For most TT's you can take the motor apart and clean,relube -then it should be fine.Yes,disuse can cause those issues.And heat from electronics can cause grease or oil to dry up and harden,and oil to evaporate-do remember in my Moms Magnavox CG,each year when I would visit her-had to clean and relubed the TT's motor-it was above a heat producing tubed amp.Liked the sound-but the tubes did dry out the lubes in the TT's mechanism and motor.The TT worked fine after the cleaning and lubing.
So I needed another vintage console HiFi, right?
- Thread starter turquoisedude
- Start date
Help Support :
Beautiful!
I do rather wish people would stop saying that a push-pull 50c5 amp using the very high efficiency speakers of that era can't put out more than 'background' sound levels.
We're not talking about a jam-packed disco here, we're talking about a home environment. The sound level without audible distortion is more than adequate.
Those are beam-power tubes - more efficient that pentodes, lower third-order harmonic distortion and (relatively speaking, I acknowledge this isn't a high-power amp) considerably more power output than an equivalent pentode.
Collaro produced various turntables apart from the Micromatics we all hold in such fond memory. I'd practice minimal maintenance on this - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Any 60 year old motor using that era's horrid 'lubrication' may well seize up. No big hu-hu, it's not as if their bearings are made of dilithium crystals. Just thoroughly clean out the old gunk, lubricate with Blue-Can 3in1 (I said Blue, ladies, not 'red' and if you don't know the difference, then don't snap right back) and be careful - there may be a tiny ball-bearing at the bottom of the shaft, waiting to get lost. Collaro, like all UK manufacturers, had to use what they could get in that era so don't be surprised if the motor isn't what the catalogs say it must be. When you put the motor back together, pay close attention to tightening everything evenly and gently - better to use threadlock and not as tight as too tight.
Before you send off the rim-drive wheel to be rebuilt, pay super close attention to how the idle-position is set up. I haven't worked on one of these in decades, but recollect that it was far easier to get wrong (whilst still looking right) than the V-M Tri-o-matic design.
Might as well replace the cartridge at the same time.
Personally, unless I had a Unimatic waiting for me (right now there's another Flair a Filter-Flow and a mid-seventies Westinghouse FL), I'd bring this one to the front of the queue. There is going to be lag time waiting for the parts anyway.
Oh, recapping - if you're not as experienced at is as you'd like to be, remember that even the 'deadest' cap can still carry enough current when unplugged to fry something expensive - or kill you. If there isn't one, I'd add a fuse in line. Replacing the output transformers on this would be painfully expensive.
Color me jealous.
I do rather wish people would stop saying that a push-pull 50c5 amp using the very high efficiency speakers of that era can't put out more than 'background' sound levels.
We're not talking about a jam-packed disco here, we're talking about a home environment. The sound level without audible distortion is more than adequate.
Those are beam-power tubes - more efficient that pentodes, lower third-order harmonic distortion and (relatively speaking, I acknowledge this isn't a high-power amp) considerably more power output than an equivalent pentode.
Collaro produced various turntables apart from the Micromatics we all hold in such fond memory. I'd practice minimal maintenance on this - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Any 60 year old motor using that era's horrid 'lubrication' may well seize up. No big hu-hu, it's not as if their bearings are made of dilithium crystals. Just thoroughly clean out the old gunk, lubricate with Blue-Can 3in1 (I said Blue, ladies, not 'red' and if you don't know the difference, then don't snap right back) and be careful - there may be a tiny ball-bearing at the bottom of the shaft, waiting to get lost. Collaro, like all UK manufacturers, had to use what they could get in that era so don't be surprised if the motor isn't what the catalogs say it must be. When you put the motor back together, pay close attention to tightening everything evenly and gently - better to use threadlock and not as tight as too tight.
Before you send off the rim-drive wheel to be rebuilt, pay super close attention to how the idle-position is set up. I haven't worked on one of these in decades, but recollect that it was far easier to get wrong (whilst still looking right) than the V-M Tri-o-matic design.
