BIC turntables?

[pivot]

The 70s models were dead ringers for the BSR units and BIC were in bed with Plessey (Garrard) at that time. Can't say I kept up with their product line into the 80s.

Which 70s BSR models were "dead ringers" for BIC units? Are the BSR units you are thinking of belt drive?

My understanding of BIC history is Garrard tossed them out of bed rather rudely in the 1970s and that is why BIC developed their own turntable line.

[pivot]

..a little poking around suggests that the BIC turntables may have spun off as the last gasp of the USA manufactured "Voice of Music" brand.

Not 100% sure but looks like a good bet.

[sktn77a]

Yes, VoM was the last gasp of the old BIC Industries. BSR were bought by a Japanese company which went on to manufacture the (equally ill-fated) Final laser turntable.

If I recall correctly, the BSR x10 series was the basis of the BIC turntables we knew and loved in the 70s.

[pivot]

Yes, VoM was the last gasp of the old BIC Industries. BSR were bought by a Japanese company which went on to manufacture the (equally ill-fated) Final laser turntable.

If I recall correctly, the BSR x10 series was the basis of the BIC turntables we knew and loved in the 70s.

"Voice of Music" brand dates back to the 1940s - a couple decades before British Industry Corporation or BIC brand. VoM can't be the last gasp of the new company - other way around.

By "BSR x10" do you mean models like the 810? There is a service manual for a BSR 810 here in the library. It is an idler drive table with mechanics totally unlike and unrelated to the belt drive BICs There may be a passing external resemblance but the guts are totaly different.

All BIC changers were made in the USA and belt drives (the company made a "deal" out of both). All the BSR changers I know were idler drives. The one BSR belt drive in the library here is a tangent tracker and nothing like a BIC.

You ever look "under the hood" of a BIC table?

[porphyriaboy]

Why my goodness, folks, if you ever cringed when a Soundesign
stereo owner wanted to put your record on their turntable, you know
that BSR never made a decent table. You guys are thinking of an old ADC turntable with ties to BSR and the x10 control system that never was but still is...

Now, as to BIC being like a BSR, boy is that far from the tree. BIC was brave enough to deliver some of their tables with clear bottoms so you can watch them work. They are like a very simple belt drive Dual with more plastic than usual (but good plastic!). Also, about design, the motor and speed control are great on a BIC, the BSR is hit and miss. The BIC has a low-mass thin arm with a turnable headshell (remove screw on top) to
install whatever cartridge you desire (no, they didn't EPOXY the cartridge in, but if you are gonna pick one forever, that Shure was a good one...).

So, the BIC had a space-age development the BSR's of the day lacked...a counterweight. With the tonearm weighing about 4 pounds, you need springs to pull that ceramic lump at the end of the arm up enough to land the "needle" on the record for the BSR McDonald.
BIC also paid the patent holder for anti-skating unlike BSR (and AR).
Henry Kloss didn't think springs belonged on a tonearm, BSR stood for
Big Spring Reject...does ANYONE out there remember a decent one?

To be honest, the FIRST table I bought was a BIC 920. A smaller, flimsy 940. I had the cheapest AT cart made on it (a red AT 10). I still didn't have money for a proper amp but I used an Admiral receiver that my parents had. It was japanese and with the AR-18's got me started. But
the 920 was probably the cheapest table you could call a hi-fi table. I took in back for a 940 , a couple of years later, a Dual but the BIC is still doing what it is supposed to. BSR indeed. No connection.
Looks to me they tried to undercut Dual, give a decent table for less that would do the same things. The center spindle for automatic use fits BIC or Dual...so think on that one, folks.

If you have not tried a 940-980, then if you get the chance, do. You will be surprised. Buy a good one and you'll have a part of the last golden years for Hi-Fi. It was the day that promised good stereos everywhere!
No more VanityFair, RCA, Lloyds, Magnavox, Zenith Crap...I was too young to realize that, given the choice, some people still can't make the right choice. Just where did the LG company come from? In bed with Daewoo?

[fscl]

pprboy writes:

The BIC has a low-mass thin arm with a turnable headshell (remove screw on top) to install whatever cartridge you desire (no, they didn't EPOXY the cartridge in, but if you are gonna pick one forever, that Shure was a good one...).

As stated, have a minty albeit old greased challenged 1000 and really want to extract the V15 TIII from the headshell:



Need help extracting, from the pic above, cannot find the headshell top screw...

Do you have any ideas other than to irreversibly knacker the headshell....

Fred and want to experiment / install other cartridges.....and have tried finger drilling through the built-in headshell nuts from the top and still will not come loose.....

[Doug G.]

So much misinformation.

There is a certain member who insists on repeating lies.

There was absolutely NO connection between BIC and BSR. Ridiculous on the face of it. What's with the obssession with stating thus?

The first BIC series was designed by VM engineers but that's about as far as it went. I suppose it's possible VM workers were involved in the manufacturing since VM was foundering by then and probably laying workers off.

But, the BIC tables were not built by VM. They WERE built in Michigan.

BIC was NOT the same company as Bic pens! This is asked in every BIC thread.

There was absolutely NO connection between BIC and Garrard at this time either. BIC had previously been the distributor of Garrard tables in the US and Garrard decided to do this themselves which proved to be disastrous for Garrard.

BIC then decided to have their own tables designed and built here in the US.

BIC never, ever stated that their tables were the first belt drive tables. They stated that they were the first belt drive AUTOMATIC tables which was TRUE.

