The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Hello,
Recently I bought from USA a Columbia BI Sterling disc graphophone. When I asked in the forum about this machine, mostly experts in american machines (I’m collector mostly of european machines) told that is a correct machine but a too late model of Columbia BI Sterling machine, that comes with a tonearm that fits Columbia bayonet style reproducer..
The machine comes with the reproducer that I attached pictures. Some forum members told me that this reproducer is a Columbia Concert Grand reproducer, which is correct in period with this phono. The problem that I have is that when I try to rebuild it, always the sound is bad. I tested with differents gaskets (soft, hard rubber) and always the result is the same. Poor sound. Trying to look information about this reproducer, I saw that the only model that I found in the web comes with mica diapragm, but this comes with aluminium diapragm.
Is correct this reproducer for this machine?
Which was the first bayonet style reproducer tthat Columbia create?
If all is correct. Which can be the problem?
Thanks in advance.
Albert.

We may need a more descriptive description of the tone. Is it muffled, scratchy, overpowered...?

I have a friend with a Columbia BII with the correct tone arm and reproducer for your machine, the BI. The trade would benefit both of you. Please consider it.

Jerry Blais

Albert: You have two questions: (1) why does this reproducer sound as bad as it does even after I rebuild it? and (2) is this the right reproducer for the Sterling? I would reformulate the second question and ask, When was the last Sterling made and when did Columbia switch to the bayonet-type mount? I don't have the answer; let's hope someone on this Forum does.

By the way, there are many different types of Columbia bayonet reproducers. All have the same standard fitting and so all should fit on your tonearm.

John

The sound is too plane (not rich) between very few differences into lows and high tones. The volume is not impressive, but the worst is tthat is not clear (like when you play a record with a used needle). A litlle distorted. This reproducer has a similar sound that the toy phonographs reproducers.

blau28 wrote:The sound is too plane (not rich) between very few differences into lows and high tones. The volume is not impressive, but the worst is tthat is not clear (like when you play a record with a used needle). A litlle distorted. This reproducer has a similar sound that the toy phonographs reproducers.

Limited frequency response + low volume + muddy sound = perhaps the diaphragm is too thick/stiff?

Maybe you should try it with a mica diaphragm, and see how it sounds. The original mica could have been damaged, and someone may have replaced it years ago with a diaphragm they had on hand.

That's my two cents, anyway.

Bill

All Columbia bayonet mounts are not quite the same.

The early ones are slightly smaller in diameter, enough so that a later reproducer is a VERY tight fit an early socket, sometimes tight enough to risk breakage.

An early bayonet reproducer might be a slightly sloppy (loose) fit in a later arm, resulting in possible air-leakage, and loss of volume.

I would have to dig out my Columbia Phonograph book to see if I can find a date in intro of the bayoent mount... it was probably around the time of the introduction of their internal horn machines, 1908-1909 ?

All going from memory here...

Are there period ads showing that the BI was indeed sold with this type of soundbox? EX ABRUPTO I would be tempted to reply that by no means this soundbox is correct for a Columbia BI, but of course I ignore many facts about the evolution of the BI model.

For sure, the nuts that (should) lock the adjusting screws on the sides of the needlebar pivot are missing, and this is not good.

Albert, et al:


I found my "Columbia Phonograph Companion, Vol. 2", copyright 1996 (1st .ed.), and looked-up the Sterling BI.


Baumbach & Mackie state that:

"...the BI Sterling was introduced in 1905, at $45, and was the first Columbia to offer the Aluminum Tone Arm. It was furnished with a 9-panel Nickel horn with 22 inch bell, and an Analyzing reproducer... The motor has two springs and a two-ball governor which would play three records with a single winding. All exposed hardware, including the horn bracket and 10" turntable, was nickel plated. In 1908, the double-spring motor was replaced by a triple-spring motor. An ornamental ring was added around the turntable at this time. A matching wood horn was available for an additional $5.00. Case Height: 8" Width 13" Depth 13" "


The machine pictured is a like the one in your first thread, with flat crank, plunger-type speed & brake control through the front of the cabinet, and the cast back-bracket with the tone-arm rest 'finger'. The case bears the "Disc Graphophone" banner-scroll under the crank.


On the following page, an entry for the "Improved Sterling, B II:

" This machine was supplied with a 10" turntable with green felt and nickel rim, nickel tone arm and support, Grand or Concert Grand reproducer ($5 additional) reproducer, and 9 pedal [sic] oak horn. A Nickel plated horn was available at the same price, ribbed oak horn $5 additional, or a smooth oak horn at $10 extra. By 1914, it was sold with the stamped, fluted horn [ peacock?] and a #6 reproducer. The cabinet was Golden quartered oak. The three spring motor played five records on a single winding. This machine evolved into the model 60 H [introduced in 1915]. Case height: 8" Width 16" Depth 16" "

The machine pictured [catalog engraving] shows a more formal, squared cabinet with round, fluted columns, a round, rod crank, lever-type speed and brake controls on top of the motorboard. The back bracket no longer has the tone-arm rest 'finger', and has the later cast arm, going into an "elbow", then into the horn bracket, very similar to the Grafonola internal horn machine. The case decal is the "horn machine" with "Columbia" emblazoned on the horn.


All this said, I believe your machine is a later version of the first Sterling ( BI ), with the earlier cabinet, controls, back-bracket, etc. but featuring the turntable dust-ring. This would place it around 1908.

Columbia did not always have "hard" transition spots in their production run; certain machines may have a mixture of hardware depending on what the assembly plants had on-hand at the time a given machine was put together.

For example, I own a very nice Imperial BJ, which apparently is an early example: it seems that Columbia fitted a back-mount horn and bracket to a front-mount cabinet. This places the crank on the left side, turning "backwards", and the plunger controls on the "back" of the cabinet, next to the horn bracket. There are no extra holes that suggest the machine was ever modified... it appears to have been built this way.


Not sure what to say about the brass arm and reproducer on your example. It may have been an upgrade from a long time ago. I suspect there may not be a good, air-tight fit between the arm and the horn / horn bracket, and this may be compromising the sound quality ? Perhaps disassembling this joint and packing the moving area with vaseline ( petroleum jelly ) might improve this situation ?


If it were my machine, I think I would look for a correct aluminum arm and Analyzing reproducer, unless I could determine that the brass arm and bayonet reproducer were genuine factory upgrades intended to work with that original style back-bracket and horn mount.


You can determine if your reproducer is air-tight by putting your lips around the mounting neck, and gently puffing, then sucking at the reproducer... you will notice any leakage. If air-tight, it should be able to hold your tongue against the neck after sucking, similar to sucking on a soda-water bottle.

You have a nice-looking machine... good luck with it !

Marco is quite correct in his observation about the locking-nuts being absent from the needle-bar pivot screws.

They will quickly loosen enough to cause "buzzing", "rasping", sounding like you're playing the record with a very worn needle.

( Good eye, Marco... I can't believe I didn't notice ! )


Hopefully locking-nuts from a later, more common #6 Columbia would work ?


This may resolve your reproducer deficiencies... If you can make it sound decent with the arm and reproducer you have, perhaps enjoy as-is.