How to get maximum sound from Brunswick Panatrope Portable.

[larryh]

James, A timely post.. That is the same machine I have. I spent the afternoon checking it all out and made some progress toward a pretty decent sound. I removed the tone arm, lot of old rather hard grease under that. I took the pivot apart as well as removing the reproducer.. I checked out the motor underneath and removed some old grease from the bottom spindle area where the barrels unwind against. I oiled the dry leather to the governor as well as the pivots I could get to. I put it back together and put enough new grease under the lid to the spindle to seal it off at that point as well as some around the bearing housing. I screwed it down an removed any new grease that squeezed out from under it.. then I greased the pivot and finally put alight coat on the reproducer male part of the arm. I also dropped a bit more oil into each side of the bearings around the stylus bar.

A few moments ago I played four records which all sounded much more as I had hoped it would. The tinny sort of hollow sound was gone from the horn, I give credit as you mentioned to sealing those joints. The reproducer is about 95% I think. It also may be the records. Finding perfect copies from that era is pretty hard. Although I do have a few I got at a sale a while back that were in very fine shape.. some records I heard a hint of that slight fuzzy sound on parts of the vocals an a few parts of the musical part, but on others not much so it could be wear on those selections. I am trying to determine how that reproducer comes apart? Peering in though the cap it almost looks like brunswick may have used a rubber gasket? I know my Columbia Viva Tonal used rubber gaskets and they were easily replaced. It played like new after that. But the columbia came apart similar to the earlier versions with screws and was not difficult to do. Anyone had the brunswicks apart? (not that I am going to try it, but curious if there is a rubber gasket in there).. If so I would say a new set would probably bring this one up to near 100% sound.. All and all I am much happier than when I first heard it a couple days ago.

Larry

[James]

Hi.
The bezel or front cover of the reproducer, close to the needle holder, there is a part of the bezel, that bent down to touch the needle bar. I think it give more pressure to the needle bar to muted it little, it should be just right to get the right sound. I tried to bend up very slightly, noticed no difference, if there was, negligible. I was just doing an experiment. Please do not perform this because I am not sure the purpose of the bent down end of the bezel that touches the needle bar. If someone can verify, please come up. Then I said to myself, if it is not broken, why do you fix it.

*******
The needle bar connected to the middle of the diaphragm that end to connect the needle holder and thump screw.



uote="larryh"]I recently picked up a Brunswick Panatrope portable. Partly because it was the very first type of portable I ever owned. It had poor sound due to damage to the reproducer. That was in the late 50's.. I obtained one now which has rather clear sound, but the over all effect is somewhat shrill and a slight buzz in places. Still way better than the one from years ago. It seems that it must have had a better depth and overall range than what I am hearing. I know I am not going to be taking the reproducer apart. I wonder if adding any light oil to the pivot points where I assume there are ball bearings like the victor model used would be advisable? Also the Brunswick apparently did not use a rubber seal on the arm. That portion seems rather stiff. I am also curious if perhaps they might have used a light grease to seal that fitting? Same for the connection where it pivots back to change the needle. So far I have not taken anything apart but also am guessing some sort of seal may be under the tone arm rear pivot.. From what I read discussed previously here I believe I saw where the victors used a light grease to keep the sound in an increase the bass which seems lacking. I don't want to do some sort of damage so I am hoping there are some portable collectors here who may have some insight into how to get the most sound from the machine?

Larry[/quote]

[larryh]

Another thing about this Brunswick is now that the sound is improved I am pleased that the reproduction of acoustic recordings seems to be quite good, which is actually what I got it for.. Still having a number of orthophonic recordings I naturally wanted to see what it does with those as well. It does however remind me of why in many ways I often prefer an acoustic recording, they are not as shrill or metallic sounding as some electrically recorded things. Especially in the classical symphony things. I played a lot of electrical early things today on it and it only slightly failed to be totally clear so I would say its doing about as well as one might expect for an reproducer in the original state.

