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" <[email protected]> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> 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