Might as well replace the cartridge at the same time.
Personally, unless I had a Unimatic waiting for me (right now there's another Flair a Filter-Flow and a mid-seventies Westinghouse FL), I'd bring this one to the front of the queue. There is going to be lag time waiting for the parts anyway.
Oh, recapping - if you're not as experienced at is as you'd like to be, remember that even the 'deadest' cap can still carry enough current when unplugged to fry something expensive - or kill you. If there isn't one, I'd add a fuse in line. Replacing the output transformers on this would be painfully expensive.
Color me jealous.
Indeed, a pair of 50C5 tubes in push-pull, along with those efficient speakers and that large odd looking output transformer that RCA used, gives these small New Orthophonic consoles quite a big sound with very good bass.
That Collaro record changer is quite complicated and has a heck of a lot of parts, but it's performance is so superior to the RCA RP-205 that it isn't funny.
That Collaro record changer is quite complicated and has a heck of a lot of parts, but it's performance is so superior to the RCA RP-205 that it isn't funny.
No kidding -
I don't know what was worse, the RCA or the GE turntables of that era (and yes, dears, GE really did offer their own horrid stuff, it was NOT V-M).
I'm not as allergic to V-M as some people, perhaps because I worked on turntables in my undergraduate days. They weren't anywhere near the better DUALs of that period, but the 'eww-ick' reputation is undeserved. Far more reliable than the last of the Micromatics, too.
But, yes - this era Collaro is a very complicated piece of machinery. I'd only fix what absolutely needs fixing.
I don't know what was worse, the RCA or the GE turntables of that era (and yes, dears, GE really did offer their own horrid stuff, it was NOT V-M).
I'm not as allergic to V-M as some people, perhaps because I worked on turntables in my undergraduate days. They weren't anywhere near the better DUALs of that period, but the 'eww-ick' reputation is undeserved. Far more reliable than the last of the Micromatics, too.
But, yes - this era Collaro is a very complicated piece of machinery. I'd only fix what absolutely needs fixing.
I have fixed and lubed Collaro TT in the Magnavox Hi-Fi-no need to take it apart-just clean the hardened grease off the moving-sliding parts-then relube with fresh grease.Same with the motor-had to use sewing machine oil only thing I had at that time to match the fine oil originally used-the bearings in that motor were sleeve.And again 50C5 stages running on only 120-150V from the line aren't going to satisfy an audiophile.If the stage ran from a voltage doubler-MUCH better.Worked on a stereo Magnavox amp that had 50C5 but the circuit had a voltage doubler with selenium rectifiers-this worked well.That amp had PP 50C5 in each channel and one 12AX7 tube as a driver.This was in a low cost Magnavox with a TV set and high out phono cartridge.
brucelucenta
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,924
I always found the Collaro style record changer interesting. I have seen some on older Magnavox stereos and my parents had an Emerson stereo they had bought from a neighbor that had one too. The one in the Emerson stereo had two separate motors, one to operate the mechanism and the other to operate the platter playing the record. Unlike other changers, the speed of dropping the next record and playing was the same regardless of what speed the record playing was. It was also interesting that the arm that played the record actually went over to the stack of records and touched it to determine the size it was to play, not unlike the later Magnavox stereos that were made until record changers were obsolete. I think the really early Collaro changer did not touch the record to determine size, seems they had a more typical way of determining that. Interesting changer though.
tolivac wrote:
"Worked on a stereo Magnavox amp that had 50C5 but the circuit had a voltage doubler with selenium rectifiers-this worked well.That amp had PP 50C5 in each channel and one 12AX7 tube as a driver."
But this RCA is mono and has two 50C5 in push pull, so it's good for around 5 clean watts, and don't underestimate this model if you haven't heard one.
