The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Valecnik wrote:

Phonofreak wrote:I have a Victrola No.4 reproducer just like this. Yes, the markings are correct. Especially since it was never apart until you rebuilt it. I use this on my outside horn Victors to play electrically cut records. Properly rebuilt and tuned, they sound as good as an Orthophonic, to me.
Harvey Kravitz

I also have a few of the HMV no. 4s that I use on my Victor V, III, Edison A-250 with lateral attachment and elsewhere. They certainly sound good.

Yes, they do! Lots of people think that if a 4 is good, a 5 or Orthophonic must be better- but they are designed for the re-entrant horn and thus the extra expense of an Ortho is kind of a waste.

The other advantage of a 4 is that your acoustical records will sound better, too, where the 5 or Ortho tend to make these sound a little flat, in my opinion.

I think the 4 is the optimum of all worlds, actually.

The brass Victrola No. 4 reproducers all had to smooth bezel. The redesigned Victrola No. 4A had those trim grooves in the bezel.

Reproducers such as Brandon's turn up from time to time, but being very early they were made in relatively small numbers. These early No. 4 units seem to turn up most often on VV 1-5 and VV 1-6 portables.

Uncle Vanya wrote:The brass Victrola No. 4 reproducers all had to smooth bezel. The redesigned Victrola No. 4A had those trim grooves in the bezel.

Reproducers such as Brandon's turn up from time to time, but being very early they were made in relatively small numbers. These early No. 4 units seem to turn up most often on VV 1-5 and VV 1-6 portables.

I've had several Victrola No. 4 (not 4A) on 1-70 machines that passed through my hands and all had the grooved bezel. I never saw a Victrola 4 with a smooth bezel till this one.

In fact, here's one that just sold on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VICTOR-VICTROLA ... 7675.l2557

gramophone-georg wrote:

Valecnik wrote:

Phonofreak wrote:I have a Victrola No.4 reproducer just like this. Yes, the markings are correct. Especially since it was never apart until you rebuilt it. I use this on my outside horn Victors to play electrically cut records. Properly rebuilt and tuned, they sound as good as an Orthophonic, to me.
Harvey Kravitz

I also have a few of the HMV no. 4s that I use on my Victor V, III, Edison A-250 with lateral attachment and elsewhere. They certainly sound good.

Yes, they do! Lots of people think that if a 4 is good, a 5 or Orthophonic must be better- but they are designed for the re-entrant horn and thus the extra expense of an Ortho is kind of a waste.

The other advantage of a 4 is that your acoustical records will sound better, too, where the 5 or Ortho tend to make these sound a little flat, in my opinion.

I think the 4 is the optimum of all worlds, actually.

Resoundingly agree with Harvey and George. I had not experienced an all-brass #4 until I purchased an HMV 101. I rebuilt it and was astonished at its performance on both acoustically and electrically recorded records. In fact, my 101 is now my go-to portable over my VV-2-55, VV-2-65, and my Brunswick Panatrope. Truly amazing reproduction.

I am thinking that you have a very early Victrola No. 4 reproducer, it looks very similar to the imprinting set up of the Victrola No. 2 reproducer. Victor probably carried this through until they decided they should change the imprinting.

I bought a nice nickel finish brass No. 4 a few years ago for about $300.00 and the sound is better than a orthophonic in my opinion.

Harry Sooy rediscovered his 1914 Neutral Reproducing Box in Feb, 1925. He made up a few test models to pass around to Victor executives after that, and in April he gave one to Alfred Clark to take back with him to HMV in Hayes. Two days later, according to Sooy's diary, an order was given to turn his drawings over for a small production order of 200 units.

While this one shares some elements with the HMV version (notably the smooth rounded bezel and blank back), I have a feeling it was one of Sooy's earlier builds, made in Camden. The needle screw on Victor soundboxes was front-facing, but on HMV 4s and the 5/5a/5b series it was angled. (You can see the angle in the images at http://www.graham-ophones.co.uk/hmv-page-1/4579466071 . It's likely that what HMV eventually issued as their No 4 was based on what was current in Camden at the time Clark was given one, but the Victor production model was changed as far as the markings behind the mica and the information stamped into the backplate, as well as adding the concentric ridges on the bezel.

shoshani wrote:Harry Sooy rediscovered his 1914 Neutral Reproducing Box in Feb, 1925. He made up a few test models to pass around to Victor executives after that, and in April he gave one to Alfred Clark to take back with him to HMV in Hayes. Two days later, according to Sooy's diary, an order was given to turn his drawings over for a small production order of 200 units.

While this one shares some elements with the HMV version (notably the smooth rounded bezel and blank back), I have a feeling it was one of Sooy's earlier builds, made in Camden. The needle screw on Victor soundboxes was front-facing, but on HMV 4s and the 5/5a/5b series it was angled. (You can see the angle in the images at http://www.graham-ophones.co.uk/hmv-page-1/4579466071 . It's likely that what HMV eventually issued as their No 4 was based on what was current in Camden at the time Clark was given one, but the Victor production model was changed as far as the markings behind the mica and the information stamped into the backplate, as well as adding the concentric ridges on the bezel.

That's very interesting! I've not seen another one like mine, so that actually makes a lot of sense.

Victrolacollector wrote:I am thinking that you have a very early Victrola No. 4 reproducer, it looks very similar to the imprinting set up of the Victrola No. 2 reproducer. Victor probably carried this through until they decided they should change the imprinting.

I bought a nice nickel finish brass No. 4 a few years ago for about $300.00 and the sound is better than a orthophonic in my opinion.

I was about to make the same observation. Close cousin to a #2.