• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Does your Turntable stack records? Do you use this feature?

Does your Turntable stack records? Do you use this feature?

  • My Turntable does not allow record stacking.

    Votes: 105 55.6%

  • My Turntable does allow record stacking but I don't use it.

    Votes: 35 18.5%

  • My Turntable does allow record stacking and I do use this feature at least sometimes.

    Votes: 49 25.9%
  • Total voters
    189
jeffpaletz

jeffpaletz

AK Subscriber
I have a Technics SL-1650 that I've been using since I got it new in the late 1970s. Of of its features is the ability to install a stacking spindle for so you can stack up to 6 records. While I usually use it with the single play spindle, I also regularly use it with the album stacking spindle. For example, this Sunday morning my wife and I were listening to three new Michael Buble I got this weekend at Barnes and Noble on the JBL L100 speakers in our bedroom. By the way, some of their stores have a fairly extensive new record selection. Other times it might be a stack of Simon and Garfunkel or Electric Light Orchestra records or a mix of records. If there are some 45s I want to hear I'll often put on a stack of them. I enjoy being able to hear an hour or so of albums without having to change the record every 20 minutes or so.

I'm wondering how many other people have a turntable with this feature and if they use it.
 
Register to hide this ad
My changer turntable isn't the centerpiece of a livingroom sound system. It's hooked up to a digital recorder. I only use the turntable for archiving, one record at a time. So stacking records wouldn't do me any good.
 
You say "I enjoy being able to hear an hour or so of albums without having to change the record every 20 minutes or so. "

That's why I have R2R! Depending on Tape size and or speed used I can listen almost for as long as I want and longer with Auto-Reverse.No stacking damage at all to record single records one at a time and voila you can listen all you want:)

P/S Yes I have to turn some tapes or change them around every so often but no damage to records due to stacking and a longer listening experience is easily had!
 
My changers all have vastly more hours running as changers than they do in single play mode. Can't be bothered with getting up every 20 minutes to fuss around with it.

Records are higher center and at the rim, the grooves don't actually touch so its not like they are grinding against one another.
 
Record changers were more relevant in the 1920s-40s, when the 78RPM record was the standard. A 78 held only 3-5 minutes per side, so you had to get up and flip or change the disc rather often, and it made listening to symphonies and other long pieces of music awkward. A wide variety of elaborate record changers were produced, some of which could play the other side of the record as well. Record albums were made in different forms for different styles of changers, depending on their capabilities. More info and pictures can be found here.
-Adam
 
If stacking records caused problems, a lot more used records would be unplayable. Records just aren't that fragile.
But I don't stack records because I often only listen to specific songs on a side. When I do listen to a side, often I want to listen to the other side immediately, rather than waiting to go through the stack and then flipping the whole stack and only then being able to hear it.
And I like the involvement of getting up and flipping the record.
 
I am with Nat on this one. I have a few changers and use them that way from time to time but prefer to listen to an entire LP, both sides one at a time and in sequence.
 
Stacking records, in and of itself, may not do anything harmful, but I think it encourages bad practices, like not cleaning the records before playing them, not keeping fingers off of the playing surfaces while flipping the stack, allowing the tonearm to track and sub-optimal angles, and so on.
 
AdamAnt316 said:
Record changers were more relevant in the 1920s-40s, when the 78RPM record was the standard. A 78 held only 3-5 minutes per side, so you had to get up and flip or change the disc rather often, and it made listening to symphonies and other long pieces of music awkward. A wide variety of elaborate record changers were produced, some of which could play the other side of the record as well. Record albums were made in different forms for different styles of changers, depending on their capabilities. More info and pictures can be found here.
-Adam
Click to expand...

I also collect old radios. I have a Capehart Radio/Record player that does flip over records. It only plays 78s and is from the mid 1940s. It will play either 10" or 12" records. You can set it to play one right after another or to flip the record it is playing so you hear both sides before it takes the next record. There are videos on YouTube that show these changers in action. They were popular, quality made and expensive. They were made for over 10 years.
 
