Is Crosley a problem for Vinyl revival?

[Arthur Smith]

Pretty much,
All generated from snob mentality from the ones that need something less than what they own to pick on.

I do like that elitists such as Michael Fremer, who really was one of the starters of the anti-Crosley movement, has come out to praise a couple of their higher end true turntable offerings. Yes, I know they are made by other folks for Crosley, but who does not outsource these days? When are people going to finally accept the fact that very little is going to be manufactured in the USA?

 

[4-2-7]

I do like that elitists such as Michael Fremer

That I don't agree with, just because someone is farther ahead than you doesn't make them an elitist. Refining your taste in audio and moving up the food chain is not a bad thing.

When are people going to finally accept the fact that very little is going to be manufactured in the USA?

This is totally irrelevant.

 

[Arthur Smith]

That I don't agree with, just because someone is farther ahead than you doesn't make them an elitist. Refining your taste in audio and moving up the food chain is not a bad thing.



This is totally irrelevant.

I hear you. But, the blanket statement that because something is manufactured in China automatically defaults it to junk status is so irresponsible, and, ignorant.

 

[4-2-7]

BTW there is always someone with better gear than you own, as well as lesser gear than you own. On a site like this if you put down any audio gear you are offending someone, your alienating someone. Just because you might be in the majority of acceptical here doesn't mean squat. It doesn't mean you even own anything good and can be looked down on by others.

 

[DustyOldPile]

I'm the furthest thing from an audio snob that you'll find...but at least the old school, 50's-60's-70's players for the most part were made of quality materials. They tried hard *not* to destroy records, they just didn't quite have the technology. And then the economy went to heck and they focused on keeping things built in the USA rather than import from Japan. Meanwhile, because of the imbalance between the Yen and the Dollar, the Japanese were running circles around the U.S. in build quality and fidelity. I'm not talking McIntosh, I'm talking Sears vs. Stereoland in the new mall.

Crosleys, from what I've seen, are so sloppy out of the box that I would not trust my records on them, ever.

Now, addressing the original post, I think like many others...the Crosleys are a two edged sword. For some, they could be the gateway to better listening on better equipment. For others, disgust and betrayal -- vinyl sounds better? BS! and they go back to listening to mp3's on a 2" speaker.

As long as I can get stylii and a few records, I'm happy, the hell with everyone else.

 

[4-2-7]

I hear you. But, the blanket statement that because something is manufactured in China automatically defaults it to junk status is so irresponsible, and, ignorant.

Well that's just part of life I guess. Just like in the 70s buying Japanese was junk.

 

[Arthur Smith]

I'm the furthest thing from an audio snob that you'll find...but at least the old school, 50's-60's-70's players for the most part were made of quality materials. They tried hard *not* to destroy records, they just didn't quite have the technology. And then the economy went to heck and they focused on keeping things built in the USA rather than import from Japan. Meanwhile, because of the imbalance between the Yen and the Dollar, the Japanese were running circles around the U.S. in build quality and fidelity. I'm not talking McIntosh, I'm talking Sears vs. Stereoland in the new mall.

Crosleys, from what I've seen, are so sloppy out of the box that I would not trust my records on them, ever.

Now, addressing the original post, I think like many others...the Crosleys are a two edged sword. For some, they could be the gateway to better listening on better equipment. For others, disgust and betrayal -- vinyl sounds better? BS! and they go back to listening to mp3's on a 2" speaker.

As long as I can get stylii and a few records, I'm happy, the hell with everyone else.

As I mentioned earlier, there has always been a true market distinction between a record player, and a turntable. There were tons of carry around, portable record players in the 50's and 60's that used sapphire styli, and heavy tracking ceramic carts. Compare the Crosley's to that format, and they are not that much different. Comparing them to a true turntable is apples and oranges.

 

[4-2-7]

I'm the furthest thing from an audio snob that you'll find...but at least the old school, 50's-60's-70's players for the most part were made of quality materials. They tried hard *not* to destroy records, they just didn't quite have the technology.

