Man; that sound coming through my iPad is very, very good. You had addressed the repair of cracked records such as this in a previous video. Placing the record between two pieces of glass and allowing the sun to meld the the crack for a short period of time... would that not work for this record? Like the comment...” no limit to how slow I can work”...lol. So just to push the discussion about playing 1940’s era records on these machines... orthophonic reproducers are still too “heavy” to play the 40’s records as well as the composition of the 40’s record for use with steel needles. I hope to play these records at WWII gatherings on my HMV 101, 102’s but clearly am not interested in causing undue wear with repetitive playing. Appreciate your thoughts on this. Also like the comment about allowing the machine’s spring to wind down after finishing playing records. Either you told me that some time ago or it just seemed intuitively the right thing to do, but I always do that. I met a machine collector who didn’t and thought it was a novel idea when I mentioned it to him. Love the video and thanks for your always welcome wisdom.
Hello Paul, cracked records are cracked forever, there is no fix for that. The glass and sun thing works only for warped records to flatten them back out. Some people try a little glue, but that never really works. The amount of heat it would take to make a crack go away would also destroy the record entirely. As for playing later records on older acoustic type machines, this tends to be food fight material on the message boards. There are opinions on this topic that span never play them, to play them 100's of times with no discernable wear. There is no question that the industry did change the internal makeup of records around 1935, in short they removed the slate dust from the mix. That dust is what would wear the steel needle so it would conform to a particular records grooves. This is one reason we discard a needle after one play, put that same needle on another record and it becomes a cutting tool. Not only did they remove the dust from the mix but they also started making the shellac layer thinner, especially during the war. By that time most players were electric with the light stylus arm and sapphire tipped needles, records didn't need to be as heavy duty as in previous times. It is best to play the later records on the electric machines, it will preserve them longer. That said I don't believe playing them a few times now and then on later Orthophonic type machines will harm them. Moderation is the key here, that and using the low tone small needles, or better yet fiber needles. The lighter weight of the Orthophonic reproducers helps along with the aluminum diaphragms. These machines made in the late 1920's and into the 30's, were made to play these electrically recorded records. The manufacturers didn't care if your records wore out after a hundred plays, they would just sell you new ones. the VV-2-55, VV-2-35, HMV-101, and the 102 most of all would have had a steady diet of post 1935 records during their service life. Nobody tossed out their expensive Victrola, or HMV portable machines because record technology had changed. The 102 was in production up to 1958, and surplus stock still selling into 1960. I am sure nobody was holding back playing their Elvis records because the machine might wear them out. Moderation is key, don't play the later records often, use fiber needles when possible, avoid playing the very rare stuff on anything but modern machines. You should be fine playing them at the gatherings. Springs are always under some tension inside the barrel, or they would start falling off the studs or hooks. The trick is not to leave them under undue tension while they are stored away. Just gives the springs a longer life span, this is true for any spring. The older I get the slower I work, nothing absolutely needs to be done right now. That's why I am a hobbyist, and not rebuilding phonographs for a living, no deadlines. I get tired or frustrated working on something, I put it away, get back to it five years later. The HMV portables have a wonderful sound when they are serviced, reproducers and all. The Gramophone Co liked to advertise them as " scientifically designed" and I suppose they where. Victor had the 2-55, and the 2-65, great orthophonic sound, but the 55 was a tank, and the 65 lacked the build quality of the HMV's. Victors last gasp, a ,machine assembled in the Camden factory from outsourced parts, nice sound, but sad.
Man I found one hmv 101 exactly the same. I do not disabled the motor. But I managed to open , clean an lub it . It runs on 78rpm . But when I put the needle on the disc it stop.
This could be the governor shaft bearing caps are too tight, weak mainsprings are common, or you may have a worn record. Worn records will stop stronger motors than found in the 101. I just replace the mainsprings in these with new springs after having weak spring problems several times.
I have 8-10 HMV, and Electrola 101's as well as the supersize version, the colonial model 112. They all use the same design tonearm, all spaced the same. It can be close to the record so long as it's not hitting it. Being a portable machine everything is more compact than you would see on a tabletop or other larger machine..
I have 8-10 HMV, and Electrola 101's as well as the supersize version, the colonial model 112. They all use the same design tonearm, all spaced the same. It can be close to the record so long as it's not hitting it. Being a portable machine everything is more compact than you would see on a tabletop or other larger machine..
My main portable is a Columbia 112a, which raises the arm with the lid, so it can be more compact with lid closed. Many ways to get the sound from the record to the horn, I guess!
I have a Columbia 112 with that retracting tonearm. The machine is good, the tonearm destroyed, potmetal that Columbia used at the time crumbled away. That wasn't the only portable to use some form of fold down tonearm, the Campfone comes to mind, and I think PAL also used something similar. The HMV100 with it's telescoping tone arm is the best of the lot, no potmetal
@@Rockisland1903 112, or 112a? Pot metal is hit or miss, depends largely on iron contamination in the mix, as to whether it’s durable or not. My 112a shows no signs of sadness. I think the 112 used a straight tapered arm with a ball joint on the end, and was made from brass?