The plate voltage on a 50C5 is rated for 150 volts max, I couldn't imagine using a voltage doubler circuit while excpecting reliability.
"Worked on a stereo Magnavox amp that had 50C5 but the circuit had a voltage doubler with selenium rectifiers-this worked well.That amp had PP 50C5 in each channel and one 12AX7 tube as a driver."
But this RCA is mono and has two 50C5 in push pull, so it's good for around 5 clean watts, and don't underestimate this model if you haven't heard one.
The plate voltage on a 50C5 is rated for 150 volts max, I couldn't imagine using a voltage doubler circuit while excpecting reliability.
Looked up a data sheet on a 50C5-yes max plate volts was 150.The stage in that amp was sure working hard!Didn't measure the voltage on the tubes plate at that time.With selenium rectifiers you do not get the full doubling voltage because of the higher voltage drop across the selenium rectifiers.I listened to that Maggie amp-and was not overly impressed.This was in a low end unit.The speakers in it weren't high grade either-one 6X9 and a 3in cone "tweeter" with a simple capacitor crossover.You won't shake the rafters with this.I simply replaced the tubes in the unit-it was working-dead filament string.The owner wanted all of the tubes replaced.The power supply was still working.This was in my early service days.probably close to 40 yrs ago!The TT in that unit was fine-no work needed.The amp wasn't located right under it.
An audiophile
In that era would have sneered at anything which didn't have the name Macintosh or Fisher*.
Truly, though - I remember these. They didn't sound bad, at all. Plenty loud enough.
It's interesting how much our personal perceptions influence our determination of 'good' or 'bad' - the first Class D (and that does not stand for 'digital' amp) I was ever conscious of hearing sounded great. Unsurprisingly, I've not been knee-jerk anti-Class D ever since, though nobody can pretend there aren't some awful Class D amps out there.
I had to figure out voltage drop across a selenium rectifier a while back. Gave up and looked up the data sheet. That made no sense at all compared to what I was expecting. Recently, found this article - makes much more sense. Basically, the manufacturers were measuring at 1% duty cycle, room temp. So much for the '1volt/plate' rule. I'd guess a voltage doubler based on one of these would be dropping one heck of a lot compared to silicon diodes. Since it was an ECC83 (12AX7), I could afford a wider range of voltage, anyway. Wised up and forgot about the stinking pile of rotten cabbage and just aimed for what the Telefunken catalog said the tube wanted. Worked fine last I talked to my cousin in Icking, gosh we did that in 1983!
*Hard to believe, but once upon a time, Fisher really did build good equipment. If all you know is their trash after the early '70s, you'd never believe it. Then again, who ever thought Zenith would become LGs low-end brand and Magnavox Philips' el Cheapo division?
http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=305477
In that era would have sneered at anything which didn't have the name Macintosh or Fisher*.
Truly, though - I remember these. They didn't sound bad, at all. Plenty loud enough.
It's interesting how much our personal perceptions influence our determination of 'good' or 'bad' - the first Class D (and that does not stand for 'digital' amp) I was ever conscious of hearing sounded great. Unsurprisingly, I've not been knee-jerk anti-Class D ever since, though nobody can pretend there aren't some awful Class D amps out there.
I had to figure out voltage drop across a selenium rectifier a while back. Gave up and looked up the data sheet. That made no sense at all compared to what I was expecting. Recently, found this article - makes much more sense. Basically, the manufacturers were measuring at 1% duty cycle, room temp. So much for the '1volt/plate' rule. I'd guess a voltage doubler based on one of these would be dropping one heck of a lot compared to silicon diodes. Since it was an ECC83 (12AX7), I could afford a wider range of voltage, anyway. Wised up and forgot about the stinking pile of rotten cabbage and just aimed for what the Telefunken catalog said the tube wanted. Worked fine last I talked to my cousin in Icking, gosh we did that in 1983!
