early seeburg stereo sound quality questions

Hi. Can you define great/ go into specifics? What are you playing on
it (years), sapphire or diamond styli (i'm told the sapphire sound
better), original speakers,,,are you also using external speakers as
have been suggested? Thanks, Rick.

"CoinOpHobby" wrote in message .. .
I don't know about your 222 but my 220 sounds great!!!!!!
"Rick Force" wrote in message

Rick, There are a whole bunch of things in play here. First, if you replaced
the 16 ohm speakers with 8 ohm devices you have already generated a problem.
In non-transformer solid state output amplifiers the ohm value of the
speaker is mostly insignificant to fidelity but that is not true of tube
amps. You need to return the original speakers. You have upset the output
circuit of the amp. Also, a 12" speaker is not a 12" speaker is not a 12"
speaker, so to speak. There are a number of different factors to the
speaker's response to it's invironment. The most used measurement is the
resonant frequency of the driver itself. Since the original speakers were
full range the compliance of the voice coil/paper cone combination is
considerably different than the woofer that you put in. The cabinet size,
openings (ports) and other considerations were all designed to work with a
certain resonance, compliance and "Q" factor. If you change any one of the
factors you will alter the "fidelity" of the sound.

Secondly, the records pressed more recently have a different groove pitch,
width and depth from the older records. You will have to determine which you
are going to use and balance the pickup accordingly or live with the
difference. The older records need a larger needle than the new ones. If an
older designed needle ( I forget the width now) is used on a new record, it
will ride on top of the egrooves and not down inside, where incidentally the
high frequency resides and if you use a new needle on an old record it will
ride on the bottom of the groove where there is nothing and the fidelity
will go to pot and there will be a general nasty sound.

If the amp was fully & properly restored it should sound decent but not as
good as some of the later models. Seeburg eventually worked in tandam with
the Altec company in circuit and speaker design and had some really good
sounding systems around the early to mid 60's.

Adding a tweeter may or may not actually help your fidelity. That is
generally a trial & error situation and of course, the proper crossover
point must be determined for this to work at all. The older amps were not
designed to handle high frequencies and actually designed to not have them
becasue they could not be reliably reproduced with the tube circuits of the
time. There are a couple of guys out there who have written articles in
Always Jukin magazine on how to bring the fidelity of the amps up using more
current circuit modifications. If you do make some of those changes be sure
you draw them up and keep them with the jukebox for the next owner to work
with.

Also you will get better bass if the jukebox is approximately 2 - 3" from a
wall and a corner is even better. This is always true of bass cabinets.

Now, let me add that I design large sound systems and most these days
include a sub-woofer and placement does make a difference and this is
especially true in a small room. Remember that the juke-box was designed to
be used in a medium sized room and the amp running at a pretty good volume
level to fill the room and not in a small room like a den or Family room. A
60 HZ frequency is 17 feet long. In a small room a full cycle is never
developed fully.

Jim
"Rick Force" wrote in message
om...
Hi. Can you define great/ go into specifics? What are you playing on
it (years), sapphire or diamond styli (i'm told the sapphire sound
better), original speakers,,,are you also using external speakers as
have been suggested? Thanks, Rick.

"CoinOpHobby" wrote in message
.. .
I don't know about your 222 but my 220 sounds great!!!!!!
"Rick Force" wrote in message

Sound quality is extremely subjective. What sounds good to one person may
not be good to another even if both have good hearing. Training helps, I do
that in my business. But interest, desire, age and the physical construction
of the inner ear all contribute to the perception of quality. Unless you
actually have 2 machines sitting side by side, you can not tell which one
sounds the best unless you are very trained in audio issues.

Jim

"CoinOpHobby" wrote in message
...
I don't know about your 222 but my 220 sounds great!!!!!!
"Rick Force" wrote in message
om...
Hi all,
Since I got my 222 back from being rebuilt (it runs great), i'm not
too impressed with the sound. Just how good or HI-FI are these
supposed to sound (as compared to other early stereo jukes, any
mfgr.)? Forget that I replaced the speakers...just how can this juke
be described as Hi-Fi when it only has 2 woofers in it? The mono
models before and the stereo models after have multi speaker systems.
Seems to me seeburg should have put in tweeters...there's plenty of
room. My main complaint (and I have coaxials in there now) that
(depending on the vintage of record) the sound can sound good (most
50's and 60's records), but alot of modern (80's-90's) records sound
to midrangy...not enough bass or good hi's. The bass is too muddy on
the highest position, so it's on the click just below max
bass...treble is about 1/2 way (pos. 4 or 5 out of 6). Just doesn't
sound that great for me. I've tried different T needle sets to varying
degrees of quality. What's left to try? (I haven't tried sapphire yet,
but the diamonds are expensive enough). I really liked the sound of a
wurly 2300 several years ago...lots of juke bass punch, which is
lacking in the 222....no juke punch/ sound. I guess I could reinstall
the original woofers. how does an AY or Q sound..they use the same amp
don't they? I'm also running 6CZ5's (with the socket mod)instead of
6973's, would that make a difference? Thank you for the input, Rick.

