The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

The later acoustic playback machines (Orthophonic-Vivatonal) use an extended length horn and gradual exponential throat with larger horn mouth to extend the low frequency cut off. The low frequency extension was also aided by modifying the sound box armature lever stylus to diaphragm ratio. The folded wooden horn in the Orthophonic further help to attenuate the high frequencies.

So to my ears the Orthophonic players sacrificed the high frequencies for the low. Maybe it was not a bad thing as the record surface noise is reduced with a more satisfying bass sound.

As for external vs internal, I think there are many factors here. I look for a longer more slender exponential horn with a larger mouth and a sound box with a low mass larger stiff diaphragm and small mass stylus armature for best sound. Look at the Edison with a 250 horn: I think Edison provided the best overall playback design for both cylinder and disc.

Governor Flyball wrote:The later acoustic playback machines (Orthophonic-Vivatonal) use an extended length horn and gradual exponential throat with larger horn mouth to extend the low frequency cut off. The low frequency extension was also aided by modifying the sound box armature lever stylus to diaphragm ratio. The folded wooden horn in the Orthophonic further help to attenuate the high frequencies.

So to my ears the Orthophonic players sacrificed the high frequencies for the low. Maybe it was not a bad thing as the record surface noise is reduced with a more satisfying bass sound.

As for external vs internal, I think there are many factors here. I look for a longer more slender exponential horn with a larger mouth and a sound box with a low mass larger stiff diaphragm and small mass stylus armature for best sound. Look at the Edison with a 250 horn: I think Edison provided the best overall playback design for both cylinder and disc.

Thank you very much Governor Flyball. A bit of personal preference then for high or bass sound maybe.

Governor Flyball wrote:to my ears the Orthophonic players sacrificed the high frequencies for the low.

The Brunswick strikes a happy medium on that. Orthophonic machines generally don't do well with acoustic recordings, but my Brunswick Cortez sounds great with acoustics, as does my VV-2-65. I think the reason that Orthos don't play acoustics well is the horn.

My situation is space. If I had the room, I would get the optimal machine for each type of player. But I have to focus, so the Brunswick Cortez was best for me, because it sounds fantastic with a wide range of records, from early acoustics all the way through the 40s. The same goes for the 2-65.

In my experience a good external horn machine will usually outperform a pre-1925 cabinet model, most of which are nothing more than table models with record storage beneath.

One point which has not been mentioned is the height from which the sound emerges, and this is where the external horn shows it's superiority.

I have recently listened to a friend's HMV Triple Spring Monarch with a mahogany horn and a newly rebuilt Exhibition soundbox. On acoustic records the sound quality was excellent with no unwanted vibration, even when Maria Galvany reached her top notes.