Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Richard: I think so. I have owned three Credenzas as well as a 10-50 and 9-40 and all needed a little horn resealing. I don't remember where I read this tip but since it works well, I will pass it along. One can put a light bulb inside and then outside of a Credenza horn while in a dark room and look for light leaks through the horn. I then use a black silicone putty to seal any light leaks and for good measure, do a little seam sealing as well. New thick felt between the end of cast iron horn neck and the bottom of the tone arm base is a good idea too. Grease below and above the new felt seals well. Probably modern rubber could be cut into a donut too but I have not tried that. With a good reproducer rebuild, the air path will be well sealed. I have a stock of original Tungs-tone needles and use them exclusively (in several volume ratings) but perhaps someone else on the list has another alternative to this that plays well and gives good service. Regards, BillZ On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks, Bill. It sounds like there's definitely a go big or go home school when it comes to orthophonics. Since I probably only have room for one machine, I suspect many out there would advise me to hold out for a Credenza. Do you think most 80+ year-old orthophonic horns need to be re-sealed? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:41 -0400 From: rochr...@gmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? For years I poo-pooed listening to electric records on an Orthophonic machine, always playing them instead on a modern turntable with a collector noise reduction unit. But I discovered that I had never heard a properly restored Orthophonic machine playing a Victor Orthophonic record. By properly restored I mean a Credenza that has had the horn resealed, the felt gasket between horn neck and tone arm replaced and sealed, and which used a good rebuilt Orthophonic reproducer. This type of machine plays magnificently! The warmth and depth of tone is wonderful. While dance records are great played on a restored Credenza, some of the 12 Victor Gems records offer the best way to hear the machine because you can hear wonderful voices, a full orchestra as well as great 1920s tunes. The same record played on a modern system does not have the same quality. Perhaps if I were an engineer or musician I could express more clearly what the difference is. But I have been converted. Since that first experience I have bought and restored my own Credenza and then later a 10-50 and a 9-40. I must say that in the 9-40, one has the chance of hearing an Orthophonic record played with both an Orthophonic reproducer and an early electric reproducer/amp, as the machine has one of each. While they both play through the biggest Orthophonic horn available from Victor, the Orthophonic reproducer sounds the best. All things being equal in this machine (restored acoustical as well as electric components), the early electric reproducer, amp, and WE designed driver doesn't match (IMHO) the tonal quality of the Orthophonic reproducer. These machines were the apex of acoustical playback. I continue to be amazed at how much air these machines can move. I must admit that I play the bulk of my collection on a modern turntable but I have a much smaller collection of 1920s electrically-recorded records that I play only on my big Orthophonic and/or early electric machines. If you have the room, buy a Cradenza and restore it. They haven't been as cheap as they are now in years. Regards, Bill Zucca On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, George Glastris glast...@comcast.net wrote: Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Thanks, Bill. It sounds like there's definitely a go big or go home school when it comes to orthophonics. Since I probably only have room for one machine, I suspect many out there would advise me to hold out for a Credenza. Do you think most 80+ year-old orthophonic horns need to be re-sealed? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:41 -0400 From: rochr...@gmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? For years I poo-pooed listening to electric records on an Orthophonic machine, always playing them instead on a modern turntable with a collector noise reduction unit. But I discovered that I had never heard a properly restored Orthophonic machine playing a Victor Orthophonic record. By properly restored I mean a Credenza that has had the horn resealed, the felt gasket between horn neck and tone arm replaced and sealed, and which used a good rebuilt Orthophonic reproducer. This type of machine plays magnificently! The warmth and depth of tone is wonderful. While dance records are great played on a restored Credenza, some of the 12 Victor Gems records offer the best way to hear the machine because you can hear wonderful voices, a full orchestra as well as great 1920s tunes. The same record played on a modern system does not have the same quality. Perhaps if I were an engineer or musician I could express more clearly what the difference is. But I have been converted. Since that first experience I have bought and restored my own Credenza and then later a 10-50 and a 9-40. I must say that in the 9-40, one has the chance of hearing an Orthophonic record played with both an Orthophonic reproducer and an early electric reproducer/amp, as the machine has one of each. While they both play through the biggest Orthophonic horn available from Victor, the Orthophonic reproducer sounds the best. All things being equal in this machine (restored acoustical as well as electric components), the early electric reproducer, amp, and WE designed driver doesn't match (IMHO) the tonal quality of the Orthophonic reproducer. These machines were the apex of acoustical playback. I continue to be amazed at how much air these machines can move. I must admit that I play the bulk of my collection on a modern turntable but I have a much smaller collection of 1920s electrically-recorded records that I play only on my big Orthophonic and/or early electric machines. If you have the room, buy a Cradenza and restore it. They haven't been as cheap as they are now in years. Regards, Bill Zucca On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, George Glastris glast...@comcast.netwrote: Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org -- From The Hubbard House On the park in Rochester, Vermont where it's always
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
At that cheap price, just get the 8-4. Who knows when a credenza will turn up locally? It's better to be able to enjoy it now, and then improve it when you have a chance. Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com On Mar 19, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks, Bill. It sounds like there's definitely a go big or go home school when it comes to orthophonics. Since I probably only have room for one machine, I suspect many out there would advise me to hold out for a Credenza. Do you think most 80+ year-old orthophonic horns need to be re-sealed? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:38:41 -0400 From: rochr...@gmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? For years I poo-pooed listening to electric records on an Orthophonic machine, always playing them instead on a modern turntable with a collector noise reduction unit. But I discovered that I had never heard a properly restored Orthophonic machine playing a Victor Orthophonic record. By properly restored I mean a Credenza that has had the horn resealed, the felt gasket between horn neck and tone arm replaced and sealed, and which used a good rebuilt Orthophonic reproducer. This type of machine plays magnificently! The warmth and depth of tone is wonderful. While dance records are great played on a restored Credenza, some of the 12 Victor Gems records offer the best way to hear the machine because you can hear wonderful voices, a full orchestra as well as great 1920s tunes. The same record played on a modern system does not have the same quality. Perhaps if I were an engineer or musician I could express more clearly what the difference is. But I have been converted. Since that first experience I have bought and restored my own Credenza and then later a 10-50 and a 9-40. I must say that in the 9-40, one has the chance of hearing an Orthophonic record played with both an Orthophonic reproducer and an early electric reproducer/amp, as the machine has one of each. While they both play through the biggest Orthophonic horn available from Victor, the Orthophonic reproducer sounds the best. All things being equal in this machine (restored acoustical as well as electric components), the early electric reproducer, amp, and WE designed driver doesn't match (IMHO) the tonal quality of the Orthophonic reproducer. These machines were the apex of acoustical playback. I continue to be amazed at how much air these machines can move. I must admit that I play the bulk of my collection on a modern turntable but I have a much smaller collection of 1920s electrically-recorded records that I play only on my big Orthophonic and/or early electric machines. If you have the room, buy a Cradenza and restore it. They haven't been as cheap as they are now in years. Regards, Bill Zucca On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, George Glastris glast...@comcast.netwrote: Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
