Interesting > The Gramovox vertical turntable

You would have to think that the LP would attract less dust in a vertical position.

I've seen this before....and I still have the same question....WHY??

MontanaWay wrote:I've seen this before....and I still have the same question....WHY??

Because for the target audience, image...appearance, looking cool...is all-important. It's COOL to play vinyl records now, and they value COOLNESS above all else. So not only do they have to play vinyl records (that's OK, I do, too), they have to LOOK COOL while they are doing it.

They'll probably not even be LISTENING all that intently. Just looking COOL. Sizzle, not steak.

The concept is sound, though. Dynamically balanced tonearm, first appeared in the late 1950s.

GP49 wrote:

MontanaWay wrote:I've seen this before....and I still have the same question....WHY??

Because for the target audience, image...appearance, looking cool...is all-important.  It's COOL to play vinyl records now, and they value COOLNESS above all else.  So not only do they have to play vinyl records (that's OK, I do, too), they have to LOOK COOL while they are doing it.

They'll probably not even be LISTENING all that intently.  Just looking COOL.  Sizzle, not steak.

The concept is sound, though.  Dynamically balanced tonearm, first appeared in the late 1950s.

meh!...just another gadget, no doubt though, it will probably sell well because its different.

One imagines that even the slightest warpage would wreak havoc. "Why bother?"

Kentley wrote:One imagines that even the slightest warpage would wreak havoc. "Why bother?"

I bother !
It can be done, therefor it should be done!

I once rebuild a dual 1019 to play records standing on it's front.
One prerec is that the tonearm is balanced in all axes, and the final "downward" pressure ( against the record) is done with feather power, so is anti-skating.

I needed a slight mod of the platter bearing, the motor was ok: when runninhg it was
held in "center". Then i used a tandberg taperecorder reelholder ( tandbergs could also
be played vertically, then you only need to use rubber "holders" to secure the reels.

Was it better ? Not really, one had greater risk of dropping the record when changing.
But id sure raised some eyebrows !

Same thing, only different.



The old Mitsu vertical tables did all the same tricks, albeit with more of a standard look ... for a linear tracker anyway. Most do develop issues with the arm, but can be restored with a bit of TLC and head scratching. Built like tanks otherwise.

PS ... a vertical table actually makes sense. Required tracking force is relatively low as the stylus isn't fighting gravity, and you end up with much faster response and more delicate nuances - IF you use a cartridge that won't get confused with the different dynamics involved.

I'll leave the pros and cons of a linear tracker out of it, as that's one of THOSE debates. In this case though, I'd think a true linear arm would be more logical.

The importent thing with all tonearms are that they are statically balanced, that is when no
downforce is applied and antiskating is zero, then the arm stays in whatever position it is left in.

When the arm is balanced the it's also neutral against vibrations and any non-horisontal player.
An arm of this type will have spring(s) to create downforce and antiskating ( or magnet as done by some ortofons)

There is other technologies that is not balanced but still works well. There is several ways to build a good player.

I worked on a lot of those Mitsubishis (we were a Mitsu dealer). The belts would turn to goo and the tonearm servo and end-of-side sensor depended on grain-of-wheat light bulbs and optical sensors...of course the light bulbs would burn out. Pretty simple work, other than cleaning the goo, and I'd use a better belt and replace ALL THE LIGHT BULBS AT ONCE. They worked quite well.

Funny you should mention that ... the belts on my DP-EC10 turned to goo, and the lights burned out on the sensor mechanism ...

Also had a fun time getting everything to time out properly with the new bulbs. Different color temp and apparently threw the light sensors off. All's well that ends well though, right?



Couple other problems ... a mounting screw for the composite base cracked out - nothing a bit of PlastiFix couldn't cure. Also, the power switch built into the arm lock went south - couldn't find an exact replacement, so I added a switch to the side of the cabinet.



Other than that, excellent table and a strong performer. Bought it new back in 1980, and ready to go another 35 years now!

i wonder if they offer a right-handed model... I would likely ruin a record/cantilever or two trying to cue using my left hand! As I recall juke boxes have been playing 45RPM records vertically since forever. Remember that the ubiquitous Rega RB300 arm applies VTF via spring.

MontanaWay wrote:I've seen this before....and I still have the same question....WHY??

One reason I can think of is it might have a much smaller footprint if you've got a cramped stereo hutch.

Didn't Dual claim you could mount their turntable to the ceiling upside down and it would easily track and play LP's? I've never actually seen one like that but I seem to remember the salesman making those claims.

That was a common claim among major manufacturers in the day of high-quality record changers with dynamically-balanced arms...where tracking force was applied by a downward (in normal use) pulling spring, with the rest of the arm counterweight-balanced.  BSR, Garrard and Dual made the claim, and featured it in advertising and in movie filmstrips at hi-fi shows.  Strangely, I do not remember it in Miracord advertising, though I may have blinked.

Most single-play, manual tonearms could not do it, as they typically applied tracking weight by a gram or two of IMbalance.