Bob, the tungsten needles that I make are designed strictly for their functionality. I have made no effort to make them look like the original Victors. Mine are made from aluminum stock rather than the brass that was used in the Victors. Mine are kinda ugly, actually, but they do the job. To remake the Victor design would require, I presume, the use of screw machines to shape the "waist" on the needle shank (which allows flexing to set the loudness of play) as well as to drill the hole for the tungsten wire. I haven't looked up the Victor patent on their design to see if it shows any details of their manufacture, but it may not. They could have originally been made of brass tubing which was subsequently rolled down on the wire to capture it and rolled to the desired diameter at the waist. Dunno. Regardless, quite an expense in tooling would be required to recreate this type of design for quantity manufacturing. Which would probably not make the project practical for the fairly small market which now exists for these needles. Maybe you can talk some Chinese entrepreneur into doing it - you won't find any munny-grubbing Murkan greedy capitalist willing to do it :o) Greg Bogantz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob" <rvuill at comcast.net> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > Hi Greg, > I read with interest your two recent emails. While I agree that there > probably isn't much of a market for a better design orthophonic reproducer > when you consider the cost to make such a complicated item on a very > small scale. However I think that tungsten needles is a different story. > I think just about every phono collector would like a source for tungsten > needles; when you see what they go for on eBay. I'm sure quite a few of > us have old Victor tins for tungsten needles that we would like to refill. > I would think that someone with your mechanical talents could come up with > the tooling to automate the production process and turn them out in > quantity economically. Therefore I urge you to consider manufacturing > them and making them available to the phono enthusiast community. > RMV > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Bogantz" <gbogantz1 at charter.net> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns > > >> Hi Robert, >> >> To answer your general curiosity, yes, I >> have tried many of the things you suggest. I have designed and made a >> complete "New Orthophonic" (with apologies to RCA who couldn't care less >> at this point since they're owned by the Chinese) reproducer to fit >> Victor >> ortho tonearms out of lathe-turned aluminum - none of the parts are >> recycled >> from old designs. The aluminum model weighs about half of the potmetal >> design. I don't want to divulge too much more of the design in case I >> eventually want to make and market it. But it really isn't ready for >> that >> yet. Even so, I don't know how much market there would be for a toy like >> this. Most phono collectors don't obsess about the audio performance of >> their acoustic machines like you and I do. Their attitude is that >> anything >> that isn't an original 100 year old design constitutes a "frankenphone" >> and >> they don't want anything to do with it. So I'm not encouraged that there >> are more than a dozen of us with this interest. >> >> As an adjunct to this design, I also have been making for some time >> now >> my own tungsten needles. This started out because I needed durable >> needles >> to use in my oldest record changers that are designed for steel needles. >> Steel needles are no good for these changers because they wear out >> completely after two record sides are played. So, what's the point of >> having a record changer if you have to change the needle every two record >> sides? Victor recommended their Tungstones for this purpose, and indeed, >> they were the best choice for this application at the time. But I didn't >> want to use up expensive, original, antique Tungstones so I designed my >> own. >> What I found out was that the original tungsten wire used by Victor is >> .007 >> inch (7 mils) in diameter. This is really too big for the typical groove >> which is around 5 to 5.5 mils in width. But they used it because >> anything >> smaller is too delicate and bends too easily. Also, the heavy tracking >> force of the early reproducers, both the acoustic and the early horseshoe >> magnet electric types was sufficient to mash the fat wire into the record >> groove and keep it working even though it was wearing "shoulders" on the >> sides of the too-big wire. So when I tried to use these 7 mil tungstens >> in >> my new reproducer which tracked at half the force of the Victor (about 80 >> grams versus 135 grams), the wire didn't wear down properly on the >> shoulders >> and stay in contact with the groove walls. This caused audible >> mistracking. >> I have since gone to 6 mil wire which works pretty well. I would rather >> use >> 5 mil wire, but I've tried it and it's just too fragile and bends too >> easily. So this is yet another problem that requires some compromise. >> >> To address your suggestions about using large diaphragms: you are >> faced >> with a tradeoff between diaphragm compliance, resonance, and application >> requirements. If you want to try a "Lumiere" type of very large >> diaphragm, >> or direct radiator cone really, then you can't effectively horn load it, >> and >> you probably don't want to anyway. You can simply let such a large >> vibrating surface radiate directly into the surrounding acoustic space as >> is >> done with the Lumiere and Pathe Actuelle designs. Such a design can >> sound >> pretty good in the midrange of audio, but it is inherently limited in how >> much bass it can reproduce - there just isn't efficient coupling with the >> air mass at very long wavelengths of audio (bass frequencies) to get good >> bass response. To load a large diaphragm into a horn would require a >> large >> horn throat to accommodate it. Which would require a VERY large horn