The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

De Soto Frank wrote:Interesting work, Playertone...


Didn't HMV revise the geometry of the "crook" to achieve the same result, improving the tracking angle ?


I like the idea of a "revised" bushing to improve performance of the #2 soundbox...

One of my favorite machines is a 1918 Victrola XI,in oak, with the "fat" taper-tube and Victor #2. I never paid much attention to the tracking geometry; it made me a little sad to read that it might be a "record-eater"...

Yes, I think revised crooks were introduced to correct the tracking issue- which was a great solution back in the day.

The great thing about an angled flange gasket is that it can improve the tracking while preserving the originality of your phonograph's tone-arm. Now you don't need to worry about bending your phonograph's crook for the same results, yikes! Flange gaskets are usually not original anyway, and ones that are should probably be replaced due to hardend rubber.

ImperialGuardsman wrote: Looking closer, it appears that even when I align the reproducer up at the begining of the record, it ends up quite off kilter by the end of the record.

Has anyone else noticed the same thing on their adaptors? I'll try to post pictures when I can.

If you are refering to the reproducer's alignment with the groove then a change in angle is inevitable due to the pivitoing tone arm. This change should only be minor however, as displayed in my earlier pictures showing the beginning and end of record play. If yours is "quite off kilter" by the end of a record then something must be loose.

If you are refering to the needle's angle in relation to the record (60 degrees) then perhaps your tone-arm piviot is not level. If that is the case then the arm will become higher/lower as it swings over the record, causing the needle to change angle as the reproducer raises/drops.

Ideally, if we're wishing, a better tracking angle would have been achieved if Victor had placed the taper-tube pivot on an axis half-way between the outer edge of the turn-table, and the outer edge of the label.

As we all know, Victor chose to place the taper-tube base on the center-line of the machine, so, in spite of the off-set of the crook, the angle of incidence between the needle and the groove is never ideal.

Playertone's idea of a modified sound-box bushing is a clever, non-invasive way to mollify this design short-coming...

Player-Tone wrote:

ImperialGuardsman wrote: Looking closer, it appears that even when I align the reproducer up at the begining of the record, it ends up quite off kilter by the end of the record.

Has anyone else noticed the same thing on their adaptors? I'll try to post pictures when I can.

If you are refering to the reproducer's alignment with the groove then a change in angle is inevitable due to the pivitoing tone arm. This change should only be minor however, as displayed in my earlier pictures showing the beginning and end of record play. If yours is "quite off kilter" by the end of a record then something must be loose.

If you are refering to the needle's angle in relation to the record (60 degrees) then perhaps your tone-arm piviot is not level. If that is the case then the arm will become higher/lower as it swings over the record, causing the needle to change angle as the reproducer raises/drops.

The angle of the needle (60 degrees) stays the same. I just thought that with the Edison horn moving along with the reproducer (albeit at a slower rate) the level of mistracking would be rather low, though it seems to grow quite a bit at the end of the record. The Kent seems worse, perhaps because it is longer and already makes it a tad difficult to align right in the first place? Either way, there does seem to be aditional wear.

Oops, I overlooked the fact that you were playing on an Edison which dosen't have a fixed swinging tone arm like a Victor. I am not sure why the record wear is increased then, perhaps some pictures will help.

I think now that by trying to compensate for the difference in tracking speed (by placing the horn farther along than the reproducer), I may have actually made the tracking worse because of the arc of the adaptor. By starting everithing at the begining, the arc seems to track much better. Thus, I've noticed a great reduction in record dust, down to almost nothing. This is with the Oro-Tone though and not the Kent (I haven't tried with the Kent again yet). I'll still work on getting some photos to show the difference.

Had Victor moved their tone-arm over to the right slightly, they could have improved their tracking.[/quote]

It's all true. Years ago I had a circa 1904 G&T double-spring Monarch (Cockleshell). Of course all Victor parts. This was an early example where the back-bracket was mounted off-center to cover unused holes for the traveling arm support. When I first played it I thought 'Wow, this sounds good!' especially with later electrical recordings. The answer was, of course, greatly improved tracking compared with the other machines I had of the period. So by a factory 'accident' this machine sounded as good as something made decades later.

Player-Tone wrote:
Had Victor moved their tone-arm over to the right slightly, they could have improved their tracking.

I don't think that moving the taper tube to the right would have achieved that result. The maximum tracking error would simply have shifted to a different part of the record. Simple geometry.

Had Victor made the taper tube with the sound box at an offset angle to its length, like modern turntable tone arms such as the one on my Pioneer PL-112D, it would have effectively increased the length of the arm, in effect moving the pivot point (mounting location) farther away from the turntable. Such an arm is often referred to as "S-shaped," even though the same result could be achieved by a simple offset angle, i.e., a single, rather than a double, bend---IOW, exactly as you have achieved by altering that mounting flange as you did. Obviously, Victor design engineers did not consider/had no clue/knew but discounted that such an arrangement would benefit the playback situation, or they would have configured the gooseneck differently. That would have been an easy and elegant solution, and would have cost but little more (if any).