Electricity and Victor Phonographs

[NashTwin8]

Hi All,

Can some of you shed a little light on something for me?

Did Victor use a consistent scheme in giving their "electric era" phonographs model numbers and names?

For instance, what exactly does "VE" mean in a model number? Is it always an acoustic phonograph with an electric turntable? Is it ever a fully electrified phonograph?

How about the name "Electrola"? Same questions.

Just when did Victor introduce its first electric turntable? First electric reproducing phonograph?

Until reading this and similar boards, I had not realized that electric reproducing phonographs were made prior to the early 1930s. Turns out I was off by most of a decade! How do members of this group, or the antique phonograph hobby in general, feel about fully electrified phonographs of, say, pre-1932 or so? Are they as interesting as acoustic machines? More so? Less so? I'll be interested in hearing what others think.

Thanks for your comments.

Jerry K

[OrthoFan]

Hi Jerry:

The term "Electrola" actually goes back quite far--to around 1913, when the first of the optional electric motor models were offered for sale.

Victrolas that had electrically powered motors in place of the wind-up spring used a "VE" prefix, and a slightly larger dataplate. These were called "Electrolas" on the dataplate, but still retained the Victrola decal under the lid. Orthophonic Victrolas with electric motors used either an "X" suffix when the AC-only motor was used, or the "VE" prefix when the older-style AC/DC motor was installed.
(From -- http://www.victor-victrola.com/Identification.htm )

The Victor all-electric Victrolas (using loudspeakers and vacuum tube amplifiers in place of horns and sound boxes) were also dubbed "Electrolas." There were also Electrola/Radiola combinations, starting in early 1926.

The early all-electric Victor models were given fancy names, in addition to numeric designations, such as:

The Cromwell (12-1); produced between 1926-1928
The Tuscany (12-2); produced 1926
The 12-15; produced 1928
The 12-25; produced 1927-1928
The Hyperion (15-1); produced 1926-1928

At the same time these loudspeaker equipped units were offered for sale, Victor also produced electrically amplified machines that also came equipped with a voice coil that could be coupled to the Orthophonic horn for radio reproduction. Perhaps the most interesting example of this was the 8-60, which allowed both all acoustic as well as electrically amplified reproduction using the same horn! (SEE http://www.victor-victrola.com/8-60.htm)

You can find illustrations and specs about each model on this page:
http://www.victor-victrola.com/new_page_2.htm

For a more comprehensive history scroll through the pages of the main site, starting with: http://www.victor-victrola.com/index.html

Another excellent source is Robert Baumbach's "Look for the Dog," and it's companion "The Victor Data Book."

One thing to keep in mind, the Orthophonic Victrolas, referred to in the above site, were basically designed (in theory, at least) to be the mechanical equivalent of an electrically amplified unit. Many collectors, myself included, prefer them to the early all-electric (loudspeaker-equipped) Electrolas.

Another source to check out is: http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/ortho.html
(Main Page: http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/notes.html )

HTH,
OF

[phonophan79]

I always thought it ironic that there was a line of crank / wind-up portables called "Electrola".

Such as...

[OrthoFan]

...wonder what happened to the O.P.? Hope I didn't scare them away. (I seem to have a habit of doing that.)


In any event, the Electrola was Germany's answer to the HMV 101. (I half expected some of our UK gramo-philes to chime in here.) The one in the photo looks like a relatively early model; or were the side-wind cranks relegated to those produced for the British market?

[gramophoneshane]

The HMV 101 crank was at the front when it was introduced in 1925. In early 1927 the crank was moved to the side.

[NashTwin8]

OF,

Thanks for a great answer. You told me a lot without overdoing it.

I'm somewhat curious about why many collectors prefer the acoustic phonos over the early electrically-amplified models. Is it because the acoustic orthophonics sound better? Is it because the acoustics are so much simpler to repair & restore? Both? Other reasons?

I may not be able to check back here as often as I'd like to, but I do like to hear what you experienced collectors have to say.

I'm interested in learning about "advanced" products that were available, but not common due to relatively high prices, much earlier than commonly realized. I'm finding that phonographs are no exception!

