Does your Turntable stack records? Do you use this feature?
- Thread starter jeffpaletz
- Start date
JimmyEJames
Super Member
Changer was vestigial consumer technology by late 1960s
No radio station or serious about sound quality user like BBC ever use changers
Even by 1950s the best turntables were deigned like transcription machines single disc single side play and for perfomance requiring multiple disc radio station had two tables side by side all cued up
I think some turntable makers continue with this into 1970s because so many people already have and wanted it and some demand too kids wanted for parties to stack singles and jukeboxes
It was a convenience function from 78 rpm time that hung around but I would never stack valuable and expensive records on a changer
One is spinning and then one drops on top no way this can be good over long haul! Like grinding gears on car with a clutch ; - (
Just like when I handle records I don't deliberately drop them on table
No good for the records or the needle even conical
Look at Dual and Garrard all the good ones came with short single play spindle
JJ
No radio station or serious about sound quality user like BBC ever use changers
Even by 1950s the best turntables were deigned like transcription machines single disc single side play and for perfomance requiring multiple disc radio station had two tables side by side all cued up
I think some turntable makers continue with this into 1970s because so many people already have and wanted it and some demand too kids wanted for parties to stack singles and jukeboxes
It was a convenience function from 78 rpm time that hung around but I would never stack valuable and expensive records on a changer
One is spinning and then one drops on top no way this can be good over long haul! Like grinding gears on car with a clutch ; - (
Just like when I handle records I don't deliberately drop them on table
No good for the records or the needle even conical
Look at Dual and Garrard all the good ones came with short single play spindle
JJ
I don't think I'd stack 78s, personally. They tend to be brittle nowadays, and record changers had issues with some of them even when new. A guide to doing so, if you so choose, can be found here.
Frankly, I'd go with a Dual for the purpose. You'd probably be better off with something from the 12xx series, since the stacking spindles usually work without needing to be repaired like the 10xx ones do. AFAIK, everything from the 1209 to the 1219 can handle 78s, as can the 1229 and 1229Q. The above-linked page isn't in favor of using umbrella-spindle changers with 78s; I'm not sure why they wouldn't be safe to use, but there you go.
Anyway, there are some caveats with these models to watch out for. If you get a 1218 or similar, the tracking angle is changed between single and multiple-play by a small knob in the headshell, and the plastic gizmo involved can break, so make sure it's intact. With the 1219, and possibly the 1229/Q, the tracking angle change is done using a lever on the plinth, and the mechanism involved can get gummed up. If this happens, and the lever is moved, a plastic part under the tonearm will break, causing it to get stuck in the 'multi' position and bind up during playback. To avoid this, carefully clean out as much of the old gunked-up lubricant from the involved mechanism as you can before moving the lever.
As far as other changers go, I've also heard good things about ELACs, though I haven't had any experience with them. I'm not a big fan of Garrards, though others who've posted in the thread seem to have had good luck with them. Finally, Magnavox/Collaro made some interesting record changers from the '50s well into the '70s which seem to be far nicer to records than most of the changers found in hi-fi consoles of the day. Some more info on these can be found here. Good luck!
-Adam
JimmyEJames
Super Member
Going to the bathroom or snack break same reason radio studio needed two turntables even with disc jockey on duty or reel to reel and canned music
But that wasn't point point was readily available and they didn't use them for any reason
Exactly
Ask same question of individual only answer convenience and ooh ahh factor of the technology of 1940s
Part of overlap too to get rid of old phonographs
Anything auomatic after WWII BIG DEAL for buying public
It was selling feature first and conveinance feature second and only in world where consumer not know or care about their records
They probably enjoyed them too a lot more than some of us do ; - (
JJ
SA-708
Appalachian-American
You didn't have two turntables in a DJ booth so someone could go to the bathroom or get a snack.
Back when I worked at an understaffed college radio station, we would pick a very long musical selection for a quick bathroom break, something like "In a Gadda Da Vida," or perhaps "Enough is Enough" by Streisand/Summer if we were in a disco mood.
The amount of ignorance about little damage was done to records by a well-designed and properly-functioning record changer is surprising. Not that I run a changer these days, and my mother has a single spindle on her Dual 1237 these days, but I have no regrets over having used one with my records in the past. I had my Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz box set out recently, which saw some time on the changer spindle back when I was in high school, and it sounded none the worse for wear today. There are reasons not to use one (rumble from the stationary spindle rubbing against the spinning record hasn't been mentioned), but record wear is not one of them.
