Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

I tend to think not. All the Collaro units from 1955 onwards, until the last Studio version, handled records very well and their tone arms were always very light.
As to the Garrards from the Autoslim/AT6 variants onwards likewise.
As for as the more suspect BSRs are concerned, even the UA6, UA8 and UA12/14/15/16 series, if set up properly, could behave well.
Much was to to with cartridge alignment, tracking force and good styli.
There was always the "air cushion" when discs were dropped and the pick up set down position was alway more delicately performed than that by hand.
Such turntables are much maligned.
View?

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Not very familiar with the many various makes of autochanger, but having driven a new AT6 in my youth, I always thought of that as the king of autochangers (of my experience). If nothing else, the balance weight instead of biro spring refugee under the arm inspired more confidence.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

The Garrards with balanced tonearms, from the Type A and AT6 on, were kind to records if a proper cartridge was installed and tracking weight was correctly set. Same with the BSRs that had balanced arms.

The higher-grade Garrards such as Lab 80, SL95, Zero 100; most Duals starting with the 1009; the Elac Miracords and the later Matsushita (Technics) autochangers were as good to records as were manual turntables.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Although I've never used one (or even seen one) I would be very surprised if the Thorens TD224 was a 'record grinder'

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

You can see one working on YouTube - indeed they wouldn't have done much harm to records, as they weren't turning when stacked. Air cushion or no, dropping a vinyl record onto one already rotating is a recipe for disaster. You could get away with it with shellac...I blame the Americans - they held onto the idea of the record changer as an essential part of a hi fi system long after wiser counsels had prevailed elsewhere.

That said, the later automatic machines were pretty good in hi fi terms provided you ignored the changer nonsense. The later Duals are excelllent, the LAB80 and AP76 aren't bad either.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

I have quite a few LPs & 45s dating from the early 60s onwards, all of which will have been played many times on one of 3 record players over the years, which were fitted with BSR Autochangers of various models. None of the records show any audio degradation which I can hear, although, to be fair i don't have mint copies of any of the same discs with which to compare them.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

I have been playing all types of records on autochangers for the best part of 60 years and have yet to find one that damages records.

This goes for 45's and 78's. There is little point in autochanging run of the mill LP's but have done so with no apparent damage.

I have a couple of EMI K3's that I have played many records on and they still play with good quality sound. My extensive collection of 45's have faired very well played on just about every UK auto changer known to man.

The domestic type BSR Monach series are excellent when set up correctly with a half decent cartridge and stylus.

My favourites for 78's are the early post war Garrard RC60 series with cranked arm. Very soft action and excellent sound from the lighter weight magnetic head.

A lot of snobbish rubbish has been written about domestic autochangers fitted to millions of record players and high quality radiograms. Do you really think a manufacturer would produce a record playing unit that would actually damage a customers record collection to say nothing of the reputation of the makers of the equipment they were fitted to?

There is of course the Hi-Fi market, a completely different section where perfection is sought but probably never obtained. I can fully understand the rejection of the autochanger in this sector.

There are of course the later plastic horrors with nasty turntables churned out for teenagers noise producers but I doubt that even these last gasp units would actually damage records.

I am a strong supporter of BSR changers produced in the 50's up to the late 60's. They came from a company with an excellent pedigree in engineering and served the trade and it's customers very well. Their units certainly did not damage records and the audio response from records, played in some cases hundred of times, was not degraded. Regards, John.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Shellac 78s survive auto-changing quite well, until something goes wrong with the mechanism.

The 45 format was designed from the outset for auto-changing, and has a rasied rim to the label which not only aids traction but keeps the record surfaces apart, so if the grit size is not too large you get away with it. The theoretical sonic compromises involved in playing an unsupported surface go unnoticed at this quality level.

The LP pressing is not profiled to anything like the same extent, so small grit particles can, and do, abrade the touching surfaces. If the resulting crackles were not heard on radiograms by a voracious and not-too-discerning public, good for them - it's a means to an end, after all, but with the best will in the world it's not good for records.

There were indeed some beautifully designed and well made auto-changers. But then plenty of swords and daggers are beautifully engraved, and they do harm when used as intended...

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

My firm sold the Dual 1006 disk changer. Quite a good machine.

This changer might give quite a shock to modern vinyl people.

The tone arm dropped down to the disk, and two 'landing wheels'
drove the arm to the edge. One wheel dropped off the outer edge
of the disk. Having found the correct indexing, the wheels popped up
and the stylus dropped correctly to the lead in groove.

