Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: The Mellotron Group

I wouldn't say the case's construction was itself shoddy, but the choice of the formica-type laminate presents a bad material differential that has my top slightly bowed -- and the M's usually end up with chipped feet and other edges that make them look crappy. Richard had told me that they had the case parts made by a local furniture company that made the components in batches (Even though mine is an M2, the lid has "M-1 E" marked on the inside because it was the fifth in that batch). The main issue I could see for some is that because the chassis is mostly screwed-together aluminum angle and it's fastened to the bottom plywood deck, they can flex....but that's why you just set them on a flat surface to play them. Other than that they're pretty sturdy. In comparison to the M400 Mellotron's, I can guess that the furniture may not be as good.

The statement that they both "more advanced" and "predecessor" isn't very good history. Yes they were the predecessor - but the Mark II's are much better engineered than Harry's Musicmasters. But later the Chamberlin M's did use the better responding stereo heads - and the friction/tension rewind could be called more advanced by most.

But this is just the seller working his audience, isn't it?

Vance

On 4/16/2011 10:05 PM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:

 

Clearly evident in those photos. I would like to own one, though. I'm not likely to ever do so.

 

In a message dated 4/17/2011 12:23:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barrickjohn262@gmail.com writes:

 

The shoddy case construction on the chamberlins is what always gets me.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rick Blechta <rick@rickblechta.com> wrote:

 

On Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:

 

"The Chamberlin is the, better and more advanced, predecessor to the Mellotron"

On what planet is it 'more advanced'?

The planet Bieber.