EH Scott Radio Enthusiasts

The Fine Things are Always Hand Made

For those of you that have replaced the 78 changer to one that plays 33/45, what changer do you have, and are you happy with it. Or what changer do you wish you had? And I assume you have a stereo changer as it's ill-advised to play a stereo record on a mono cartridge,

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am looking for a changer to pair with my Philharmonic AM/FM. I bought a Chippendale Grande cabinet a couple years ago, sans "guts". But finding a period correct changer that Scott offered, such as a Garrard RC-30 or RM-10, or Imperial Automatic is near impossible. If you do find them, the price tag is usually off the charts! Plus the fact that they were 78 only changers makes me want to install something from the later 40's or early 50's, so I can play a wider variety of music.

Appearance and reliability also come into play; many of the early changers are fraught with pot metal problems. And once you enter the mid 50's, plastic parts and rubber platters don't look period correct.

I am leaning towards a Garrard RC-80.

As far as cartridges go, pretty much any tone arm can be retrofitted with either a stereo or mono cartridge. Depending on the records you want to listen to the most...it's best to set up your changer to accommodate accordingly. 

You are correct Scott offered 78 only changers prewar during the Philharmonic era 1937-42..

The RC-10 (either 10 or 12 inch) or RC-30 (mixed 10 and 12 inch). The C for Crystal or with suffix M for Magnetic pickup.

See 1941 Scott News, page 10 & 11 of Vol 13 No1 for info and photo of the 

The Scott Automatic was also a Garrard - page 12 of Scott News Vol 11 No 4 of 1939. I had one with extensive pot metal issues.

Post war, initially the Thorens CD-40, a 78 only changer is what I am aware of. About 1950, the Thorens CD-43 is a 3 speed version of the CD-40, that looks almost the same, but for the speed selector knob.

I have a CD-43 - The speed control is a 3 speed gear box. Fortunately it came with a working GE Variable Reluctance mono pickup. 

Since you shouldn't play a stereo record with a mono cartridge because the mono cartridge does not have the lateral movement and would wear down the stereo record, why not use a turntable with a stereo cartridge and just wire the channels together? That way you could play anything through the mono amp.

So would the answer be an RC-30 or a CD-43 retrofitted with a stereo cartridge, or look for a multi-speed stereo changer?

 

The RC-30 is a '78 only changer.

Yes, I've had many friends adapt their changers to play stereo and mono records using stereo cartridges wired to have both channels feed into one output. The only issue I can remember is sometimes the weight of the tone arm can be a problem.

Addressing the Scott Philharmonic or Phantom Deluxe, and a suitable phonograph set up:

How about two or three phonographs and A-B  switches feeding a 1950 era pre-amp:

- a decent 1950s changer for LPs and post 1940 78s.

- a 1930's changer for pre 1940 78s.

- a modern stereo turntable for stereo LPs and treasured mono LP's.

Entering the 1940's, I understand the material composition of 78's was changing towards softer vinyl  as was the improving fidelity and these later 78 records were less tolerant of the heavy weight tone arms of older phonographs. I would NOT, for example, use the Thorens CD-43 with a stereo cartridge on a good mono or stereo LP because of the tonearm, not to mention motor rumble.  

No, I have not set up a multiple phonograph arrangement for my Philharmonic. But I have been accumulating some equipment to do. Specifically late 1930's Garrard RM-30 (Scott tag) changer and early 1950's Thorens CD-43 three  speed changer. And some Herman Hosmer Scott audio pieces circa 1950 - no relation to E H Scott.

*

To digress, H H Scott was a 1950s pioneer of component hi-fi. Started with the late 1940's Dynaural Noise Suppressor (DNS) units for improving sound quality of 78 records by removing record scratch, low frequency hum and motor rumble at low volume level. The DNS was a further refinement of the 2 tube record scratch filter circuit of the late 1930's E H Scott Philharmonic and Phantom. The H H Scott DNS model 111 three tube and model 112  four tube were outboard noise reduction units powered off a radio or amp output tube octal socket. Also HH Scott's DNS was incorporated into the Scott Labs 28 tube Metropolitan 16A receiver and available as an outboard upgrade for the Scott 800-B. The model 112's extra tube was an amp stage for a low level magnetic pickup.

Subsequently about 1949, HH Scott introduced the model 120-A Equalizer-Preamp with equalization curves and provision for either DNS unit. Next, the HH Scott 220-A, a mono block amp about 1950 - using p-p 6L6s, powering the model 120 pre-amp or requires a dummy load if the HH Scott preamp is not used.

I have unrestored examples of all these H H Scott items if anyone wants photos,   or see: http://www.hhscott.com/100-.htm

Re the Garrard decks: I reckon the RC 98 H and 4H are excellent. They aren’t difficult to set up and work faultlessly. And because it's so easy to change back to one of the 78 only decks, originality hasn’t been compromised. It’s one of the paradoxes of the “upgrade”: the easier it is to revert to standard the less it’s likely in practice anyone does so.

Yes, this is true...I could put in a 50's changer that is "bulletproof", and switch it out with an original unit some day if I wanted to put my set back close to factory. But I was hoping to find a changer that looks age appropriate, and also plays three speeds of records...a hard thing to find. And yes, the paradox is not lost on me. It was very common for changers to be upgraded as technological advances and new sizes/speeds came about during the 40's and 50's. Having a newer changer in a 30's set, especially from a custom builder like Scott, wouldn't be out of line at all. Lol!

jonathan dollimore said:

Re the Garrard decks: I reckon the RC 98 H and 4H are excellent. They aren’t difficult to set up and work faultlessly. And because it's so easy to change back to one of the 78 only decks, originality hasn’t been compromised. It’s one of the paradoxes of the “upgrade”: the easier it is to revert to standard the less it’s likely in practice anyone does so.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by Kent King.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service