Soundboxes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

[Cody K]

There seems to be a fairly strong consensus on the Forum that soundboxes/reproducers should be rebuilt as one of the primary steps in restoring a phonograph. No doubt in many cases this should be done; you can hear the need for it when playing a record. I'm wondering whether many members feel it's necessary to rebuild soundboxes in original condition that still perform optimally?

I have at least two that haven't had any rebuilding, and I'm entirely happy with their performance. The No. 6 soundbox on my 1911 Columbia Favorite sounded terrible when I got it. It produced a sort of muddled tone, and made kind of a farting sound when a record would hit a certain pitch; not the sound of a blasty diaphragm, but more of a prrrrrrrt... It wasn't hard to figure out the cause -- one side of the -- well, I call it a torsion bar, because I don't know the real name (and I should) of that thing above the chuck that supports the needle bar -- one side of this was well out of alignment. It was a simple fix, and since then the Favorite plays loudly and clearly, with absolutely minimal audible distortion, even when playing electrically-recorded records -- which I rarely do, because they're wrong for the machine. I really couldn't ask for better sound from this reproducer.

The other is a Victor No. 2 that came from the bottom of a free box of records I got a couple of years ago. It was filthy, missing the needle screw, and I wrapped it and put it in a drawer and pretty much forgot about it. I ran across it a month or two ago, cleaned it -- it was nice and bright under the grime -- put it on my daily-driver Vic XI, and I was surprised to find that it sounded very, very good, much better than the No. 2 I'd been using on the machine, one that could definitely use a rebuild. I had thought I'd rebuild both at the same time, but now I don't feel inclined to mess with the resurrected one at all. In fact I've switched the two, and now use regularly the one I had expected would be bad.

These two soundboxes seem to have made it through the decades with the gaskets still in good condition, not shrunken or hardened. I don't guess this is a rare occurrence; it probably has something to do with how they've been stored over the years, for one thing. A machine subjected to years of extremes of heat and cold, such as in an uninsulated attic, will suffer in numerous ways; the finish will likely be crazed and dull, old oil gummy, and rubber parts degraded. A phonograph that's stayed in the house, not subjected to temperature extremes, will often be in better overall condition. Other factors are involved, too, though. As with pot metal, formulas varied, and with them the longevity of rubber. We've all seen the white Exhibition gaskets that turn chalky and crumble, the Orthophonic flanges that turn rock-hard and crack like clay, ancient rubber galoshes that are sticky and seem to have melted...

As with those pesky pot-metal Orthophonic soundboxes, which are so often found with cracks, but often enough are still fine, some soundboxes seem to have made it through to another century. I can think of reasons why rebuilding as a general principle might be a good practice -- for one, it ensures the optimal usability of the soundbox well into the future. To return to the Orthophonic soundbox scenario, it seems to be widely agreed that if the pot metal on one of them hasn't cracked by now, it isn't likely to. Can I assume the same is true for the rubber on these two soundboxes of mine?

No doubt there's been some loss of pliability in their rubber parts over time; but if they're holding the diaphragm snugly, and are airtight enough to produce excellent volume, is there really any reason to change them? Could whatever degree of flexibility they may have lost be enough to interfere with compliance to the extent that they'd be harder on records over time? If they ain't broke, should they still be fixed? I'd like to know what others think.

[Phonofreak]

I've had similar experiences with the Victrola No. 2, later Grafonola No. 6, and Orthophonics. I test the gaskets with a pin, and if the rubber is still pliable, and make a "pucking" sound, plays loud and clear, I leave it alone. I agree, why fix something if it ain't broke?
Harvey Kravitz

[OrthoSean]

No doubt there's been some loss of pliability in their rubber parts over time; but if they're holding the diaphragm snugly, and are airtight enough to produce excellent volume, is there really any reason to change them?

Yes, in short. In 25 years and probably at least a couple of hundred reproducer rebuilds, I've only ever come across one entirely original (Victor) reproducer with completely nice and soft rubber, and it was never opened in it's orginal ortho box. You're risking record damage otherwise whether you actually see it or not. To me, it isn't worth the risk of damaging my records when for a few bucks in materials and a little time, you can minimize that risk.

