Sonora “Orthophonic type” machines, as good as Victrola?

[Django]

I have seen a few small Victrola 4-3 size machines lately, (Brunswick and Sonora), but I have been hesitant to move on any of them. Are they a good machine for playing electronically recorded records? Any drawbacks or issues? Was the Victrola better?

Thanks

[roaringtwenties]

Hello Mr. Django,

I see no one has replied to you yet so I will try my best to answer your question from my knowledge. The Orthophonic Victrolas were scientifically designed (using western electric technology I believe, could be wrong) for the best tonal qualities in any acoustical phonograph. They sound much better than your average "joe schmo" cabinet phonograph. The popular opinion between enthusiasts that I have talked to have been that the Victor label records (the shellac 78s produced and manufactured by victor) are better in quality than Columbia or Brunswick 78s. I have many different labels and I found this to be mostly true from my experience however I have a couple of really nice Columbia and Brunswick recordings of very well arranged pieces of music, however I always found that the victor labels play better on my Victor VV XI (in terms of sound quality). I do not own an orthophonic (yet) but will very very soon, and I'd like to run some tests with "other label" records on it such as Columbia, Brunswick, and Radiex labels from the 20s.

Hopefully that helps at least somewhat. Now with the Victrola Orthophonic line... from the orthophonics I have heard (8-4s. credenzas, etc) they play early shellac electrical recordings really really well! Most would say they are the best phonograph and I would have to agree with that statement. If you aren't picky, and just want to have an afternoon listen with a cup of tea those sonora and brunswick phonographs look really really elegant and get the job done. However if you want to have a more enjoyable experience and drastically reduce the damage to your 78s, the victrola orthophonic line is better suited for you.

Happy listening!
-Danny

[barrybehappy]

I have a Victrola 4-3 from 1927. Had the reproducer rebuilt a few years ago. I am constantly amazed at how good it sounds playing acoustic and electrically recorded records. The sound quality is really phenomenal for such a small machine in my view. I have heard Columbia and Brunswick machines of the same size and year of production and they play ok but nothing compared to my 4-3. The amount of bass it is able to produce and volume with just a soft tone needle is really quite something.

If you have a chance to get a nice 4-3 (or Consolette as the early ones were called) don't hesitate. The 4-7, a slightly larger model is great also. You won't be disappointed; for their size, they really are great sounding machines.

[Django]

Thank you for the information. The only orthophonic machine that I have ever owned was a Victrola Granada, but I sold it in 1976. I have no background in acoustic engineering and because of my workload, self studies outside me field has been limited, so I appreciate having this forum. Thanks

[Jerry B.]

Can someone say which companies paid Western Electric for their technology? Did the rest just try to copy it closely while trying to avoid patent infringement?

Jerry Blais

[barrybehappy]

From what I have read on the subject, Victor and Columbia licensed the technology from Western Electric. Western originally approached Victor first and they turned them down initially. Victor realized their mistake and did sign an agreement with Western within a few months after initially turning them down. Many of the other record producers also signed agreements with Western. I think there were some record producers that tried their own systems for electrically recording which didn't produce the high quality results that the Western Electric system did.

[OrthoFan]

Can someone say which companies paid Western Electric for their technology? Did the rest just try to copy it closely while trying to avoid patent infringement?

Jerry Blais

In the United States, both Victor and Columbia licensed the Western Electric recording process, but, based on what I've read, only Victor (and later, the Gramophone Co., Ltd.) had the rights to produce phonographs equipped with the Western Electric (Maxfield & Harrison) designed sound box and horn(s), which were protected by patents.

How carefully those patents were guarded during this period is anyone's guess. Some of the smaller Ortho Clones I've seen that were produced during the late 1920s were equipped with horns approximating the Western Electric designed taper, while some had no taper at all.

OrthoFan

[gramophone-georg]

From what I have read on the subject, Victor and Columbia licensed the technology from Western Electric. Western originally approached Victor first and they turned them down initially. Victor realized their mistake and did sign an agreement with Western within a few months after initially turning them down. Many of the other record producers also signed agreements with Western. I think there were some record producers that tried their own systems for electrically recording which didn't produce the high quality results that the Western Electric system did.

Three that immediately come to mind are Gennett, Brunswick, and the Plaza group. Some of those early electrics are damn painful to listen to. Victor had its issues too, Whitey Kaufman's "Paddlin' Madeline Home" is a great example- quite the feedback loop going there. Examples of Gennett's first foray are very hard to find- they are the regular red label series with a "GE" in a circle up top. They soon gave up and went back to acoustic. They had more success two years later with the "New Electrobeam" series.

Alone among the record makers, Columbia seemed to get it right from the start. Even the very early Flag electrics are very hi- fi and well balanced with no distortion. I have yet to find a bad or even marginal Columbia electric. They produced some of the best acoustical recordings too, in their "budget" Diva, Harmony, and Velvet- Tone lines which didn't electrify till mid to late 1929. Columbia had JUST finished developing the much improved acoustical process when WE came in with the electrical process system. They had invested a lot of money in the improved acoustical system and equipment, which is why they continued it on the budget labels so late into the game.

Some of it doubtless had to do with shellac quality also- for all the hype, Victor wasn't ever the best at quality control in these areas... then there is the fade out squeal on a lot of Victors.

I think Columbia was always quite underappreciated.

[CharliePhono]

Over my years in this hobby, I have owned many machines designed to play electrically recorded discs acoustically. Of course, any of the later models utilizing a metal horn do sound very good, sparkling, and clear. Owing to living space and financial constraints, my Credenza is long gone (I owned around six of them over the years), so I have been left with my VV 4-3, VV 4-7, a Columbia Viva-Tonal table model (made in '29 in the UK; metal bifurcated horn), and my "daily driver," a Brunswick Seville. Then, there are the portables -- the VV 2-65 and VV 2-55, but for the sake of this discussion I will have to say that the Brunswick never ceases to surprise me in terms of reproduction. As is known, it has a long, exponential horn made of spruce connected to an impossibly long (and very compliant) tonearm. The sound it produces (rebuilt soundbox, of course) is truly amazing. Of course, you're not going to get a profound bass "thump," as with the larger and longer folded horns, but it still holds its own very nicely and -- to my ears -- surpasses the reproduction of the 4-3 and 4-7 (the latter two both with rebuilt Mica Monster soundboxes). Thus, after months of listening to all of them, the Brunswick now holds the special spot in my small living room and is used all the time now.

Another thing about the Brunswicks of this period is that one can tell they tried (and succeeded) in terms of sheer quality of build, often, to my thinking, surpassing the Victor products. The cabinets are solid and heavy, and one thing I especially like about the Seville is the solid motor board which will not allow stray needles to fall down into the cabinet. Brunswick also thoughtfully installed a metal drip pan beneath the motor in order to not soil the horn, which is a nice touch. Also, there's no guesswork with the semi-automatic brake, and I love that it won't trip when playing a slightly off-center record, as both the Victors will do. It works seamlessly first time/every time, once set.

I might add that the Columbia table model with its metal bifurcated horn has truly spectacular sound for a machine of its size.

Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble and contribute my 2 cents.

CharlieP

[vansteem78]

Ha ha all I know is what I hear. Folks who have more 'modern' Brunswick's like a Panatrope and more modern Sonora's like them? I also heard people mention the fact that parts for the bigger companies are easier to come by if needed. Neil