Well, Robert, I think I agree with you that the Credenza is the standard
of excellence in American acoustic reproduction. I have an early 2-door
Credenza as well as a Victor 10-50, 9-40, and 10-35 as well as a Columbia
810 which has the biggest horn that Columbia put in their Viva-Tonals. I
don't hear too much difference among the big Victors, but each has subtle
differences from one to another. All are GREAT machines, and any owner
should be proud and pleased to listen to them. The reason that I put that
caveat about American acoustic reproduction is that I haven't had the
pleasure of hearing any of the really good English machines such as the
biggest re-entrant HMVs or the biggest EMGs. Maybe one of them can claim
the prize as best acoustic machine, but I just can't say. I must opine,
however, that I can't imagine the EMGs having as good bass as the biggest
exponential horn machines simply because EMG didn't use as big a horn!
Now, with all due respect to Anthony Sinclair, and I truly do mean that
I respect and applaud his efforts to document the performance of orthophonic
and other machines in his writings in ITG, I must beg to disagree with some
of his opinions. By the way, we've recently had some of these very same
discussions on the Old Time Victrola Music Message Board (OTVMMB), but I'll
repeat here what I've written there for those of you who aren't also members
there. I encourage you folks to go there and see what else has been said
recently about this topic. I don't presently have the proper
instrumentation to back up my claims, but I've listened extensively to the
big horn Victors and compared them to the Columbia. I have made an adapter
that allows me to listen to the Columbia #15 Viva-Tonal reproducer played
thru the Victors, and also allows me to use the Victor orthophonic
reproducer on the Columbia. I was particularly interested in whether the
horns or the reproducers were the limiting factor in acoustic reproduction
on these machines.
In my opinion, the Columbia horn is not as good as the Victor. The
Columbia horn is not as accurately tapered because it is constructed in a
piecewise-linear-curved sectional fashion rather than having a smoother,
more uniform and proper exponentially increasing cross section which is
required of the exponential design. There should be NO cross-sections in a
proper exponential horn which are linear taper. This, in particular, causes
the treble to be noticeably weaker than the Victor. But the bass is also
less extended as well. And, overall, the efficiency isn't as good as the
Victor (it doesn't play as loudly) - all these attributes are symptomatic of
an incorrect horn taper. At first blush, the Columbia strikes the casual
listener as having more bass, but this is due to it's having substantially
less treble than the Victor.
Another finding indicates that the big Victor horns are better than
people realize because the Victor reproducer isn't as good as the big horns.
More on this later. The Victor ortho reproducer has several compromises
included in its design to make it more robust and more user-friendly that,
unfortunately, detract from the best acoustical performance that could have
been had. The bass could be a little better if the compliance was higher,
and the treble could be a little better if the moving mass was lower. That
said, the Columbia #15 is no match for the Victor ortho. It has a more
massive diaphragm which further degrades the treble, and the compliance is
even lower (stiffer) which further degrades the bass, compared with the
Victor. The Columbia has the very big advantage that it is all made of
brass and is easily rebuilt, but it still can't match the performance of a
Victor ortho in good condition.
The reason that I know the Victor horn is capable of more than most
people realize is that I have designed a better reproducer than the Victor.
My design has a MUCH lower moving mass and quite a lot higher compliance
than any other reproducer that was sold to the public. Incidentally, I was
particularly interested to see if this could have been done "back in the
day" by trying to use only materials that would have been readily available
in 1927 or so - no modern space-age materials. And I discovered that it
could have been done - the materials are aluminum, leather, and paper with a
few screws and glue thrown in to hold it together. I guess the reason why a
design like this wasn't marketed is related to the delicacy of a proper
design. The low moving mass and high compliance both make the reproducer
delicate and difficult to perform needle changes. I'm sure my design would
never have been suitable for mass consumption, but I like to use it because
it makes the Victor horn really shine! Reproduction on this system sounds
like that of a large table radio or small radio console - I estimate that it
has about an extra octave of useful output, some above and some below the
range of the Victor ortho. The bass is not window-rattling, but it's
uncommonly good and the sound is well-balanced and wide-range without
peakiness, and most listeners can't believe that they're hearing acoustic
reproduction. So, yes, the big Victor horns are the best acoustic horns
that I know of and are damn fine at that.
Greg Bogantz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Wright" <esroberto at hotmail.com>
To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:41 PM
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" <gbogantz1 at charter.net>
> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
> 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" <esroberto at hotmail.com>
>> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
>> 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" <thatcher at mediaguide.com>
>>> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> mark.albertson at comcast.net
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
