The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

The Cheney also has that stair-step looking reproducer rest, but it is not functionally a reproducer rest. It is actually a needle length gauge to set the volume. Put a needle in the chuck all the way and tighten it. Place the reproducer over the bottom step of the gauge and loosen the thumbscrew allowing the needle to slide downward and rest on top of the lowest step. Retighten the thumbscrew. The point of the needle is now the furthest from the fulcrum of the needle bar. This results in a softer volume. Setting the needle against the next step will give medium tone and against the top step, full tone. Of course, volume may also be controlled by needle diameter and material.

JohnM wrote:The Cheney also has that stair-step looking reproducer rest, but it is not functionally a reproducer rest. It is actually a needle length gauge to set the volume. Put a needle in the chuck all the way and tighten it. Place the reproducer over the bottom step of the gauge and loosen the thumbscrew allowing the needle to slide downward and rest on top of the lowest step. Retighten the thumbscrew. The point of the needle is now the furthest from the fulcrum of the needle bar. This results in a softer volume. Setting the needle against the next step will give medium tone and against the top step, full tone. Of course, volume may also be controlled by needle diameter and material.

Any idea how well this system works?
I've tries doing this (without the aid of a gauge) & found it made very little difference at all in other soundboxes.
Is there something special about the needle chuck design which enhances the effect on volume that is normally rather insignificant on others?

Perhaps I should have written 'allegedly results in softer volume'. Lol! I'm not sure how well it works. It should according to the laws of physics! Hey, anything to get one up on Camden, right?

I am just guessing but I would say the theory is that the shorter the exposed stem the more the vibrations would be transmitted and the farther out they would be deluted by a bit at best. The best bet is to invest in various volume needles which do make a large difference in volumes.

Larry

It's a matter of leverage. Increasing the length of the needle increases the distance between the tip of the needle to the fulcrum. Think of changing the point of balance on a see-saw and the ratio between distance traveled and work.

I've tried it and it works reasonably well- if you set a loud needle in all the way it's VERY loud. The only really different feature of the chuck is that it's open at the back so needles can be dropped into in without lifting the arm. This also allows needles to be set very short.

The only real mechanical fault in the design is where the arm fits into the cabinet- there's a major sound leak.

Doesn't the violin-shaped horn cross-section and stepped tone arm compensate for that?

Maybe someone could answer a question about the diaphragm. As Joe Wakeman's article -- http://www.gracyk.com/cheney.shtml -- notes, the Cheney sound boxes were fitted with a diaphragm made out of "guttapercha (sic), a tree sap with properties somewhere between a rubber and a hard resin."

Since this is a natural resin-based material, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the diaphragm has stiffened or hardened over time, degrading it's original performance characteristics? I remember discussing this with Bob Waltrip, and there was speculation that even if a Cheney sound box was restored with fresh gaskets, it still wouldn't perform as originally intended because the diaphragm, itself, would be too stiff to flex properly.

If I remember right, Bob said that a compressed/molded Styrofoam based diaphragm would probably come closest to the original performance the designers intended, causing the sound chamber to function more as a resonator than a horn. (Bob was experimenting with Styrofoam diaphragms, at the time, for use in Edison DD reproducers, so it's hard to tell whether he was just talking through his hat, or had some knowledge of the properties of gutta-percha.)

O.F.

I'm not entirely certain all of the diaphragms were guttapercha. The gold finish has worn off one of mine and underneath it looks and feels much like celluloid. In any case most Cheney owners I know say that with proper gaskets the reproducers respond quite well.

BTW- I have a Cheney vertical reproducer refitted with a dense Styrofoam diaphragm (probably by Waltrip) which sounds just fine but not much different than an original.

Your machines are awesome! I'm pretty sure that the Columbia is a C-2, it was advertised sometimes as the vacation model, being lighter than the Victor table models of the day. I recently bought one from a forum member here, and dearly love it. If your reproducer blasts or rattles, try gently tightening the two small screws by the needle pivot. Made all the difference in mine. They can be a bear to work on, being made of pot metal. Hope you enjoy yours as much as I do. As for the Cheyney, I'm very jealous!

My best, Pat