Great answer Jim! Good thing I kept those original speakers. As for
the new ones, they are coaxials. Thanks, Rick.


"Jim Murphy" wrote in message .. .
Rick, There are a whole bunch of things in play here. First, if you replaced
the 16 ohm speakers with 8 ohm devices you have already generated a problem.
In non-transformer solid state output amplifiers the ohm value of the
speaker is mostly insignificant to fidelity but that is not true of tube
amps. You need to return the original speakers. You have upset the output
circuit of the amp. Also, a 12" speaker is not a 12" speaker is not a 12"
speaker, so to speak. There are a number of different factors to the
speaker's response to it's invironment. The most used measurement is the
resonant frequency of the driver itself. Since the original speakers were
full range the compliance of the voice coil/paper cone combination is
considerably different than the woofer that you put in. The cabinet size,
openings (ports) and other considerations were all designed to work with a
certain resonance, compliance and "Q" factor. If you change any one of the
factors you will alter the "fidelity" of the sound.

Secondly, the records pressed more recently have a different groove pitch,
width and depth from the older records. You will have to determine which you
are going to use and balance the pickup accordingly or live with the
difference. The older records need a larger needle than the new ones. If an
older designed needle ( I forget the width now) is used on a new record, it
will ride on top of the egrooves and not down inside, where incidentally the
high frequency resides and if you use a new needle on an old record it will
ride on the bottom of the groove where there is nothing and the fidelity
will go to pot and there will be a general nasty sound.

If the amp was fully & properly restored it should sound decent but not as
good as some of the later models. Seeburg eventually worked in tandam with
the Altec company in circuit and speaker design and had some really good
sounding systems around the early to mid 60's.

Adding a tweeter may or may not actually help your fidelity. That is
generally a trial & error situation and of course, the proper crossover
point must be determined for this to work at all. The older amps were not
designed to handle high frequencies and actually designed to not have them
becasue they could not be reliably reproduced with the tube circuits of the
time. There are a couple of guys out there who have written articles in
Always Jukin magazine on how to bring the fidelity of the amps up using more
current circuit modifications. If you do make some of those changes be sure
you draw them up and keep them with the jukebox for the next owner to work
with.

Also you will get better bass if the jukebox is approximately 2 - 3" from a
wall and a corner is even better. This is always true of bass cabinets.

Now, let me add that I design large sound systems and most these days
include a sub-woofer and placement does make a difference and this is
especially true in a small room. Remember that the juke-box was designed to
be used in a medium sized room and the amp running at a pretty good volume
level to fill the room and not in a small room like a den or Family room. A
60 HZ frequency is 17 feet long. In a small room a full cycle is never
developed fully.

Jim
"Rick Force" wrote in message
om...
Hi. Can you define great/ go into specifics? What are you playing on
it (years), sapphire or diamond styli (i'm told the sapphire sound
better), original speakers,,,are you also using external speakers as
have been suggested? Thanks, Rick.

"CoinOpHobby" wrote in message
.. .
I don't know about your 222 but my 220 sounds great!!!!!!
"Rick Force" wrote in message

Rick , what type of coaxial speakers are you using??? you state your 222
has muddy bass on new 80's 90's records with bass boost set to max ...you
might try putting acoustic dampening material behind the speakers this will
absorb internal reflections that will clean up mid range frequencies and
dampen boom with the bass boost set to max... as an experiment try using a
couple of towels ....the closer they are to the speaker the greater the
dampening
effect......George




"Jim Murphy" wrote in message
...
Sound quality is extremely subjective. What sounds good to one person may
not be good to another even if both have good hearing. Training helps, I
do
that in my business. But interest, desire, age and the physical
construction
of the inner ear all contribute to the perception of quality. Unless you
actually have 2 machines sitting side by side, you can not tell which one
sounds the best unless you are very trained in audio issues.