I don't stack my records, but I do stack my tapes, like this...
Yes, it is a reel to reel machine. It just threads itself, rewinds, and indexes through a stack of tapes all by itself.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Yes, it is a reel to reel machine. It just threads itself, rewinds, and indexes through a stack of tapes all by itself.
Enjoy,
Rich P
JimmyEJames
Super Member
Dropping record on record already spinning is not a great idea and we knew that when we were kids
I am fairly old and have lots of records that I played on changer but mostly one at time
Sometimes though did stack but mainly 45s Lps sometimes ; - (
I wish today that I did not!
Mostly records got stacked at Christmas time
JJ
I'm actually baffled at the certainty people have that stacking records damages them. Certainly if the mechanism malfunctions, then scratches may ensue, just as they would on any atutomatic, or even a manual when the user screws up -- that personal assistant seems to have her hand in place as if she is about to grab the arm by it's pivot, which isn't a safe practice. And as has been pointed out, placing a dirty record on a surface -- record or mat -- is likely to press the dirt into the grooves (but with records with raised labels and lips, this isn't really an issue for stackers).
The top surface of the record is not actually important to playback -- it's nice if it's clean and shiny, but it's the grooves that are played, and I don't see how they can be damaged by stacking.
Changers with lots of friction in the arm, or which require much force to trip the auto mechanism, or (more likely) used with a worn stylus, certainly can damage records, but that's a problem with the specific table (and is so with automatics also), not the whole changer concept.
The top surface of the record is not actually important to playback -- it's nice if it's clean and shiny, but it's the grooves that are played, and I don't see how they can be damaged by stacking.
Changers with lots of friction in the arm, or which require much force to trip the auto mechanism, or (more likely) used with a worn stylus, certainly can damage records, but that's a problem with the specific table (and is so with automatics also), not the whole changer concept.
JimmyEJames
Super Member
How old are you Nat? Old enough to grow up with changers when they were standard?
Stacking records on a changer is not good for them
Then on ones with swing over arm don't care how careful you are eventually scars surface
I am talking as someone who grew up with nothing but changer until middle 1970s
Can not count how many times I see multiple copies of same title in collection from people who used nothing but changer in console when I hunt used records
I see big box of records with 3 copies same title and guess what else thrift store got today console with changer!
One record is spinning 331/3 rpm and one is sitting still and then DROP it on spinning record
Over and over and over time?
From back in day with yellow cloth and aerosol spray for cleaning record! : - ) : - (
VERY HARD on records
I know this I have dozens and dozens of them ; - (
Beatles too ; - (
JJ
Stacking records on a changer is not good for them
Then on ones with swing over arm don't care how careful you are eventually scars surface
I am talking as someone who grew up with nothing but changer until middle 1970s
Can not count how many times I see multiple copies of same title in collection from people who used nothing but changer in console when I hunt used records
I see big box of records with 3 copies same title and guess what else thrift store got today console with changer!
One record is spinning 331/3 rpm and one is sitting still and then DROP it on spinning record
Over and over and over time?
From back in day with yellow cloth and aerosol spray for cleaning record! : - ) : - (
VERY HARD on records
I know this I have dozens and dozens of them ; - (
Beatles too ; - (
JJ
Mitkraft
Super Member
My turntable is stacker capable but the function isn't working at the moment. It's one of the things I play to rectify when I take it out of service for refurb. I'm on the fence on whether I'll use it for 33's but I'd certainly like to have the option of staking 45's. They are just too short for enjoyment. I have both spindles I just need to get the function working. Both sides of the does damage / doesn't damage debate speak with such authority I've never been able to draw any conclusions on that front.
jeffpaletz
AK Subscriber
Jimmy, I agree with Nat. I'm 60 though and too young to have had records handled by the turntables of the 1960s. I had a Dual 1229 for a short time in 1976 or so but got my Technics Direct Drive turntable in 1977. Neither of these have swing over arms. The spindles were the type that supported the records on 3 fingers that would retract in order to drop one record. I've stacked a lot of records in the last 40 years and I can assure you that Turntable/Changes from that era did not damage records. Perhaps that was a problem with older changers in consoles from the 60s, but IF it was, the problem was resolved by the mid 70s. If you look at changers from the 60s that were more audiophile in design, such as Garrard, they didn't use a swing over arm so those wouldn't cause damage either.
On stackable records, the outer edge and label areas are raised, to prevent the groove areas from contacting each other. Large sand might cause a problem, otherwise no issue to stacking, related to rubbing. If a record drops properly, it will land on a momentary cushion of air, compressed by the falling record.
Varying tracking angle is the worst issue.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Varying tracking angle is the worst issue.
Enjoy,
Rich P
JimmyEJames
Super Member
I don't understand how 60 is too young to know records from 60s?
I am younger than you!
Majority of changers from mid 60s through 70s also have swing over arms the side drop style is much older like Garrard Type A and was dropped by most cost too much swing arm easier and cheaper to build
Dual was unique with their design
Does not matter think what you want to be happy!
Stack your records! ; - )
JJ
JimmyEJames
Super Member
Raised edge was to help eliminate return because of defects incurred due to STACKING at pressing plants where unavoidable when dealing with tens of thousands of discs at a time
In THEORY
Wait! Every record made correctly no issues!
Never mind! ; - )
JJ
Jimmy, I'm 60. My parents had a mono console when I was very young and I have no memory of it, but I do remember the notable upgrade when they got a modest Pioneer component system. It had either a manual or auto return table. My first exposure to changers was in college when friends had Duals, Miracords, Garrards, and BSRs (and the occasional Glenbrook). I didn't get the need for changers then, any more than I do now. But records played on them didn't appear to wear any more than those on the used Pioneer PL 12d which I picked up partway through freshman year.
And by now, most of my records (which I used to obsess about so much that I gave away a record that some philistine (my brother) had 'ruined' by playing it twice in the same day -that's what I'd been told by Transcriptors ads, I think), are very well used -- either they are the ones I bought in 1973 and on, or found at tag sales, used record stores, Salvation Army, or, the largest portion, at the dump. Some aren't good (and essentially no old copies of Surrealistic Pillow are playable -- too much dope and bong water involved in their playing). But most are fine. Warps are a problem (sitting out in the sun at the dump isn't helpful), but otherwise, even a quick wash in the sink usually makes them reasonably, or perfectly, satisfying to listen to. Given the ubiquity of BSRs in the era that my music tastes dwell in, if changers damaged records, they'd sound terrible. Maybe the music has it's imperfections (why did I ever listen to Thick as a Brick?), but it's not because of stacking.
Certainly my hearing isn't what it used to be, but I can still easily hear differences between good components.
And by now, most of my records (which I used to obsess about so much that I gave away a record that some philistine (my brother) had 'ruined' by playing it twice in the same day -that's what I'd been told by Transcriptors ads, I think), are very well used -- either they are the ones I bought in 1973 and on, or found at tag sales, used record stores, Salvation Army, or, the largest portion, at the dump. Some aren't good (and essentially no old copies of Surrealistic Pillow are playable -- too much dope and bong water involved in their playing). But most are fine. Warps are a problem (sitting out in the sun at the dump isn't helpful), but otherwise, even a quick wash in the sink usually makes them reasonably, or perfectly, satisfying to listen to. Given the ubiquity of BSRs in the era that my music tastes dwell in, if changers damaged records, they'd sound terrible. Maybe the music has it's imperfections (why did I ever listen to Thick as a Brick?), but it's not because of stacking.
Certainly my hearing isn't what it used to be, but I can still easily hear differences between good components.
JimmyEJames
Super Member
As others have said, the raised lip and label prevented the grooves from coming in contact. I saw a lot of damage back in the day due to failure to sleeve records, or in discarding the inner sleeve, both of which probably did more damage than the stackers.
But radio stations even way back then typically did not play full album sides (the silence between tracks is called "dead air" and is to be avoided at all costs!). Waiting for a changer to cycle would be even worse.
stalislawlem
Active Member
I have a Dual 1019, it could stack records, but I don't; too unreliable. Records have to be not too thin, not too thick, and even then I've had a record slip past the stop and almost hit the tonearm. What if a record falls on the tonearm? Disaster.