8mm Forum: Branching into 9.5mm sound

This is topic Branching into 9.5mm sound in forum 9.5mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000269

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 03, 2015, 09:55 AM:

Just bought two Pathescope Sons and a Vox so that I can have 9.5mm sound.

These were part of the Curzon collection. All three, however, will need professional attention to bring them into full operating condition.

Also included in the purchase were several sound shorts, including Popeye and Betty Boop, and a fully working Pathescope Gem. The latter a possible source for spares for the Sons.

[ February 04, 2015, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Maurice Leakey ]

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on February 03, 2015, 10:10 AM:

That's fantastic !

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on February 03, 2015, 03:10 PM:

Maurice, don't use the Son, if you want to keep you 9.5 sound films...

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on February 04, 2015, 02:55 AM:

Maurice
Sent you a pm
Terry

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 04, 2015, 03:37 AM:

I think that Terry and I do not necessarily share Dino's view of the Son projector.
Yes, they were made down to a price, but that doesn't mean that in capable hands that they should cause problems to films running through them.

Posted by Mike Shaw (Member # 4640) on February 04, 2015, 04:56 AM:

Hi Maurice,My 90yr.old technician as just restored 3 Pathescope Vox's for me plus a 'Son'he's now working on a'Pax' to do away with that dreaded shute arrangement...The Vox is a nice reliable machine,mine as been converted by installing Eiki transformer so a halogen 24v 250w lamp can be used along with 4v.075 exciter,transistor amplifier etc.240v operation,all have had that mirror system removed and solar cell installed,the other 2 machines still run on 110v and there old 200w & 400w lighting system because I have stock of those lamps,all have solar cell modifications.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 04, 2015, 05:01 AM:

My Vox has a transistorised amplifier with a photo diode, and the 15volt 150watt dichroic reflector lamp.
Its problem is probably connected with the motor possibly having shorted-out windings, when switched on it blows the house fuse.
The whole motor may need a rewind.

Posted by Mike Shaw (Member # 4640) on February 04, 2015, 10:46 AM:

Maurice,checkout your motor mountings or gears binding,that dreaded Mazak metal can warp,usually does,I know all 3 of mine had that problem.
Mike.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 04, 2015, 11:39 AM:

How was it cured, Mike?

Posted by Mike Shaw (Member # 4640) on February 04, 2015, 03:42 PM:

Although I didn't do the job Maurice,my technician relayed the problem he was having,on the Super Vox it was really bad that he had to realign the bearing and machine speed changeover gears to stop them from binding....plus on another Vox even had to straighten the armature that had been slightly bent from Mazak deterioration.
Mike.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on February 05, 2015, 12:27 PM:

Hi Maurice, believe me Dino is right about the SON it is notorious for ruining film even in the most capable hands. The threading path around the sprockets is too sharp and rips the sprocket holes. The amplifier is absolute rubbish and the motor burns out because it was over volted to run at sound speed. You can verify these facts from many Group 9.5. members, particularly Ken Valentine. He used to work for Pathescope.!! A modernised VOX is your best bet but do watch out for the Mazak problems. This problem has also arisen with the drive pulley of the PAX which with the "Chute" replaced by a roller system is probably an alternative to the VOX. Having said that, the one at the Curzon collection looks in a very sorry state and appears to have been abused at some stage! Ken Finch.

Posted by Mike Shaw (Member # 4640) on February 05, 2015, 03:40 PM:

Yes Maurice this is true what Ken said but with a bit of tweaking there not all that bad,the one I had overhauled runs pretty well but favour the Vox or Pax more....Again on my 'Son'a new transistorised amplifier & solar cell have been installed but on original motor,one of the reasons for tearing sprockets is that the sound flywheel as to be running very free with no drag,my technician spent a bit of time on the flywheel bearings but once cleaned and regreased the soundrum ran free,that I believe is the main problem,the machines being over 60yr.old the old grease compacks like glue.O.K I keep my fingers crossed on the motor because they were under volted to get them to run at 24fps but it's better than my 'Gem' with Kleesound unit.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 05, 2015, 04:27 PM:

I have always thought the 'Son' was a great looking machine, and dreamed of owning one as a teenager back in the 50's. Too bad its performance does not live up to expectations. But it seems to me that a lot of the Pathescope projectors and cameras were poorly designed. I once had a 'Pat' camera, and it was a dog, with a lens like a marble, and the charger always jamming up. Pathescope must have had a lot of really dissapointed customers with some of their products, whereas you would think that, as the flagship company for 9.5mm, they would have aimed for the very best design, quality, and performance of their 9.5mm equipment.

Posted by Mike Shaw (Member # 4640) on February 05, 2015, 04:41 PM:

Yes!you would have thought that Paul,but I think that they had to put something out cheap to combat 8 & 16mm...they had some great ideas but implemented them with cheapness..take the Ace and Princess projectors,should never had been made then on the other hand come up with the Europe which was one of there better effots but at a Price.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 05, 2015, 05:34 PM:

I agree about the Princess, but the last time I saw one on ebay it sold for over $1,200.00! [Eek!]