Thanks for your thoughts,

Jerry K

[gramophoneshane]

I think the biggest problem with the early electric reproduction was the pick-up itself. Due to the huge horseshoe magnets used, they were extremely heavy & caused records to wear a lot quicker than the acoustic soundboxes available at the same time.
I think Victor/RCA also had some problems early on with the tonearm twisting??
In my limited experience with the electric pick-ups available here, they were quite capable of producing sound equal to many high-end acoustic machines, but it wasn't until the horseshoe magnet was done away with, and lighter bakelite arms were introduced, that record wear was no longer a big problem.

[NashTwin8]

Shane,

Thanks for your (as usual) thoughtful reply. The record wear issue is something I wouldn't have thought of, but it makes sense that people would see it as a downside, especially when it came at a premium price. As one not so experienced, I guess I thought the soundbox/reproducer was probably heavy enough, but throw a big magnet in there, and well, there you go!

I was also wondering whether the early loudspeakers would have been able to produce a nice clear sound like you all say the orthophonics do. Having never had a chance to hear either, I have only my imagination, and you guys here, to go on.

Thanks,

Jerry K

[gregbogantz]

The early horseshoe magnet electric pickups have been accused of tracking at an "extremely heavy weight" which "caused excessive record wear" on this and on other blogs. That's not really true. The tracking force of the Victor orthophonic #5 reproducer was about 135 grams which was a higher force than that of the earlier Victor Exhibition (100 g.) or #2 (120 g.). The front mount arm models such as the Victor R tracked even higher at around 160 grams. The early electrolas tracked at around 150 grams, so they are in the same ballpark as most of the earlier acoustic reproducers.

But, yes, the early horseshoe pickups DID tend to cause excessive record wear because their rubber suspension parts dried out and hardened very early in their lifetime, anywhere from 6 months to a few years after manufacture. THIS is what causes those old magnetic pickups to ruin records. It is IMPERATIVE that you rebuild these pickups with new rubber bits before you subject your records to them. I use modern silicone and butyl rubber to do the rebuilds because the original type gum or latex rubber will fail rapidly just as it did 70 years ago. When properly rebuilt, these pickups work very well and don't ruin records.

The earliest loudspeakers were pretty dismal sounding. Essentially all of the designs that predated the dynamic type (moving coil) were poor performers. This includes the early diaphragm-type drivers that were used in the Victor 9-40 and 8-60 combination Electrola/Victrolas. These drivers were the so-called "balanced-armature" moving iron design with a linkage to an aluminum diaphragm which was very much like that used in the Victor orthophonic #5 acoustic reproducer. This design was a compression-type horn driver that was designed to couple to the orthophonic horn. The frequency response of this type driver was actually a little worse than that obtained by the #5 reproducer directly tracking the record. When you compare the fidelity of the all-acoustic reproduction of a Victor 9-40 with that of the same machine in electrola model (with the same large orthophonic horn in play with both modes), the acoustic mode is actually better. You can get more loudness from the electric mode, but the frequency response is more limited, particularly in the bass end.

But all that changed when the dynamic loudspeaker designs were introduced. The best speaker that Victor (or anybody else) made in the early years was the one used in the 1929 Microsynchronous models, the R-32 and R-52 radios, and the RE-45, and RE-75 radio/electrolas. These models sound better than any other models from that period that I have ever heard. The speaker was way ahead of its time in design features that would become common in speakers of 40 years later design. If you want the best sounding radio or phonograph of the pre-1930 era, get yourself one of these models. They are still readily available and don't bring a very high price. The RE-75 was the biggest and most expensive originally, so you don't find them nearly as often as the other models, but they all had the identical electrical chassis and speakers.

[NashTwin8]

Greg,

Thanks for your informative answer. Wow! The deeper we go, the more there is to learn! I am becoming more and more intrigued with the idea of the early electric phono/radio combinations, and will probably look around for one some day. These kinds of tips will be priceless when deciding whether to buy a particular model or not. In the meantime, I really must motivate myself to get to work restoring the Credenza I already have. Then I'll be asking questions left & right.

Thanks again!

Jerry K