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.
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'?