A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Juke Boxes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

45 RPM Mechanisms - Which ones were better?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th 03, 10:57 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 45 RPM Mechanisms - Which ones were better?

Which 45RPM mechanisms were the best (e.g. AMI, ROWE, Seeburg,
Wurlitzer)? I guess it makes sense to do this by era: (1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s and beyond). I'm curious what people think of the Wurlitzer
OMT 45 RPM mechanism on their new box. The following is my own newbie
observation:

1950s - I think the Seeburgs were clearly superior to their
competition. I personally like the 100R which has that
'Robbie-the-Robot' look to it. An examination of the 100R seems to
show good workmanship, but my exposure to jukeboxes is limited (hence
the call for other people's views).
Ads
  #2  
Old December 17th 03, 03:05 AM
BOBAKER147
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

70s & 80s you can't beat Rowe
  #3  
Old December 17th 03, 03:17 AM
Philip Nasadowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Fred) wrote:

Which 45RPM mechanisms were the best (e.g. AMI, ROWE, Seeburg,
Wurlitzer)? I guess it makes sense to do this by era: (1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s and beyond).


50's:

For 'tight' construction and good operation, the Seeburg wins, hands
down. It's simply a very well built mech, but complex. The stack type
Wurlitzers are dead last, IMHO. The 1500 looks *cool*, but is a
nightmare. The Wurlitzer 1700 and onward mechs were good, but not near
the Seeburg in terms of general tightness and quality (IMHO). The rack
- type AMI's look rube goldberg, but work well, the magazine types are a
bit nicer, but the selection system's a bit bonkers on them. Rock-Olas
are like sloppy AMIs. They work, though.

60's:

Again, Seeburg leads. AMI's were getting progrssively better, and the
Rowe-AMI ones are nice for small size. The Rock-Olas got lighter, but
sill look like high school shop projects, IMHO. Wurlitzer didn't change
much until that god awful one they use now replaced the old one.

70's:

Seeburg again. AMI comes of age, Rock-Olas started getting slicker too.
Wurlitzers looked ugly, and were real hacks. I don't know WHAT they
were trying to acomplish with that mech.

80's:

Seeburg's dead AMI's are pretty much it, though Rock-Olas are close.
The most recent AMI mechs are about all you could expect, though they
get awfully sloppy when they're worn out. Sure sign is a gripper that
slams the record back in, or records that mysteriously rearrange
themselves.

I've seen NSMs, they look like Seeburg knockoffs with German
manufacturing applied. Other than occasional slipping turntable drives,
I hear they're pretty decent.

I'm curious what people think of the Wurlitzer
OMT 45 RPM mechanism on their new box.


I've not had to deal with one, but I've not heard anything good about
that style mech of theirs.

Pre 1950, Wurlitzer looked the best, AMI was the simplest, Rock-Ola was
most creative, Seeburgs worked well. AMI's worked well and are most fun
to watch, But Wurlitzers and Rock-Olas are fun to watch too. Until your
1015 gets stuck on 12 or 13 and your 1426 can't pick #1 again
  #4  
Old December 17th 03, 04:23 AM
Bob E.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Philip Nasadowski wrote:


snip excellent summary!

That was very thorough and apt...you know your stuff, I think! My
only comments are these:

A) I believe Seeburg Selectomatic mechansims have a reputation of
being easy on records. The used records you get with the spiral
scuffs on the playing grooves didn't live in a Seeburg!

B) The Wurlitzer Simplex mechanism (pre-war to the 1100) is not only
a beautiful mechanical assembly when it is cleaned up and sitting
in a stand on the workbench, it is fascinating to watch in action.
They should have put a glass door down lower so you could see the
gubbins work! My dad has a P-12, they don't make 'em like that
any more... --Bob

================================================== =====================
Bob Ellingson
Halted Specialties Co., Inc.
http://www.halted.com
3500 Ryder St. (408) 732-1573
Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 USA (408) 732-6428 (FAX)
  #5  
Old December 18th 03, 12:52 AM
Tony Miklos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Philip Nasadowski wrote:

In article ,
(Fred) wrote:


Which 45RPM mechanisms were the best (e.g. AMI, ROWE, Seeburg,
Wurlitzer)? I guess it makes sense to do this by era: (1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s and beyond).



50's:

For 'tight' construction and good operation, the Seeburg wins, hands
down. It's simply a very well built mech, but complex. The stack type
Wurlitzers are dead last, IMHO. The 1500 looks *cool*, but is a
nightmare. The Wurlitzer 1700 and onward mechs were good, but not near
the Seeburg in terms of general tightness and quality (IMHO). The rack
- type AMI's look rube goldberg, but work well, the magazine types are a
bit nicer, but the selection system's a bit bonkers on them. Rock-Olas
are like sloppy AMIs. They work, though.


That sounds good to me.


60's:

Again, Seeburg leads. AMI's were getting progrssively better, and the
Rowe-AMI ones are nice for small size. The Rock-Olas got lighter, but
sill look like high school shop projects, IMHO. Wurlitzer didn't change
much until that god awful one they use now replaced the old one.


