Internal horn musings

[CharliePhono]

Of late, I have been reading with great interest the Victor Victrola page wherein the physics of acoustic reproduction of sound through the various types of internal horns is discussed. While in no wise a physicist, I am interested/intrigued by the science surrounding the various horns utilized by the Victor Talking Machine Company during their production of acoustic-only machines. That said, I would note that I live in a very small space (and getting smaller until I curb my collecting habit!), and I have two machines which I use heavily for the enjoyment of my various electrically-recorded records. One of the machines is a VV-4-7. Also in the small living room is a VV-4-3. I have spent a fair amount of time perusing (and attempting to absorb) the information on this particular page of the site, http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victrola%20Horns.htm, and came away wondering if, within the limitations of my collection and to obtain the most enjoyable listening, if the 4-3 reproduces the sound more faithfully (understanding the inherent limitations) secondary to the "straight," i.e. "unfolded" horn within the cabinet with no twists or turns to otherwise obstruct the propagation of the sound waves. To that end, I might point out that my Columbia Viva Tonal 117b with its bifurcated (metal) "stereoscopic" horn has a more brilliant reproduction, obviously owing to the metal horn. But, back to the wooden variety, I almost wonder why the Victor Company bothered with the tiny folded horns contained within its 4-4, 4-7 and 4-40 models? First off, we might agree that the rough wood surfaces of the internal horn were not at all conducive to proper sound reproduction, no matter how they managed to stuff them in the cabinets. Was it perhaps so the consumer could state that he or she actually owned an "Orthophonic" machine, albeit with the smallest available folded horn?

On the face of it, it would almost seem that if one had to choose between the 4-3 with its exponential horn versus the 4-7 with its tiny folded horn, the 4-3 might be the better choice for faithful reproduction of the early electrically-recorded discs. Of course, my "dream machine" in the Victor realm would be the 8-35 or 8-9 with the massive metal horns, but that remains in the realm of unobtanium for me at this time, owing not only to space constraints, but also a lean wallet. So what say ye? Which machine, in your collective opinions, offers the better reproduction, the 4-3 or the 4-7 (understanding that "better/worse" is highly subjective)? I love both of these machines, but want the best bang for my listening buck. I should note, too, that both machines are in tip-top condition mechanically with properly serviced/rebuilt soundboxes and sealed horns. My apology for the length of this post, but I've been meaning to pose this question for quite some time. Thanks to all in advance for any responses.

[Jerry B.]

I've also enjoyed the differences and shapes of horns but generally with the earlier Victrolas. With early Victrolas the appearance and shape of the cabinet was more important than the size and shape of the horn. The early table model Victrolas are a good example of cabinet style over actual audio performance. The first table Victrola, the XII, had a flat squished fully enclosed horn but sold for more money than the Victor VI. Other early Victrolas had open top horns and the motors actually sat down into the horn space. But Victor advertising was persuasive and the public purchased Victrolas.

Back to the questions you raise in your post... I'd suggest a tone test and have your friends over. Since both machines use the same #5 Orthophonic, I'd suggest using the same sound box on each machine. I'd play your chosen records on each machine and use a new needle with each play. Since the 4-7 has a more visually impressive cabinet, you might have your victims (friends) listen with their backs to the machines. After a plethora or records you should be able to determine which sounds the best and if you have really good friends. It's a win win.

Jerry Blais

[marcapra]

Interesting post! Uncle Vanya has told me that everyone needs a Victrola 4-3 Consolette because it reproduces acoustic records, such as Caruso, better than almost any machine. Now here is my advice on horns. You are absolutely right in wanting an 8-9 or an 8-35 with their impressive re-entrant metal horns. The fact that I have an extra 8-9 machine for sale has no bearing on my opinion. So Step one: Quit your current job and get a better one. Step two: Buy a bigger house so you can buy more machines. Step three: Buy my extra Victrola 8-9. Problem solved!

[OrthoFan]

But, back to the wooden variety, I almost wonder why the Victor Company bothered with the tiny folded horns contained within its 4-4, 4-7 and 4-40 models? First off, we might agree that the rough wood surfaces of the internal horn were not at all conducive to proper sound reproduction, no matter how they managed to stuff them in the cabinets.

