Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric?
so true bill -Original Message- From: William Zucca To: Antique Phonograph List 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 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 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
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" > To: > 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
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
The other thing to look at is the date of the machine and the angle of the tone arm albow. Early Orthophonic machines had a tendency to wear records faster because the lateral thrust was incorrect. Victor fixed the problem in 1928 by offering a different elbow with a slightly wider arc as a retrofit; they're still around if you ask the right people. I fitted one to my 1927 Credenza. PC From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] on behalf of Ron L'Herault [lhera...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:36 PM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) The only thing you may want to really look at is the reproducer. If it is very swollen and cracked or has missing pieces, you probably won't be able to get it rebuilt. Then you'll have to either find a good on or a repro on ebay or buy an orthophonic portable and use that reproducer. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Peter Fraser Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:17 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) $200 is great unless it has horrible cosmetics and busted springs. Depends upon whether you want form, function, or both. You'll want a Peter Wall rebuild of the reproducer to realize the full acoustic potential, although some ortho reproducers are passable as-found. Bass on a credenza is better because the horn is larger, of course. Not louder or cleaner, just a little deeper. I had both for a while, side by side, and there's not all that much difference. You'll love the 8-4 after only having listened to pre-orthos. Go check it out and let us know what you find. Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, richard_rubin wrote: > > Thanks. Why do you suppose the bass response is better on the Credenza -- is the horn that much louder? Is it that noticeable? And what do you think the right price range would be? The guy seems to want $200; I doubt he'd go below $150. And I'm not sure what kind of work it might need... > > > > > Sent from Samsung tablet > > Original message > From: Peter Fraser > Date:03/15/2014 7:50 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) > > I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never had an orthophonic before. > > Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. > > I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- Peter > pjfra...@mac.com > >> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: >> >> I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add a > n >> orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ 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 relianc
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" > To: > 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] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
The only thing you may want to really look at is the reproducer. If it is very swollen and cracked or has missing pieces, you probably won't be able to get it rebuilt. Then you'll have to either find a good on or a repro on ebay or buy an orthophonic portable and use that reproducer. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Peter Fraser Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:17 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) $200 is great unless it has horrible cosmetics and busted springs. Depends upon whether you want form, function, or both. You'll want a Peter Wall rebuild of the reproducer to realize the full acoustic potential, although some ortho reproducers are passable as-found. Bass on a credenza is better because the horn is larger, of course. Not louder or cleaner, just a little deeper. I had both for a while, side by side, and there's not all that much difference. You'll love the 8-4 after only having listened to pre-orthos. Go check it out and let us know what you find. Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, richard_rubin wrote: > > Thanks. Why do you suppose the bass response is better on the Credenza -- is the horn that much louder? Is it that noticeable? And what do you think the right price range would be? The guy seems to want $200; I doubt he'd go below $150. And I'm not sure what kind of work it might need... > > > > > Sent from Samsung tablet > > Original message > From: Peter Fraser > Date:03/15/2014 7:50 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) > > I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never had an orthophonic before. > > Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. > > I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- Peter > pjfra...@mac.com > >> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: >> >> I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add a > n >> orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
Bass response increases as the size of the Orthophonic horn increases. $150 to $200 is an excellent price range. It allows you to replace the back bracket if needs be and to rebuild the reproducer without feeling that the machine has become a money pit. I love the sound of Orthophonic records on both my Credenza and my amputee 8-4 (someone cut off the legs and added casters so that it would fit under the window in their house. It may make the bass sound even better that close to the floor). Other brands of electrically recorded records sound good too, especially the OKehs and Vivatonals. The Vivatonals don't even sound as nice on the mid size Vivatonal machine I have. Ron L -Original Message- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of richard_rubin Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:33 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) Thanks. Why do you suppose the bass response is better on the Credenza -- is the horn that much louder? Is it that noticeable? And what do you think the right price range would be? The guy seems to want $200; I doubt he'd go below $150. And I'm not sure what kind of work it might need... Sent from Samsung tablet Original message From: Peter Fraser Date:03/15/2014 7:50 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never had an orthophonic before. Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: > > I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add a n > orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ 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 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 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?