[James]

This Brunswick Panatrope portable is as good sounding as the Brunswick Panatrope Cortez, floor model that I own. I also prefer it from the Vitrola Orthophonic Credenza that I also have. I also have the VV255 (Victor portable). It is good playing electrical recording, but can't surplus the panatorpe portalble. VV255 don't reproduce good with acoustic recording, but the Brunswick portable does. It have a cast iron horn, that cradle the motor all around, so with the VV255

Another thing about this Brunswick is now that the sound is improved I am pleased that the reproduction of acoustic recordings seems to be quite good, which is actually what I got it for.. Still having a number of orthophonic recordings I naturally wanted to see what it does with those as well. It does however remind me of why in many ways I often prefer an acoustic recording, they are not as shrill or metallic sounding as some electrically recorded things. Especially in the classical symphony things. I played a lot of electrical early things today on it and it only slightly failed to be totally clear so I would say its doing about as well as one might expect for an reproducer in the original state.

[larryh]

James, what a wonderful machine.. I also had the Credenza for many many years only selling it a few years back.. I would love to have a quality Panatrope machine like yours. I also had the Columbia 810 for some time and it as well had very fine sound. As to the acoustic on the Orthophonic, before I sent my reproducer out to Wall for restoration I had tired some of my acoustic things on the victor. They lacked depth. But that could have been the condition of the reproducer it self although I think it was more the design as the electrical things played with tone it just wasn't very clear. They lacked the solid sound that I find the Brunswick to have.

Back in 1961 I was in New Rochelle NY and there was a record and phonograph store there on the main street.. I went in and purchased some unplayed 78 sets. We got to taking and the owner told me that they sold the Brunswick machines and when the new Panatrope came out they opened one of the front shop windows and let it play out onto the street.. He said it had Two Horns.. I know I didn't misunderstand him, it might be that it was like victor or columbia where the horns split, but the way he talked it sounded as if the machine had a sort of stereo set up .. Was there a Brunswick with the openings side by side perhaps?

Larry

[Joe_DS]

...We got to taking and the owner told me that they sold the Brunswick machines and when the new Panatrope came out they opened one of the front shop windows and let it play out onto the street.. He said it had Two Horns.. I know I didn't misunderstand him, it might be that it was like victor or columbia where the horns split, but the way he talked it sounded as if the machine had a sort of stereo set up .. Was there a Brunswick with the openings side by side perhaps?

Larry

The Brunswick "Exponential Horn" Panatropes didn't use split or divided horns. Your friend may have been talking about the Brunswick Panatrope electrically amplified model, which came before the all-acoustic version. The horns he mentioned would have been the horn-type loudspeakers often seen sticking out of the fronts of radio shops, and filling the vicinity with music to attract customers.

Joe

[James]

Larry...It have only one horn. I wrote and article on Panatrope Cortez. Google James A. Carino, a page will appear, chose and click, Canadian Antique Phonograph Society, I have three articles there.

...We got to taking and the owner told me that they sold the Brunswick machines and when the new Panatrope came out they opened one of the front shop windows and let it play out onto the street.. He said it had Two Horns.. I know I didn't misunderstand him, it might be that it was like victor or columbia where the horns split, but the way he talked it sounded as if the machine had a sort of stereo set up .. Was there a Brunswick with the openings side by side perhaps?

Larry

The Brunswick "Exponential Horn" Panatropes didn't use split or divided horns. Your friend may have been talking about the Brunswick Panatrope electrically amplified model, which came before the all-acoustic version. The horns he mentioned would have been the horn-type loudspeakers often seen sticking out of the fronts of radio shops, and filling the vicinity with music to attract customers.

Joe

[larryh]

I would love to hear a machine with that size horn in person, it must be quite impressive..

Larry

[Edisone]

Hi,
I have a Brunswick portable, it is rated by many that is better than the top of the line of Victor portables. If it is well sealed between the horn and the base of the tone arm up to all the joint of the reproducer, that all it need. If still the is an issue, it is the reproducer itself is the problem.

This is it, James! The best American portable, when sound + record wear + durability are added together. I don't want to tout it too much, because I hope to find another at a decent price.

[James]

I second the motion, now it is seconded........James

Hi,
I have a Brunswick portable, it is rated by many that is better than the top of the line of Victor portables. If it is well sealed between the horn and the base of the tone arm up to all the joint of the reproducer, that all it need. If still the is an issue, it is the reproducer itself is the problem.

This is it, James! The best American portable, when sound + record wear + durability are added together. I don't want to tout it too much, because I hope to find another at a decent price.