression adjustment making a difference to sound quality and agree that to some extent it probably does ............... if you are a bat.

Just going by what the guidelines are on how to get the best reproduction. Out of about 12-15, only 2 or 3 were totally seized, and not the most pristine so thought it was worth doing.
I can’t honestly tell if it makes a difference with the adjustable compression ring or not!

Very interesting.

Thank you leels1.

[CarlosV]

I find it makes more difference to the bass response than the treble.

You're correct, Andy, the back rubber ring compression makes a significant difference in the reproduction of sound of ALL soundboxes, Meltropes included. The correct level of compression and flexibility of the rubber not only enhances the transmission of low frequencies but also dampens the resonances that are generated in the soundbox. This effect is easily noticed from the simple designs like Exhibitions to the sophisticated orthophonics.

[emgcr]

I find it makes more difference to the bass response than the treble.

You're correct, Andy, the back rubber ring compression makes a significant difference in the reproduction of sound of ALL soundboxes, Meltropes included. The correct level of compression and flexibility of the rubber not only enhances the transmission of low frequencies but also dampens the resonances that are generated in the soundbox. This effect is easily noticed from the simple designs like Exhibitions to the sophisticated orthophonics.

That is also my experience. I try to keep the compression ring as loose as possible consistent with being mechanically stable. This is a similar thought in relation to the other flexible connections found around the soundbox. Never too tight but just able to hold together. The flexibility of different materials is worth experimentation as they do have quite an effect on performance.

[Orchorsol]

I find it makes more difference to the bass response than the treble.

You're correct, Andy, the back rubber ring compression makes a significant difference in the reproduction of sound of ALL soundboxes, Meltropes included. The correct level of compression and flexibility of the rubber not only enhances the transmission of low frequencies but also dampens the resonances that are generated in the soundbox. This effect is easily noticed from the simple designs like Exhibitions to the sophisticated orthophonics.

That is also my experience. I try to keep the compression ring as loose as possible consistent with being mechanically stable. This is a similar thought in relation to the other flexible connections found around the soundbox. Never too tight but just able to hold together. The flexibility of different materials is worth experimentation as they do have quite an effect on performance.

Yes indeed, and speaking as a rubber technologist in a long-distant past life, also other physical properties such as 'compression set' and 'resilience' (technically, a measure of rebound characteristics) although it's impossible to relate those directly to the dynamics of the application. Hence for example, empirically, many of us find that natural rubber is far superior to other materials such as silicone rubber.