The love/mostly hate here for Crosley

I think you need a more snappy title for your e-book than "Collectibles Are More Than Something To Enjoy, Not Ruthlessly."

 

It is a cliffhanger, Michael

 

Y

Yup....anyone with even basic turntable experience only has to look at one to know what it sounds like, and what it will do to records played on them. I get the point of commenting on something we don't own, but in this case you don't need to.

 

Yeah. Go take a look at one of those Crosley's pictured in the OP's opening thread. I have. Those are are constructed more cheaply than any Kenner Close 'n' Play you would have bought for a six-year-old in 1972. At least those were built to be kid-proof. The construction on those Crosley's is just shoddy junk. Flimsy and poorly made. You could snap one of those armwands off without thinking about it. Any cheap bottom of the line vintage portable I've seen is made twice as well.

 

Exactly.

Millions of Califones were made and with an updated arm and decent cart they'd be a decent portable record player. Maybe someone will take the hint and make a tonearm and RIAA pre kit for them, hint, hint... Many old console pull changers would be better than the Crosley too.

 

Apparently Califone still makes one of these. What do you guys think?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441020-REG/Califone_1005AV_1005_Record_Player.html

Wonder if it's a ceramic or magnetic cart....?

 

Just had a look and read the description, good to see a robust looking suitcase style cabinet with a lid, and a fair sized speaker, looks like at least a 6 inch or 6x9. It is 3 speed with 78 RPM, so I was looking for a flip stylus, ..nada! The cartridge appears to be ceramic, although can not verify 100% by the photo. The arm looks identical to the made in China "Crosley" with a fixed counterweight, so I assume the cart is ceramic.

Here's where things get really bad. There is only one generic stylus to play LP and 78 RPM, a poor compromise, since it will play neither acceptably well. The turntable is made of plastic, not a good sign. Lastly the price at $169.99 may be a bit more than some people are willing to pay for a "cheap" record player. Like the Crosley, I think these can be expected to fail within a couple of years.

Inflation has really taken its toll. It was impossible to build a decent record changer back in the 80's at a reasonable price. The cost of raw materials are through the roof, just look at the cost of scrap metal. I would be willing to pay up to $500.00 for a great sounding all in one record player, with a magnetic cartridge, and the extra stylus to play 78's. These made in China units are cheap to build, the cost of labor much lower, so how in the world is someone going to build a quality record player here in the USA, or Japan, or Malaysia, in a nice strong suitcase for less than $300.00? I wonder if it can be done?

 

Now it can be told that Urban Outfitters is the number one retailer of vinyl records. http://jezebel.com/urban-outfitters-sells-more-vinyl-albums-than-anyone-el-1638990278
I also read that they are getting help from Amoeba Records. Can this all be true?

 

Just remember, folks, this is the same company that thought it would be a good idea to make car engines out of sheet metal.

 

There was a thread somewhere here several months ago showing the new huge NY Urban Outfitters with their record display similar to the first images I posted here. Amoeba added on in-store used pop-up section with their name. So they must curate it.

 

They may be better than the Crosleys but the audience for these typo of players want something cool looking as well. This Califone looks like the ones that our grammar schools had in the 1960s. Boring.

 

I would recommend that someone plays their records and enjoys them. As long as they are enjoying the music, it's not my place to tell them otherwise.

I've been into vinyl for 40 years. I spent the first 25 years using record players and turntables that I would now consider to be "cheap," with fairly poor playback. But I didn't care. I loved playing records and it was all about the music, not the playback fidelity. I have since learned to appreciate having a higher fidelity system and having a better turntable. But the memories I formed while using those cheap record players are priceless. (And my records survived those cheaper turntables without any audible damage, because I was good about changing out the stylus before it was worn out.)

Besides, if all of the "hipsters" were buying Regas, we'd hear a lot of whining about how the hipsters are driving up the prices and making it difficult for "serious" music lovers to obtain a Rega.

 

And yet Rega just had their biggest year ever by far.

 

I have a few of those old Califone and Newcomb school house players from the late 50s and early 60s (tube models) and I love using them for worn-out LPs and 78s. They nicely roll-off the high frequencies (that are frequently damaged in worn-out grooves) and can provide a fun listening experience...even if they aren't high fidelity. Same goes with some of the old console players.

