BeoGram

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:20:52 GMT

Thanks Soundproof that is in fact what I based my 'effort' on - I was a member here a few years ago and I downloaded the 4000 manual out of curiosity. I think Peter might have kindly emailed me a scan too... Must join again as soon as funds allow (or needs must!) but spending money on beograms and baby stuff is taking priority right now

Anyway here is my effort -

It doesn't quite reach the visible part of the display by design - I attached a pointed bit of wire to the end which was painted red,. Looks fine but the brackets not strong enough..

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

soundproof — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:23:37 GMT

Ah, I had mine open the other day, and can confirm red, transparent plastic. The red color is quite strong, but the plastic is transparent. Should have taken a photo!

Here's the shape:

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:45:20 GMT

Ah plastic ok thanks - that makes much more sense than metal! I think I could use modellers sheet plastic with a double angle bracket for the shaft, more strength with that I think. Will have to see what I can create!

If anyone has a shot of the complete part I would be gratefull - would be nice to try to get the 'indicator' just right.

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Peter — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:46:21 GMT

Never! Completely pointless really! Unless you cut the record from the middle to the outside! I think it was justified along the lines of non centred records though this seems rather unlikely to be a factor!

I think they did it because they could. I imagine it utilised a technology used elsewhere in which movement in both directions was useful. I think the deletion of the stroboscope was a shame as it is really quite useful. The arm in my 4000 for the indicator is red plastic.

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:22:40 GMT

Hi Peter yes the index is pretty cool although my 4000 was short of the metal arm when I aquired it! Obviously got in the way when previously repairer had a look Why they didn't tuck it away somewhere I don't know!

I have made a rough one out of thin metal - a redesign is required before the turntable is passed on, as mine is a little flimsy but it kind of works ok. If I remember correctly was the original part made of the same heavy metal that carries the leaf springs for switch contacts?

I personally think the strobe is the cool bit on this machine - always loved that orange glow and mezmarising patterns as a child!

Regarding the back track I think this was the fiddliest part to set up! Got there in the end :) Have you ever seen the record player make use of this feature though?

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Peter — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:41:02 GMT

Have you noticed that the 4000 will track outwards as well as inwards! Removed in later decks! I like the index system on the 4000 too with the illuminated marker.

Having said all that, it is amazing how they stripped out the 4002 and the sound remains much the same!

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:31:20 GMT

yes the bearing is beafier, I also noticed that there is a little play on the 4002 (without the platter) which the 4000 doesn't have..

Also those accountants cheaped out on the servo motor with a noisey plastic example too - when I switched on the 4000 and could bearly hear anything (apart from the speed relay and solonoid) I was in awe at it's quiet operation :) Again, much more elegant.

All these little touches add up to a much nicer deck.

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

soundproof — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:53:01 GMT

Interesting, and definitely not very subtle.

Knowing a little about how B&O works with designers, I doubt that this change was done without Jensen's approval, and he must have wanted to beef up those lines.

I personally prefer the 4000-version.
We seem to be kindred B&O souls, I also spent a day in a car when picking up my Beogram 4000 - didn't want to trust it to shipping.

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Peter — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:58:25 GMT

You are quite correct - mine are much the same. Of course the 4000 also has the benefit of a much more substantial main bearing (which you can't see!)

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:42:31 GMT

Did you check Peter? I removed the paltter from the 4002 and placed (very carefully) on the 4000 and took a shot from above - side view wasn't possible due to elevation... this IMO looks worse than birds eye view as below..

Anyway, It is clearly somthing I am more senstitve to than other folk around here lol!

Regards the pics I will post them up when I have had a chance to do somthing with the wooden plinth, unfortunately not original and certainly not to B&O standards! In fact my first barrier to pulling apart as it was stuck to the chassis with that sticks like **** glue!!!

Apart from that the 4000 is working like new now and I will be miss it when I hand over to my mum in a short while!

Quite a difference do you think?!

Re: Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Peter — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:48:32 GMT

I'll have to have another look at mine! I agree that the 4000 is simply gorgeous to look at - mine has a couple of little issues too but I would never part with it. Do post some pictures - always most welcome.

Subtle (or not so subtle) design change on later DC beogram 400x players

Step1 — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:58:52 GMT

Hi folks, recently aquired a Beogram 4000, advertised as faulty but good nick (minus couple issues) - I couldn't resist despite the near 200 mile drive there and back

When I finally got the player home, the first thing I did was to place it next to my 4002 - Don't ask me why, it just had to be done :) I am sure I am not the first to have done this though ?

Anyway, as I looked at the two turntables together, I found myself scratching my head, trying to work out why the 4000 looked so much more elegant than the 4002. I could see the switch panel of the earlier machine was basically a nicer design, much cleaner - but there was something else I could not quite get my head round.

After some more staring and scratching, it suddenly struck me - the ribs on the platter!!! About 1mm thinner on the 4000 and in my opinion much more elegant and fitting to the design. As a result of noticing this, whenever I look at the 4002 I do not see the nice looking turntable I used to see but a potentially nice turntable with eyebrow like ribs radiating around the turntable centre and dominating otherwise nice clean lines :(

So what were B&O thinking with this rather unelegant design change? Is there a technical reason for this i.e. greater contact with the record, static, something to do with reported sensor issues or maybe the thinner ribs don't look so good with the newer switch panel or was this just the current trend in looks of the time?

BTW the 4000 has been a fun project which is still in progress, but mostly cosmetic now. I originally intended to sell this on but looks like it is a keeper, partly due to the amount of time spent on it but also there are cosmetic issues which are not easily fixed and would devalue the turntable too much I think. That's the bit I told the wife, truth is mostly because despite some 'spoilers' I absolutely love this record player :)

If anyone is interested I might share some photos and my experience when I get a moment...

Olly.