As to the longevity of BICs, I have had my original 980 since 1976 and it is still working to this day and I would bet it still meets specs. So, let's quit repeating the little nugget about cheapness and shoddy workmanship too. Especially as related to the original 900 series.

How did anybody ever get the idea that Duals and BICs use the same automatic spindle? The systems aren't even remotely the same.

Fred, I am going to look closer at my V15 III BI today. I thought the only two points glued were the two pegs up from the V15 housing into the screw mounting holes but I could be wrong.

I will write what I find.

Doug

[Doug G.]

It looks like they glued the Shure housing to the flat piece at the top also. This would be to keep it from moving back and forth so it will stay in correct tracking relationship.

Hard to tell whether they used a cyanoacrylate glue or epoxy.

You could try getting a chisel-type modeling blade in there to separate the cartridge from that piece.

EDIT: Also, there is no headshell top screw on this series of BICs. That was the later VIA and Z series..

Doug

[pivot]

The first BIC series was designed by VM engineers but that's about as far as it went. I suppose it's possible VM workers were involved in the manufacturing since VM was foundering by then and probably laying workers off.

But, the BIC tables were not built by VM. They WERE built in Michigan.

Interesting. So VoM design at first but no other VoM connection. My info on this was spotty and hearsay at best.

BIC never, ever stated that their tables were the first belt drive tables.

Unfortunatly the current owners of the BIC brand state exactly that on the web site I linked to above. I did not make this up.

The qoute below is a copy and paste from the web site:

"In 1973, BIC introduced its own brand of loudspeakers and the industry's first belt drive turntables"

The folks who own BIC brand now are not the same as the company that made the turntables in the 1970s of course.

[Doug G.]

Well, even I will admit that the connection between BIC and VM isn't entirely clear other than there was some involvment of VM in the concept and design.

I wish I could remember the city in Michigan where the BICs were built but I know it wasn't Benton Harbor. I'll have to look at a map and see if my once brilliant memory is jogged but there is no guarantee, of course.

Kevin, I know you didn't make up the bit about first belt drive tables. This has come up before and I have meant to contact the current BIC company which does not have a connection to the original (which was an Avnet company based in New York) and tell them of their gaff. I will do this and see what happens.

Doug

[nat]

I remember a Bert Whyte or Edward Tatnal Canby column in Audio about the full range of audio components that VM had designed and made prototypes of right before they went under. After BIC and Garrard broke up, BIC bought the plans or the rights to the turntables and maybe the speakers, and brought them to market. I've of mixed minds about BICs -- the design is much better than the execution, but there was no way that the design made with castings or harder metals and a decent rigid plinth would have been competitive pricewise, so it may have been doomed from conception.
I will say, though that the mat may be the worst ever designed -- yes, it damps the light platter very well, but the cutouts ensure that any stylus dropped on the platter will almost certainly be destroyed.
While ranting, I want to point out that contra the previous poster, early BSRs had counterweights, and for the type of machine they were selling, springs are not a bad substitute. Its worth remembering that BSRs ate the cheap Garrard's lunch because the BSRs were either better at the same price or cheaper for the same quality. Both were not attempts at the state of the art, certainly, but they satisfied the demand for inexpensive, sort of tolerably decent automatic record players.

[pivot]

....., but there was no way that the design made with castings or harder metals and a decent rigid plinth would have been competitive pricewise, so it may have been doomed from conception....

Don't know how "doomed" they were. They sure sold a "S---load" of BIC turntables in the 1970s.

I didn't sell 'em, but the competition sure did.

[Doug G.]

Ah, Audio magazine. It was a black day when it disappeared. I still miss reading it. Stereo Review too.

Anyway, yes, the original 900 series sold very well and, contrary to many unfounded assertions, the downturn was not due to any actual inferiority in the tables.

It was due to the new Japanese tables appearing along with hype and the public bought it.

So, the monolithic type tables began outselling the traditional appearing tables with separate metal base plates mounted on wooden bases, etc.

Dual was affected by this too. Hence their later attempts to build look-alike tables ala the CS series. BICs VIA and Z series were their reaction to this.

Unfortunately, these tables were just plastic housings around the original mechanism and, instead of the mechanism being integral with the housings, the housings just added uneeded resonance to an already satisfactory design.

As far as the mats go, originally they had a continuous mat and it was changed to the segmented one in about the third year of production (1975). The continuous one was brought back in the later series.

The fact remains that it doesn't matter that much. If care is exercised, no damage will occur. After all, dropping a stylus on even a continuous mat can damage it too. In the thirty five years I've had my 980, I have never damaged a stylus by dropping it on the mat or having it slide off a 45 onto the mat.

So, in my opinion, the original series is still the best. The claims of cheapness and poor build quality are unfounded and actually, they are built quite like the Duals of the period as far as materials. Dual used a lot of plastic (the main cam gear, for instance and structures at the tone arm rear) too but nobody ever mentions this.

Also, as far as specs, the BICs were superior to Duals at the time and Dual had to scramble to release their own belt driven automatic.

So, a lot of the crap about BICs passed down through the annals of time is exactly that.

They are steady, solid performers that add no sound of their own to the playing of records.

Doug

[lo-fi guy]

I have a BIC 940 that sounds better than my Technics SL-5. I sold the Technics and am keeping the BIC. I'm sure there are other tables that sound better than a BIC but mine was $10.00 at a resale shop. I'll hold on to it until I run into another bargain down the road.