A quick input about the sound byte in question... (And I will follow up later in regard to your request, Robert, for my input on other matters)
The fidelity of this clip definitely has an especially wide frequency response that is uncharacteristic of an acoustic reproducer (regardless of whether it is Columbia, Victor, Brunswick, etc.). I believe that Greg already stated the obviousness of the low frequency spectrum in particular. This was also a major "huh?" for me also. Not only does the low frequency end seem uncharacteristically full, which I first thought could be attributed to equalization after the fact; it also seems to have very distinct dynamic separation without a significant or at least proportional noise floor. Typically, when an acoustic machine is recorded and then equalization is applied to compensate for losses, you not only hear the dynamic increase for a given frequency band of the music itself but also the noise components within a band. And I do not detect a compression and expansion scheme either. But, I honestly haven't tried to listen that hard since this clip is compressed as RA and probably has other irksome digital components that will make me want to reach for a razor blade and end my life if I listen too hard for too long. I briefly listened to several other clips on that web site which seem to be more consistent with what I would anticipate from an acoustic machine. Granted, the others are not late era Viva-Tonal quality sound, but there is an unmistakable character of all acoustic phonographs (i.e. Edison, Victor, Pathe, etc.) that is missing from the clip in question. The easiest way that I can describe how I detect this is by carefully paying attention to what would or should equate to white noise or surface noise and not the music itself. Large styli when tracking a groove produce the intended musical sounds along with the noise of the media surface as well as components introduced from the reproducer's various resonances. They have their own language that speaks clearly. The smaller styli of more modern equipment still have noise but in terms of its intensity it is dramatically suppressed in comparison. I do not know the specific physics that would express the ratio of undesirable music components to those components that might be generically termed undesirable, but therein is one means of scientifically detailing the character of these characteristics. Later tonight after my 3 year old son goes to sleep I will listen more closely because he gets upset when anything competes with his "Bob The Builder" DVDs. Walt -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Wright Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:41 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Portable phonos Hi Greg, I agree, the bottom does sound like a typical Viva-Tonal though a modern cartridge; I had read elsewhere that these machines were capable of stunning amounts of bottom end extension for portables, but I didn't think it would be as big a difference as what this clip shows. Too bad the gent makes it clear it's his recording of his machine; hate to see dishonesty and misinformation continuing to spread. Nonetheless, Greg, what are your experiences with the Columbia #15? In terms of playing early electrical discs, namely Viva-Tonals and VE's, by acoustic reproduction, what non-Credenza machines have you heard that stand up to the Credenza? If we're talking about highest fidelity of an electrical disc through an acoustic machine, is there a clear winner in your opinion? I'd also like to ask you about your experiments with reproducers that garnered better fidelity than any standard-issue sound-boxes. It may be of interest to some of the List (I'd like Walt's input as well, and Steve M's), so if we promise to keep it short and simple, I hope we can discuss it here in the forum. Best, Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bogantz" <[email protected]> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Portable phonos > Hi Robert, Thanks for your confidence, but I don't have personal > experience with this machine. It is a Columbia 161 and uses what appears > to be the #15 Viva-Tonal reproducer. I'm sure it probably sounds better > than other, earlier portables, but I sincerely doubt that the audio clip > that you reference was actually recorded from this machine. That clip has > all the characteristics of a playback with a modern hifi phono cartridge. > In particular, there is no midrange peakiness which is still > characteristic of all acoustic reproducers that I know of. And the bass > is far more extended than I've heard come from any acoustic reproducer > played thru a horn, including the biggest exponential horns. Even if the > recording was made by sticking the microphone well down inside the horn of > an acoustic player, I don't thing the bass would be this good and the > midrange would certainly be honkier than what we hear in this clip. I've > been wrong plenty of times, but I still doubt that this recording was made > from this machine. > > Greg Bogantz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Wright" <[email protected]> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Herzog Peg Layout > > >> Only rule I can think of is never trust the original handle! I've always >> liked the Victor Orthophonic suitcase models, but there's a Columbia >> Viva-Tonal model out there that sounds almost hi-fi, like a Credenza. >> Anyone know which one I'm talking about? Here's a pic: >> >> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jlf/pho/18.jpg >> >> And here's the page associated with the pic, with a sound clip of it >> playing. >> >> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jlf/enphonos.htm >> >> I don't know how this gent mic'd the phono or anything, but the bottom >> end on this machine appears to be pretty amazing. Where's Greg Bogantz? >> I bet he knows about this machine. >> >> Best, >> Robert >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Thatcher Graham" <[email protected]> >> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:48 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Herzog Peg Layout >> >> >>> And while I'm tapping the great knowledge bank that is the phonolist, >>> are there any basic rules of thumb be applied to buying a portable >>> phonograph? What types of problems are common/endemic to certain models? >>> What's impossible to repair and should be inspected before purchase? >>> What's a generally good make/model? etc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Phono-L mailing list >>>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Phono-L mailing list >>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM
