the home of the turntable

Tonearm for 78 rpm

snap, crackle and pop

Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby Balder » 10 Aug 2018 09:37

What tonearm would be ideal for 78 rpm shellacs? The intention is to try different , so I would need a fairly "universal" arm. The Audio Technica ATP-12T seems to be robust enough, but it has a quite high effective mass (23 g). A Technics EPA-500 might be somewhat easier to match to a range of cartridges, but would it be robust enough for shellac duty?
Balder
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 08 Sep 2008 12:20
Location: Noreg

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby tlscapital » 10 Aug 2018 13:10

I don't play 78rpms shellac records, but I'd have believe that lower low compliant cartridge would provide better tracking in those large groove walls as such high speed.

And so that heavy mass tonearms are preferred by 78 rpm shellac's collectors for such reasons. But maybe it's more complex than that and that is only my humble belief.
tlscapital
long player
long player
 
Posts: 1308
Images: 6
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Belgium

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby JoeE SP9 » 10 Aug 2018 17:13

Don't forget that for 78's you'll get the best sound with a mono cartridge with the appropriate size stylus.
JoeE SP9
long player
long player
contributor
 
Posts: 4449
Images: 3
Joined: 23 Feb 2009 20:20
Location: Phildelphia, Pennsylvania

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby Coffee Phil » 10 Aug 2018 17:19

Hi Balder,

The arm which you need is determined by the cartridge which you are using as with Lps.
I think the notion that you need a massive arm with a low compliance cartridge is a myth.

I play a lot of 78s and my main setup is an SME3009 with a Shure M44 body and an Astatic packaged Shure stylus which is supposed to be a replacement for the Shure N44-3. It tracks at 2.3 grams and works very well on Shellac 78s from early acoustic from ~1914 to standard groove 78 vinyl 78s from the '40s. I can also play vertical cut records such as Edisons and Pathes with it. For micro-groove vinyl 78s I use the same Sonus Blue which I use for Lps. I also have a stylus assembly which has been re-tipped with a 3 mill stylus for the Sonus. It also works well on the 78s as well as the 80 RPM vertical records. In addition to those I have a GE RPX. It is somewhat massive and requires an additional counterweight on the SME. It tracks at ~5 grams. It also works well on standard groove 78s. Of coarse it can't be used with vertical cut records. The RPX is a mono cartridge from the '40s with lower compliance, but the extra counterweight makes the SME into a more massive arm.

My next 78 stylus (for the Shure) is likely to be the N44-3e from Esoteric Sound. It is an elliptic stylus for standard groove 78s and they have sound samples comparing it to conicals on their site and I'm very tempted.

On the mono/stereo cartridge thing: I realize that this is argued with religious furor. As I said above I have both mono and stereo cartridges. I can properly sum my stereo cartridges to mono for either lateral or vertical and I'll say that while 78s (and mono lps for that manner) are best played in mono, a properly summed stereo cartridge just a good as a mono cartridge. Some mono cartridges such as my RPX should never be used with stereo records or vertical cut records. They will not even play vertical records.

Phil




Balder wrote:What tonearm would be ideal for 78 rpm shellacs? The intention is to try different , so I would need a fairly "universal" arm. The Audio Technica ATP-12T seems to be robust enough, but it has a quite high effective mass (23 g). A Technics EPA-500 might be somewhat easier to match to a range of cartridges, but would it be robust enough for shellac duty?
Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
 
Posts: 5174
Images: 362
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby Balder » 11 Aug 2018 03:31

What I am concerned about is the heavy tracing forces required for 78s. Will the bearings of "ordinary" tonearms be able to withstand these forces without damage, over a sustained time period?
Balder
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 08 Sep 2008 12:20
Location: Noreg

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby Coffee Phil » 11 Aug 2018 07:09

Are you calling 2.3 to 5 grams heavy tracking forces.

