A lady is having a sale sort of like a garage sale near here. I got a preview of what's going to be in the sale. Not much of any interest to me. Several old console stereo's, all solid state and of dubious condition and quality. One a TV/stereo with the color picture tube burned black in a rectangle in the center. This particular unit has a nice console cabinet, but it is huge and it's got a crappy SS receiver. It also has a dual 1009 record changer in it.

I'm not all that familiar with Dual models. It doesn't look like much when I just gaze at it, but I'm wondering if anyone here can clue me in on this particular changer.
Basically, my thoughts are to buy the beast, bust it up for scrap and keep the Dual changer for future reference, if it's of decent build and not designed for the el-cheapo market.

Mark D.

The 1009 was the predecessor to the 1019. It came in several variants. The original 1009 had no user-adjustable anti-skate. Toward the end of the production run, a user-adjustable anti-skate was added -- and at that time the 1009 began to look almost identical to the soon-to-be-released 1019.

The 1009 has a heavy tonearm. The Shure M3D or M44C is compatible with the arm. The M91 is not. I discovered this the hard way about 38 years ago!

The heavy platter makes for very stable speed, with low wow-and-flutter. However, the weak point in the table is the idler wheel. A majority of 1009 idlers have become hard as a rock. You will likely need to send to Terry Witt or Gary Stork.

Another failure area is the cycling cam. On many 1009's the cam shows a great deal of wear, and may require some remedial resurfacing with a needle file. Be prepared to pull the cam and clean and lube in any case. Do not allow the platter to rotate counter-clockwise on this model (or on many Duals) when the end-of-play trip pawl is engaged, as this can damage the pawl.

A third problem area is the viscous cuing. On the 1009 (and 1019) the cuing deteriorates so as to drop too slowly. This requires disassembly of the circular cuing plates and replacement of the damping compound.

Be sure and burnish the contacts in the headshell. Often you need to hardwire around the crimps in the lead wires.

The multiple-play spindle on the 1009 has a 100% failure rate. This is because the rubber expansion retainers in the spindle that keep the records yet-to-be-dropped from falling down when the record-being-dropped makes its plunge disintegrate and fall off. The Turntable Experts on Long Island offer a rebuilding service on these spindles.

When restored, this is a decent machine.

Fred
owner
Classic Audio Repair

Sounds to me like it's a lot of trouble. I have yet to even replace the original belt on my 1969 vintage AR turntable. I have Collaro's that are less trouble.
That said, if I can get the whole pile of crap for, say, $20, I might take it, smash it up and dumpster it but save the turntable. Speakers might be good to use in an old radio, so might keep them too. Old radios don't need much for speakers.

When I looked at it, the tone arm didn't look or seem to be all that heavy. Naturally it was lying loose, dragging around on the platter. I snapped it back on the stand.

Thanks for the useful information.

Mark D.

The tonearm isn't heavy by ceramic cartridge, or crystal cartridge, standards. But it was intended for use with a magnetic cartridge. The Shure M3D was popular at the time, and the dynamics of the 1009 tonearm matched well with the M3D and similar cartridges by Pickering and Empire. Note that the M3D tracked at around 2 grams, but you could track it much heavier and it would stand up. The cantilever had a fairly low compliance. Later, Shure introduced the M44E, which had a higher compliance than the M3D. This worked very well with the 1009, probably better than the primitive M3D.

A variant of the M44E, the M44-7, is currently used by DJ's the world around. It is very durable, and can be used for scratching.

In the early 1970's, Shure introduced the M91E, which was a light-tracking cartridge (about 1.25 grams). It stomped on most other cartridges at the time. It had a very high compliance cantilever, and because of this Shure advertised that it could play essentially any record. This was 100% true. Unfortunately, it didn't work well in higher-mass arms. Put simply, the inertia of the higher-mass arms overwhelmed the compliance of the M91E.

There you go.

Fred
owner
Classic Audio Repair

I think by heavy Fred means that the Dual has a high mass tonearm and is not suitable for
high compliance cartridges. It does not mean the arm actually tracks at heavy forces.

Tonearm mass and cartridge compliance matching are important for best performance.

Why not post the make and model numbers of the consoles?

Why not post the make and model?

Because I don't have it.
It's in the basement of a downtown building that's lit by a couple of 60 watt light bulbs that weren't near where this thing was sitting, and it's surrounded by so much other crap that I could barely get to it, much less behind it to find a model number. I had to use a penlight I had in my pocket to see what details I did see. There wasn't room to really open the front, where the TV screen is, but with one door partly opened I could see that the screen has a black rectangle burned into the middle of it.
The receiver face was looking up at me, and I noted a name on it, but it was something I didn't recognize. it was also black plastic with chrome trim on the plastic, with big flat plastic knobs. Nothing to write home about.
And apparently, from what I've been reading, neither is that Dual changer. But if I can get my hands on it when the sale comes up, I might do just that. As I said, bust the thing up and take what I can use, toss the rest. The changer might be a source of parts for others.
Mark D.

The other consoles may have decent speakers especially if any of them are Magnavox.

Mark, there were several styles of the 1009. The basic model was a 1009 then I believe there was a 1009SK and a 1009SK2. I have a 1009SK2, bought it new and it is a good turntable. In the last couple of years I have found several more of them. I did change the drive wheel after many years of usage. I think there is a web site dedicated to dual turntables, don't have the url handy though. Make sure the headshell is complete and all there. Bill

The middle variant is the 1009f, and the sk was the final version. Another potential problem on these is the motor's internal lube "well" that the rotor sits in - and the collar - can need to be reubed after so many years, so you have to pop them open to do that.

As noted earlier, the final 1009sk model was virtually a 1019, so in that regard it is a bargain out there. The only real difference is the lack of a pitch control, and the spindle is not tapered for each speed ( because the tapered spindles were how they adjusted pitch on the 1019). If you have a 1019 speed/pitch adjuster from a 1019, you can turn the 1009sk into one as the parts interchange, although the speed is pretty close overall on one.

I rebuilt and lubed up a 1009sk a few years ago, and it was a very rewarding experience. I learned a lot about how the Duals tick, and the end result was a really nice music machine. Great for 3 speed play. My personal prefernce for carts off the shelf these days for that kind of thing is an SC35/m25 type Shure for 33 and 45, and then either an M78s needle (which fits both) or even a 2nd M78s cart on a 2nd holder.

I too have bought consoles for the Dual turntables in there. It happens.