AdamS wrote:

As mentioned, it is surprising that B&O never offered this facility. The second arm on the linear trackers beside the main arm would have been perfect for carrying the sensors and I'm sure the electronic technology was well within their abilities.

I think it was a timing issue. Track detection would've been very difficult to implement with the discrete component circuitry that was used in the 4000/4002 series, and by the time the microprocessor controlled models came out, the detector arm didn't detect anything any more  - it was just ornamental.

Or, perhaps they just didn't think it was worthwhile to add a feature that wouldn't be 100% reliable anyway.

Fascinating, I never knew there were that many tables that did this.

tournedos wrote:

AdamS wrote:

As mentioned, it is surprising that B&O never offered this facility. The second arm on the linear trackers beside the main arm would have been perfect for carrying the sensors and I'm sure the electronic technology was well within their abilities.

I think it was a timing issue. Track detection would've been very difficult to implement with the discrete component circuitry that was used in the 4000/4002 series, and by the time the microprocessor controlled models came out, the detector arm didn't detect anything any more  - it was just ornamental.

Or, perhaps they just didn't think it was worthwhile to add a feature that wouldn't be 100% reliable anyway.

Step1 wrote:

tournedos wrote:

AdamS wrote:

As mentioned, it is surprising that B&O never offered this facility. The second arm on the linear trackers beside the main arm would have been perfect for carrying the sensors and I'm sure the electronic technology was well within their abilities.

I think it was a timing issue. Track detection would've been very difficult to implement with the discrete component circuitry that was used in the 4000/4002 series, and by the time the microprocessor controlled models came out, the detector arm didn't detect anything any more  - it was just ornamental.

Or, perhaps they just didn't think it was worthwhile to add a feature that wouldn't be 100% reliable anyway.

I think B&O MUST have dabbled with the technology Mika, the accutrac was released in 75 / 76? This used two custom micros and hardly any discretes! I have one myself, I love it! All the more because I am a bit of a Columbo fan hehe...

I suspect the costs though, along with the fact that track detection is hit and miss with some records, although it works very very well with quite a few from my collection!

I love the feature, and might consider implementing it but the hard part is going to be the optics I think!

 

The Bye-Bye Sky High IQ Murder Case! That episode has always been one of my favorites because of that turntable.

I too, have wondered why B&O didn't implement that technology, but assumed it was maybe because the feature didn't seem to work consistently. Gap spacing between songs on records can be rather inconsistent.

Those where some cool turntables indeed. 🤒

BeoTom wrote:

The Bye-Bye Sky High IQ Murder Case! That episode has always been one of my favorites because of that turntable.

I too, have wondered why B&O didn't implement that technology, but assumed it was maybe because the feature didn't seem to work consistently. Gap spacing between songs on records can be rather inconsistent.

And quite simply, the best episode in its own right!

Step1 wrote:

I think B&O MUST have dabbled with the technology Mika, the accutrac was released in 75 / 76? This used two custom micros and hardly any discretes! I have one myself, I love it! All the more because I am a bit of a Columbo fan hehe...

I suspect the costs though, along with the fact that track detection is hit and miss with some records, although it works very very well with quite a few from my collection!
 

I also own an Accutrac 4000 but I also have an Aiwa LP-3000. The Aiwa is bigger, heavier, much better built and sounds absolutely superb - far better than the Accutrac, although it probably helps that the sensor is separately mounted on the Aiwa's headshell so any cartridge can be fitted.

Ironically, though, the Aiwa's track selection is rubbish - the ADC is much better!

AdamS wrote:

Ironically, though, the Aiwa's track selection is rubbish - the ADC is much better!

It really is amazing, when you consider how utterly simplistic the Accutrac design is! I actually think it is a rather beautiful piece of engineering, when you consider that it just simply works!

Step1 wrote:

And quite simply, the best episode in its own right!

It just aired on Sunday night on the MeTV cable network.  Talk about product placement..

BeoTom wrote:

I too, have wondered why B&O didn't implement that technology, but assumed it was maybe because the feature didn't seem to work consistently. Gap spacing between songs on records can be rather inconsistent.

As Tournedos wrote - on the late models the 'detector arm' was only ornamental. Simply a matter of design...
They could have build in a sensor to detect tracks if they wanted to - but then the turntables would have been too expensive.
(And -as mentioned earlier -  the track search function wasn't quite reliable).
When they developed the last generation of turntables, they were very keen on keeping the costs at a minimum (if you have ever looked inside one, you'll know what I mean). Lots of nylon gear wheels and plastic parts with small tabs that can break off (and often do over the years) 😡 .
Despite that, they did manage to make some quite good turntables - and it's amazing that so many of them are still running. (Many of them saved by dedicated Beoworlders and other passionate people who won't let those beauties die).