Phil

Balder wrote:What I am concerned about is the heavy tracing forces required for 78s. Will the bearings of "ordinary" tonearms be able to withstand these forces without damage, over a sustained time period?
Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
 
Posts: 5174
Images: 362
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby tlscapital » 11 Aug 2018 12:08

Coffee Phil wrote:Hi Balder,

The arm which you need is determined by the cartridge which you are using as with Lps.
I think the notion that you need a massive arm with a low compliance cartridge is a myth...

...On the mono/stereo cartridge thing: I realize that this is argued with religious furor. As I said above I have both mono and stereo cartridges. I can properly sum my stereo cartridges to mono for either lateral or vertical and I'll say that while 78s (and mono lps for that manner) are best played in mono, a properly summed stereo cartridge just a good as a mono cartridge...

Phil


Hi Phil, no offense intended, but myth are for believers, not knowers. I come from a long way and I know how my vintage 45's have benefitted from my low compliant MONO cartridge with a large conical stylus.

This DL-102 was fit on a SME3009 'Improved' S II and it did OK. Only after the evolutive DIY tweaks I did enhancing progressively the effective mass of the tonearm, the cartridge started to do much more than OK.

Since, my 45s never sounded that good. This I know, not believe. It's the whole of it. Not just the cartridge compliance, the stylus cut, the MONO lateral read or the single bodied cart, but it's the whole that makes it.

This is where I'd have believe that a MONO low compliant cartridge on a heavy mass tonearm will not only make those 78 listenable but truly enjoyable sonically. As I have know to discover with my vintage 45s.

I can understand that a STEREO cartridge summed into a MONO one should sound even if plugged with only one speaker. But with two speakers, one could be inclined to hear differences in the channels.

Yet indeed nothing should be more telling than a real "live" trial between a higher compliant MONO cartridge and a lower compliant one powered with a "neutral and clear" (show it all) sonically phono set-up.

So not a "religious fury" (mind you that "modern" politicians are not known for that, but they did inflict much more human and philosophical toll) but a humble opinion based on experiences and theory for the fit.

Cheers, Tim
tlscapital
long player
long player
 
Posts: 1308
Images: 6
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Belgium

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby uem » 11 Aug 2018 14:59

Balder wrote:What I am concerned about is the heavy tracing forces required for 78s. Will the bearings of "ordinary" tonearms be able to withstand these forces without damage, over a sustained time period?



Balder,
The “weight” of the tracking force should have little impact onto the total force onto the arm bearing. The complete mass of arm + system & counter weight is essential – and you could have a heavy cartridge and low tracking force….
But as mentioned above: I would not really worry about the arm mass, AS LONG as it fits the cartridge you select.
I can only support the notion that 78 shellacs sound better with a “true” mono generator and if you have badly worn and/or old records with a suitable stylus.
(STANTON used to sell an MM Cartridge with a set of interchangeable styli; ( unfortunately it’s NOT a true MONO cartridge…)

For “higher requirements” there are the Audio Technica AT-MONO3/SP and the Ortofon “S”PU Mono Shellac 65 CG (sadly at a very steep price – but with an excellent sound !)

Have lots of fun with this “antique” sound of days gone by ! :wink:
Regards

Urs
uem
member
member
 
Posts: 56
Images: 8
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 20:36
Location: Horgen, Switzerland

Switzerland

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby KentT » 11 Aug 2018 16:15

Balder wrote:What tonearm would be ideal for 78 rpm shellacs? The intention is to try different , so I would need a fairly "universal" arm. The Audio Technica ATP-12T seems to be robust enough, but it has a quite high effective mass (23 g). A Technics EPA-500 might be somewhat easier to match to a range of cartridges, but would it be robust enough for shellac duty?


Audio-Technica ATP 12-T perfect for 78 RPM duty. You need something which can be tracked at heavier forces for micro-warped 78 RPM discs. And also it's great for MC duty if you like those, EPA 500 is lowish mass. Not what I feel is ideal for 78 RPM duty.
KentT
long player
long player
 
Posts: 3767
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 20:44
Location: Athens, TN

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby Coffee Phil » 11 Aug 2018 18:04

Hi Tim,

You have moved into 45s which are more similar to Lps than to standard groove 78s. 45s are micro-groove records pressed into vinyl or molded polystyrene which is actually more prone to wear than vinyl. Early 45 as Lps were mono and in the late '50s stereo started to appear. The suitable styli and cartridges required For 45s is the same as required for Lps.
As with any mono record mono 45s will have less noise and distortion played back in mono. Any difference between what comes out of your speakers using a summed stereo cartridge or a mono cartridge has everything to do with the balance of your system and nothing to do with a stereo vs. mono cartridge. You may like a particular mono cartridge better than a particular stereo cartridge but if you say that mono cartridges are "better" than stereo cartridges I think you are venturing into folklore. I have an RCA RP190 45 changer which I restored. I replaced the long dead crystal cartridge with a cheap Pfanstiehl stereo magnetic cartridge. I rewired the arm for stereo so I can play stereo 45s. This cartridge tracks at something like 5 grams. For what it is, it sounds pretty good. The little machine has too much rumble to use for stereo, so if If I want to show that I can play a stereo 45 in stereo on it I can however because of the rumble I would use mono. Now since the little grunt machine requires some force to trip the changer mechanism of necessity I used a heavy tracking cartridge. Now I can compare any 45 played on this machine to the same record played on my Kenwood KD 500 with an SME arm with a Sonus Blue cartridge which tracks at ~1.5 grams. There is no record which I have tried which sounds better on the little RCA.

Now going back to 78s. I had a bad Sonus stylus assembly re-tipped with a three mil stylus. 78s sound very good played with this cartridge. I can also play vertical cut Edisons and Pathes with it. I also have a GE RPX "triple play" cartridge. Triple play means it can play standard groove 78s as well as micro-groove 33 1/3 and 45 RPM records. This is about as "true mono" cartridge as one can get. On my 78s and mono Lps the RPX and the Sonus sound very similar. Maybe this is because both cartridges were designed by Peter Pritchard even though they have vastly different designs.

Phil


tlscapital wrote:
Coffee Phil wrote:Hi Balder,

The arm which you need is determined by the cartridge which you are using as with Lps.
I think the notion that you need a massive arm with a low compliance cartridge is a myth...

...On the mono/stereo cartridge thing: I realize that this is argued with religious furor. As I said above I have both mono and stereo cartridges. I can properly sum my stereo cartridges to mono for either lateral or vertical and I'll say that while 78s (and mono lps for that manner) are best played in mono, a properly summed stereo cartridge just a good as a mono cartridge...

Phil


Hi Phil, no offense intended, but myth are for believers, not knowers. I come from a long way and I know how my vintage 45's have benefitted from my low compliant MONO cartridge with a large conical stylus.

This DL-102 was fit on a SME3009 'Improved' S II and it did OK. Only after the evolutive DIY tweaks I did enhancing progressively the effective mass of the tonearm, the cartridge started to do much more than OK.

Since, my 45s never sounded that good. This I know, not believe. It's the whole of it. Not just the cartridge compliance, the stylus cut, the MONO lateral read or the single bodied cart, but it's the whole that makes it.

This is where I'd have believe that a MONO low compliant cartridge on a heavy mass tonearm will not only make those 78 listenable but truly enjoyable sonically. As I have know to discover with my vintage 45s.

I can understand that a STEREO cartridge summed into a MONO one should sound even if plugged with only one speaker. But with two speakers, one could be inclined to hear differences in the channels.

Yet indeed nothing should be more telling than a real "live" trial between a higher compliant MONO cartridge and a lower compliant one powered with a "neutral and clear" (show it all) sonically phono set-up.

So not a "religious fury" (mind you that "modern" politicians are not known for that, but they did inflict much more human and philosophical toll) but a humble opinion based on experiences and theory for the fit.

Cheers, Tim
Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
 
Posts: 5174
Images: 362
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby tlscapital » 11 Aug 2018 20:05

Coffee Phil wrote:Hi Tim,

You have moved into 45s which are more similar to Lps than to standard groove 78s. 45s are micro-groove records pressed into vinyl or molded polystyrene which is actually more prone to wear than vinyl. Early 45 as Lps were mono and in the late '50s stereo started to appear. The suitable styli and cartridges required For 45s is the same as required for Lps.