I question the Ediphonic horn because of its squareness. I just cannot regard any square or rectangular horn as being proper - exponentiality calls for roundness, to me. - Original Message - A friend of mine, Tom Kimble who is a mechanical engineer and phono collector, has taken the initiative and designed a genuinely, mathematically correct exponential cygnet horn and fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor mechanism and mounted in a custom cabinet. As an engineering demonstration, it was purposely designed to have the same length and bell area as the popular Edison 12-panel cygnet metal horn so as to provide a direct comparison of the technical advantage of the exponential design over the less sophisticated design of the legacy cygnet. Tom also developed a clever pantograph double crane suspension system that provides minimal mechanical loading of the carriage as it has to carry the horn across the record. Also better than Edison's designs. He calls his machine the Ediphonic which I find entirely appropriate. Some phono collectors consider such a machine derisively to be a frankenphone, but I consider it to be the epitome of how good an Edison machine COULD have sounded if he had taken the trouble to put a proper exponential horn on his phonographs. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
You might call Edison horns primitive, and at length, but they're better than the fixed, limited size, boxy internal horns of other contemporary 1910s-20s machines, especially Victors, which are no more than connected furniture. (They weren't designed for cheapness, either; they were designed as part of the integral DD sound system from top to bottom, and also to avoid patent infringement.) Part of this is that unlike other horns is that Edison horns are not integral to the cabinet and resonate freely as long as the damper is adjusted properly (or removed all together). And an oval shape (which by the way, is a pretty generous oval) is more sound-wave friendly than a squared-off one, especially with slats fitted into it. (According to a number of tests I've read, the best responding standard Victrolas are actually the earliest Pooley and L-door models with Exposition soundboxes, perhaps because the horns, though square, were symmetrical, and did not have the slats.) One other advantage of Edison machines is that electric and acoustic DDs play well with the same reproducer, which is untrue for any other major manufacturers' . Pat of this is the reproducer design, part the elatively long horn path and horn, and part is the discs themselves. Electric DDs are a carry-over of the company's primary policy for close recording and distinctness of instrumental colour, which they articulated in publications as early as 1903 and is also why the late records sound so forward and lack ambient sonic space. As to the dating of the horns, Edison's last horns of the old style were marketed in early 1927, after which the Schubert and Beethoven Edisonic machines were made (with large open horns, and restored examples I've heard are impressive), and those old-pattern Edison machines that remained on sale represented overstock, in some cases dating back several years to when the company over-extended itself. No US manufacturer marketed an exponential horn machine before late spring 1925 -- and in upper-end models, as cheaper designs like the Victor Consolette and Granada have just big square horns -- so the overlap isn't years but perhaps a year-and-a-half. And some electric machine horns are actually quite restrictive (but sound quite good, such as Brunswick's all-acoustic Panatropes, far less well known than the electric models). With the Ultona, they often sound better in and of themselves when fitted with thinner diaphragms than the original quite thick ones. And tracking issues are not minor with Diamond Discs; mistracking by depending upon the groove to propel the soundbox is their secord worst enemy, aside from bad styli. The Ultona Edison side has to be handled very carefully and was complicatedly problematic, which is why it was dropped in later models. Interesting post to get through, though. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Greg Bogantz [gbogan...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 12:39 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Carsten's video demonstrating the performance of an Edison DD played thru the big orthophonic horn of a Victor 10-50 by way of an adapted Brunswick Ultona is very informative. It's just the thing I was going to try some years ago, but I was too lazy in getting around to it and Carsten beat me to it. Good on him. I have said in the past and I continue to say that most of the Edison horns were very primitive and FAR from the best implementation of horn technology, even for their day. Considering that these simple horns were used all the way up into the later 1920s when the superior exponential types were already being marketed by competitors, there is just no excuse for them other than they were cheap to make. The cygnet horns were among Edison's better designs, with the jute horns of the Amberola 1A and 1B being the best of the Edison designs. The DD horns were several steps backwards from those and are really nothing more than conical horns curved and flattened. They are comprised of essentially a straight sided (not curved) flare from the reproducer down to where the bell is attached, whereupon the flare changes to a wider one but it is still straight while being flattened into an oval bell. This is a completely unsophisticated design that was easy to manufacture. Consequently, they don't sound like anything special to my ears and their simple design explains why. The exponential horn design is readily demonstrable as being superior to any of the Edison horns. Which is just one reason why those acoustic phonos that employed some version of an exponential horn curried more favor among listeners and buyers over the Edison products in the waning days of the Edison Phonograph Co. Edison's last acoustic development of the Edisonic was just more of the same. The Edisonic horn is the same
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
That is a great sounding set up, the sonic equivalent of taking an antique car, chopping, channeling and putting in a modern engine. It still gives the flavor of its antiqueness but gives near modern era performance! Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bogantz Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 12:40 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Carsten's video demonstrating the performance of an Edison DD played thru the big orthophonic horn of a Victor 10-50 by way of an adapted Brunswick Ultona is very informative. It's just the thing I was going to try some years ago, but I was too lazy in getting around to it and Carsten beat me to it. Good on him. I have said in the past and I continue to say that most of the Edison horns were very primitive and FAR from the best implementation of horn technology, even for their day. Considering that these simple horns were used all the way up into the later 1920s when the superior exponential types were already being marketed by competitors, there is just no excuse for them other than they were cheap to make. The cygnet horns were among Edison's better designs, with the jute horns of the Amberola 1A and 1B being the best of the Edison designs. The DD horns were several steps backwards from those and are really nothing more than conical horns curved and flattened. They are comprised of essentially a straight sided (not curved) flare from the reproducer down to where the bell is attached, whereupon the flare changes to a wider one but it is still straight while being flattened into an oval bell. This is a completely unsophisticated design that was easy to manufacture. Consequently, they don't sound like anything special to my ears and their simple design explains why. The exponential horn design is readily demonstrable as being superior to any of the Edison horns. Which is just one reason why those acoustic phonos that employed some version of an exponential horn curried more favor among listeners and buyers over the Edison products in the waning days of the Edison Phonograph Co. Edison's last acoustic development of the Edisonic was just more of the same. The Edisonic