Phonoland

You are right, I have lots of problems. At least two of them are auto speed and a stuck clutch yoke pin. PM sent for parts and books.

I'll look for a service manual in the proper section. Is there one "for dummies"..? lol.

Thx,

jack

Hi Ron,

I received the two caps you sent me - thank you. I also received your mech guide. Good stuff!

I know where the large cap goes but the smaller 1200 MFD cap you sent is stumping me. In the photo, the upper blue cap is 3300MFD and the lower paper cap is 2 MFD.

Which one am I meant to replace?

Thx,

Jack

Hi Jack,
Someone replaced the 1200 with the 3300 ??
Ron Rich

Hi Ron,

I'm assuming from your comment that the 1200 you sent is to the replace the blue upper one and someone in the past didn't know what they were doing.

I thought it looked too new to be in there. The solder joints are different also...

OK, that gives me direction now. I'll update after the cap replacements.

Jack

Hi Jack,
In that type of a circuit--as long as it is large enough, it should work---I would assume, whomever change that cap, did not have a 1200 available, and just used stock at hand---Hint: Insulate that cap holding clip, as that circuit operates "above ground", and the insulation on the new 1200 cap is rather thin--. Ron Rich

One caveat in situations like this is to avoid using a filter cap that is that far over the original rating in capacitance. For test where you can keep an eye on things it's OK, but don't send it out that way.

My reasons are:

The inrush current is a lot stronger with the larger cap and those old top-hat diodes are not really suited to dealing with that, especially in a frequently switched applications.
If a diode shorts it puts AC on that cap. It will likely short and "pop" and due to Seeburg's "frugal fusing" philosophy take out the power tran with it. I've seen this scenario.
I add a 1 amp-slo fuse to the primary circuit.

Rob/NYC

Hi Rob,
I think you may have a point on the inrush current--
However, I would guestimate that I have "serviced" over 5 thousand ( maybe 10k ?), 45TASU's in the last almost 50 years, and I know I can count the number of bad transformers on one hand, using one finger !
FYI--On "fusing"--Seeburg had a problem with UL recognition of their products and to resolve it, agreed that they would submit all new product designs, starting with the LPC-1 model, to UL for approval, and allow UL to dictate, exactly, which type/style/size fuses would be used where. Ron Rich

Ron, I can't argue about the difference in practical experience with the equipment. I "inherited" a -pile- of old electronics from tenth ave in the late 80's and among them were two burned up speed units. that is what made me sensitive to that possibility.

As I understand it Underwriter's Labs was mainly concerned with two areas in approving electrical items:

1) That it have adequate insulation/ground to prevent electrocution.

2) Damage from a catastrophic fault be confined to the item and not extend (fireman's term) to the surroundings. The basics here mean that if a short causes a transformer or impedance protected device to open or burn out internally all that is necessary is a main fuse to protect the line. Seeburg obviously used that a cover for their inadequate fusing schemes. The other makers had more sufficient fusing.

Oddly, I have several old service bulletins from Seeburg indicating that if amp fuses in the LPC480 were blowing due to high level and load locations a 1 amp would still offer adequate protection. They later sent the same advice for the TSA-10 in 1971.

Rob

Hi Rob,
The question about "fusing" came up several times internally within Seeburg during the "MicroLog" models--thoughts were, that they did not want "unnecessary fuse blowing", but wanted to provide enough coverage that would prevent "major damage"( and of course, comply with UL /CSA requirements). The SHP amps were originally released with GMQ 1.6 amp fuses. IMHO, a 2 amp sloblo, is more then adequate for this amp.
I have never seen the notice regarding the TSA-1, through TSA-9 --but I am aware, they changed that spec. to a GMQ1 amp, in the TSA-10 series amps, after also making an output transformer change, in the code B's-. Ron Rich

The SHP amps were originally released with GMQ 1.6 amp fuses. IMHO, a 2 amp slo-blo, is more then adequate for this amp.

A 1.6 should be adequate given that it is really about 70-74 w TPO and at typical efficiency of the times at max it should consume about 160 watts on if fully loaded peaks.

The SHP 1-A that I have playing in front of me has the original "3.2 amp" crossed out and "1.6" written in marker. However when I got it there was still a 3.2 red cap there. Oddly although this amp has an Albert Simon repair sticker dated March 1978 there were no mods (jumpers-100fp's etc. All that I can see is a fuse added in the RVC motor ckt.

When were the mods implemented?

The LPC bulletin pertained to "teen and discotheque" locations where the large external speakers were used. There they suggested 1 amp-slo. Those speakers are 8 ohm and given they were to connected to the "16 watt" taps the load would now be supposedly 32 w/ch. While the amp doesn't deliver anywhere near that, I can see why the load would require a higher fuse rating.

Rob

Hi Ron,

I changed the caps and the record doesn't "hang" anymore so that hopefully solves one problem.

I pulled the mech again and gave it a very good lubing following your directions from your guide. I didn't want to disassemble until I tried it after the lubrication. I paid close attention to the clutch pin and area. No luck. I took another video hoping you could confirm the next step is disassembly and proper degreasing.

https://youtu.be/kJPLqVau3mU

Thx!

Jack

Hi Jack,
Yes sir ! I can confirm that --as one of my late friends used to say "un -equivocally"
The clutch yoke pin is frozen ! Follow the procedure in my Mech guide--Ron Rich

Hi Ron,

I must be getting dumber in my old age...

I followed your instructions on removing the clutch so I could give it a good cleaning. Reassembled and now I get the "scans twice, does not pick up record" problem. I does run much quieter after the cleaning...

https://youtu.be/5HbgicDnw34


That seems to indicate a tormat problem. I checked the rca plug, seems fine and the two pins under the tormat still seem to be making contact.

Any ideas?

Jack

Detent switch -that is the place to look first.

Removing the clutch throws off all the adjustments -slightly- and if the switch was making contact marginally, it may now be just out of range.

Remove the detent sw cover (if there) examine the wires and slowly turn the motor while watching for contact closure and a slight wiping (overtravel) action.

Check the manual for the proper setup of the detent sw screw adjust.

If all checks out there, it is on to tracing for the presence of readout voltage at the plungers.

Here are some diagrams:
http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/Rob-N ... rt=2&o=127

http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/Rob-N ... rt=2&o=126

http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/Rob-N ... rt=2&o=125

http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/Rob-N ... rt=2&o=124

Rob

Hi Jack,
Rob's probably "right on"--detent switch--but first--remove a few records in the center of the rack--scan mech to them, and lift the detent release lever- start motor and watch the record lift arm--is it centered, or hitting one side or another ? If centered--detent switch is probably "it". If not centered, you will need to center it as described in the Mech Guide. Ron Rich