Most seem to prefer a 0.5 mil stylus for LP's nowadays. Where I prefer my 0.7 mil stylus as it fits better my vintage 45s groove playback. Still it is LP compatible but some might find it rightfully lacking detail retrieval.

And some 78 rpms shellac records seems to often enjoy even larger styluses. On the polystyrene that too many are dissing, I have found that if well pressed and in good nick it can have much more depth than vinyl.

Coffee Phil wrote:... You may like a particular mono cartridge better than a particular stereo cartridge but if you say that mono cartridges are "better" than stereo cartridges I think you are venturing into folklore.


Agreed. And my MONO cartridge is also STEREO compliant. So with those "fancy" at times records specs (timing, speed and phonic mastering), either true MONO or STEREO can be omitted and played carefree.

I am never claiming that MONO cartridges are better than STEREO ones. Still I find that a true MONO cartridge do benefits MONO records if one wants to enjoy them fully I have learn to appreciate and listen to.

Coffee Phil wrote:... on my Kenwood KD 500 with an SME arm with a Sonus Blue cartridge which tracks at ~1.5 grams.


That is a classic TT & TA combo. Am I right believing that your SME is an 'Improved' S II then ? That Sonus 'Blue' cartridge seems to be appreciated by some for it's "exotic" specs and a high compliance at 50 Dyne !
tlscapital
long player
long player
 
Posts: 1308
Images: 6
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Belgium

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby scrapjack+ » 11 Aug 2018 21:47

As far as I'm aware shellac coated rock dust is fairly forgiving to poor(by modern standards) tone arm design, putting up with old phonograph reproducers, 10 for a penny needles, or heavy intricate tone arms that seemed to be designed for style instead of sound. I'd say even a crosley tone arm won't kill them.

If you want to try a heavy arm before committing to the price and modification, then you can always increase the weight on a head shell. Lead tape is used for balancing tennis rackets and golf clubs, or some pennies and scotch tape, would also allow you to fake having a heavy tone arm with whatever you already have. If you change the weight enough you may need a different counter balance for that head shell, but counter balances are cheap compared to complete tone arms.

Lead is poisonous. If you use lead tape somewhere you may come into contact with, you should coat the outermost piece with something lacking in carcinogens, like paint, nail polish, or any other type of tape.
scrapjack+
member
member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 28 Jul 2017 04:32

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby tlscapital » 12 Aug 2018 11:47

scrapjack+ wrote:As far as I'm aware shellac coated rock dust is fairly forgiving to poor(by modern standards) tone arm design, putting up with old phonograph reproducers, 10 for a penny needles, or heavy intricate tone arms that seemed to be designed for style instead of sound. I'd say even a crosley tone arm won't kill them.


Are you that badly prejudiced to shellac 78 rpm records to even propose a Crosley for them ? :wink: I've heard shellac 78 rpms literally blowing the speaker on an accordingly proper phono set-up. Dynamic is unbeatable, basses are boomy and there was almost a 2-D sound stage "image".

Hence the amp valves provides sufficient inherent details and noises suppression from the flaws of the "rough" accidented shellac grooves. Flaws that a modern "clear & neutral" amplification and defined speakers would bring to light and that not many appreciate. I do not mind those so much...

scrapjack+ wrote:If you want to try a heavy arm before committing to the price and modification, then you can always increase the weight on a head shell. Lead tape is used for balancing tennis rackets and golf clubs, or some pennies and scotch tape, would also allow you to fake having a heavy tone arm with whatever you already have. If you change the weight enough you may need a different counter balance for that head shell, but counter balances are cheap compared to complete tone arms.


