I (think) I notice that very early internal horn gramophones (like HMV) had very thick, very heavy, cast iron horns - like the one on ebay with photo below.
Then they quite quickly changed to very thin, light, pressed 'tin' metal horns.
Did the original heavy cast iron horns sound better / give better sound reproduction I wonder ?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Old- ... SwcUFdvfkq
Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
- poodling around
- Victor V
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:52 am
- Marco Gilardetti
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:19 am
- Personal Text: F. Depero, "Grammofono", 1923.
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
They would surely sound better, all other sides kept equal, as being stiffer they would tend to resonate less.
However, an accurate profile of the horn is much more crucial, and being among the first designed they are probably not as well engineered as more recent ones.
However, an accurate profile of the horn is much more crucial, and being among the first designed they are probably not as well engineered as more recent ones.
- poodling around
- Victor V
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:52 am
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
Most interesting Marco. I suspect that 'on balance' the heavy, solid cast iron horns are superior.Marco Gilardetti wrote:They would surely sound better, all other sides kept equal, as being stiffer they would tend to resonate less.
However, an accurate profile of the horn is much more crucial, and being among the first designed they are probably not as well engineered as more recent ones.
So, I wonder why they altered the method of creating the horn ? I thought maybe because it was far cheaper to make the pressed tin and maybe transportation costs were less as the pressed tin weighs very little in comparison.
-
- Victor VI
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:39 am
- Personal Text: I've got both kinds of music--classical & rag-time.
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
The tin horns I've seen on old gramophones usually are on later electrical-record machines, and folded somehow.
I have a 1914 Victrola cabinet gramophone that uses a hybrid horn--½ of it is a cast-iron throat which squares of. A solid mahogany flared box is attached to be the horn bell, and it is sealed with beeswax and mahogany slats. There are four louvers down the horn to deflect the sound & break up the cavernous appearance.
While it's a very early machine it still manages to sound very pretty with its Exhibition soundbox, outperforming a Victor III horn machine equipped with a brass and black conical horn.
The only early tin horn I've ever seen was inside a 1912-1916 "Oxford" hornless, made for the Sears, Roebuck Company. It was doubtless made to cut costs as it would have sold for $9.95 brand new, but somehow it managed to sound right, as it was built with a tonearm from the similar Columbia Grafonolas.
I have a 1914 Victrola cabinet gramophone that uses a hybrid horn--½ of it is a cast-iron throat which squares of. A solid mahogany flared box is attached to be the horn bell, and it is sealed with beeswax and mahogany slats. There are four louvers down the horn to deflect the sound & break up the cavernous appearance.
While it's a very early machine it still manages to sound very pretty with its Exhibition soundbox, outperforming a Victor III horn machine equipped with a brass and black conical horn.
The only early tin horn I've ever seen was inside a 1912-1916 "Oxford" hornless, made for the Sears, Roebuck Company. It was doubtless made to cut costs as it would have sold for $9.95 brand new, but somehow it managed to sound right, as it was built with a tonearm from the similar Columbia Grafonolas.
- poodling around
- Victor V
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:52 am
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
Thank you very much for your view and interesting observations.VanEpsFan1914 wrote:The tin horns I've seen on old gramophones usually are on later electrical-record machines, and folded somehow.
I have a 1914 Victrola cabinet gramophone that uses a hybrid horn--½ of it is a cast-iron throat which squares of. A solid mahogany flared box is attached to be the horn bell, and it is sealed with beeswax and mahogany slats. There are four louvers down the horn to deflect the sound & break up the cavernous appearance.
While it's a very early machine it still manages to sound very pretty with its Exhibition soundbox, outperforming a Victor III horn machine equipped with a brass and black conical horn.
The only early tin horn I've ever seen was inside a 1912-1916 "Oxford" hornless, made for the Sears, Roebuck Company. It was doubtless made to cut costs as it would have sold for $9.95 brand new, but somehow it managed to sound right, as it was built with a tonearm from the similar Columbia Grafonolas.
I have a horn (possibly) very like the one you describe in your Victrola cabinet, which ended up in my home made Frankenphone because of severe woodworm. I like your description very much - and agree it 'sounds very pretty' - mine has an HMV No. 2 soundbox though. I also agree with you re: the pressed metal horn I have in an early Pallard - that 'sounds right'.
Perhaps neither sound better - just different. You seem to have answered my question very well.
- Marco Gilardetti
- Victor IV
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:19 am
- Personal Text: F. Depero, "Grammofono", 1923.
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
Surely cost-cutting and also overall weight (not only of the material, but also of the complete machine) were considered. However, as the shape of horns became more and more complex following the progress of sound engineering, probably all-cast-iron horns with many foldings or re-entrant sections became impractical to be crafted or perhaps even impossible to be made. Cast-iron parts were then limited to only few sections: many quality gramophones have a first elbow made in cast-iron, attached to a tin horn.poodling around wrote:So, I wonder why they altered the method of creating the horn ? I thought maybe because it was far cheaper to make the pressed tin and maybe transportation costs were less as the pressed tin weighs very little in comparison.
- poodling around
- Victor V
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:52 am
Re: Solid Horns V Thin Tin Horns
Very good. Thank you Marco.Marco Gilardetti wrote:Surely cost-cutting and also overall weight (not only of the material, but also of the complete machine) were considered. However, as the shape of horns became more and more complex following the progress of sound engineering, probably all-cast-iron horns with many foldings or re-entrant sections became impractical to be crafted or perhaps even impossible to be made. Cast-iron parts were then limited to only few sections: many quality gramophones have a first elbow made in cast-iron, attached to a tin horn.poodling around wrote:So, I wonder why they altered the method of creating the horn ? I thought maybe because it was far cheaper to make the pressed tin and maybe transportation costs were less as the pressed tin weighs very little in comparison.