Wurlizter 2900

A couple of days ago I purchased a 2900. Cosmetically it's really nice and it selects and plays perfectly (after slight arm adjustment), but it has the classic symptoms of bad caps in the amp. As I've been doing some research, it's my understanding that the 2900 was solid state and this has a tube amp. It is a 544 which I think is out of a 2700. It fits the spot perfectly and I do prefer tube sound, so I think I'm going to rebuild this one instead of looking for the 546. Any downfalls doing this?

This website is great. About 3 weeks ago I purchased my first box, a Seeburg LS-1. It was really cheap and I became immediately hooked. Also bought Ron's mechanism book and got the service manual. It is now running very well. Still needs a couple of very minor issues taken care of but it scans and plays perfectly now and with the new needles and springs, sounds great. The funny thing is that the SCC in the Seeburg isn't the original one either. Did they swap out a lot of parts back in the day, to keep these going or did I just have the same issue in two different boxes?

Ggregg,
Thanks for buying the book--glad it helped--
Operators swapped EVERYTHING, and anything to get a phonograph on location running in as short as possible time as they could. The only reason for an operators existence is service, therefore those who did not provide such, or were slow to do so, found the competition soon had a new location. Simple as that.
As for using the tube amp in the later phono's, the only drawback that I can see is that the cabinet MAY not have enough air flow for a tube amp.
As for the Seeburg LS-1--that model was supplied with a SCC-7. The next model, LS-2, was supplied with a SCC-8. They are directly interchangeable. Ron Rich

Thanks Ron. Makes perfect sense. Could always put in a fan I supposed if needed. SCC is as you stated. Seems the only difference between the two is a circuit board (which I had to repair by the way) verses point to point.
Greg

Right, but these days that's what we want. I bought the 2900 because of the visible mechanism and it has 200 titles verses 160 for my newer Seeburg. But I agree with you, who hadn't seen a record drop on a turntable in the mid 60's. These days it is fascinating to watch for some people again. Appreciate the comments, Thanks.
Greg

Funny thing was that before Seeburg went broke, they were talking about bring back a "visible mechanism". That was in 1978-9. The SMC-1 featured a "peak-a-boo" mechanism, using a one way mirror. As I understood it at that time, the SMC-2 was to show it off even more so, but I guess plans changed, and they added the "Disco Ball" instead. Ron Rich

It was a sign of the times, I guess. Seems rather silly now, disco ball or visible mech, ehhhhhhh!

One other question. I know Seeburg got away from the visible mechanism in the very early 60's but when exactly did Wurlitzer? From photos I've seen, it seems that the 2700-2800 had mostly, if not completely, covered mechanisms which they then re-exposed with the 2900-3000 etc. I'm only going off some pictures I've seen. Thanks again.
Greg

2900 is the last one--

Good to know. Thanks for your help.