*Hard to believe, but once upon a time, Fisher really did build good equipment. If all you know is their trash after the early '70s, you'd never believe it. Then again, who ever thought Zenith would become LGs low-end brand and Magnavox Philips' el Cheapo division?
http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=305477
firedome
Well-known member
consoles like the little RCA...
were just fine for the average listener at up to medium volumes... the Collaros didn't do records any huge favors, but were as expected for the time.
And yes Fisher and Scott made some great stuff in the tube era before Emerson bought them and turned them into disposable crap. We had a pr. of EL-34 Scott 250 monoblocks and they could challenge any of the 6L6 family McIntosh amps, although the real creme de la creme then was not Mc but Marantz. We've had most every Mc and Marantz made over the last 50 years, the M2, M5 and M9 amps were the best built and to listen to tube amps that could be had from the US at the time, excepting the huge 2 chassis (4 for stereo) Mc MI-200 industrial/commercial amp (2 x 8005 transmitting output tube for 200w/ch), by far the most amazing that we have ever had or have heard. The little 17w/ch Sargent-Rayment that we have now is sweet and kind of cool in that almost no one has ever heard of them.
were just fine for the average listener at up to medium volumes... the Collaros didn't do records any huge favors, but were as expected for the time.
And yes Fisher and Scott made some great stuff in the tube era before Emerson bought them and turned them into disposable crap. We had a pr. of EL-34 Scott 250 monoblocks and they could challenge any of the 6L6 family McIntosh amps, although the real creme de la creme then was not Mc but Marantz. We've had most every Mc and Marantz made over the last 50 years, the M2, M5 and M9 amps were the best built and to listen to tube amps that could be had from the US at the time, excepting the huge 2 chassis (4 for stereo) Mc MI-200 industrial/commercial amp (2 x 8005 transmitting output tube for 200w/ch), by far the most amazing that we have ever had or have heard. The little 17w/ch Sargent-Rayment that we have now is sweet and kind of cool in that almost no one has ever heard of them.
Sweet.
I've got a rather decent Stromberg-Carlson power amp waiting for a recap - ultra-linear, but I'm not that much of a purist. Be curious to hear what comes out of her when I'm done.
I believe it was Scott who published that average listening volume for classical music (so, widest dynamic range you'd encounter) was 1.7rms.
Makes sense, I really think people have problems grasping the relationship between decibels and 1+1=2. Heck, most of us don't follow exponential relationships, much less log.
I've got a rather decent Stromberg-Carlson power amp waiting for a recap - ultra-linear, but I'm not that much of a purist. Be curious to hear what comes out of her when I'm done.
I believe it was Scott who published that average listening volume for classical music (so, widest dynamic range you'd encounter) was 1.7rms.
Makes sense, I really think people have problems grasping the relationship between decibels and 1+1=2. Heck, most of us don't follow exponential relationships, much less log.
firedome
Well-known member
S-C made some great stuff in nearby Rochester,
...we were doing research for a feature article on S-C when the magazine folded. We've had a couple of their nice ASR433 amps. In a somewhat misguided attempt at cost saving, S-C made a rather oddball stereo amp that used a PP circuit with only one tube per channel !! Note in the picture 2 output xfrmers, but only 2 output tubes! It used the very unusual 6DY7 DOUBLE beam tetrode!
...we were doing research for a feature article on S-C when the magazine folded. We've had a couple of their nice ASR433 amps. In a somewhat misguided attempt at cost saving, S-C made a rather oddball stereo amp that used a PP circuit with only one tube per channel !! Note in the picture 2 output xfrmers, but only 2 output tubes! It used the very unusual 6DY7 DOUBLE beam tetrode!
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Hard to believe, but once upon a time, Fisher really did build good equipment. If all you know is their trash after the early '70s, you'd never believe it. Then again, who ever thought Zenith would become LGs low-end brand and Magnavox Philips' el Cheapo division?