I think this is where Rock-Ola was better than AMI, but then it could be
that I worked on more Rock-Ola's so I knew them better?

70's:

Seeburg again. AMI comes of age, Rock-Olas started getting slicker too.
Wurlitzers looked ugly, and were real hacks. I don't know WHAT they
were trying to acomplish with that mech.


Still think Rock-Ola's were better than AMI's. And the Wurlitzers, it
really boggles my mind why so many people think it was a bad mech. They
work well and are pretty easy to repair. Maybe it's just because
everyone made me fix the wurlitzers, I was one of the few that learned
them? I'd put Wurlitzer just below the Seeburgs and above AMI and Rock-Ola.


80's:

Seeburg's dead AMI's are pretty much it, though Rock-Olas are close.
The most recent AMI mechs are about all you could expect, though they
get awfully sloppy when they're worn out. Sure sign is a gripper that
slams the record back in, or records that mysteriously rearrange
themselves.


Now maybe this is where I lack the knowledge, but from the late 70's
through the 80's Rock-Ola's sucked. As soon as they got all the bugs
worked out of one electronic system, they changed it a new style with
new problems that took a few more years to fix. And when the main plug
going to the computer started to warp, you had to put "clamps" on the
plug to keep them working! Maybe looking at them now, with all the
modifications already done to them they are OK. But back then when they
were new, "intermittent" was Rock-Ola's middle name.


I've seen NSMs, they look like Seeburg knockoffs with German
manufacturing applied. Other than occasional slipping turntable drives,
I hear they're pretty decent.


Yes, pretty reliable boxes. Cheaply made, but very functional.


I'm curious what people think of the Wurlitzer
OMT 45 RPM mechanism on their new box.


It's been quite a few years since Wurlitzer made any 45RPM jukes, so
they are certainly nothing new. They are however, very, very dependable
boxes. Not always the easiest to work on, but they hardly ever break!
I do repairs on one that is in a busy diner on free play for the past
15? years. I never kept track of the plays on it, but it has to be in
the millions. Except for an intermittent problem it had recently that
took me a while to track down, it went on average over 1 year between
service calls. Actually they did call more often, but I don't count
replacing light bulbs and installing a new needle a break down. And
like I said, this is in a busy diner and it's on free play! It gets
used heavy!

--
Tony
  #6  
Old December 18th 03, 03:24 AM
Jjmscf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Seeburgs are pretty reliable through all the decades they were made.I have
friends that have Seeburgs and never have problems with them.They just keep
happily chugging away.I don't know about AMI's since I haven't worked on any or
know anyone personally that has one.I've heard them play at bars and they sound
damn good even though they wouldn't win a looks contest they still look better
than some of those 70's Wurlitzers.They had one of those 57' T bird NSM 45
jukeboxes for sale at a local flea market.I think I saw a guy working on the
mech 5 times before it sold.Kept having problems with the ribbon cable going to
the mech.Now maybe this is where I lack the knowledge, but from the late 70's
through the 80's Rock-Ola's sucked. As soon as they got all the bugs
worked out of one electronic system, they changed it a new style with
new problems that took a few more years to fix. And when the main plug
going to the computer started to warp, you had to put "clamps" on the
plug to keep them working! Maybe looking at them now, with all the
modifications already done to them they are OK. But back then when they
were new, "intermittent" was Rock-Ola's middle name.

Well I've had a 1985 Rockola Supersound II for 9 years and the only thing I did
was replace some electrolytic caps and motor grommets,lubed it up and replaced
the needle when I bought it.Since then only an occassional lube and new
lights.Those small blinking bulbs are notorious for burning out,though.Only had
one intermittent problem a month ago.Intermittently wouldn't pick up my key
presses.Cleaning the edge connector contacts cured it,no clamping required.This
was my first jukebox and still gets played often even though I have other
jukeboxes.It's been moved several times and even spent a year in storage when I
was temporily living where I had no room for it.This was my only jukebox and
the bug hadn't bit hard yet but cleaning it up and putting records back in it
was fun and the idea struck to get another box came when I saw an ad for a 50's
box in a local classified.Turned out to be a 1957 Wurlitzer 2150 and from the
moment I laid eyes on and bought my first visible mech jukebox the bug bit me
hard.Bought ,fixed and sold some later boxes.Now I just bought another box for
me:A Seeburg C.
I don't do this for a living just a hobby but these are my observations so
far.The Wurly mech is pretty reliable so far but the Rockola gets played more
often.The Wurly's fun to watch and looks good but the Rockola's got it in the
sound department.
  #7  
Old December 19th 03, 03:43 AM
Tony Miklos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jjmscf wrote:
Seeburgs are pretty reliable through all the decades they were made.I have
friends that have Seeburgs and never have problems with them.They just keep
happily chugging away.I don't know about AMI's since I haven't worked on any or
know anyone personally that has one.I've heard them play at bars and they sound
damn good even though they wouldn't win a looks contest they still look better
than some of those 70's Wurlitzers.They had one of those 57' T bird NSM 45
jukeboxes for sale at a local flea market.I think I saw a guy working on the
mech 5 times before it sold.Kept having problems with the ribbon cable going to
the mech.Now maybe this is where I lack the knowledge, but from the late 70's

through the 80's Rock-Ola's sucked. As soon as they got all the bugs
worked out of one electronic system, they changed it a new style with
new problems that took a few more years to fix. And when the main plug
going to the computer started to warp, you had to put "clamps" on the
plug to keep them working! Maybe looking at them now, with all the
modifications already done to them they are OK. But back then when they
were new, "intermittent" was Rock-Ola's middle name.