Jim

"CoinOpHobby" wrote in message
...
I don't know about your 222 but my 220 sounds great!!!!!!
"Rick Force" wrote in message
om...
Hi all,
Since I got my 222 back from being rebuilt (it runs great), i'm not
too impressed with the sound. Just how good or HI-FI are these
supposed to sound (as compared to other early stereo jukes, any
mfgr.)? Forget that I replaced the speakers...just how can this juke
be described as Hi-Fi when it only has 2 woofers in it? The mono
models before and the stereo models after have multi speaker systems.
Seems to me seeburg should have put in tweeters...there's plenty of
room. My main complaint (and I have coaxials in there now) that
(depending on the vintage of record) the sound can sound good (most
50's and 60's records), but alot of modern (80's-90's) records sound
to midrangy...not enough bass or good hi's. The bass is too muddy on
the highest position, so it's on the click just below max
bass...treble is about 1/2 way (pos. 4 or 5 out of 6). Just doesn't
sound that great for me. I've tried different T needle sets to varying
degrees of quality. What's left to try? (I haven't tried sapphire yet,
but the diamonds are expensive enough). I really liked the sound of a
wurly 2300 several years ago...lots of juke bass punch, which is
lacking in the 222....no juke punch/ sound. I guess I could reinstall
the original woofers. how does an AY or Q sound..they use the same amp
don't they? I'm also running 6CZ5's (with the socket mod)instead of
6973's, would that make a difference? Thank you for the input, Rick.

Hi Jim (and Rick),


Secondly, the records pressed more recently have a different groove pitch,
width and depth from the older records. You will have to determine which
you
are going to use and balance the pickup accordingly or live with the
difference. The older records need a larger needle than the new ones. If
an
older designed needle ( I forget the width now) is used on a new record,
it
will ride on top of the egrooves and not down inside, where incidentally
the
high frequency resides and if you use a new needle on an old record it
will
ride on the bottom of the groove where there is nothing and the fidelity
will go to pot and there will be a general nasty sound.

Are you sure about these statements? AFIK, the groove profile of 45 records
was standardized by RCA when introduced in 49'. The addition of stereo in
the mid 50's may have resulted in some minor modifications, but I think the
correct stylus type for 45's has been and is a 1mil tip radius. I don't see
at all how groove pitch has anything to do with groove profile or the
required stylus to track it. I believe you are correct that the playing
time for 45's was pushed beyond the original spec by using higher pitches
(Hey Jude by the Beatles at 7+ min. comes to mind), but this has an impact
more on how hot the record is cut (to avoid crashing through adjacent groove
walls) than on the stylus profile required for tracking.

The older amps were not
designed to handle high frequencies and actually designed to not have them
becasue they could not be reliably reproduced with the tube circuits of
the
time. There are a couple of guys out there who have written articles in
Always Jukin magazine on how to bring the fidelity of the amps up using
more
current circuit modifications. If you do make some of those changes be
sure
you draw them up and keep them with the jukebox for the next owner to work
with.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. There was no technical reason
that frequency response and distortion of a juke amp could not be made to
very high levels of fidelity at the time of the 222. For example,
Williamson described his high fidelity amplifier circuit in article
published in 1947. By the time of the 222, this stuff was well known and
understood. I've not measured the response of the 222 amp (and I doubt you
have either), so I can't comment on how far Seeburg went in their design. I
suspect cost and intended application had more to do with any choices than
technical limits.

Now, let me add that I design large sound systems and most these days
include a sub-woofer and placement does make a difference and this is
especially true in a small room. Remember that the juke-box was designed
to
be used in a medium sized room and the amp running at a pretty good volume
level to fill the room and not in a small room like a den or Family room.
A
60 HZ frequency is 17 feet long. In a small room a full cycle is never
developed fully.

A small room does not preclude the ability to reproduce low frequencies with
fidelity. There may be issues with proper placement, standing waves and
room treatment, but these can be addressed. You could be correct about
volume level. I believe this amp has built in loudness compensation. As
you point out, the juke was designed for larger service areas and the
loudness comp circuit might have been tailored for higher SPL levels.