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" To: 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] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
$200 is great unless it has horrible cosmetics and busted springs. Depends upon whether you want form, function, or both. You'll want a Peter Wall rebuild of the reproducer to realize the full acoustic potential, although some ortho reproducers are passable as-found. Bass on a credenza is better because the horn is larger, of course. Not louder or cleaner, just a little deeper. I had both for a while, side by side, and there's not all that much difference. You'll love the 8-4 after only having listened to pre-orthos. Go check it out and let us know what you find. Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, richard_rubin wrote: > > Thanks. Why do you suppose the bass response is better on the Credenza -- is > the horn that much louder? Is it that noticeable? And what do you think the > right price range would be? The guy seems to want $200; I doubt he'd go below > $150. And I'm not sure what kind of work it might need... > > > > > Sent from Samsung tablet > > Original message > From: Peter Fraser > Date:03/15/2014 7:50 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) > > I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the > credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never > had an orthophonic before. > > Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the > machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. > > I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an > orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. > But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- Peter > pjfra...@mac.com > >> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: >> >> I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I >> haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal >> issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? >> Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? >> And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an >> orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and >> electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on >> acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better >> on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal >> preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone >> out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a >> Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on >> YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) >> If I want to add a > n >> orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with >> a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an >> 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
Ah, the big question: What would be "too much"? Cabinet seems o.k., machine is complete (except for the albums, which are missing), condition of the motor/springs unknown. Sent from Samsung tablet Original message From: DanKj Date:03/15/2014 8:22 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) All of my acoustic records sound dandy on my Orthophonics - the whiny, nasal blast of early Victor band records is smoothed-out, and the latent bass notes on Columbias is brought-out. Just don't pay too much, and you can't go wrong. - Original Message - From: "Richard" To: Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:02 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add an orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
Thanks. Why do you suppose the bass response is better on the Credenza -- is the horn that much louder? Is it that noticeable? And what do you think the right price range would be? The guy seems to want $200; I doubt he'd go below $150. And I'm not sure what kind of work it might need... Sent from Samsung tablet Original message From: Peter Fraser Date:03/15/2014 7:50 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never had an orthophonic before. Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: > > I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I > haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal > issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? > Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? > And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an > orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and > electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on > acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on > orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal > preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone > out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a > Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on > YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) > If I want to add a n > orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a > Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an > 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
Hi Men: I don't post a lot but DO enjoy the dialogue. Regarding this post, many acoustic phonographs tonal output can be custom tailored with different styli. A lot can be accomplished by experimenting with soft, medium, tungs tone or fiber/bamboo designs. Charlie. -- On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 4:58 PM PDT DanKj wrote: > All of my acoustic records sound dandy on my Orthophonics - the whiny, >nasal blast of early Victor band records is smoothed-out, and the latent >bass notes on Columbias is brought-out. Just don't pay too much, and you >can't go wrong. > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Richard" >To: >Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:02 PM >Subject: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) > > >I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I >haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal >issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? >Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? >And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an >orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and >electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on >acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better >on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal >preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone >out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a >Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on >YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) >If I want to add an > orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with >a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an >8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? > >___ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.org > >___ >Phono-L mailing list >http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
All of my acoustic records sound dandy on my Orthophonics - the whiny, nasal blast of early Victor band records is smoothed-out, and the latent bass notes on Columbias is brought-out. Just don't pay too much, and you can't go wrong. - Original Message - From: "Richard" To: Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:02 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4) I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add an orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
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] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