I know Fisher was a good company once. Some products from that era interest modern audiophile types. The fall is really sad. My first experience with Fisher was with the Fisher of 1980s. Their stuff might have even been bad by the standards of the mass market electronics industry of the era, let alone quality electronics. But maybe I'm cynical because of personal experience...
Q. What is the difference between 1980s Fisher and Fisher-Price?
A. You get better audio equipment from Fisher-Price.
I gather the name is no longer in use, and I've even seen ads for Fisher stuff on Craigslist that make note of that: You can't buy this new! But you can buy this used from me for only $____.
But I guess they weren't alone. There is Zenith, as mentioned above, except I think they had probably declined considerably even before the LG takeover. Maybe I'm cynical, but I doubt that they were putting the quality in before they put their name on the last electronics they made vs. earlier decades.
One sad fall and then rise again was Marantz, which was yet another rack system maker in the US during the 1980s. Marantz elsewhere had different ownership. (Phillips owned the name outside the US for years IIRC.) I don't know what the quality was like, but they did make some good audio equipment that got good reviews. Eventually, we got that Marantz. Not sure what happened to the US Marantz--haven't heard of that level of product in years.
I know Fisher was a good company once. Some products from that era interest modern audiophile types. The fall is really sad. My first experience with Fisher was with the Fisher of 1980s. Their stuff might have even been bad by the standards of the mass market electronics industry of the era, let alone quality electronics. But maybe I'm cynical because of personal experience...
Q. What is the difference between 1980s Fisher and Fisher-Price?
A. You get better audio equipment from Fisher-Price.
I gather the name is no longer in use, and I've even seen ads for Fisher stuff on Craigslist that make note of that: You can't buy this new! But you can buy this used from me for only $____.
But I guess they weren't alone. There is Zenith, as mentioned above, except I think they had probably declined considerably even before the LG takeover. Maybe I'm cynical, but I doubt that they were putting the quality in before they put their name on the last electronics they made vs. earlier decades.
One sad fall and then rise again was Marantz, which was yet another rack system maker in the US during the 1980s. Marantz elsewhere had different ownership. (Phillips owned the name outside the US for years IIRC.) I don't know what the quality was like, but they did make some good audio equipment that got good reviews. Eventually, we got that Marantz. Not sure what happened to the US Marantz--haven't heard of that level of product in years.
Yes, I've read of that one
I suppose you'd have a lower phase shift...but wouldn't the crosstalk be higher?
My knowledge of vacuum tubes stems from having chosen a 12ax7 op-amp as a graduate seminar topic, not any profound knowledge such as many here have.
I suppose you'd have a lower phase shift...but wouldn't the crosstalk be higher?
My knowledge of vacuum tubes stems from having chosen a 12ax7 op-amp as a graduate seminar topic, not any profound knowledge such as many here have.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
I do rather wish people would stop saying that a push-pull 50c5 amp using the very high efficiency speakers of that era can't put out more than 'background' sound levels.
I think one problem is that we are so conditioned to tons of power, and massive watt ratings on modern equipment. Problem is, of course, that power ratings (at best) really don't tell the whole story. A low power amp with efficient speakers might easily play louder than a higher power amp with hugely inefficient speakers. And it's also possible for a low power amp that is well designed to have more usable power than a higher power amp that isn't so well designed. I've heard it claimed that some designs are specifically engineered to do well on power tests, but fall down considerably when dealing with an actual music signal.
I recall NAD having a struggle in the 1980s because their power ratings were modest compared to similarly priced products. For a while, NAD tried to fight back by stating the official power, and saying short term burst power was much greater. I'm not sure how successful they were--in the US, I have to think they probably still had problems competing with dreadful sounding 200 watt monsters with more flashing lights than a Christmas tree.