If I have a VG- record that is un-enjoyable in my main system, it often sounds fine on the old Califone or my old Voice of Music console. I also have an old jukebox that is loaded up with less-than-perfect condition 45s. Again, the sound is nicely distorted by the juke box, so that it produces a fat, warm sound that is pleasing to my ears and reminds me of the jukebox we used to play at the local pizza joint 30+ years ago. It breathes new life into tired old records.

This hobby is about whatever floats your boat. Some guys love using old wind-up Victrolas. Yes, those things will damage grooves over time. But they still produce a sound (and an experience) that some people love.

 

Problem with something like the Crosley is that it can dampen the mood on vinyl for a new user. Now, put them in a new Pro-Ject Debut Carbon instead, and they may get pretty excited at how great things sound!

 

Hey Trashman, You make sense except for one thing.. the difference is that the classic car (like a record) was once a disposable consumer item, to be replaced by a new car. Now these cars are collectibles. Any person has the right to abusively drive a Ferrari or demolition derby a rare Tucker. (just for enjoyment) Is this wise?

The difference between just enjoying music from records vs. the preservation of them and simultaneously enjoying them, is that they are no longer disposable consumer items. The record condition just increases its rarity, and the people who disregard this make them more rare. Do I have the right to advise? (or anyone) I hope so!

Can we play more common records in less than perfect shape on the vintage record players? I own one, and I like 'em too!

 

I remember the little Crosley, never in person but have seen photos of it. The head does indeed appear to be made of sheet metal. But these engines had to run, at least for awhile! Crosley built great refrigerators and tube table radios.. going to look up the Crosley car, you have me curious! I think the Crosley record player is only badged a Crosley, am I incorrect?

 

"...supposed to be crackly." There ya have it. Sell 'em a Crosley. Tell 'em it'll improve the crackly quality of their vinyl and make it "Crackly-licious!" like the delicious pallets of crackers they cram into their faces every evening.

 

If you find someone with a stash of rare or valuable records, there is no harm in advising them on how best to conserve those records, if that advice is given tactfully. But I think those people are the (extremely rare) exception, not the norm, when it comes to people looking to buy a new Crosley.

I would be in much greater fear of someone throwing away a rare record, under the assumption that it's of no interest to anybody. At least, if they have a Crosley to play that record on, they will have more reason to keep it...ensuring the record will survive. Also, since most truly rare records (where the recording itself is rare) are 78s, they will be much more resistant to wear on a Crosley than a vinyl LP will be. 78s were designed to be played on heavy-tracking record players and are more forgiving. As long as the Crosley doesn't have a worn-out stylus, it shouldn't cause significant harm to the 78.

 

I think most who would buy one of these won't be playing 78s

 

I totally agree. I was just addressing the hypothetical issue of someone destroying a valuable piece of music history on a Crosley.

 

I've heard Crosley stereos. They're predictably terrible. Bose "Waves" beat them to a bloody pulp.

 

The places where rare records originally came from are the poor and middle class who were the primary purchasers of records. I agree that most rare records are probably now in the hands of collectors, however I wonder how many are still out there? (the numbers are unknown and varying according to title)

About the 78's, I'm glad you brought that up. The Crosley has no flip stylus for playing the 78's. The stylus should be 2.5 to 3 mil. The Crosley has a 1.0 mil stylus (I believe) which is too large for any stereo record, and too small for playing 78's. The tip will ride the bottom of the groove, and bounce in there like a ping pong ball. The designers tried to compromise the stylus as a "one size plays all" to save production cost, but it fails in all categories. The 78's sound distorted and very noisy on a Crosley.

(Don't play your nice 78's on a Crosley)

The LP's and 45's groove gets wiped out instantly in the high frequencies, 'cause the stylus tip is too large to track them.. at any tracking force. (ignoring how heavy it is)

Sorry for all the Crosley promoters, but this thing needs to be made better. It's a piece of junk! Why should it be called anything different?

 

For me at least, this parlor game is not about whether the Crosley is junk, but about their marketing strategy and can a product be made that does no damage at their price point. If there were not any players in this price range, I feel it is unlikely that the current owners would have vinyl playback devices, whether that is good or bad is subjective I guess.