I had an 8-4; they sound great. They don't have the bass response that the credenza has, but they will certainly knock your socks off if you've never had an orthophonic before. Don't sweat the pot metal thing, if the price is right you should buy the machine and deal with the tonearm mount if you need to later. I tend to listen to period-appropriate records on each machine, and an orthophonic will certainly play up the deficiencies of acoustic recordings. But you can't go wrong with a big orthophonic like an 8-4! Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfra...@mac.com > On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Richard wrote: > > I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I > haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal > issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? > Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? > And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an > orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and > electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on > acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on > orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal > preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone > out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a > Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on > YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) > If I want to add a n > orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a > Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an > 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
[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] Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4)
I've been offered a Victrola 8-4 (VV 8-4), and I'm wondering what to do. I haven't seen it in person yet, so I don't know if it has any pot metal issues; does this particular model tend to develop those? And if so, where? Just the tone arm mount, or the tone arm itself? How about the reproducer? And just as important, how do these machines sound? I've never owned an orthophonic before (see other post) -- just earlier acoustic machines, and electric machines from the late 1920's on. Do acoustic records sound best on acoustic machines? And do later records (say, 1926 and later) sound better on orthophonic machines, or electric? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinion. And does anyone out there own an actual VV 8-4? If so, how does it sound compared to, say, a Credenza, or a high-end Columbia Viva-Tonal? (I've seen the videos on YouTube, but it's hard to get a sense of how they actually sound that way.) If I want to add an orthophonic to my collection at some point, would I be much better off with a Credenza or some comparable machine? And what would be a fair price for an 8-4 in decent condition, assuming it doesn't need any work? ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
Re: [Phono-L] NEW ITEMS FOR SALE
good thing its not a ebay auction glad two good guys could do a deal -Original Message- From: Jim Nichol To: Antique Phonograph List Sent: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Phono-L] NEW ITEMS FOR SALE Shawn, the reason you and Ken D. are confused is that this entire transaction was conducted publicly on Phonolist. That isn't a problem, except that Shawn and Ken Danckaert (and possibly Ken Ogden) didn't know that. So no, Shawn did not accidentally send an email to Ken Danckaert. Remember, everyone. Any time you reply to a message from Phonolist, it goes out to everyone. This is in spite of the fact that an individual's email address appears in the header of each message. Jim Nichol On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:33 PM, wrote: > Sorry Ken. I am confused. Phonoken bought the reproducer around 11:03 today. I am not sure how I got your email. I apologize. > > > Shawn > > > > > > > Michael Shawn O'Rourke > 248 915 0954 > > > > > > From: Ken Danckaert > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:55 PM > To: Antique Phonograph List > > > > > > Hi Shawn, > > Phonoken is not me. I am kendphono. > > Ken Danckaert > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:14 PM, wrote: > >> Thank you Ken. >> >> >> >> >> I'll mark it sold to you. I can ship it priority to a US address, with >> insurance for 8.35. So the total would be $113.35. >> >> >> Shoot me your address and I'll get it boxed up and mark it sold. >> >> >> Shawn >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Michael Shawn O'Rourke >> 248 915 0954 >> >> >> >> >> >> From: phono...@aol.com >> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:44 AM >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not sure my reply was received. I would like to buy the reproducer. >> Please send total due and your mailing address. Thanks >> Ken Ogden >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: phonoken >> To: phono-l >> Sent: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 10:03 am >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] NEW ITEMS FOR SALE >> >> >> >> I'll take the Model H reproducer. Please provide total due and your >> mailing >> address. Thanks >> Ken Ogden >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: mshawnorourke >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Sent: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 9:19 am >> Subject: [Phono-L] NEW ITEMS FOR SALE >> >> >> EDISON MODEL H: A very nice Edison model H reproducer. This one retains >> most of >> its original green stain. These reproducers were stained Green to allow the >> owners to distinguish between the Edison H and the Edison C. This one plays >> wonderfully. I replaced the limit loop which was missing when I received >> it. The >> >> original jewel is nice on this one. It easily fits in and out of the >> carriage. >> This would be a nice reproducer to add to your Edison four minute machine. >> >> PRICE: $105.00. >> >> >> EDISON LONG CASE HOME BOTTOM CASE: This is the bottom only to an Edison >> Home >> Long Case model A. It has a very nice original decal and much better than >> average original finish. The bottom board has the common split observed in >> most >> Edison Home cases. This could be a nice upgrade for a case bottom that has >> been >> refinished or has a less than desirable decal. It is a nice case bottom. >> >> PRICE: $95.00 >> >> >> HAWTHORN AND SHEBLE CRANE. It is suitable and will work well on an Edison >> Home, >> Standard or Triumph. As well, it works on Columbia machines, certainly and >> A or >> an N. Being very adjustable, it will work with most smaller, as well as >> most >> larger horns (and all in between)This one is in as found condition and >> could use >> >> a little cleaning up. It will make a nice crane for someone who wants an >> all >> original example for their machine. >> >> PRICE: $165.00. >> >> >> >> Pictures available on request. >> >> >> Shipping and insurance only are additional. I will pay for the cost of a >> well >> packaged item. >> >> >> No PayPal, checks only. >> >> >> >> >> Please contact: mshawnorou...@gmail.com with interest. >> >> >> >> >> Michael Shawn O'Rourke >> 248 915 0954 >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org >> >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org >> >> >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org >> ___ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
