The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Cody K wrote:...These two soundboxes seem to have made it through the decades with the gaskets still in good condition, not shrunken or hardened.

I'm wondering, though, if these are the original 90+ year old rubber gaskets, or some that might have replaced the originals, say 20-30 years ago. Originally, the #2 sound box was equipped with a single reddish burnt orange colored gasket, with a split running down its center to accommodate the mica diaphragm. If the sound boxes are fitted with (separate) front and rear gaskets, then they are not original.

I'll add my support to those who say it's a good idea to replace the gaskets, especially if there are signs that the rubber is starting to harden.

On the other hand, I also agree that if you're dealing with an Orthophonic pot metal sound box that shows signs of deterioration or metal fatigue, then it might be best to leave it alone if it plays okay. (You can normally change the ball bearings, and replace the "throat gasket" without fear that it will fall apart in your hands.)

Unlike the earlier sound box designs, the Orthophonic sound box's diaphragm does not depend on soft gaskets for flexibility. The gaskets are there primarily to clamp the diaphragm's edge firmly in place, and isolate it from the sound box's shell--and to provide an air-tight seal.

The one I have used for about 16 years on my Orthophonic VV-4-40 is basically as-found. I painted over all of the hairline cracks with Krazy Glue, which not only plugged them, but seems to have stabilized the pot metal, since no new ones have formed since I've owned it. Other than re-seat the throat gasket in silicone caulk, the only thing I've done to it is swish some "Goo Gone" around the very edge of the diaphragm. For whatever reason, this improved the sound quality. Possibly it caused the rubber gaskets to moisten or swell; I don't know. It did make for a great improvement in overall bass response, while reducing surface noise. Save for a Waltrip Wondertone rebuild I used to own, it's about the best sounding Orthophonic sound box I've ever had.

JDS

Well, I'm very leery about tinkering with potmetal reproducers in any condition: On the Prime reproducer for my P-1, I've contented myself with sealing a minor puncture in the diaphragm, replacing the rubber in the flange, and (lately) managing to loosen up the screws on the stylus bar guard, which I hope has helped the compliance.

It certainly sounds great on a good record, and I wouldn't want to risk breaking anything to check the gaskets…

Bill

Joe_DS wrote:

Cody K wrote:...These two soundboxes seem to have made it through the decades with the gaskets still in good condition, not shrunken or hardened.

I'm wondering, though, if these are the original 90+ year old rubber gaskets, or some that might have replaced the originals, say 20-30 years ago. Originally, the #2 sound box was equipped with a single reddish burnt orange colored gasket, with a split running down its center to accommodate the mica diaphragm. If the sound boxes are fitted with (separate) front and rear gaskets, then they are not original.

I'll add my support to those who say it's a good idea to replace the gaskets, especially if there are signs that the rubber is starting to harden.

I've long believed the same thing. If you find a phono in the wild that still has a decent gasket that has not hardened, it has almost certainly been replaced at some point. I recently picked up a VV-XI with a No 2 reproducer that had a white gasket. The gasket was somewhat pliable, but was starting to harden, so I would guess it was replaced probably about 30 or 40 years ago. It was old, but definitely not original.

I think the New gaskets for Columbia and Victor are fine and I encourage rebuilding them anytime you open one up. On the other hand I have not been so happy with New Edison gaskets for the diamond disc or cylinder phonographs, I think they should be every so slightly softer, and they would sound a little louder and fuller, many times I will stack 2 gaskets up just to give a little more cushion to extend bass response, but soft natural rubber gasket would be better. I am going to experiment with gaskets made from liquid latex for facial prosthetics used for Halloween costumes. And see how that works. (the gaskets moulded and dried before being put in the reproducer or recorder.).

edisonphonoworks wrote:I think the New gaskets for Columbia and Victor are fine and I encourage rebuilding them anytime you open one up. On the other hand I have not been so happy with New Edison gaskets for the diamond disc or cylinder phonographs, I think they should be every so slightly softer, and they would sound a little louder and fuller, many times I will stack 2 gaskets up just to give a little more cushion to extend bass response, but soft natural rubber gasket would be better. I am going to experiment with gaskets made from liquid latex for facial prosthetics used for Halloween costumes. And see how that works. (the gaskets moulded and dried before being put in the reproducer or recorder.).

That would be a good idea. Edison gaskets always seemed a little thin to me.

VintageTechnologies wrote: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.

I would second this. I have had some machines over the years that played reasonably well but they lacked that certain fullness of tone that one restored properly has. The victor instruction books recommended having your reproducer serviced at regular intervals for optimal sound.. How many people did that is another question.. Sound is a funny thing. What one person thinks is fine can send some people cringing. I hear a lot of pretty sad sound on you tube but the happy owners usually think they are great.. When I was about 16 I had a uncle who tended to be good at fixing things. My goal with a phonograph was always to have the best sound possible and still is. When I would attempt to get one fixed or fix it myself, (which didn't always work out), he would say "thats just the way those things sounded". Sorry but he was incorrect.

Larry

larryh wrote:... he would say "thats just the way those things sounded"...

Larry

That seemed to be the general consensus when I first started out in the hobby, umpteen million years ago...(actually about 35 years, now.) I've always held the belief that if they sounded weak or horrible when new--especially the high end models--they never would have sold. The reason for this is that they competed, in price, with high class music boxes, player pianos, and other automatic music machines built for home use that sound glorious even today--by any standard.

Unfortunately, many new to the hobby, or those with a casual/fleeting interest, still seem to believe that human ears weren't fully developed at the early part of the 20th century, and post their videos of the squeaking, buzzing, shrieking (I might add bumping, squealing and grinding) Victrolas, Grafonolas, etc., on Youtube. I read one comment posted about one of these awhile back where the person stated, "I just love that old-timey sound." Made me cringe.

Joe

Joe,

I agree totally. My feeling as well, Victor and other companies sold some very expensive models and if the reproducers worked like some you hear now, they would have went broke.

Larry

Joe_DS wrote:

larryh wrote:... he would say "thats just the way those things sounded"...

Larry

That seemed to be the general consensus when I first started out in the hobby, umpteen million years ago...(actually about 35 years, now.) I've always held the belief that if they sounded weak or horrible when new--especially the high end models--they never would have sold. The reason for this is that they competed, in price, with high class music boxes, player pianos, and other automatic music machines built for home use that sound glorious even today--by any standard.

Unfortunately, many new to the hobby, or those with a casual/fleeting interest, still seem to believe that human ears weren't fully developed at the early part of the 20th century, and post their videos of the squeaking, buzzing, shrieking (I might add bumping, squealing and grinding) Victrolas, Grafonolas, etc., on Youtube. I read one comment posted about one of these awhile back where the person stated, "I just love that old-timey sound." Made me cringe.

Joe

Gosh, Joe, you've expressed that well. This is why I demand much of my antique phonographs as well. It's one of my creeds as an historian that people in the past were just as sensitive and sensible as we are (perhaps more!), and even though their technologies were primitive they were all-the-more inventive and resourceful--and you can bet that many phonograph users make their best choices in buying and maintaining their home entertainment.

I also agree about the videos posted of phonographs playing unevenly. Obvious answer to that is that a sizable number of collectors are tone deaf. it's a birth condition and therefore I'm not making a personal criticism. But, yes, they and all the rest of us had best not pass around any assumptions that the people of a century ago did not have high standards for phonographic reproduction, within the technological limits of the time. "Old-timey" be darned.

Ralph

Edisone wrote: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.

Sounds ok but it should be pliable , pliable it allows the diaphragm to act as a " piston " which is what it should do , not pliable it adds resistance and thus record wear !