I think that Victor's goal was to squeeze as much bass out of the smaller horns as possible, to make them sound more like the electrically amplified units on the market at the time. There are differences in the sound quality between the various models you've cited, more in terms of mid-range and bass output, based on the examples I've listened to over the years, and have owned.

The Consolette, with it's non-folded or "straight exponential" horn, measuring approximately three feet, probably provides the best treble and upper mid-range performance of the three models, and as noted, does an excellent job playing acoustically recorded records.

The 4-7 is equipped with a bifurcated (two chamber) horn--about 4.5 feet long, based on what I've been told--and pumps out a more solid mid-range than the Consolette, but also a somewhat dampened treble. There is also less audible surface noise.

The 4-40 is fitted with a true "Re-Entrant" (four chamber) style exponential horn about 4 ¾ feet in length. (I ran a tape measure through the tone chamber of mine.) It reproduces what I'd call upper bass notes, and has a far more solid mid-range than the Cosolette. It is actually closer in sound quality to a Credenza I used to own, but does not quite deliver the "Concert Hall Presence" you'd hear on some records. As with the 4-7, the treble performance is somewhat dampened, depending on the records played and the type of needles used.

OrthoFan

[CharliePhono]

Interesting post! Uncle Vanya has told me that everyone needs a Victrola 4-3 Consolette because it reproduces acoustic records, such as Caruso, better than almost any machine. Now here is my advice on horns. You are absolutely right in wanting an 8-9 or an 8-35 with their impressive re-entrant metal horns. The fact that I have an extra 8-9 machine for sale has no bearing on my opinion. So Step one: Quit your current job and get a better one. Step two: Buy a bigger house so you can buy more machines. Step three: Buy my extra Victrola 8-9. Problem solved!

Thank you, Jerry and Marc, for the replies/observations! Jerry, I don't think my friends are too fond of the type of music I play, so I would be hard-pressed to corral them into a listening session! Now, if Moody Blues or the Grateful Dead recorded 78s, maybe . . .

Marc, the Consolette is indeed a small, but mighty performer. Compared to the 4-7, it has more of an "in-your-face" reproduction which is pleasant and most realistic, considering its size. As far as quitting my job, I'm pretty much retired, save for a very part-time gig I do online as an independent contractor (lousy pay, but the pin money is nice). I like my lil' abode and particularly its location (Sierra foothills), so no plans to relocate for now. I wouldn't have a problem though turning loose of some machines/records/you-name-it to bankroll your 8-9, and hey -- we're both in CA! You have a moving van?

I might add to the mix that I have a Brunswick Seville of the "Panatrope" ilk which, in my opinion, beautifully reproduces acoustics; electrics, so-so. Odd though, since it has the very long tonearm connected to a horn similar in size and build to the Consolette (similar, but not exactly like it {for the purists}).

[Jwb88]

I owned a walnut Victrola 4-40. Beautiful classy machine, but I didn't like the sound. It seemed a little harsh to me. I've never owned a Victrola Consolette, but I do have a Brunswick Seville which is, I think, similar. The Seville has a Panatrope reproducer with metal diaphragm and a direct oval horn of beautiful finished wood--which doesn't matter since it's covered by a grille. Anyway, these two machines were right next to each other, and for weeks I tried to compare the two objectively. While the 4-40 had more range and fullness, I always went back to playing the Seville. It sounded so much cleaner and unrestricted to me. Yet I knew that the 4-40 technically sounded much better. The trouble was that I just didn't personally like it. My personal opinion of the 4-40 is that if you dare defy the instructions in the lid and leave the lid open during play, it has about as much surface noise as some of the worst diamond discs, on top of sounding very metallic. Yet with the lid closed, it seems quiet. I tried two other orthophonic reproducers on it and I also used the Brunswick Panatrope on the 4-40 using a little electrical tape as a flange. I still preferred the Brunswick Seville. I freely admit that the 4-40 had to have a wider frequency range and technically was better. My ears just didn't like it.

When the Credenza was finished, I sold the 4-40. It was gorgeous, but the Credenza beat it, unsurprisingly. I tend to like machines on the extreme ends of the spectrum: big horns or small ones. With larger horns the sound can be genuinely good. On small machines they may lack range but they have a direct simplicity about them that makes listening easy and captivating. Those in-between might just suffer something akin to Middle Child Syndrome (think Jan Brady).