That is a good advice if one has such a low compliant MONO cartridge with a large conical tip under the hand to test that alone... But only as a "lead" to follow or not. A properly set-up heavier effective mass tonearm will out perform such tweak "montage" on the resonance factors for one.
tlscapital
long player
long player
 
Posts: 1308
Images: 6
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Belgium

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby josephazannieri » 12 Aug 2018 14:48

Yo balder:

I guess that I will go into a different area. I use 2 arms to play 78s. The primary arm is a Thorens TP 13A which I replaced on my TD 150 AB turntable with a Linn Basik arm. The TP 13A is a sort of medium mass arm, and I use it with a Shure M44 body with a generic 2.7 mil stylus. The Shure cart tracks at 3 grams, making it a sort of medium compliance cart. It is not one of those GE RPX or VR mono carts like Phil uses, which need heavy mass arms to work well.

The idea that you need a heavy mass arm to play 78s may be mistaken. I also use a Shure V-15-IV to play 78sm because I have a Shure VN 4G stylus for it. This is a 2 mil stylus, which rides way low in the unworn portion of the 78 RPM grooves and reduces noise considerably. The VN 4G stylus tracks at 1.5 grams, and I use it in a Grace G 707 arm, which is low mass, and it works fine on the noisy 78s that it is appropriate for. There is no problem with the speed of the records or the width of the grooves. Low mass arm tracks just fine and does nut jump out of grooves. However, it does not have the high frequency impact and clarity that the M44-2.7 mil combination has.

You do not need one of those huge old fashioned 5- pound Gray research just to play 78s, any more than you need them to play 45s or mono LPs. I will now don my Kevlar suit and duck into the bunker to avoid the blasts from the high mass partisans.

And good luck, and Hi, Phil from that bunker-dwelling old Kevlar wearer,

Joe Z.
josephazannieri
long player
long player
contributor
 
Posts: 2815
Images: 0
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 06:01
Location: Norwalk,Ohio,USA

United States of America

Re: Tonearm for 78 rpm

Postby scrapjack+ » 12 Aug 2018 22:02

tlscapital wrote:
scrapjack+ wrote:As far as I'm aware shellac coated rock dust is fairly forgiving to poor(by modern standards) tone arm design, putting up with old phonograph reproducers, 10 for a penny needles, or heavy intricate tone arms that seemed to be designed for style instead of sound. I'd say even a crosley tone arm won't kill them.


Are you that badly prejudiced to shellac 78 rpm records to even propose a Crosley for them ? :wink: I've heard shellac 78 rpms literally blowing the speaker on an accordingly proper phono set-up. Dynamic is unbeatable, basses are boomy and there was almost a 2-D sound stage "image".

Hence the amp valves provides sufficient inherent details and noises suppression from the flaws of the "rough" accidented shellac grooves. Flaws that a modern "clear & neutral" amplification and defined speakers would bring to light and that not many appreciate. I do not mind those so much...[/b]


Actually one of my only two realistic complaints with my current table is that it doesn't have a 78 setting. They can sound great on old cabinets, even my grandfathers which was ignored and unmaintained for decades. I quite like 78's, it should be able to produce beter sound due to it's higher rpm than 33's or 45's and I always get excited when I see a book of 78's at the thrift shop even as I find the records don't match the book cover, at least until I see the first broken record, often of several. :( My argument wasn't based off my preferences however, but my experiences. I have encountered old 50's 78 rpm record changers with what seemed like equally terrible plastic tone arms, and giant cast metal tone arms that would likely be equally destructive if not more than a Crosley arm to vinyl records such as the 78rpm V-discs or the less than 16" 78 transcriptions among other examples. I've yet to encounter a gramophone that wasn't in box of 1,000 pieces, however those pieces were quite heavy as well. Please let me clarify, it wasn't my intention to recommend Crosley arms, and I agree with what seems to be the general consensus, that they are among the worst on the market today, that is why they sell for $3 with the $2 p-188 cartridge and needle. I did however once own a Crosley clone that seemed to play 78's well enough through my component stereo, and the table died before the record grooves, and before the new diamond stylus for that matter. It had the older nonqueing lever style arm pictured unmounted, that I refer to when I say "Crosley tonearm". It actually does have spring hooks to set the tracking force however the springs, if ever present, were missing by the time I ended up with it, and it gave me the inspiration to take another look at fixing my Technics.