Bugler said:
I would never stack records. Way too risky for my valuable records plus the VTA would be constantly changing compromising SQ.
Click to expand...

I've been using the Technics SL-1650 for about 40 years. I've taken good care of my records and haven't had an issue with records getting damaged. As someone else said, the center and edges of records are raised so the grooves never touch. As far as VTA, according to the manual, the perfect Vertical Tracking Angle is when the turntable is playing the third record in a stack. Any error would be minor and, so far to me, inaudible with the cartridges I use.
 
I use my TTs for playing records one at a time, even the changers,,, however, I spent way too much time getting the changer mechanisms to work properly, and only stacked records records to check their operation... CDs are my "stacking" medium!!
 
gadget73 said:
My changers all have vastly more hours running as changers than they do in single play mode. Can't be bothered with getting up every 20 minutes to fuss around with it.

Records are higher center and at the rim, the grooves don't actually touch so its not like they are grinding against one another.
Click to expand...

gadget, I know you and I agree 99% of the time, but not this time.

Records are higher center and rim, however it's been my experience that a great percentage of records are not perfectly flat. Any warp in a record, no matter how slight, will defeat the advantage of the higher center and rim. Many times you can hear the reaction, as the record that is not moving, drops onto the moving one. I've owned a few changers over the years and currently have a Miracord 45 and a Dual 1218 but I've never stacked records on anything I've ever had. The Miracord is really annoying as you have to remove the stacking spindle to remove records, even singles. I finally found a single play spindle for it.

The only changer I've seen to address this issue, is Glaser Steers. A brake would stop the platter, the record would drop, the tonearm would move to the lead in groove, and the platter would start, being up to speed in a quarter of a turn, if the idlers were in good condition. While GS made a good changer, a step above many at the time, it's not an audiophile turntable by any stretch.
 
Last edited:
It is why I bought the Dual 1219. I have 5 copies of one of my favorite double LP's (they were cheap). I can stack all four sides at once and that is so nice. :angel: Plus I have probably stacked my Tangerine Dream LP's dozen of times, and they are no worse for doing it. 95% of the time I do use a vintage Discwasher to dust the records before stacking. And occasionally they get hauled downstairs to be cleaned on the RCM.

But this is one of those topics that rile some of the members. YMMV
 
Last edited:
jeffpaletz said:
I also collect old radios. I have a Capehart Radio/Record player that does flip over records. It only plays 78s and is from the mid 1940s. It will play either 10" or 12" records. You can set it to play one right after another or to flip the record it is playing so you hear both sides before it takes the next record. There are videos on YouTube that show these changers in action. They were popular, quality made and expensive. They were made for over 10 years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a friend of mine has a Capehart changer as well (came as part of an E.H. Scott console he picked up, albeit in a separate base). Most of the Capeharts indeed played only 78s, though some of the later ones could handle 33s as well, as seen on this site. I was at the Kutztown radio show a couple of weeks back, and saw some very interesting changers there. One was a Lincoln record changer which, like the Capeharts, was able to play both sides of the records (albeit using a fancy vacuum-powered mechanism). At least some of them were sold under the Fisher name (as Fisher-Lincoln).

Another was the ADC Accutrac +6 from the 1970s. It couldn't play the other side of the records, but it could play tracks from them in any sequence, with a piston in the middle of the platter for lowering records from the stack, as well as lifting them back up so that tracks could be played from whichever disc you desired. Amazingly, it actually seemed to be working, unlike most of the Accutracs out there. Pretty cool, if you ask me! Now, I just need to track down a Thorens TD-224... :cool:
-Adam
 
I have a Technics SL D5 / Shure M35x stacker and I use it all the time to play thrift store records. I have other decks including a SL1200 and two AR decks but put more time in with the stacker mostly when working around the house. I have been listening to a lot more vinyl since I got it.
 
I have had a couple Duals and an Elac with the umbrella spindle. If you use them, you are just waiting to have your needle damaged. More then once, I have had a record hang just long enough to fall in the tonearm. It occurs when the LP is a little thicker or thinner than normal and you just happen to stack them in a certain order that the spindle does nor properly grab them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom