Indeed this is true, Graham, but I suppose it's worth remembering that the HMV was designed to have a thin steel horn attached to it, which in itself has the same unwanted resonances so lagging the conduit or manufacturing it from a less resonant material was never realistically an option at the time.emgcr wrote:Thank you Steve. Barry Williamson's book "H.M.V. Gramophones 1921 to 1936" also shows the Table Model 32 entering the catalogue for the first time in 1927. The 32 system incorporating the internal conduit works well with Wilson and EMG external horns, the only downside being that it was made of thin-wall steel which allows some unwanted resonances. If the conduit is heavily lagged the acoustic result is very little different from the full EMG experience---other things (soundbox etc) being equal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P1trPQYh_s EMG Xb Oversize horn with EMG two-spring soundbox.
And the comparison using the correct HMV horn but still with the two-spring EMG soundbox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4v99CVu_w
Also, the HMV Models 31 and 32 appeared at the same time as the re-entrant range had been introduced so unlike say EMG, this design (or refinement of it) wasn't where the acoustic development was happening. As good as the '32' was, it wasn't anywhere near as good as an HMV 192 or 511 (cabinet models with No. 4 sound-box), let alone the incoming 163, 193 and 202 models.