The love/mostly hate here for Crosley

You should have been more specific.

 

Was replying to the OP, would have said other turntables if I meant them, heard those u turns are great.

 

But, your post was made in the midst of discussion about the3 u-turn tables, hence the confusion. That's why it is important to specify what you mean.

 

they will KILL your vinyl !

 

Agree with the predatory opportunist marketing of the Crosley. Unfortunately, Apple would be the very last corporation to get into this market. That's not how they market. All personal preferences aside, Apple products, iphones, for example, are by far, the most expensive products in their respective categories, yet are no better, more reliable or cost more to manufacture than their competitors(Google Nexus, Samsung Galaxy, Sony Experia, etc)

 

Were was all the concern when I was destroying the White Album and Bookends on this abomination?:

 

I bet that's got a better tone arm.

 

How much would you bet on used vinyl that had numerous plays on that thing?

 

But the software is so much better than all those. Seamless for the most part between products.

 

Until someone else steps up to fill this market need with s better product, they will continue to sell. They fill a need an customer request.

Actually they now sell s couple of models that aren't so damaging.

 

Once a person buys a LP its up to them what they do with it. Keep it for posterity, hang it on a wall, play it on a ten thousand dollar turn table or enjoy it on a Crosley with their friends. At least they are buying records which benefits us all by maintaining a pool of consumers who demand access to music on vinyl. Some will move on to better record players and some will not. Will this affect the pool of used records? Yes but no worse than the way out of alignment carts and worn out styli that are out there already.

 

I wish 78's would make a comeback

 

Agree. My guess is that 90% of the analogue records folks here started with what we now consider, crappy record players. I know thats where I began in 1964. First I stacked my new records on my parents hifi console and then got my own table top records player . 51 years later I still have the records I played on that early Crosley like unit. Most of those records survived.

 

Seriously? Was the tone arm on your table top like the ones on the Crosleys?

 

Well probably better. It was very close to this one below. And those records, which I still have, probably were played hundreds of times each....

 

Much better I would think

 

And I would stack 6 or 7 LPs

 

Right. And doubles would back side 4 with side 1. Even as late as Rock of Ages they were still doing that.

 

Yeah I think my Winwood Double set was like that. Maybe Duane Allan Histories as well? I have a bunch of those and would stack even as late as 75.

But my favorite record stacking story was when I stacked 5 or 6 of my favorite albums when my girlfriend was over and we lost our virginities. Wanted those records to keep on playing. And it happened during Pink Floyd's Echoes from Meddle. How Romantic!!

The kids have it easy these days with digital libraries that play for days, weeks, months.

 

I also had a really crappy record player when I was young that I bought in the 90's. A record player and cassette player in once. I'm sure it was the cheapest thing available at sears. I had nickels glued to the tonearm and all and most of those records still play well. Me being drunk or high and young with some butter fingers caused more damaged than the record player.

 

To each other?

Or was this a source of uncomfortable tension in the relatioship from that point on...

 

The vintage record players are light years better than a Crosley. The Magnavox shown features the Micromatic changer with a "Feather Touch" arm, This little record player was one of the better ones, and relatively gentle with the records. All of the vintage table tops and consoles are robust, made of metal parts, a combo of wood, metal, and bakelite parts. Some of them sounded good too, namely the RCA's, Magnavox, Philco, GE, Sylvania (there were some high end Sylvanias with Dual or Garrard turntables, Shure M44 magnetic cart) Fisher consoles, Voice of Music (Some of the Wards Airline table tops had the very well made Voice of Music changers) and more that can be added to this list such as the stylish Dansette from the UK. (but that model really chewed up your records) And I forgot to mention the Newcomb, another record eating machine.

Back in the distant mid 20th century, records were expected to wear out and they did. Several factors contributed to the fact. There is first the heavier tracking force, and relatively stiff ceramic cartridges. They simply were not able to trace the groove without causing some degree of damage to it. The degree of damage depended on the record player. The Magnavox Micromatic was quite easy on them, but repeated plays, dozens of plays took its toll. But a vast majority of the record changers were awful on the records. The analogue of the master pressed on the record is instantly undone by just one play. (yes, one is enough) Making matters worse, were the styli that wore down to a nub, especially the sapphires. Everyone who owned one, including me, just flipped it over to the unworn 78 RPM "needle" which then also wore down, then a penny taped to the arm to keep the needle in the groove. Who in the world ever replaced the stylus? Almost no one did.

Damage also occurs on the label. Any record played on a record changer encounters the dreaded stationary spindle. Spindle wear is the result. There will sometimes be spindle trails, as some members of the human race could not seem to coordinate the record to the spindle, worse than trying to win the $64.000 question, and this always indicates previous play on a record changer. So then, spindle wear indicates also groove damage (likely 9 out of 10) even if the record appears to be clean.

And it's sneaky!

The damage caused by the offending record changer, may not be audible as it occurs, since the low compliance ceramic cartridges do not reproduce the damage they cause. Only by repeated plays does it become audible, but by then the record is toast.

It is not that I dislike vintage record players. In fact I love them. I own a nice RCA SHF-9 suitcase record player, a very nice tube unit. It has been upgraded with a higher compliance GE cartridge that's easier on the records, but still not safe to play a pristine record on it. Out of curiosity, I have tested a few expendable (common) mint 45's on it. The test records did play on my V-15 cart/ Dual table without any audible degradation. But this is very exceptional. The record player sounds great and with its 5 watts or so, and plays super loud. But even so, no pristine vinyl gets anywhere near it. Despite my being an audiophile, it's always fun to dig out the RCA, and even play some 78's on it.

 

Ah, listening to mono LPs on the floor in front of our black and white TV. Instant rumination when I saw the picture of a flip-top, oval-speaker portable mono record player.

My sister had a mono Magnavox player, probably built around 1958. We also had a turntable with a similar mono cartridge, a ceramic flipover. I'll just provide a data point in saying that--in my family's experience--new needles were cheap, they were easy to pop into place with no fiddling and we changed them when they sounded bad. We tried not to put our fingers on the records and we tried to put them back in their sleeves. We did stack them, usually not more than two, maybe three. We had several '78s, like Hugh Brannum's Little Orley (Hugh became Mr, Green Genes on Captain Kangaroo!). We had a ton of '45s. And we had many, many mono 33s, some of which I still have and they still sound surprisingly good, even great for some. My folks didn't get a "stereo" until the late '60s. I have maybe a dozen of their old mono LPs, Harry Belafonte and Mitch Miller and such. They still play as well as the handling they received at the time. Dirt, finger oil, scratches were the main enemy.

So, it is certainly possible to listen to LPs today that were played on old mono and other cheap systems, if they were used as directed then. Careful handling, putting records away when done, and a new $4.99 VM needle from the record shop twice a year. Those needles were diamond for LP and sapphire for 78. Although there were all-sapphire needles, we paid a bit more for the longer wearing diamond "LP" side.

I do think th0se older mono machines were designed to reasonable specs as to tracking force and electrical or mechanical tolerances typical of the '50s-''60s. But having handled some of the cheap-o Crosley or Teac players, some meant to record to USB even, they are sloppy mechanically. In an era of stereo LPs, they do carve them up.

 

The only characteristic missing from a Crosley is Boomer nostalgia. Somehow, it was different when our cheap crappy players were destroying vinyl.