Our club recently auctioned off a 222 and I had a chance to give it a
listen. I though it sounded very good. Nice punchy bass, clear mids, and
decent highs (I listened mainly to 50's and 60's recordings on this box).
That said, it has no relation to a modern home stereo in terms of sound
quality. You really can't compare the two. I'm sure you could tweak with a
juke by altering the cabinet, amp, speakers, and even pickup to vastly
improve the sound, but I don't see the point. You make an excellent point
in your other post in regard to evaluating sound quality. It is a very
subjective judgment.

Rick, if I were you, I'd try to see if you can audition another 222. If you
do, bring some of the 45's from your box as references. Try to listen at
the same volume level as at home. If you hear the same basic
characteristics, then you know you have to live with the box as is.
Otherwise, you will need to try an track down the cause of differences. As
was mentioned, speakers are a likely suspect. It is also possible that even
though the amp was re-built, an error was made. What kind of sound do you
obtain if you connect the box up to a pair if good home stereo speakers? If
you use a speaker that you are familiar with, you may be able to determine
if the problem is with the juke electronics (and its voicing) or speaker
cabinet related.

Mark

I believe that I am correct about the pitch and needle size deal and
probably have some resourse materials in my archives somewhere to support
it. I am just too busy to look it all up right now. Having been in the
audio/recording business for a couple of years so many details have gone by
that I can't remember specifics but I do know that the grooves are different
and therefore the needles must be different. I think my needle spec catalog
is at my office so I can't look up the specs right now.

As for my theory on amps, I'm stickin' by my theory. Tweeters were first
really introduced in the mid '50s but undersatnding crossovers and other
things was not common outside a few places like Mr Klipsch's laboratory and
Altec R&D. I've restored/repaired tube amps for over 40 years and I can
assure you that the high frequency throughput on them is not the same as a
solid state amp or a well designed newer Dynaco tube for instance. Now at my
age I probably can't hear the difference any more but I imagine I could
measure it if'n I had an amp sitting on the bench here.

Regarding room acoustics, yes you can make a smaller room sound very good
but most people do not. My statements were designed to introduce some basic
concepts surrounding sound propogation in a room and then hope the listener
can intrepret based on application to their situation. People pay me big $
to do acoustic studies on medium to large rooms which I do with the
assistance of expensive software called EASE. I am open to learing
everything I can about acoustics since I do not believe we have yet broken
the understanding barrier of sound propogation. We are certainly doing
better than in the past but there is more to learn.

I still say put that jukebox back to original. If you want, add a decent
crossover and tweeter, maybe damp the cabinet some as one respondant
suggested, One side and bottom should do it. I have done that to a number
of cabinets over the years, and the sound will be improved but not to what
the owner is looking for, I wager, and as you suggest as well.

"Mark Robinson" wrote in message
news:Soshd.5847$a24.4189@trndny07...
Hi Jim (and Rick),


Secondly, the records pressed more recently have a different groove
pitch,
width and depth from the older records. You will have to determine which
you
are going to use and balance the pickup accordingly or live with the
difference. The older records need a larger needle than the new ones. If
an
older designed needle ( I forget the width now) is used on a new record,
it
will ride on top of the egrooves and not down inside, where incidentally
the
high frequency resides and if you use a new needle on an old record it
will
ride on the bottom of the groove where there is nothing and the fidelity
will go to pot and there will be a general nasty sound.

Are you sure about these statements? AFIK, the groove profile of 45
records
was standardized by RCA when introduced in 49'. The addition of stereo in
the mid 50's may have resulted in some minor modifications, but I think
the
correct stylus type for 45's has been and is a 1mil tip radius. I don't
see
at all how groove pitch has anything to do with groove profile or the
required stylus to track it. I believe you are correct that the playing
time for 45's was pushed beyond the original spec by using higher pitches
(Hey Jude by the Beatles at 7+ min. comes to mind), but this has an impact
more on how hot the record is cut (to avoid crashing through adjacent
groove
walls) than on the stylus profile required for tracking.

The older amps were not
designed to handle high frequencies and actually designed to not have
them
becasue they could not be reliably reproduced with the tube circuits of
the
time. There are a couple of guys out there who have written articles in
Always Jukin magazine on how to bring the fidelity of the amps up using
more
current circuit modifications. If you do make some of those changes be
sure
you draw them up and keep them with the jukebox for the next owner to
work
with.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. There was no technical reason
that frequency response and distortion of a juke amp could not be made to
very high levels of fidelity at the time of the 222. For example,
Williamson described his high fidelity amplifier circuit in article
published in 1947. By the time of the 222, this stuff was well known and
understood. I've not measured the response of the 222 amp (and I doubt
you
have either), so I can't comment on how far Seeburg went in their design.
I
suspect cost and intended application had more to do with any choices than
technical limits.

