Columbia Viva Tonal

Share your phonograph repair & restoration techniques here
cordova
Victor Jr
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by cordova »

Thank you guys for the tips. I've found some new springs to sell, but I don't know if they are appropriated for this motor model. This broken one has about 25mmx3000mm, the one I've found has 20mmx3000mm, do you guys think it would work fine? Do you recommend a specific spring model for this motor?

Phono48
Victor IV
Posts: 1313
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by Phono48 »

If the existing spring is 25mm wide, then the replacement must be the same. The outer end will not engage on the rivet in the drum if the spring is narrower.

JerryVan
Victor Monarch Special
Posts: 5279
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:08 pm
Location: Southeast MI

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by JerryVan »

The width and length are important, but the thickness is probably the most critical measurement. It determines the strength of the spring. Others have suggested using the services of Soundgen. If that's not where you've looked thus far, I suggest you follow their advice. By the way, if you have access to any tools and torch, that spring would be a very easy repair.

Victrolacollector
Victor V
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: NW Indiana VV-IV;

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by Victrolacollector »

Phono48 wrote:
estott wrote:They sound good because they are pretty much the 102, stripped down.
With great respect, I can't agree with this statement! The 102 was the Gramophone Companys' top-of-the range portable, these Columbias and the identical HMV versions were very much bottom-of-the range! They were the cheapest portables ever made by the Company, and had a very much smaller and weaker motor than the 102, a very cheap and heavy pot-metal soundbox, no ball bearings at all in the arm, and a very short internal horn. Sorry to say, nothing about them even vaguely resembled the 102, even a stripped down version!
I have the HMV 102 which Columbia Model is better than the HMV 102?

Teak
Victor II
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:55 am
Location: Vienna/Austria

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by Teak »

My Columbia 202a portable is one of the best portables I own. I think it sounds better than my (bigger and more expensive) 175 and even rivals my hmv 112 and 114. A proper adjusted no 15 soundbox does produce much less surface noise than the no. 5a/b in my experience. Also the tonearm position with the soundbox pointing inside the lid, not "outward" like the hmvs seems to help reducing noise and phasing.

Phono48
Victor IV
Posts: 1313
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Columbia Viva Tonal

Post by Phono48 »

Victrolacollector wrote:I have the HMV 102 which Columbia Model is better than the HMV 102?
I wouldn't say any Columbias were actually better than the HMV 102. The Columbia 206 and 9000 were of course almost identical to it, (the 206 actually preceded the HMV 102 by three years),but I agree that the Columbia 112A and 202 certainly gave a sound equal to the 102. The NO.15 soundbox was a superb bit of kit, but the downside of the Columbia 202 was the pot-metal arm socket, which was very prone to shattering, and was very difficult, if not impossible to repair. Then again HMV 102s had that pesky pot metal back to the soundbox, so I guess it just comes down to personal preference.

Post Reply