horn is the same design as all the earlier DD horns, just a little longer. Which merely lowers the honk frequency a bit. A friend of mine, Tom Kimble who is a mechanical engineer and phono collector, has taken the initiative and designed a genuinely, mathematically correct exponential cygnet horn and fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor mechanism and mounted in a custom cabinet. As an engineering demonstration, it was purposely designed to have the same length and bell area as the popular Edison 12-panel cygnet metal horn so as to provide a direct comparison of the technical advantage of the exponential design over the less sophisticated design of the legacy cygnet. Tom also developed a clever pantograph double crane suspension system that provides minimal mechanical loading of the carriage as it has to carry the horn across the record. Also better than Edison's designs. He calls his machine the Ediphonic which I find entirely appropriate. Some phono collectors consider such a machine derisively to be a frankenphone, but I consider it to be the epitome of how good an Edison machine COULD have sounded if he had taken the trouble to put a proper exponential horn on his phonographs. Here is a video of the Ediphonic playing two cylinders, one a blue amberol and one a newly manufactured cylinder from Norm Bruderhofer which has a wider frequency range recorded than any of the early acoustic records. Note the continuous curvture of the horn as opposed to the straight flare of the typical Edison horn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhLjcfswHb0 Note the smoothness and extension of the frequency response both in the bass and treble with very little peakiness or honkiness in the midrange which is typically heard from lesser horns. The vocal is very natural sounding. The reproducer is an Edison Diamond B with a custom diaphragm and a Pfanstiehl diamond stylus bar assembly which he and I have both found to be superior to the original Edison design because it has lower moving mass which reduces distortion and blasting. Unfortunately, Pfanstiehl no longer makes this stylus. Tom and I stocked up on them while we could still get them. Back to Carsten's video - here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM I think it sounds pretty good. There is a little blasting and distortion, probably due to some record wear and some mistracking due to insufficient tracking force and perhaps a bit of tonearm friction. But the sound is smooth, especially so considering the first record was an acoustic recording. Yes, the details of the implementation of using the Brunswick reproducer in the Victor tonearm may be contributing to some mistracking issues
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
To contradict the metaphor, I'd rather drive a restored 1927 6-cylinder Hupmobile sedan with 4-wheel mechanical brakes, a non synchromesh gearbox, and a top end of around 63 mph before the front end starts to dance than a hot-rodded version, whose only claim to antiqueness or original engineering integrity is some of the metalwork and maybe the seats. In short, I've despised hot rods of every sort, musical or automotive, since I saw a 1920s Willys-Knight chopped up to take a Chevy engine and fat tires when I was a kid. A Knight engine is slower and smokier, but mechanically fascinating and extraordinarily quiet. The Chevy sounded flatulent, which suited the chop job appearance. What a waste. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Ron L'Herault [lhera...@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:52 AM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? That is a great sounding set up, the sonic equivalent of taking an antique car, chopping, channeling and putting in a modern engine. It still gives the flavor of its antiqueness but gives near modern era performance! Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bogantz Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 12:40 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Carsten's video demonstrating the performance of an Edison DD played thru the big orthophonic horn of a Victor 10-50 by way of an adapted Brunswick Ultona is very informative. It's just the thing I was going to try some years ago, but I was too lazy in getting around to it and Carsten beat me to it. Good on him. I have said in the past and I continue to say that most of the Edison horns were very primitive and FAR from the best implementation of horn technology, even for their day. Considering that these simple horns were used all the way up into the later 1920s when the superior exponential types were already being marketed by competitors, there is just no excuse for them other than they were cheap to make. The cygnet horns were among Edison's better designs, with the jute horns of the Amberola 1A and 1B being the best of the Edison designs. The DD horns were several steps backwards from those and are really nothing more than conical horns curved and flattened. They are comprised of essentially a straight sided (not curved) flare from the reproducer down to where the bell is attached, whereupon the flare changes to a wider one but it is still straight while being flattened into an oval bell. This is a completely unsophisticated design that was easy to manufacture. Consequently, they don't sound like anything special to my ears and their simple design explains why. The exponential horn design is readily demonstrable as being superior to any of the Edison horns. Which is just one reason why those acoustic phonos that employed some version of an exponential horn curried more favor among listeners and buyers over the Edison products in the waning days of the Edison Phonograph Co. Edison's last acoustic development of the Edisonic was just more of the same. The Edisonic horn is the same design as all the earlier DD horns, just a little longer. Which merely lowers the honk frequency a bit. A friend of mine, Tom Kimble who is a mechanical engineer and phono collector, has taken the initiative and designed a genuinely, mathematically correct exponential cygnet horn and fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor mechanism and mounted in a custom cabinet. As an engineering demonstration, it was purposely designed to have the same length and bell area as the popular Edison 12-panel cygnet metal horn so as to provide a direct comparison of the technical advantage of the exponential design over the less sophisticated design of the legacy cygnet. Tom also developed a clever pantograph double crane suspension system that provides minimal mechanical loading of the carriage as it has to carry the horn across the record. Also better than Edison's designs. He calls his machine the Ediphonic which I find entirely appropriate. Some phono collectors consider such a machine derisively to be a frankenphone, but I consider it to be the epitome of how good an Edison machine COULD have sounded if he had taken the trouble to put a proper exponential horn on his phonographs. Here is a video of the Ediphonic playing two cylinders, one a blue amberol and one a newly manufactured cylinder from Norm Bruderhofer which has a wider frequency range recorded than any of the early acoustic records. Note the continuous curvture of the horn as opposed to the straight flare of the typical Edison horn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhLjcfswHb0 Note the smoothness and extension of the frequency response both in the bass and treble with very little peakiness or honkiness in the midrange
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