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Man; that sound coming through my iPad is very, very good. You had addressed the repair of cracked records such as this in a previous video. Placing the record between two pieces of glass and allowing the sun to meld the the crack for a short period of time... would that not work for this record?
Like the comment...” no limit to how slow I can work”...lol.
So just to push the discussion about playing 1940’s era records on these machines... orthophonic reproducers are still too “heavy” to play the 40’s records as well as the composition of the 40’s record for use with steel needles. I hope to play these records at WWII gatherings on my HMV 101, 102’s but clearly am not interested in causing undue wear with repetitive playing. Appreciate your thoughts on this.
Also like the comment about allowing the machine’s spring to wind down after finishing playing records. Either you told me that some time ago or it just seemed intuitively the right thing to do, but I always do that. I met a machine collector who didn’t and thought it was a novel idea when I mentioned it to him.
Love the video and thanks for your always welcome wisdom.
Hello Paul, cracked records are cracked forever, there is no fix for that. The glass and sun thing works only for warped records to flatten them back out. Some people try a little glue, but that never really works. The amount of heat it would take to make a crack go away would also destroy the record entirely. As for playing later records on older acoustic type machines, this tends to be food fight material on the message boards. There are opinions on this topic that span never play them, to play them 100's of times with no discernable wear. There is no question that the industry did change the internal makeup of records around 1935, in short they removed the slate dust from the mix. That dust is what would wear the steel needle so it would conform to a particular records grooves. This is one reason we discard a needle after one play, put that same needle on another record and it becomes a cutting tool. Not only did they remove the dust from the mix but they also started making the shellac layer thinner, especially during the war. By that time most players were electric with the light stylus arm and sapphire tipped needles, records didn't need to be as heavy duty as in previous times. It is best to play the later records on the electric machines, it will preserve them longer. That said I don't believe playing them a few times now and then on later Orthophonic type machines will harm them. Moderation is the key here, that and using the low tone small needles, or better yet fiber needles. The lighter weight of the Orthophonic reproducers helps along with the aluminum diaphragms. These machines made in the late 1920's and into the 30's, were made to play these electrically recorded records. The manufacturers didn't care if your records wore out after a hundred plays, they would just sell you new ones. the VV-2-55, VV-2-35, HMV-101, and the 102 most of all would have had a steady diet of post 1935 records during their service life. Nobody tossed out their expensive Victrola, or HMV portable machines because record technology had changed. The 102 was in production up to 1958, and surplus stock still selling into 1960. I am sure nobody was holding back playing their Elvis records because the machine might wear them out. Moderation is key, don't play the later records often, use fiber needles when possible, avoid playing the very rare stuff on anything but modern machines. You should be fine playing them at the gatherings.
Springs are always under some tension inside the barrel, or they would start falling off the studs or hooks. The trick is not to leave them under undue tension while they are stored away. Just gives the springs a longer life span, this is true for any spring.
The older I get the slower I work, nothing absolutely needs to be done right now. That's why I am a hobbyist, and not rebuilding phonographs for a living, no deadlines. I get tired or frustrated working on something, I put it away, get back to it five years later. The HMV portables have a wonderful sound when they are serviced, reproducers and all. The Gramophone Co liked to advertise them as " scientifically designed" and I suppose they where. Victor had the 2-55, and the 2-65, great orthophonic sound, but the 55 was a tank, and the 65 lacked the build quality of the HMV's. Victors last gasp, a ,machine assembled in the Camden factory from outsourced parts, nice sound, but sad.
Man I found one hmv 101 exactly the same. I do not disabled the motor. But I managed to open , clean an lub it . It runs on 78rpm . But when I put the needle on the disc it stop.
This could be the governor shaft bearing caps are too tight, weak mainsprings are common, or you may have a worn record. Worn records will stop stronger motors than found in the 101. I just replace the mainsprings in these with new springs after having weak spring problems several times.
@@Rockisland1903 Thx...man ....Will try to find these springs here em Brazil - RJ
That arm looks like it’s dangerously close to the top of the record. Do you notice that your others have this issue also?
I have 8-10 HMV, and Electrola 101's as well as the supersize version, the colonial model 112. They all use the same design tonearm, all spaced the same. It can be close to the record so long as it's not hitting it. Being a portable machine everything is more compact than you would see on a tabletop or other larger machine..
I have 8-10 HMV, and Electrola 101's as well as the supersize version, the colonial model 112. They all use the same design tonearm, all spaced the same. It can be close to the record so long as it's not hitting it. Being a portable machine everything is more compact than you would see on a tabletop or other larger machine..
My main portable is a Columbia 112a, which raises the arm with the lid, so it can be more compact with lid closed. Many ways to get the sound from the record to the horn, I guess!
I have a Columbia 112 with that retracting tonearm. The machine is good, the tonearm destroyed, potmetal that Columbia used at the time crumbled away. That wasn't the only portable to use some form of fold down tonearm, the Campfone comes to mind, and I think PAL also used something similar. The HMV100 with it's telescoping tone arm is the best of the lot, no potmetal
@@Rockisland1903 112, or 112a? Pot metal is hit or miss, depends largely on iron contamination in the mix, as to whether it’s durable or not. My 112a shows no signs of sadness. I think the 112 used a straight tapered arm with a ball joint on the end, and was made from brass?