Past this, there may be times when something that can't play loud may actually be a better product in some ways. I had a chance to hear a pair of Quad ESL-57 speakers a year or so back. These speakers can't play loud, and I'm sure that would immediately rule them out as a possible choice for many people. But within their limits, they are really, really good speakers...and as I listened to them, I frankly didn't care that they couldn't be cranked up. My take is not unique: those speakers are ancient technology (released in the 50s!)...and yet they remain desirable. Many people have them and would not trade them in. Also they have had huge influence on quality audio--they are probably one of the most influential designs ever.
I think one problem is that we are so conditioned to tons of power, and massive watt ratings on modern equipment. Problem is, of course, that power ratings (at best) really don't tell the whole story. A low power amp with efficient speakers might easily play louder than a higher power amp with hugely inefficient speakers. And it's also possible for a low power amp that is well designed to have more usable power than a higher power amp that isn't so well designed. I've heard it claimed that some designs are specifically engineered to do well on power tests, but fall down considerably when dealing with an actual music signal.
I recall NAD having a struggle in the 1980s because their power ratings were modest compared to similarly priced products. For a while, NAD tried to fight back by stating the official power, and saying short term burst power was much greater. I'm not sure how successful they were--in the US, I have to think they probably still had problems competing with dreadful sounding 200 watt monsters with more flashing lights than a Christmas tree.
Past this, there may be times when something that can't play loud may actually be a better product in some ways. I had a chance to hear a pair of Quad ESL-57 speakers a year or so back. These speakers can't play loud, and I'm sure that would immediately rule them out as a possible choice for many people. But within their limits, they are really, really good speakers...and as I listened to them, I frankly didn't care that they couldn't be cranked up. My take is not unique: those speakers are ancient technology (released in the 50s!)...and yet they remain desirable. Many people have them and would not trade them in. Also they have had huge influence on quality audio--they are probably one of the most influential designs ever.
firedome
Well-known member
Quads...
like all electrostats, and planar ribbon speakers like Magnepans, are very inefficient, but still after 60 years superb and highly venerated speakers. We had some Acoustats that needed at least 200-300 real watts to work and sound right, while a super-efficient speaker like the original folded-horn Klipschorn with Stephens or EV comnponents, at around 104 db/1 watt/1 meter, can literaly blow your ears out with a flea power single ended triode tube amp.
like all electrostats, and planar ribbon speakers like Magnepans, are very inefficient, but still after 60 years superb and highly venerated speakers. We had some Acoustats that needed at least 200-300 real watts to work and sound right, while a super-efficient speaker like the original folded-horn Klipschorn with Stephens or EV comnponents, at around 104 db/1 watt/1 meter, can literaly blow your ears out with a flea power single ended triode tube amp.
firedome
Well-known member
back to Paul's RCA....
(sorry Paul!)... here's the tabletop version of the RCA mentioned above... cute!
I'd love to find one to play my old 45s on!
(sorry Paul!)... here's the tabletop version of the RCA mentioned above... cute!
I'd love to find one to play my old 45s on!
WOW the discussion from 50C5 amps went to Fisher,Scott,McIntosh-very interesting.It would be fun to connect the little 50C5 amp to a Klipschorn system Another high efficiency speaker system was the Altec Lansing Voice Of The Theater.Knew a projectionist that would play a transistor radio thru an Altec Lansing VOTT during the theater off hours-that would give him music and such that would fill the auditorium while he worked.Never got to listen to it-would have liked too.A pocket transistor radio may be good for quarter-or half watt at best.Remember the classic Scott and Fisher tubed gear in Hi-Fi repair shops-would have loved those treasures!My mother had a feind of hers that collected music boxes-Regina,and she also had a Klipsch corner horn system in her basement.One time while my Mom was visiting her friend she let me listen to the system.Had a Dynaco St 70,Pas 3 preamp,Thorens TT-had a great time listening to recordings of the music boxes thru that system-sounded like they were right there-and played the music boxes,too.To this day would like a system like that!Some theaters used commercial versions of the Klipsch LaScala systems-IMAX used them for awhile.