;D

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

As many will know, LPs made in the Autochanger era also had raised label and rim areas designed to keep the playing surfaces apart. I have a 1956 Canadian pressed RCA Victor Lena Horne Album, and on the sleeve note, this is pointed out. RCA at that time called this feature 'GruveGard' (Their Spelling). Other 50s & 60s LPs, including UK Pressings on all labels had a similar feature. Another feature, which shows that record companies took account of Autochangers, was the 'Auto-Coupling' used on some Lps of long musical works in which one album had side 1 backed by side 4, and the other had side 2 backed by side 3, so that the recording played in the correct order if the two discs were stacked on top of one another.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

More damage was done to records by the people handling, or mis handling them than any record changers did.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

As per LIVEWIRE, a raised section around the label, the 45s also had the addition of a serrated ridge which helped stop the records slipping, not sure when this was added but I think some early 45s did not have this and this was the solution.
Gaz.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Tracypaper, I remember the serrated edge on the raised centre of 45s. It was to reduce slipping. I had an autochanger which had a high tracking weight controlled by a spring under the arm. As the stack of records got higher, up to 10 records on my Collaro, the action of the spring reduced and so the tracking weight increased, causing the records to slip.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

I came to this world in 1957 and knew the Collaro Conquest fitted to dad's Auto-Deccalian 88 practically ever since I could 'hear and acknowledge' the music being played. I still have many of the LP's in my dad's collection and yes, the centre holes are rather 'polished' as the spindle didn't rotate with the record. No impediment to playing today or worn enough to affect sound quality though, although the Ronette-sourced? cartridge could be called suspect... The Christmas LP's, EP's and singles are ready to come out to play as I type this and I have a well worn and much loved (despite the sound quality) 10" of Mantovani's Christmas Music from I believe 1954, which I toddled and grew up with - the happy associations too tight to part with it or even play the better sounding 12" stereo release from a few years later....

By the early 60's, cartridges were starting to reduce the need for very high tracking weights and certainly the Garrard Autoslim models could be very good indeed I think. BSR may have taken a touch longer to get their act together perhaps, but these decks with flip-under styli would be fine if the sapphire stylus wasn't allowed to wear badly and of it was replaced with a diamond one. My early 70's LP's were played with a Garrard 2025TC and Hacker-fitted Acos GP96 at 5g tracking force and are none the worse for it. I didn't stack the LP's though by this time, but did stack 7" singles, which are usually well protected and amply designed for this purpose.

The 'changer Duals often seen today are fine and very gentle by and large if my 1009 SK2 and 1019 are anything to go by (I have others, but these are the oldest I have personal experience of) as were the large format Garrards, especially from Type A onwards. I bet even a late 50's RC88U I remember could work well if wired for stereo (the three pin shell could use a common return/ground) and if fitted with a modern 4g tracking cartridge...

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Back in the days of 78s there were "auto-couplings" involving rather more than just 2 discs!

While some may disparage 'record-grinders' I think we should acknowledge that longevity of media was probably rather far from the minds of the original purchasers; they were more interested in the novelty of being able to listen to half an hour of uninterrupted music without needing to get up and fiddle with the player every few minutes.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

Mentioning 'auto coupling' reminded me that I have all six sides of Sparky's Magic Piano on 3 78s. A great old recording.
Nick

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

As an aside, the well-known version of the 'song of reproduction' by Flanders and Swann contains the lines :

"High frequency range
Complete with autochange"

But I have come across a version (possibly the one printed in the songbook) with the lines

"High frequency range
And down with autochange"

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

One of my earliest musical memories is listening to the Toscanini Beethoven 7th symphony - 5 autocoupled 12" 78s IIRC. My old dad knocked up something large and powerful with a Collaro autochanger. I was about 3 years old at the time (1950-ish) and I was riveted by the autochanger! I am still impressed by these old mechanical marvels and often listen to 78s on one.

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

It always amazes me when a heavy tonearm at several grams tracks a 45 tecord dropped onto another one below it , on an autochanger, and the top record doesnt slip constantly ( I know it does happen )

Re: Were all Autochangers Record Grinders?
 

I seem to remember from the late 50s/ early 60s something of a record tracking battle involving the then relatively new 45 singles. In order that they could sound prominent on the juke boxes in noisy coffee bars, the cutting engineer aimed for a very 'hot' cut whose groove amplitude excursions would tax even the best pickups of the time.

Meanwhile, Dansette et al were fitting low compliance high output cartridges that could achieve a suitably cheerful level from a single valve amplifier. The resulting tracking distortion could be pretty severe - and what's more tended to get carved permanently into the groove!

However, all is not necessarily lost because I often find that modern line contact stylus such as the Ortofon FL type manages to miss the damaged part of the groove and recover some decent sound.

So record grinding certainly happened, and can be readily visible on the disc, but, apart from some extra surface noise, the damage isn't necessarily terminal.

Martin