Columbia Q reproducer

[Phonofreak]

The No.3 reproducer was never a really good one. I have the same problem with my early Q. In the early days, I'm sure the consumer traded in the earlier reproducer for the louder one. I, too, use the later No. 7 reproducer for play with better results. I have the early reproducer on the machine for historical purposes, and the later reproducer to play.
Harvey Kravitz

[phonogfp]

It's true the #3 isn't a stellar performer, but it can be a difficult one to find since it was supplied only with the first version of the Q. Phonofreak's advice is good - keep the #3 for historical purposes, but if you're interested in performance, use a #7.

I think there may be some confusion about an earlier posting of mine on this thread. When I wrote that "It's not a Mobley or a Hawthorne & Sheble," I was referring to the diaphragm. Your present diaphragm is opaque. The insides of the reproducer cannot be seen. It appears to be silver-colored. It's only my opinion, but none of these things suggest mica to me. I'd recommend trying a mica diaphragm and see if the performance improves.

I'd also avoid adding weight to the reproducer when playing brown wax records - it's an unacceptable risk of damaging the records. A stock reproducer with a good stylus and diaphragm is your best bet.

George P.

[FloridaClay]

I have seen old mica start to delaminate and take on a silvery hue in that process. Hard to tell for sure without seeing it in person though.

Clay