I'm quite happy with, and strive to keep my '73 Triumph TR-6 stock, including resisting putting in electronic ignition which would make it run much better. I would not want to or encourage anyone to destroy an antique car to make a hot rod. Even so, I can admire the workmanship and effort the hot rodder put into his vehicle. I guess in the last analysis, the nice thing about the upgraded cylinder machine is that nothing was done to it that can't be undone. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Philip Carli Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:15 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? To contradict the metaphor, I'd rather drive a restored 1927 6-cylinder Hupmobile sedan with 4-wheel mechanical brakes, a non synchromesh gearbox, and a top end of around 63 mph before the front end starts to dance than a hot-rodded version, whose only claim to antiqueness or original engineering integrity is some of the metalwork and maybe the seats. In short, I've despised hot rods of every sort, musical or automotive, since I saw a 1920s Willys-Knight chopped up to take a Chevy engine and fat tires when I was a kid. A Knight engine is slower and smokier, but mechanically fascinating and extraordinarily quiet. The Chevy sounded flatulent, which suited the chop job appearance. What a waste. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Ron L'Herault [lhera...@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:52 AM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? That is a great sounding set up, the sonic equivalent of taking an antique car, chopping, channeling and putting in a modern engine. It still gives the flavor of its antiqueness but gives near modern era performance! Ron L ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Glad it can be undone. Very glad. I've never admired hot-rodder workmanship and effort because it's a lot of work to do something aesthetically, culturally, and ethically insensitive, and it indicates the way their mind and tastes run in other directions and other projects -- and I don't want to know those people. (If they built a machine entirely from scratch, body, frame, and all I'd feel differently.) I think of William Daniels in THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST constantly bragging in his car and his home about his modifications for Total sound! Experimental, yes, but I don't want to live with it. English electrics are notoriously finicky -- Robert Lucas, Prince of Darkness -- so ignition quirks and adjustments are part of the business. Glad you're keeping the original system on your Triumph. The only major modification to an historical automotive artifact I've ever wholly appreciated was Jay Leno replacing the mechanical 4-wheel brakes on his Doble steamer with hydraulics because a) hydraulics were coming in and pretty reliable when the Doble was built, so it could be viewed as a quasi-period retrofit (everything's custom on a Doble anyway) and b) mechanicals are not much use on a 2 ton car that can legitimately do 90+mph -- from zero in under 40 seconds too--even with a quite upright sedan body. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Ron L'Herault [lhera...@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:45 AM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I'm quite happy with, and strive to keep my '73 Triumph TR-6 stock, including resisting putting in electronic ignition which would make it run much better. I would not want to or encourage anyone to destroy an antique car to make a hot rod. Even so, I can admire the workmanship and effort the hot rodder put into his vehicle. I guess in the last analysis, the nice thing about the upgraded cylinder machine is that nothing was done to it that can't be undone. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Philip Carli Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:15 AM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? To contradict the metaphor, I'd rather drive a restored 1927 6-cylinder Hupmobile sedan with 4-wheel mechanical brakes, a non synchromesh gearbox, and a top end of around 63 mph before the front end starts to dance than a hot-rodded version, whose only claim to antiqueness or original engineering integrity is some of the metalwork and maybe the seats. In short, I've despised hot rods of every sort, musical or automotive, since I saw a 1920s Willys-Knight chopped up to take a Chevy engine and fat tires when I was a kid. A Knight engine is slower and smokier, but mechanically fascinating and extraordinarily quiet. The Chevy sounded flatulent, which suited the chop job appearance. What a waste. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Ron L'Herault [lhera...@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:52 AM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? That is a great sounding set up, the sonic equivalent of taking an antique car, chopping, channeling and putting in a modern engine. It still gives the flavor of its antiqueness but gives near modern era performance! Ron L ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the information in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, forwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this email by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from your email system. Thank you. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
I find a Victrola 4 reproducer on an open horn machine to sound very nice. Actually, almost any open horn machine (unless it has a very small horn and/or very short tone arm) sounds better than internal horn machines. Edison is the exception. His design was good enough that it didn't need to be changed when Edison electrically recorded disks were introduced. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Philip Carli Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:37 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? For me, my lateral acoustic discs actually sound best on my Edison C-200 Adam with a Union lateral adapter. (For verticals below 14 diameter, I use a Jewel adapter, which tracks impeccably and has considerable range.) The advantage of the best acoustic soundboxes - and especially in the UK retrofitting soundboxes became almost an obsession with some gramophiles in the late teens and early twenties - was their clarity in the upper frequency range, while a well-designed horn like the Edison's actually lends some depth to the tone as well. On my Swiss exposed-horn machine I use an Edison-Bell Regulator soundbox, which is not only very responsive but has an inset dial with 5 different apertures to control volume. That element is not wholly successful, as you really only hear a big difference between the largest and smallest settings, but it's a very bright yet full-sounding soundbox. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Andrew Baron [a...@popyrus.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:15 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Thanks Greg for this wonderfully concise and broadly comprehensive treatise. Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: Here's the short history of the fidelity of recorded sound: The earliest acoustic recording technology was VERY midrangey with no bass and no treble being recorded into the grooves. Likewise, the earliest acoustic players were also VERY midrangey and incapable of reproducing bass or treble. When you listen to an early acoustic record on an early acoustic player, they don't really complement each other so much as they do the same damage to the sound. They sound like a loud telephone. That is, you get a VERY, VERY or double-midrangey sound. The orthophonic era brought with it much more extended and flatter frequency response in both bass and treble, both in the recording equipment and in the acoustic playback. The net effect of playing an early electric recording on an acoustic orthophonic player is one of flatter, more extended frequency response. In short, a BIG improvement over the pre-ortho days. If you play an acoustic record on an ortho player, it sounds le ss midrangey and blatty than when played on an early player. Some people don't like this sound and consider it not authentic, but it is actually flatter response than the complementary noise you get from a pre-ortho player. Likewise, if you play an electric recording on an old acoustic player, you get a more blatty midrangey sound than if you play it on a more modern player. The earliest electronic players were actually worse sounding than the contemporary ortho acoustic players. The Victor 9-40, for example, which has both ortho acoustic as well as early electronic playback sounds better in the ortho acoustic mode than it does in the all-electronic mode. The reason is that the earliest electronics and speakers were pretty primitive. The early Victor electric players were odd designs in that they used an electric reproducer-driver that was amplified by the orthophonic horn. This would have worked out better if the driver design was better, but the net effect did not produce as good a fidelity as the contemporary all-acoustic players. They will play loudly, but their frequency response is pretty poor. The electronic players from most manufacturers were generally not very good until about 1929. The Victor RE-45 of 1929 was a revelation to listeners back then. It is vastly improved over the earlier designs, and it compares very favorably with much more modern players. If you are a collector of 1920s vintage radios, made it a point to listen to a Victor RE-45 or RE-75 radio/phono combination. The same radio and speaker was also used the in the radio-only models R-32 and R-52. There was no finer sounding radio set or radio/phono made in 1929. Electric recording playback on one of these sets is genuinely satisfying. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:03 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
When comparing the Edison DD to a Victor Orthophonic, it's best to think of them in terms of their complete systems rather than the horn of one vs. the horn of the other. Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to connect the output of an Edison DD reproducer on an Edison DD phonograph playing one of the better DD records, to the input of a Victor Credenza horn? It wouldn't necessarily be a marriage made in heaven (I assume it would be quite a mismatch of impedances, or the acoustic analog thereof), but it would be interesting to observe. The systems that each company independently employed (Edison DD; Victor Orthophonic) obviously have no physical resemblance whatsoever, neither horn nor reproducer nor tone arm, and yet sonically the Edison was way ahead of the pack until the Orthophonic machines came out. There's just no comparison when comparing an especially good Edison DD record (with quiet surface) played on an upscale Edison DD machine, with ANY of the contemporary competitors for sheer naturalness of tone and overtones that the DD system was capable of. The DD machines had superior sound in 1913, by far, than anything else until a dozen years later when the Orthophonic came out. And even then, the right record on a good DD machine will give an Orthophonic Credenza a run for its money, even records made acoustically in the early 'teens compared to electric recordings in the mid '20s. Though the right record on a Credenza will often edge out the Edison, it's can be a close race in some cases, and a little like the Volvo Amazon outrunning the Ferrari in the celebrated YouTube video. Edison had a truly souped-up acoustic system developed by the end of 1912, that in real life would be unfair to compare to the electric system of 1925, and yet, the Edison system can hold its own in this chronologically and technologically skewed contest. Andrew Baron Santa Fe ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Doing the comparison the other way around is easier, an orhtophonic record on an Edison DD with a good lateral adaptor and Orthophonic reproducer. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Baron Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:37 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? When comparing the Edison DD to a Victor Orthophonic, it's best to think of them in terms of their complete systems rather than the horn of one vs. the horn of the other. Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to connect the output of an Edison DD reproducer on an Edison DD phonograph playing one of the better DD records, to the input of a Victor Credenza horn? It wouldn't necessarily be a marriage made in heaven (I assume it would be quite a mismatch of impedances, or the acoustic analog thereof), but it would be interesting to observe. The systems that each company independently employed (Edison DD; Victor Orthophonic) obviously have no physical resemblance whatsoever, neither horn nor reproducer nor tone arm, and yet sonically the Edison was way ahead of the pack until the Orthophonic machines came out. There's just no comparison when comparing an especially good Edison DD record (with quiet surface) played on an upscale Edison DD machine, with ANY of the contemporary competitors for sheer naturalness of tone and overtones that the DD system was capable of. The DD machines had superior sound in 1913, by far, than anything else until a dozen years later when the Orthophonic came out. And even then, the right record on a good DD machine will give an Orthophonic Credenza a run for its money, even records made acoustically in the early 'teens compared to electric recordings in the mid '20s. Though the right record on a Credenza will often edge out the Edison, it's can be a close race in some cases, and a little like the Volvo Amazon outrunning the Ferrari in the celebrated YouTube video. Edison had a truly souped-up acoustic system developed by the end of 1912, that in real life would be unfair to compare to the electric system of 1925, and yet, the Edison system can hold its own in this chronologically and technologically skewed contest. Andrew Baron Santa Fe ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Hi Ron and all ~ Using a Kent adapter or similar device, yes, much easier, and the reverse of my supposition. It seems to me that a test done in both directions would be more informative than one or the other in isolation. Steve Medved just brought this fascinating YouTube video to my attention, to be shared as part of this discussion, attributed to Carsten Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM It's an interesting video and certainly the methods represent out-of-the-box, if not pseudo-scientific thinking: The Edison side of a salvaged Brunswick Ultona reproducer housing (with the full needle bar, similar to the Edison needle bar, etc.), other side (lateral side) eliminated and blocked off (ostensibly sealed against air leaks), and a short connecting tube to mate it to Victor 10-50 (!), to take advantage of the folded exponential horn. The modified Brunswick housing is equipped with a Victor Orthophonic Duralumin diaphragm (in hill-and-dale mode), and the presenter adds silent editorial comments as superimposed text, allowing the sound he recorded with a small condenser mic to let us hear the result. Very hard, even with larger speakers to get a sense of the real value of the experiment, which expect is due to the limitations of his recording method. Other limiting factors, or at least factors that make this somewhat less than an apples to apples test, is that the Brunswick system, or in this case the Brunswick parts adapted to the Victor arm) doesn't quite replicate the Edison Diamond Disc machine's tracking compliance in at least two ways: (a) I suspect that the compliance of the stylus to the groove would be adversely affected by the tracking force necessarily including the mass of the modified apparatus plus a portion of the Victor's tone arm (rather than as in the Edison system of it being limited to the tracking weight distributed more uniformly around the stylus), and (b) the necessity in this setup of the groove having to propel the entire equipment across as the record plays rather than the floating arrangement of the automatic tracking Edison DD system. I think these factors might combine to make for a more rigid, and quite possibly less responsive arrangement of groove, stylus and transferred acoustic energy to the horn. I think it's a fascinating choice to use the paper-thin Victor Duralumin diaphragm. The presenter tells us that mica will also work, but one can imagine it would narrow the dynamic range. However the mounting of the diaphragm as can be seen might possibly be hampered by an oversized retaining insulator, which also looks rather thick and one or both of these could impede the response. Another aspect that was bothering me a little was that the turntable dips and rises as it spins around (bent platter, as the spindle remains relatively true). This would have the effect of alternately adding and subtracting from whatever norm in the diaphragm's loading that the presenter was able to achieve with this modified arrangement of parts. The up and down, added to the more rigid load of also having to move the entire mass of reproducer and tone arm (add another intermediate joint in the Victor arm to the equation for the vertical accommodation of the uneven platter, and whatever differences in compliance and greater side-wall groove contact might be present, and for me it starts to be an interesting but not very accurate measure of how an Edison record, played as engineered, would sound through one of the large Orthophonic horns. I also have to wonder about the plumbing between the tone arm and the horn, and if this might also be a factor? Steve, Greg, others, are there other things I may be missing here? In the short term this video remains a fascinating study of one approach to answering the question about Edison DD through Orthophonic horn and you certainly have to credit the presenter with taking the time to investigate and document his findings. It would be interesting to take a purer approach, using a true DD reproducer, tracking as designed, and airtight, low-loss connection to the top of a Credenza or similarly large Orthophonic horn. Perhaps measure the difference in response with ears as well as spectrum analyzer... Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 16, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Ron L'Herault wrote: Doing the comparison the other way around is easier, an orhtophonic record on an Edison DD with a good lateral adaptor and Orthophonic reproducer. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Baron Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:37 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? When comparing the Edison DD to a Victor Orthophonic, it's best to think of them in terms of their complete systems rather than the horn of one vs. the horn of the other. Wouldn't it be an interesting
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
I remember watching that a while ago. It's pretty neat. The oversized retaining ring seen inside the Brunny is probably because the diaphragm is smaller so think of it as a reducer ring. I think it pretty much just grabs the ortho diaphragm at its outside edge. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Baron Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:12 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Cc: Big Sky Learning Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Hi Ron and all ~ Using a Kent adapter or similar device, yes, much easier, and the reverse of my supposition. It seems to me that a test done in both directions would be more informative than one or the other in isolation. Steve Medved just brought this fascinating YouTube video to my attention, to be shared as part of this discussion, attributed to Carsten Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM It's an interesting video and certainly the methods represent out-of-the-box, if not pseudo-scientific thinking: The Edison side of a salvaged Brunswick Ultona reproducer housing (with the full needle bar, similar to the Edison needle bar, etc.), other side (lateral side) eliminated and blocked off (ostensibly sealed against air leaks), and a short connecting tube to mate it to Victor 10-50 (!), to take advantage of the folded exponential horn. The modified Brunswick housing is equipped with a Victor Orthophonic Duralumin diaphragm (in hill-and-dale mode), and the presenter adds silent editorial comments as superimposed text, allowing the sound he recorded with a small condenser mic to let us hear the result. Very hard, even with larger speakers to get a sense of the real value of the experiment, which expect is due to the limitations of his recording method. Other limiting factors, or at least factors that make this somewhat less than an apples to apples test, is that the Brunswick system, or in this case the Brunswick parts adapted to the Victor arm) doesn't quite replicate the Edison Diamond Disc machine's tracking compliance in at least two ways: (a) I suspect that the compliance of the stylus to the groove would be adversely affected by the tracking force necessarily including the mass of the modified apparatus plus a portion of the Victor's tone arm (rather than as in the Edison system of it being limited to the tracking weight distributed more uniformly around the stylus), and (b) the necessity in this setup of the groove having to propel the entire equipment across as the record plays rather than the floating arrangement of the automatic tracking Edison DD system. I think these factors might combine to make for a more rigid, and quite possibly less responsive arrangement of groove, stylus and transferred acoustic energy to the horn. I think it's a fascinating choice to use the paper-thin Victor Duralumin diaphragm. The presenter tells us that mica will also work, but one can imagine it would narrow the dynamic range. However the mounting of the diaphragm as can be seen might possibly be hampered by an oversized retaining insulator, which also looks rather thick and one or both of these could impede the response. Another aspect that was bothering me a little was that the turntable dips and rises as it spins around (bent platter, as the spindle remains relatively true). This would have the effect of alternately adding and subtracting from whatever norm in the diaphragm's loading that the presenter was able to achieve with this modified arrangement of parts. The up and down, added to the more rigid load of also having to move the entire mass of reproducer and tone arm (add another intermediate joint in the Victor arm to the equation for the vertical accommodation of the uneven platter, and whatever differences in compliance and greater side-wall groove contact might be present, and for me it starts to be an interesting but not very accurate measure of how an Edison record, played as engineered, would sound through one of the large Orthophonic horns. I also have to wonder about the plumbing between the tone arm and the horn, and if this might also be a factor? Steve, Greg, others, are there other things I may be missing here? In the short term this video remains a fascinating study of one approach to answering the question about Edison DD through Orthophonic horn and you certainly have to credit the presenter with taking the time to investigate and document his findings. It would be interesting to take a purer approach, using a true DD reproducer, tracking as designed, and airtight, low-loss connection to the top of a Credenza or similarly large Orthophonic horn. Perhaps measure the difference in response with ears as well as spectrum analyzer... Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 16, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Ron L'Herault wrote: Doing the comparison the other way around is easier, an orhtophonic record on an Edison DD with a good lateral adaptor
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
produce significant mistracking (blasting), the sounds of good reproducers are pretty similar. Contrary to how some listeners yammer on about one tiny detail over another insignificant one, it's not rocket science. The main variables in designing an acoustic reproducer (which are significantly different from those required for a modern phono pickup) are determining where the system resonance is placed and keeping the moving mass low enough while still providing sufficient compliance at the needle tip to produce minimum mistracking. Higher resonant frequencies due to stiffer diaphragms shift the response peak higher and produce a squawkier sound. The trick is to find a pleasant frequency at which to place the resonance and then damp it properly without killing the efficiency (loudness) of the reproducer. Slight variations in the resonant frequencies is the main audible difference among reproducers. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: Andrew Baron a...@popyrus.com To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l@oldcrank.org Cc: Big Sky Learning bigskylearn...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Hi Ron and all ~ Using a Kent adapter or similar device, yes, much easier, and the reverse of my supposition. It seems to me that a test done in both directions would be more informative than one or the other in isolation. Steve Medved just brought this fascinating YouTube video to my attention, to be shared as part of this discussion, attributed to Carsten Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM It's an interesting video and certainly the methods represent out-of-the-box, if not pseudo-scientific thinking: The Edison side of a salvaged Brunswick Ultona reproducer housing (with the full needle bar, similar to the Edison needle bar, etc.), other side (lateral side) eliminated and blocked off (ostensibly sealed against air leaks), and a short connecting tube to mate it to Victor 10-50 (!), to take advantage of the folded exponential horn. The modified Brunswick housing is equipped with a Victor Orthophonic Duralumin diaphragm (in hill-and-dale mode), and the presenter adds silent editorial comments as superimposed text, allowing the sound he recorded with a small condenser mic to let us hear the result. Very hard, even with larger speakers to get a sense of the real value of the experiment, which expect is due to the limitations of his recording method. Other limiting factors, or at least factors that make this somewhat less than an apples to apples test, is that the Brunswick system, or in this case the Brunswick parts adapted to the Victor arm) doesn't quite replicate the Edison Diamond Disc machine's tracking compliance in at least two ways: (a) I suspect that the compliance of the stylus to the groove would be adversely affected by the tracking force necessarily including the mass of the modified apparatus plus a portion of the Victor's tone arm (rather than as in the Edison system of it being limited to the tracking weight distributed more uniformly around the stylus), and (b) the necessity in this setup of the groove having to propel the entire equipment across as the record plays rather than the floating arrangement of the automatic tracking Edison DD system. I think these factors might combine to make for a more rigid, and quite possibly less responsive arrangement of groove, stylus and transferred acoustic energy to the horn. I think it's a fascinating choice to use the paper-thin Victor Duralumin diaphragm. The presenter tells us that mica will also work, but one can imagine it would narrow the dynamic range. However the mounting of the diaphragm as can be seen might possibly be hampered by an oversized retaining insulator, which also looks rather thick and one or both of these could impede the response. Another aspect that was bothering me a little was that the turntable dips and rises as it spins around (bent platter, as the spindle remains relatively true). This would have the effect of alternately adding and subtracting from whatever norm in the diaphragm's loading that the presenter was able to achieve with this modified arrangement of parts. The up and down, added to the more rigid load of also having to move the entire mass of reproducer and tone arm (add another intermediate joint in the Victor arm to the equation for the vertical accommodation of the uneven platter, and whatever differences in compliance and greater side-wall groove contact might be present, and for me it starts to be an interesting but not very accurate measure of how an Edison record, played as engineered, would sound through one of the large Orthophonic horns. I also have to wonder about the plumbing between the tone arm and the horn, and if this might also be a factor? Steve, Greg, others, are there other things I may be missing here? In the short term this video