to >> work into to keep the compression horn acoustic principle working >> properly. >> Improper mismatches in sizes here result in vastly reduced efficiency. >> >> Long story short(er), the approximate sizes of the diaphragm, >> reproducer >> throat, and horn length and flare are just about optimum as realized in >> the >> Victor designs for the application of playing 78rpm records with 5 mil >> wide >> grooves. Bigger systems would require bigger records and bigger grooves >> to >> keep the mechanical couplings and impedance transformations working >> correctly. Loading a typical 78rpm groove with a correctly-designed >> large >> diaphragm compression horn system would simply cause too much mechanical >> loading on the needle. This would result in very low compliance at the >> needle tip which would result in severe mistracking. Furthermore, the >> extreme mass of the entire system would be difficult to track with a >> pivoted >> tonearm under groove power, as you suggest. But lateral-cut records do >> not >> lend themselves to feedscrew-type tonearm assist systems because most >> records are not cut at a constant groove pitch which cylinders are. Then >> there's the problem of record eccentricity that must also be >> accommodated. >> You could address these issues with a sophisticated servo-controlled >> tracking system. But it all adds up to swatting a fly with a sledge >> hammer. >> So it turns out that the approximate sizing of the playback elements as >> seen >> in the Victor (and others) designs is probably about optimal for real >> world >> use. But that doesn't mean that you can't put a considerably larger horn >> on >> a Victor-sized system. To do so would extend the bass reproduction >> frequencies down lower. Victor themselves did that in their >> theater-sized >> horn designs. But the efficiency tends to degrade with increasing horn >> size, so even the biggest theatrical Victors used electrical horn drivers >> and electronic amplifiers. >> >> You mention the excesses of the Archeophone design: True, this is >> pretty much overkill, too. But there really aren't any modern cylinder >> player designs that offer highly accurate record speed and vanishingly >> low >> flutter, so these are two design criteria that are purposefully addressed >> in >> the Archeophone. However, the basic business of turning a disc record >> and >> holding a reproducing means in the groove have been developed for years >> past >> the acoustic technology as embodied in all modern disc record players. >> All >> that really needs to be done if you want to extract the most from a disc >> record is to use a modern hifi pickup equipped with the proper size and >> shape stylus. Done deal. It doesn't need re-inventing. >> >> But I DO understand that you are trying to "squeeze the turnip" and >> see >> how much blood can be extracted from pure acoustic playback technology. >> But >> I CAN tell you that it is NOT possible to make the "perfect" acoustic >> reproducer - you can't get fully wideband frequency response AND >> low tracking force AND good efficiency (loudness) from an acoustic >> design. >> It's just not in the physics. Unlike the situation with modern hifi >> pickups, the physical requirements of an acoustic reproducer are vastly >> different. The modern record player does not require anything more of >> the >> record than to merely "instruct" the player on how to direct its >> electrical >> energy to the loudspeaker. This requires an infinitesimal amount of >> power >> from the groove. By contrast, an acoustic player extracts ALL its sound >> power from the record groove (assuming you aren't using a mechanical >> amplifier such as the Higham friction amplifier or compressed air schemes >> such as on the Auxetophone). This makes all the difference in the world. >> Acoustic playback requires that all the audio power must be extracted by >> making the record groove do the actual work. The more work the groove >> must >> do, the more wear is likely to be exhibited as the needle scrubs along >> the >> groove walls. You quickly get to the point where you can't get any more >> blood out of it. The Victor design is close to the optimum, in my >> estimation. I've been able to improve upon it, but I don't expect that >> too >> much more can be had from what I'm getting now. But I'd love to be >> proved >> wrong, if someone wants to have a go at it. >> >> 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 10:16 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns >> >> >>> Wow, thanks for all the great information, Greg, and thanks for taking >>> the time to type/copy&paste it all! I'm wondering additionally about >>> using space-age materials and creating something using a Victor horn >>> that's beyond comparison with any antique products of any kind. I'd >>> like to see, for starters, what a larger diaphragm suspended by a rubber >>> surround in a milled aluminum soundbox with a titanium stylus bar and >>> razor blade pivot point would do mounted to a Credenza tonearm. With a >>> larger diaphragm and soundbox, some counterbalancing (a la Ultona) might >>> be necessary, but with aluminum instead of brass, maybe not. >>> >>> That's just for starters. I'd also be interested in creating an even >>> larger soundbox, say 10" or so, with similar materials (think modern HMV >>> Lumiere), mounted rigidly (laterally speaking) to a large, non-folded >>> exponential horn (a la Nimbus Records'), with a modern direct drive >>> turntable mounted to a feedscrew stand so that the disc moves laterally >>> under the stylus (think Wizard or other moving-mandrel cylinder phonos). >>> Maybe a titanium diaphragm to keep moving mass to a minimum... Granted, >>> this would be truckloads of cash to build, but I figure if they can >>> build the Archeophone... >>> >>> continuing to dream, >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Greg Bogantz" <gbogantz1 at charter.net> >>> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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