Sean

[FloridaClay]

I'd have to agree with Sean. I haven't dealt with nearly the number of reproducers he has, but I have not found even one where the rubber gaskets did not need replacing and where sound was not improved significantly be doing so. The exception is Orthophonics, because more often than not the potmetal ones are cracked and disassembly risks their falling apart.

Clay

[Henry]

I'm wondering whether many members feel it's necessary to rebuild soundboxes in original condition that still perform optimally?

What Sean and Clay said. I would have difficulty knowing what constitutes "optimal performance," not to say "original condition," so I'd have no basis for comparison.

I test the condition of front gaskets on my Exhibition by gently pressing them with index fingernail. Pliability is easy to determine; I wouldn't trust myself poking them with a pin! The back flange is made of a different, stiffer material, thus harder to determine condition, but a truly petrified one is obvious and should be replaced, at which time an air-tight seal against the box is essential. Some operators use a thick lubricant like Vaseline or A+D ointment (Vaseline plus lanolin) applied between the flange and the box; I found a felt gasket (in a Horror Fright assortment pack) of just the right diameter (even the center hole was the correct size) and installed it to seal between flange and box.

Diaphragm R/R and spring adjustments are another subject, but of course are necessary with front gasket work.

[Victrolacollector]

In my opinion, soundbox should be rebuilt. The Victor Exhibition, Victrola #2, Columbia, Edison and any non-pot metal soundbox should definitely be rebuilt. No questions. I have rebuilt hundreds of them and have yet to find a soundbox with good pliable gaskets. These soundboxes should be carefully cleaned, new gaskets installed and proper adjustment of the needle bar. Any back flanges should be replaced and sealed with silicone between the flange and reproducer back housing to prevent air leaks.

I do not recommend a rebuild if the reproducer or tone arm has brittle, swollen or otherwise damaged pot metal casting. Many Orthophonics have a pot-metal casting, and are very fragile, I send these off for rebuild. Many times, they cannot be disassembled, so the rebuilder will have to replace and lube ball bearings, solder spiders and thats about it. As far as Victrola #4, I have rebuilt a few of these with success, again depends on condition of the body.

All in all, if the reproducer can be rebuilt, it should be. It will greatly improve sound quality and reduce record wear.

[VintageTechnologies]

Rebuild if safe to do so - you don't know what you're missing. You should hear less blasting, better volume and lower bass. The needle bar should pump the whole diaphragm like a piston, rather than flex only the center of the diaphragm.

I presume those old gaskets were made from natural rubber, which hardens pretty quickly. Even if you can live with the degraded sound, the reduced compliance probably does increase record wear, particularly using loud needles.

[celticguitar666]

I did all my machines I just did my Edison disc reproducer and while not necessarily louder it's more mellow better bass less blast and easier on the ear. The gaskets were a paper like material definitely all tried out and almost turned to dust when I took it apart I reused the original diaphragm as it was in good shape. so I would recommend at least the gasket job for better sound
Dwight

[ImperialGuardsman]

I sent my Columbia Viva Tonal in to be rebuilt and the rebuilder found that the gaskets and flange were very compliant so all he had to do was put new wax on the needle bar where it touches the diaphragm. It plays very well. The Viva Tonal is an interesting situation because no one seems to make new back flanges for them. Generally speaking, reproducers should be rebuilt, baring special circumstances.

[Edisone]

I have a single No.4 (from England, not America) with halfway decent rubber - I've left that alone, as it sounds okay. Some gaskets don't need to be pliable, just airtight - those being where the diaphragm was designed to provide ALL the flexibility. Example: a portable Brunswick Panatrope. The gaskets are flat & fairly hard, and the diaphragm very flexible at the edges but stiff otherwise. The backplate had warped a little, so all that was needed was to 'sand' it on some crocus paper taped to glass. Once totally flat, everything sealed properly and sound was much improved.