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Here's the short history of the fidelity of recorded sound: The earliest acoustic recording technology was VERY midrangey with no bass and no treble being recorded into the grooves. Likewise, the earliest acoustic players were also VERY midrangey and incapable of reproducing bass or treble. When you listen to an early acoustic record on an early acoustic player, they don't really complement each other so much as they do the same damage to the sound. They sound like a loud telephone. That is, you get a VERY, VERY or double-midrangey sound. The orthophonic era brought with it much more extended and flatter frequency response in both bass and treble, both in the recording equipment and in the acoustic playback. The net effect of playing an early electric recording on an acoustic orthophonic player is one of flatter, more extended frequency response. In short, a BIG improvement over the pre-ortho days. If you play an acoustic record on an ortho player, it sounds less midrangey and blatty than when played on an early player. Some people don't like this sound and consider it not authentic, but it is actually flatter response than the complementary noise you get from a pre-ortho player. Likewise, if you play an electric recording on an old acoustic player, you get a more blatty midrangey sound than if you play it on a more modern player. The earliest electronic players were actually worse sounding than the contemporary ortho acoustic players. The Victor 9-40, for example, which has both ortho acoustic as well as early electronic playback sounds better in the ortho acoustic mode than it does in the all-electronic mode. The reason is that the earliest electronics and speakers were pretty primitive. The early Victor electric players were odd designs in that they used an electric reproducer-driver that was amplified by the orthophonic horn. This would have worked out better if the driver design was better, but the net effect did not produce as good a fidelity as the contemporary all-acoustic players. They will play loudly, but their frequency response is pretty poor. The electronic players from most manufacturers were generally not very good until about 1929. The Victor RE-45 of 1929 was a revelation to listeners back then. It is vastly improved over the earlier designs, and it compares very favorably with much more modern players. If you are a collector of 1920s vintage radios, made it a point to listen to a Victor RE-45 or RE-75 radio/phono combination. The same radio and speaker was also used the in the radio-only models R-32 and R-52. There was no finer sounding radio set or radio/phono made in 1929. Electric recording playback on one of these sets is genuinely satisfying. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:03 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
For years I poo-pooed listening to electric records on an Orthophonic machine, always playing them instead on a modern turntable with a collector noise reduction unit. But I discovered that I had never heard a properly restored Orthophonic machine playing a Victor Orthophonic record. By properly restored I mean a Credenza that has had the horn resealed, the felt gasket between horn neck and tone arm replaced and sealed, and which used a good rebuilt Orthophonic reproducer. This type of machine plays magnificently! The warmth and depth of tone is wonderful. While dance records are great played on a restored Credenza, some of the 12 Victor Gems records offer the best way to hear the machine because you can hear wonderful voices, a full orchestra as well as great 1920s tunes. The same record played on a modern system does not have the same quality. Perhaps if I were an engineer or musician I could express more clearly what the difference is. But I have been converted. Since that first experience I have bought and restored my own Credenza and then later a 10-50 and a 9-40. I must say that in the 9-40, one has the chance of hearing an Orthophonic record played with both an Orthophonic reproducer and an early electric reproducer/amp, as the machine has one of each. While they both play through the biggest Orthophonic horn available from Victor, the Orthophonic reproducer sounds the best. All things being equal in this machine (restored acoustical as well as electric components), the early electric reproducer, amp, and WE designed driver doesn't match (IMHO) the tonal quality of the Orthophonic reproducer. These machines were the apex of acoustical playback. I continue to be amazed at how much air these machines can move. I must admit that I play the bulk of my collection on a modern turntable but I have a much smaller collection of 1920s electrically-recorded records that I play only on my big Orthophonic and/or early electric machines. If you have the room, buy a Cradenza and restore it. They haven't been as cheap as they are now in years. Regards, Bill Zucca On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, George Glastris glast...@comcast.netwrote: Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org -- From The Hubbard House On the park in Rochester, Vermont where it's always 1929. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
Thanks Greg for this wonderfully concise and broadly comprehensive treatise. Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: Here's the short history of the fidelity of recorded sound: The earliest acoustic recording technology was VERY midrangey with no bass and no treble being recorded into the grooves. Likewise, the earliest acoustic players were also VERY midrangey and incapable of reproducing bass or treble. When you listen to an early acoustic record on an early acoustic player, they don't really complement each other so much as they do the same damage to the sound. They sound like a loud telephone. That is, you get a VERY, VERY or double-midrangey sound. The orthophonic era brought with it much more extended and flatter frequency response in both bass and treble, both in the recording equipment and in the acoustic playback. The net effect of playing an early electric recording on an acoustic orthophonic player is one of flatter, more extended frequency response. In short, a BIG improvement over the pre-ortho days. If you play an acoustic record on an ortho player, it sounds le ss midrangey and blatty than when played on an early player. Some people don't like this sound and consider it not authentic, but it is actually flatter response than the complementary noise you get from a pre-ortho player. Likewise, if you play an electric recording on an old acoustic player, you get a more blatty midrangey sound than if you play it on a more modern player. The earliest electronic players were actually worse sounding than the contemporary ortho acoustic players. The Victor 9-40, for example, which has both ortho acoustic as well as early electronic playback sounds better in the ortho acoustic mode than it does in the all-electronic mode. The reason is that the earliest electronics and speakers were pretty primitive. The early Victor electric players were odd designs in that they used an electric reproducer-driver that was amplified by the orthophonic horn. This would have worked out better if the driver design was better, but the net effect did not produce as good a fidelity as the contemporary all-acoustic players. They will play loudly, but their frequency response is pretty poor. The electronic players from most manufacturers were generally not very good until about 1929. The Victor RE-45 of 1929 was a revelation to listeners back then. It is vastly improved over the earlier designs, and it compares very favorably with much more modern players. If you are a collector of 1920s vintage radios, made it a point to listen to a Victor RE-45 or RE-75 radio/phono combination. The same radio and speaker was also used the in the radio-only models R-32 and R-52. There was no finer sounding radio set or radio/phono made in 1929. Electric recording playback on one of these sets is genuinely satisfying. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:03 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is soun d q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