So if an arm as terrible as a Crosley's will work and some vintage(1950's -prior) tables designed with those records in mind had arms that would make a vinyl collector cry, then I'd say just about anything can work. Before some one beats me to it, remember folks, the ever important difference between "can" and "should" be done. In other words, if the OP sees a newer(1970 onward) decent arm the OP really wants and can afford, they, in my opinion, can be reasonably confident it won't eat their shellac records on the first spin* provided it's mounted and setup correctly of course. If Like me they have old family home recordinngs etched in cardboard, resin, or the 78 rpm postcards, or any of the other odd material 78 rpm records, those may be a different matter. I was simply using Crosleys as an example of one of the most universally hated arms, and yes they are terrible arms. Save your $3.00, you'd be better off building an arm from scratch than using a Crosley arm, and tone arms are the most mechanically complicated part of a table, I believe someone else already mentioned resonance frequency. The tracking force is only the first of several problems with a Crosley tonearm, and the tonearm is the first of several problems with a Crosley turntable.

I was going to google the photo however I found that Crosley now has turntables has arms with counterbalances that might be considered a real tone arm, or mistaken for one at least. So it seems the photo of the two common lower end arms I referenced is necessary to clarify my statements, and as I reworded my earlier sentence, the arms I am referring to unless otherwise specified are of the style that is unmounted in the photo, and has no adjust ability.
DVZM5715 cropped.jpg



* Actually I once saw a test done and I think they got over 40 plays of a single vinyl record side on a Crosley before the wave forms were starting to show significant change, and that may have just been the $2 stylus giving out. So, having some idea how much more abuse shellac records took when they were the standard from period players compared to modern (1970-onward) dainty 33 rpm tone arms with their delicate adjustments and fine, or even coarse tuning, I'm doubtful a crossly can damage a shellac 78 unless the lid closes on the record surface during playback. Crosleys seem gentle by comparison to some of the period pieces I've encountered. I think anyone who has held one or more reproducers with their swiveling arm tubes separated from the gramophone will realize just how light a Crosley arm really is, or a real tone arm for that matter. They did not skimp on metal in the 30's or 40's, outside of the war years that is.

tlscapital wrote:
scrapjack+ wrote:If you want to try a heavy arm before committing to the price and modification, then you can always increase the weight on a head shell. Lead tape is used for balancing tennis rackets and golf clubs, or some pennies and scotch tape, would also allow you to fake having a heavy tone arm with whatever you already have. If you change the weight enough you may need a different counter balance for that head shell, but counter balances are cheap compared to complete tone arms.


That is a good advice if one has such a low compliant MONO cartridge with a large conical tip under the hand to test that alone... But only as a "lead" to follow or not. A properly set-up heavier effective mass tonearm will out perform such tweak "montage" on the resonance factors for one.

Well yes, I assumed so, properly designed gear is usually better than rigging scraps together. That said, sometimes it can be really helpful to have even some brief experience with something, even if it is only a loose approximation, to get a feel for that type of device and know if it's the direction you want to take, in my experience at least. If needed some spare counterweights sell for less than $10, all you need is to match the inner diameter and choose an appropriate mass. They'll spend more on carts and styli than that. So if they want to hear how a cart they already have may sound with higher mass tonearm it may be an approximation, and they may be able to do the test with out getting a new weight. Then again I got headshells with carts so light my Technics stock counter weight is too heavy for the arm to drop, so they may need a different weight to run the Heavy Headshell Test(HHT) as I will henceforth call it. :)


This "quick" response was allot longer than I expected. It is never my intention to offend anyone. My intention was merely to clarify any confusion or misinterpretation regarding my previous statement, and to contribute information that may be of Help in resolving the initial question. I tend to carry on and get side tracked with what seems to me to be relevant. I have usually found it preferable to have more information than needed as apposed to not enough, although I am aware some prefer short concise answers over lengthy explanations.

Disclaimer: The HHT will not meet NASA's quality standards however neither will the 78's in question or any other non-gold-plated 16.6 rpm records.
scrapjack+
member
member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 28 Jul 2017 04:32

United States of America

Next

Return to Turntables and Tonearms