Well I've had a 1985 Rockola Supersound II for 9 years and the only thing I did
was replace some electrolytic caps and motor grommets,lubed it up and replaced
the needle when I bought it.Since then only an occassional lube and new
lights.Those small blinking bulbs are notorious for burning out,though.Only had
one intermittent problem a month ago.Intermittently wouldn't pick up my key
presses.Cleaning the edge connector contacts cured it,no clamping required.This
was my first jukebox and still gets played often even though I have other
jukeboxes.It's been moved several times and even spent a year in storage when I
was temporily living where I had no room for it.This was my only jukebox and
the bug hadn't bit hard yet but cleaning it up and putting records back in it
was fun and the idea struck to get another box came when I saw an ad for a 50's
box in a local classified.Turned out to be a 1957 Wurlitzer 2150 and from the
moment I laid eyes on and bought my first visible mech jukebox the bug bit me
hard.Bought ,fixed and sold some later boxes.Now I just bought another box for
me:A Seeburg C.
I don't do this for a living just a hobby but these are my observations so
far.The Wurly mech is pretty reliable so far but the Rockola gets played more
often.The Wurly's fun to watch and looks good but the Rockola's got it in the
sound department.



Maybe I got all the dud Rock-Ola's? Or maybe you got one of the few
good ones? Who knows. As far as the sound, well a juke that old may
not sound as good as one much newer, but IMHO, put a 1985 Wurlitzer next
to a 1985 Rock-Ola, and the wurlitzer wins hands down. Actually, that
goes for most any year jukes, the Wurlitzers were almost always on top
with sound quality.

--
Tony
  #8  
Old December 20th 03, 12:43 AM
Philip Nasadowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Tony Miklos wrote:

Maybe I got all the dud Rock-Ola's? Or maybe you got one of the few
good ones? Who knows.


The newer ones aren't that bad. The 30's 40's 50's? YUCK. I've never
heard a good sounding Rock-Ola, though IMHO, the Seeburg A is the worst
of the era. The Rock-Olas just seem to always be missing something,
though.

As far as the sound, well a juke that old may
not sound as good as one much newer, but IMHO, put a 1985 Wurlitzer next
to a 1985 Rock-Ola, and the wurlitzer wins hands down. Actually, that
goes for most any year jukes, the Wurlitzers were almost always on top
with sound quality.


Put a 2204 next to an AMI F I have, the AMI blows the Wurlitzer out
of the basement, easily. Though I might have a bad Cobra

I'd put the AMI F and G near the top of the list, though Wurlitzer and
Seeburg had some nice ones too. I've heard that the V is amazing, some
of the early stereo Seeburgs are real nice. Seeburg, AMI and some
Wurlitzers used magnetic pickups, Rock-Ola and other Wurlitzers used the
less good ceramic types.
  #9  
Old December 20th 03, 02:05 AM
Tony P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IMHO, the seeburg was king until they left...but that R-84 or so
onward rowe was pretty damn good. I've parted out probabally 75 of
those and I only found 2 or 3 that were worn to the point of abusing
records or causing major problems at all. A tonewheel as means of
'finding itself" is a hell of an idea..just look at how ABS works on
cars!

Tony P
  #10  
Old December 20th 03, 02:42 PM
Jjmscf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Referring to Rockolas again.Maybe you never heard a Supersound on up Rockola.I
have to admit the 1972 Rockala 450 I fixed for my boss just doesn't have the
punch that some other jukeboxes have.But this Supersound is awesome.The highs
aren't muddy though you don't want it as crisp as your home stereo to give away
all the scratchiness of a 45 that's been played 100 times or more.The bass is
just awesome.It's got separate chamber for the woofers.The only problem is my
Rockola is on the wall next to the kitchen and when I play"Oye Como Va" by
Santana it seems to hit the resonant frequency of the pots and pans under the
sink...lol
None of the U.S. made Wurlitzers ever used a magnetic only the German
ones.Rockola started using a magnetic cartridge made by Shure I think in the
late 60's.The 50's mono Wurlitzers used the Cobra.If you ever hope to get
better sound out of them they need to be converted to ceramic or magnetic
though magnetic is more difficult with tone arm balance and tripping at the end
of the record and will require a preamp.Seeburg clearly treats records better
though.The most played records in the Rockola have the classic swirl marks on
them.I would assume AMI would do it too since it grips the record and plops it
down on a spinning turntable like the Rockola.The old Wurlitzers 50's and 60's
and Seeburgs only handle the edge and the label.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.