Are you sure? Really there was tons of record players in all decades that where built at all price points just like today. The majority of people owned the lesser units.

As long as I can get stylii and a few records, I'm happy, the hell with everyone else.

As it should be.

 

[Arthur Smith]

Well that's just part of life I guess. Just like in the 70s buying Japanese was junk.

And now, we make virtually nothing.

 

[4-2-7]

As I mentioned earlier, there has always been a true market distinction between a record player, and a turntable. There were tons of carry around, portable record players in the 50's and 60's that used sapphire styli, and heavy tracking ceramic carts. Compare the Crosley's to that format, and they are not that much different. Comparing them to a true turntable is apples and oranges.

And see this is the facts.

It's so very hard to buy clean early rock-n-roll records because kids had junk to play them on.

 

[4-2-7]

And now, we make virtually nothing.

Poof......and it's gone...

Might be a good thing as we in America can't put our computer control devices down for a minute to do a good job anyway.

Come to think of it I'm running late to work now...

 

[DustyOldPile]

As I mentioned earlier, there has always been a true market distinction between a record player, and a turntable. There were tons of carry around, portable record players in the 50's and 60's that used sapphire styli, and heavy tracking ceramic carts. Compare the Crosley's to that format, and they are not that much different. Comparing them to a true turntable is apples and oranges.

Maybe. But not quite.

The ubiquitous BSR Changer with the ceramic cartridge was found in stereo systems everywhere in department stores, catalog outfits, etc. It's major flaw was tracking forces around 8-9 grams. But the fact that it's considered junk now has more to do with the complexities of it's design and hardening of old lubricants than anything else. "Changers" from VM and others that were included in big consoles were fairly decent also and, unlike the later BSR's, built like tanks.

Crosleys are built with the cheapest and most inferior parts possible and as long as something drags through the grooves and emits some kind of noise, they're happy. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

And the only time there's ever been a distinction between a record player and a turntable is within the audiophile crowd, what you'd call an 'elitist'. To everyone else, they're ALL record players. Welcome to the club, amigo.

 

[Arthur Smith]

Maybe. But not quite.

The ubiquitous BSR Changer with the ceramic cartridge was found in stereo systems everywhere in department stores, catalog outfits, etc. It's major flaw was tracking forces around 8-9 grams. But the fact that it's considered junk now has more to do with the complexities of it's design and hardening of old lubricants than anything else. "Changers" from VM and others that were included in big consoles were fairly decent also and, unlike the later BSR's, built like tanks.

Crosleys are built with the cheapest and most inferior parts possible and as long as something drags through the grooves and emits some kind of noise, they're happy. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

And the only time there's ever been a distinction between a record player and a turntable is within the audiophile crowd, what you'd call an 'elitist'. To everyone else, they're ALL record players. Welcome to the club, amigo.

Funny, but the vintage BSR table I got at Goodwill for $10 had a nifty little ADC Magnetic cart that I put into a headshell and fitted with a conical stylus to play thrift store vinyl with. I don't think all BSR's had ceramic cartridges.

 

[DustyOldPile]

Funny, but the vintage BSR table I got at Goodwill for $10 had a nifty little ADC Magnetic cart that I put into a headshell and fitted with a conical stylus to play thrift store vinyl with. I don't think all BSR's had ceramic cartridges.

They didn't. But most of them did, particularly those included with a tuner and 8 track player and branded Realistic, Soundesign, Lloyds, Sears, Penncrest, Wards and others. My first turntable was a hand-me-down BSR with a Shure magnetic on it. It was just north of terrible. It didn't sound bad but it had it's issues. I didn't have it long, I went for the bargain basement BIC 920 for $60 from Illinois Audio. I was 13.

 

[Arthur Smith]

They didn't. But most of them did, particularly those included with a tuner and 8 track player and branded Realistic, Soundesign, Lloyds, Sears, Penncrest, Wards and others. My first turntable was a hand-me-down BSR with a Shure magnetic on it. It was just north of terrible. It didn't sound bad but it had it's issues. I didn't have it long, I went for the bargain basement BIC 920 for $60 from Illinois Audio.

