Wonderful! I shall most certainly explore this!
Thx!
:)
Thank you to our Sponsors
Beogram 4000. Replacing tonearm.
33 replies
This is my new tonearm. I have been checking around to get an explanation: Why does it have two lower front teeth, when the old tonearm had only one? I have not been able to verify any ideas of some possible 4-channel model. And both the BG4002 and 4004 are using a cartridge like MMC-3000 or similar - all with one lower socket. I couldn't find a cartridge by common search, that has two sockets in its lower part. A closer comparison looks like this:
It looks like the upper 4 teeth of the newer tonearm should fit in the top socket of the cartridge - but the lower 2 contacts do not fit directly into the lower socket.
Does anyone know what would happen if one combined the 2 lower contacts to one, and made it fit in width? What is inside? There should only be one shield since I have no 4 channels at all. So I have 2 channels of stream and put them into the cartridge which is 2 channels also. From there, these 5 tiny thin leads transfer the signals, and both of the shield contacts on the arm - if combined - should lead to one (1) shield. Is this right? The numbering of the 5 thin leads must be identified by measuring them (after the lacquer-insulation has melted/been burned away) - and the rest should be soldering the thin leads to the correct contact under the carriage. I think. Or?
I am guessing a lot here, which I don't like. Does anyone know?
Maybe it would do the trick just to squeeze the two lower teeth together? Have they been closer in an earlier life? They look a kind of displaced, I think. Will they break off?
Anyone?
:)
Had the same problem with my Beogram 4000 tonearm as documented here
http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/t/11046.aspx
My replacement arm came from another 4000 but was still different.
My adaptation is working well, just had to increase the VTF on the dial as the new arm was a bit lighter.
Had the same problem with my Beogram 4000 tonearm as documented here
http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/t/11046.aspx
My replacement arm came from another 4000 but was still different.
My adaptation is working well, just had to increase the VTF on the dial as the new arm was a bit lighter.
Just realised the link is not working.
The post is entitled 'MMC rebuilt then drama fitting it'
Hi jeules0
Thank you. Sounds interesting. Would really like to read your "drama". But unfortunately I can't find your post. Could you please produce a working link?
:)
Very pleased with the new cantilever and Shibata retip on my MMC4000 by Axel Shuerholz in Germany.
Posted it off from the UK and it was back in just over 2 weeks: excellent service!
The nightmare began when I snapped the plastic locating stub on the end of the tonearm on my Beogram 4000 trying to remove the MMC 20EN that I'd been using.
After a few choice words, I thought never mind I've got a spare on the parts-only deck I bought recently. I removed it from the donor deck easily enough after undoing a screw, sliding it off and unsoldering the wires on the connector board
I then removed the damaged one, only to find that this one had a completely different connector: it simply slid off with no wires visible, just brass strips on a slide-fit connector board.
To cut a long story short, I managed to make one good arm by wrecking the broken arm to extract the internal slide connection, and then soldering the wires from the good arm to it. I then made the connection and re-fitted the arm
MMC 4000 was then carefully fitted, VTF adjusted and now sounds great. Phew!
Very pleased with the new cantilever and Shibata retip on my MMC4000 by Axel Shuerholz in Germany.
Posted it off from the UK and it was back in just over 2 weeks: excellent service!
The nightmare began when I snapped the plastic locating stub on the end of the tonearm on my Beogram 4000 trying to remove the MMC 20EN that I'd been using.
After a few choice words, I thought never mind I've got a spare on the parts-only deck I bought recently. I removed it from the donor deck easily enough after undoing a screw, sliding it off and unsoldering the wires on the connector board
I then removed the damaged one, only to find that this one had a completely different connector: it simply slid off with no wires visible, just brass strips on a slide-fit connector board.
To cut a long story short, I managed to make one good arm by wrecking the broken arm to extract the internal slide connection, and then soldering the wires from the good arm to it. I then made the connection and re-fitted the arm
MMC 4000 was then carefully fitted, VTF adjusted and now sounds great. Phew!
Thank you! Very interesting!
Your problem started when the "stub" broke off after having used a MMC20EN and so did mine.
I had no problems demounting my MMC4000 and neither did you, it seems. I wonder if there is a difference in the design of the main (upper) socket between the two? When/if I ever succeed in getting this new arm working, I will certainly use my MMC4000. It always felt as it fitted better when placed on the arm.
Of course, it could be a coincidence. But why risk it?
Thanks for letting me read this!
:)
Continuation.
One step closer to a solution. I have "determined" that the two lower contacts on my new tonearm in fact must be one. It seems to be divided in two branches only. When forced together these two branches become a small "spring-system", pressing itself outwards on both sides, thus helping to establish a better retention than a more passive lower contact.
The two branches were rather heavily deformed too - someone has been using force on pressing a badly fitting cartridge against them. So they pointed at different directions. I have tried to - cautiously - bring them back to normal. Just that I don't realy know what normal is for these branches. Which has resulted in this placement of the cartridge - please see picture. A step forwards - but not very pretty. It needs a last adjustment - if I knew how.
I should like to know how these lower contacts are supposed to be looking - if anyone has the possibility of showing me on a photograph?
As of right now, the tonearm + the MMC4000 looks like this, when mounted:
Not satisfactory! But soon there - I hope.
Anyone having a photograph of these lower contacts - as they should look?
:)
Solved!
The culprit was bad gluing of the whole black plastic contact package inside the arm. The contact package had moved forwards leveling the arms front opening. It should be sitting ½ mm under the edge, inside the arm's front opening. Pushed it ½ mm backwards. Case solved!
:)
Please Log In to Reply
You must be logged in as a BeoWorld member to post replies to forum threads.
or
Join BeoWorld
Register to access the forums, reference material, and exclusive member benefits — including our monthly prize draw.
Become a Member