For me, my lateral acoustic discs actually sound best on my Edison C-200 Adam with a Union lateral adapter. (For verticals below 14 diameter, I use a Jewel adapter, which tracks impeccably and has considerable range.) The advantage of the best acoustic soundboxes - and especially in the UK retrofitting soundboxes became almost an obsession with some gramophiles in the late teens and early twenties - was their clarity in the upper frequency range, while a well-designed horn like the Edison's actually lends some depth to the tone as well. On my Swiss exposed-horn machine I use an Edison-Bell Regulator soundbox, which is not only very responsive but has an inset dial with 5 different apertures to control volume. That element is not wholly successful, as you really only hear a big difference between the largest and smallest settings, but it's a very bright yet full-sounding soundbox. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Andrew Baron [a...@popyrus.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:15 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? Thanks Greg for this wonderfully concise and broadly comprehensive treatise. Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Greg Bogantz wrote: Here's the short history of the fidelity of recorded sound: The earliest acoustic recording technology was VERY midrangey with no bass and no treble being recorded into the grooves. Likewise, the earliest acoustic players were also VERY midrangey and incapable of reproducing bass or treble. When you listen to an early acoustic record on an early acoustic player, they don't really complement each other so much as they do the same damage to the sound. They sound like a loud telephone. That is, you get a VERY, VERY or double-midrangey sound. The orthophonic era brought with it much more extended and flatter frequency response in both bass and treble, both in the recording equipment and in the acoustic playback. The net effect of playing an early electric recording on an acoustic orthophonic player is one of flatter, more extended frequency response. In short, a BIG improvement over the pre-ortho days. If you play an acoustic record on an ortho player, it sounds le ss midrangey and blatty than when played on an early player. Some people don't like this sound and consider it not authentic, but it is actually flatter response than the complementary noise you get from a pre-ortho player. Likewise, if you play an electric recording on an old acoustic player, you get a more blatty midrangey sound than if you play it on a more modern player. The earliest electronic players were actually worse sounding than the contemporary ortho acoustic players. The Victor 9-40, for example, which has both ortho acoustic as well as early electronic playback sounds better in the ortho acoustic mode than it does in the all-electronic mode. The reason is that the earliest electronics and speakers were pretty primitive. The early Victor electric players were odd designs in that they used an electric reproducer-driver that was amplified by the orthophonic horn. This would have worked out better if the driver design was better, but the net effect did not produce as good a fidelity as the contemporary all-acoustic players. They will play loudly, but their frequency response is pretty poor. The electronic players from most manufacturers were generally not very good until about 1929. The Victor RE-45 of 1929 was a revelation to listeners back then. It is vastly improved over the earlier designs, and it compares very favorably with much more modern players. If you are a collector of 1920s vintage radios, made it a point to listen to a Victor RE-45 or RE-75 radio/phono combination. The same radio and speaker was also used the in the radio-only models R-32 and R-52. There was no finer sounding radio set or radio/phono made in 1929. Electric recording playback on one of these sets is genuinely satisfying. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: Richard richard_ru...@hotmail.com To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:03 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking
Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
so true bill -Original Message- From: William Zucca rochr...@gmail.com To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l@oldcrank.org Sent: Sat, Mar 15, 2014 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? For years I poo-pooed listening to electric records on an Orthophonic machine, always playing them instead on a modern turntable with a collector noise reduction unit. But I discovered that I had never heard a properly restored Orthophonic machine playing a Victor Orthophonic record. By properly restored I mean a Credenza that has had the horn resealed, the felt gasket between horn neck and tone arm replaced and sealed, and which used a good rebuilt Orthophonic reproducer. This type of machine plays magnificently! The warmth and depth of tone is wonderful. While dance records are great played on a restored Credenza, some of the 12 Victor Gems records offer the best way to hear the machine because you can hear wonderful voices, a full orchestra as well as great 1920s tunes. The same record played on a modern system does not have the same quality. Perhaps if I were an engineer or musician I could express more clearly what the difference is. But I have been converted. Since that first experience I have bought and restored my own Credenza and then later a 10-50 and a 9-40. I must say that in the 9-40, one has the chance of hearing an Orthophonic record played with both an Orthophonic reproducer and an early electric reproducer/amp, as the machine has one of each. While they both play through the biggest Orthophonic horn available from Victor, the Orthophonic reproducer sounds the best. All things being equal in this machine (restored acoustical as well as electric components), the early electric reproducer, amp, and WE designed driver doesn't match (IMHO) the tonal quality of the Orthophonic reproducer. These machines were the apex of acoustical playback. I continue to be amazed at how much air these machines can move. I must admit that I play the bulk of my collection on a modern turntable but I have a much smaller collection of 1920s electrically-recorded records that I play only on my big Orthophonic and/or early electric machines. If you have the room, buy a Cradenza and restore it. They haven't been as cheap as they are now in years. Regards, Bill Zucca On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, George Glastris glast...@comcast.netwrote: Well, I for one am a HUGE fan of the 8-9. The sound is excellent, the machine has a great look to it (and beautifully blends in with my Arts Crafts furniture), and it's not so big as to take over the room. They don't have that 1920s walnut dining room look to them which looks out of place anywhere besides a 1920s movie set. I see them offered for around $800-1,500 at Union, but usually quite a bit less at auction. Also, they have a metal horn like the English Re-Entrant models which some believe gives a better sound. Besides, Victor told it's dealers that they would appeal to Americans of foreign extraction and owners of lunch rooms and confectioner shops so I guess my Grandfather George Dimpapas and my Grandfather Apostolos Glastris would have had them in their respective diners and candy shops in the 1920s. -Original Message- From: Richard Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:03 PM To: phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? I've never owned an orthophonic machine, but have recently been offered the chance to buy one (see other post), and I'm wondering if I should. My main concern has been one of sound quality; I've always suspected that acoustic records sound better on older, acoustic machines, and orthophonic/electric records sound best on electric machines. But this opportunity has me wondering: How do orthophonic/electric records sound when played on an orthophonic machine sound compared to when they're played on an electric machine (say, from the late 1920's or early 1930's)? All opinions are welcome, but what I'm really looking for is a comparison -- not just better or worse, but how they're different. And how do older acoustic records sound on an orthophonic machine? (In my humble opinion, they don't sound all that great on an electrical machine.) Finally, if I were to add one orthophonic machine to my collection someday, which one would you recommend if my top consideration is sound q uality? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org -- From The Hubbard House On the park in Rochester, Vermont where it's always 1929. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