The ADC cart, while an entry level one, was perfect to put a conical on. Also like the higher output. I enjoy the AT95E and elliptical on new or great condition vinyl. So for me, the BSR is now my record cleaning motor. I also pulled out the grounding wire to use on my Technics table. That table really paid for itself quickly.

 

[wrbear]

I think the BIGGER problem for the revival is the shipping of vintage records. I see peeps posting damaged broken records almost daily on FB. That is going to thin the heard down a bit just as much as a Crosley type TT in my opin. A revival in this case might also mean a reduction in old stock.

 

[empirelvr]

As I mentioned earlier, there has always been a true market distinction between a record player, and a turntable. There were tons of carry around, portable record players in the 50's and 60's that used sapphire styli, and heavy tracking ceramic carts. Compare the Crosley's to that format, and they are not that much different. Comparing them to a true turntable is apples and oranges.

You are correct. The problem is the marketing of the Crosley's, which DOES compare them to turntables, if not calls them that.

Consider this for example: http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urba...il.jsp?id=37763216&category=A_MUSIC_TURNTABLE

Now this is an interesting comparison because this model sets itself up as a direct descendent of the kind of phonograph you are talking about. NOBODY would ever accuse a Dansette of being "Hi-Fi" gear. But they were fun, and many enjoyed music with them.

Yet, the ad copy calls it a "turntable" and uses such phases as "state of the art" in describing it.

And irony of ironies? A true Dansette would be gentler to records, sound better, and be more reliable than this Crosley that apes it.

THIS is why many of us have such fits about Crosley. If the ad copy said things like "For the hipster on the go..." or "Bring the vinyl party wherever you go..." and laid off the "state of the art" hyperbole, we'd still complain, but I don't think we'd be as insulted by Crosley as we are. It's especially curious that Crosley's real turntables have ad copy that is much more subdued. In a sense, they are undercutting their own more ambitious products.

And the truth is, a record played often on a real Dansette would hold up much better than one played on a Crosley. A real Dansette had a properly designed arm even though it used a ceramic cart and was a heavy tracker. If it (and the records played on it) were well maintained, the discs would still be in decent shape. I can't say that about the Crosley.

If a Crosley is comparable to any phonograph of the past, this is what it is a direct descendent of:

The big difference is nobody claimed this phonograph was anything more than what it was.

 

[majick47]

Anyone with a budget for a Crosley can also afford to buy a far superior made in the USA U-Turn Orbit. The USA can be great again and mfg everything we need bringing back good paying jobs for Americans at all levels.

 

[Arthur Smith]

You are correct. The problem is the marketing of the Crosley's, which DOES compare them to turntables, if not calls them that.

Consider this for example: http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urba...il.jsp?id=37763216&category=A_MUSIC_TURNTABLE

Now this is an interesting comparison because this model sets itself up as a direct descendent of the kind of phonograph you are talking about. NOBODY would ever accuse a Dansette of being "Hi-Fi" gear. But they were fun, and many enjoyed music with them.

Yet, the ad copy calls it a "turntable" and uses such phases as "state of the art" in describing it.

I hate to be a nudge, but I would say that is a result of hipster marketing by Urban Outfitters, and not the manufacturer or distributor.

 

[empirelvr]

I hate to be a nudge, but I would say that is a result of hipster marketing by Urban Outfitters, and not the manufacturer or distributor.

Disagreed: https://www.crosleyradio.com/ProductDetail?Cat=2&pk=CR6234A&colorID=0

Crosley itself calls it a "turntable" in the ad copy. (Though I'll give them points for calling it a phonograph elsewhere on the page.)

Marketing can only repeat or expound on what information they are given by the manufacturer. It would take too much time and money for Urban Outfitters to come up with original copy without the "talking points" provided by the brands they carry.

In any event, in "concept," we are in agreement.