Now, let me add that I design large sound systems and most these days
include a sub-woofer and placement does make a difference and this is
especially true in a small room. Remember that the juke-box was designed
to
be used in a medium sized room and the amp running at a pretty good
volume
level to fill the room and not in a small room like a den or Family room.
A
60 HZ frequency is 17 feet long. In a small room a full cycle is never
developed fully.

A small room does not preclude the ability to reproduce low frequencies
with
fidelity. There may be issues with proper placement, standing waves and
room treatment, but these can be addressed. You could be correct about
volume level. I believe this amp has built in loudness compensation. As
you point out, the juke was designed for larger service areas and the
loudness comp circuit might have been tailored for higher SPL levels.

Our club recently auctioned off a 222 and I had a chance to give it a
listen. I though it sounded very good. Nice punchy bass, clear mids, and
decent highs (I listened mainly to 50's and 60's recordings on this box).
That said, it has no relation to a modern home stereo in terms of sound
quality. You really can't compare the two. I'm sure you could tweak with
a
juke by altering the cabinet, amp, speakers, and even pickup to vastly
improve the sound, but I don't see the point. You make an excellent point
in your other post in regard to evaluating sound quality. It is a very
subjective judgment.

Rick, if I were you, I'd try to see if you can audition another 222. If
you
do, bring some of the 45's from your box as references. Try to listen at
the same volume level as at home. If you hear the same basic
characteristics, then you know you have to live with the box as is.
Otherwise, you will need to try an track down the cause of differences.
As
was mentioned, speakers are a likely suspect. It is also possible that
even
though the amp was re-built, an error was made. What kind of sound do you
obtain if you connect the box up to a pair if good home stereo speakers?
If
you use a speaker that you are familiar with, you may be able to determine
if the problem is with the juke electronics (and its voicing) or speaker
cabinet related.

Mark

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the feedback. I'd be interested in any info or references to
info you have on groove profiles. I've been working on a homebrew recording
lathe and I am still learning about recording standards and practices (past
and present).

I agree there has been big advances in speaker design over the years, but I
still feel most of the improvements to circuit design were already in place
in the late 40's and early 50's. The Hi-Fi revolution really began in the
50's. It was mostly a process of getting the cost down to the level that
average consumers could afford.

Mark

hi George,
The coaxials are Atlas/Soundolier C123, 12" woofers with 3" post
mounted tweeters, 16ohm, 25 watts.


"george craig" wrote in message ...
Rick , what type of coaxial speakers are you using??? you state your 222
has muddy bass on new 80's 90's records with bass boost set to max ...you
might try putting acoustic dampening material behind the speakers this will
absorb internal reflections that will clean up mid range frequencies and
dampen boom with the bass boost set to max... as an experiment try using a
couple of towels ....the closer they are to the speaker the greater the
dampening
effect......George

My Seeburg Q160 is similar to the 222 and has the 6973 output tubes, and
7199
as driver.... as I recall , the 222 amp has 6973 outputs a 12AX7A as
driver...

I moded my Q160 amp and run with the AGC tubes pulled , the cartridge is
the origional type with the grey diamond needles bass boost is set to MID
position and trebel is set to MAX position origional equipment speakers
which
includes a crossover and tweeter....

My Q160 has quite a bit of punchy bass but the mid range and trebel could be
better and cleaner sounding......

Me thinks the cartridge in the Q160 is not as good as the stereo cartridge
used in
later 60's jukes....... the 345-03D was a mono version of this cartridge
..... these
cartridges all have diferent plugs and would require changing the tone arm
or making an adaptor to fit.....I finally decided to just leave it stock..
but at some time I will look into changing the tone arm and cartridge
........George










"Rick Force" wrote in message
om...
hi George,
The coaxials are Atlas/Soundolier C123, 12" woofers with 3" post
mounted tweeters, 16ohm, 25 watts.


"george craig" wrote in message
...
Rick , what type of coaxial speakers are you using??? you state your
222
has muddy bass on new 80's 90's records with bass boost set to max
....you
might try putting acoustic dampening material behind the speakers this
will
absorb internal reflections that will clean up mid range frequencies
and
dampen boom with the bass boost set to max... as an experiment try
using a
couple of towels ....the closer they are to the speaker the greater
the
dampening
effect......George