The Ace, is actually a pretty well designed little machine. It does not pretend to be anything but a basic projector for showing movies on a small screen, and it is a very solid and robust design. But, it was in production for over 30 years, and not once in that period did Pathescope make any attempt to fix the well known problem of the brake arm scratching the he** out of the film!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 06, 2015, 03:47 AM:

Many thanks, Gentlemen, for all your comments and suggestions. These will be passed on when the restorations of the Sons and Vox commence.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on February 06, 2015, 11:22 AM:

Hi Gentlemen all, If you are really interested in the history of 9.5mm and Pathescope and its equipment in particular a wealth of information can be obtained from joining "Group 9.5" and "The Vintage Film Circle" (A very old established club for film collectors.) This was started by a group of film collectors in 1956
when the most popular gauge for collecting was 9.5mm. Both have regular "house" magazines "9.5" and "Flickers" The the latest issue of the latter contains the 2nd and final part of "The History of 9.5mm sound", by the editor Patrick Moules, founder of Novascope. I have written articles for both from time to time. Other sources of information are the books published by my late friend Gerald McKee, past editor of "Flickers " for many years, And the website "Cinerdistan". Best of luck to you all in your search for decent prints but remember Pathescope went out of business in 1959 and very little has been available on 9.5mm sound since then. I stand by what I said about the "Son". Whatever you do with it it strains the sprocket holes because of the drag from the sound drum and the tight curves. This is made worse because some of the film stock films were printed on during the war and has become very brittle over the years and tends to split laterally across the sprocket holes and you end up with thousands of still frames as they pass round the very small radius curves of the "Son" particularly the roller feeeding the underside of the sprocket. Why it was decided to use such a small diameter sprocket really beggars belief! Ken Finch. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 06, 2015, 01:50 PM:

I think the only conclusion to that question Ken, is that the designers at Pathescope really were not very good at what they did! Time and again with Pathescope equipment you come across really stupid design decisions, the Pat camera film take up, the brake arm on the Ace, and the sprocket size on the Son and the Gem. Did they never fully test their products before marketing them? And when problems were found why were the designs not corrected in future production?
By comparison, the 9.5mm projectors made by the likes of Specto, Eumig, and Bolex were indeed Rolls Royce's.

Posted by Mal Brake (Member # 14) on February 07, 2015, 05:12 PM:

When my father invested in 9.5mm sound in the 50's he opted for the Specto projector and the ACE sound unit. That was my introduction to what today we call home cinema and I loved it.

The set-up worked really well even though there was no sprocket wheel after the sound head. My dad would tell me as long as the take-up spool ran true and the (exposed) flywheel shaft was lubricated there would be very little, if any, wow. Wish I still had it.

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on February 12, 2015, 12:35 PM:

The only problem with using the Specto with the ace sound unit is again the motor would be running full tilt since it was designed as a silent machine, so the whole unit would be over working itself, but the Specto is nice and gentle to the film at least.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 23, 2015, 11:51 AM:

I've had a PM from a member asking why I was going into 9.5 sound whilst 16mm was more readily available.

I replied via a PM, but the answer is in my first posting of this topic.

Three 9.5 sound projectors were offered to me and I couldn't refuse.

I just love projectors having worked in 35mm cinemas all my life.

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on February 25, 2015, 05:02 AM:

I ddon't usually venture on to the 9.5 forum but I started with the Ace as a kid. Actually quite a good little machine. Films from Galloways in Birmingham were 30ft 5/- and 60ft 9/6d. Then I bought a Son but it was not very good so got rid of it. A Specto dual was really nice and the Lido camera produced some lovely pictures. In my 20's I imported a Cinegel Royal 235. I reminded the importers that it needed to be for 240 volts. They didn't include a transformer, so thinking it had an internal one I plugged it in. The bang was terrific. It was repaired but eventually was returned due to constant shocks and poor sound. I've never heard 9.5 at it's best. Perhaps some day!! I'm fortunate to enjoy a 50 seat cinema with 16mm Fumeo and 35mm Simplex machines which we run for public shows every wednesday using our own library prints, but I have a fondness for 9.5 where the bug first bit me.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 25, 2015, 05:17 AM:

Yes, Dave, I think most of us started with 9.5mm and then later progressed to other gauges. But nine-five does have that nostalgic ring to it.

I have started building up my 9.5 sound library, some blue round Pathescope boxes are now in my own possession when as child I could only stand and admire them all stacked up in my local cine shop in Bristol.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 25, 2015, 09:10 AM:

Good Morning Maurice,
Is'nt it amazing when you read all these stories, like Dave's, of how people started out in cine, and the vast majority started with the little Pathe Ace and a 30ft reel! I guess we all owe Pathescope an eternal gratitude for getting us all into this lifetime hobby.
Incidentally Grahame Newnham has many Pathescope sound films on his web site, which you can hear via YouTube. The optical sound quality of 9.5mm aounds pretty good to me. [Smile]

Dave should check them out.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on February 25, 2015, 10:16 AM:

You're quite right, Paul, it's quite amazing what the narrow 9.5 sound track can do.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on February 25, 2015, 12:55 PM:

The thing that amazes me is that super 8mm optical sound works at all!

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on February 25, 2015, 03:35 PM:

It is Paul, but I think the quality is rather poor on all too many of the airline prints. Still, only to be expected i suppose given the restraints of the gauge on the optical track.

Give me Magnetic laminated stock with balance stripe every day of the week!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2