Record Changers

[kjohnsonhp]

I was chatting with a vintage audio/radio repairman yesterday about the usually Dynas and McInstosh gear in the shop and then he mentioned his passion for record changers. My gut reaction was that I didn't want to stack my precious lps but there seems to be a nich market for these vintage items and brands like Dual seem to have made some top notch audiophile grade changers with little proof the dropping and stacking impacts the sound.

I have no desire for lp changers...can use my cd changer when I'm in that kind of a mood, but I would be interested in stacking 45's...or having a vintage jukebox. I don't like flipping 45's after each song and I have some 50's & 60's 45's I can't find in any other format.

I assume the best answer is to simply copy them to CD which is my plan but I thought I'd ask if anyone has any interest in changers...it seemed like an odd niche these days.

[whell]

On the same topic: a representative of Webster's dictionary was interviewed on the radio the other day here in Detroit. Every 10 years, the "latest" version of the dictionary comes out, and of passing interest to some are the "new" words or phrases that Websters chooses to add to the dictionary, and those that are deleted.

It caught my attention that the phrase "record changer" was to be deleted from this year's unabridged version of the dictionary, since "it is no longer commonly used and deemed irellevant".

Haven't checked to see if the phrase "CD Changer" has made it into the dictionary.

[CaptnBob]

There were generally considered to be three problems with changers.

1. Sometimes the record didn't drop flat on the one below it, with one edge hitting first and potentially scuffing the surface.

2. As the stack of records got higher, the vertical tracking angle would change. Dual tried to minimize this by having a two position arm, up for changing records, down for single play.

3. As the changer must have more moving parts and a higher torque motor, there are more opportunities to have rumble introduced to the system.

Finally ( I know, this is four ) on some changers (the Garrards, and heaven help us, the BSRs, of the sixties and seventies come to mind) the tone arm had to push a lever underneath the platter to start the change cycle when the record came to an end. This required more heavy duty styli and cartridges and also could increase record wear and inner-groove distortion.

Hope this helps,

From the former owner of a Garrard "Lab-80"

p.s. I would'd play those 45's too much before you dub them off if I was you. Some of them were made of very cheap plastic and would show "battle damage" after only a few plays.

[artto]

What Captn Bob says is true.

There were a few notable record changers out there, probably Dual regarded as one of the best. Stacking the records doesn't do as much damage as most people think. If you look closely at LP's, you'll notice that the inner label area & the outter most edge of the vinyl are 'raised' above the record surface. This is so the records don't scuff as they are stacked on top of each other during record changes. At most, the labels can get worn from this. 45's also have a raised label area too but apparently they must have thought that a raised outter edge wasn't necessary due to the smaller diameter.

[lynnm]

Somebody manufactured a record changer that actually stopped the record on the platter and then gently lowered the next disk onto the preceding disc. I saw one in action many moons ago but cannot for the life of me remember the maker.

Anyone know what turntable/manufacturer I'm thinking of ??

[dadbar]

Every now and then if I'm working in the office I will stack a few LP's on my changer...it's really very convenient and seems to have very little effect on my vinyl.....I've been doing it forever...but I'm not really all that fussy. This is especially convenient for box sets and multidisk albums. I think the whole changer damage to vinyl thing is somewhat of an urban myth....as long as your vinyl is clean to begin with.