Columbia 109/112 109a/112a etc.

[OrthoFan]

Re-entrant horn.

Columbia never had a horn that even slightly resembled a Re-entrant horn.
They were only ever used in Victor/HMV machines.
IMO, Columbia horns were pretty much a gimmick, just like their Plano-reflex arms.
I think any sound improvement over other lesser models probably has more to do with increased overall horn length rather than any actual scientific design principles.

That's true. While both Columbia and Victor signed up for the the Western Electric recording process, only Victor (and later the Gramophone Co. through it's affiliation with Victor) had the production rights to the Re-Entrant style horn designed by Maxfield and Harrison. The large horn installed in the US-made Columbia Viva Tonal models was basically a double horn--one on top of the other. (Seen from the back -- https://www.intertique.com/VivaTonal810IDDemo.html ) There were some great photos posted of the horn's front view on this forum, but they are no longer available. However, this patent should give you a clue -- https://patents.google.com/patent/US175 ... rn+divided

The UK Columbia models, in addition the Plano-Reflex style horn, were also equipped with the metal bifurcated horn--as shown in the brochure--which interestingly enough, is similar in design concept to the all-wood bifurcated horns installed in some of the smaller Victor Orthophonic models such as the later production VV-4-4, the 4-7, etc. (The table top VV-1-90 was fitted with a similar style bifurcated horn but it was flattened on the bottom.)

A true re-entrant style horn is divided into four sections or conduits, which join at the horn's mouth, while a bifurcated horn is divided into two sections joined at the mouth. One of the more interesting horns was fitted into the 700-series Columbia Viva-Tonal models, produced in the US. That horn, which is tapered like a saxophone, has a single divider running along the length of the horn, creating two separate chambers.

OrthoFan

[anchorman]

What would you describe the horn in the 112a as being? Maybe my terminology is off?

Granted, my experience with portables has been limited by their relative scarcity amongst fellow collectors here, and their relative scarcity compared to run of the mill Victrolas and off-brand machines. Whatever the horn in it is, the 112a sounds better by far than any other portable I’ve heard and better than my 1915 ish floor model grafanola. I feel like the tone is better balanced even than my friend’s viva tonal (either 600 or 700 series, can’t remember which).

[anchorman]

Orthofan, thanks for the explanation/diagrams.

[anchorman]

This is what commonly gets referred to as a re-entrant horn under modern usage:

https://www.lowellmfg.com/product-tag/reentrant-horn/

Which resembles very much the design of the Columbia 112, imho, where one horn is fed into another of larger diameter, and reflected off the closed narrow end of the larger cone/horn, in order to lengthen the horn acoustic path in the horn while keeping it compact in size.

[OrthoFan]

This is what commonly gets referred to as a re-entrant horn under modern usage:

https://www.lowellmfg.com/product-tag/reentrant-horn/

Which resembles very much the design of the Columbia 112, imho, where one horn is fed into another of larger diameter, and reflected off the closed narrow end of the larger cone/horn, in order to lengthen the horn acoustic path in the horn while keeping it compact in size.

The definition of a re-entrant horn is "a horn which is shortened by causing the sound to pass through coaxial channels successively in forward and backward directions one or more times. " (see: https://www.iala-aism.org/wiki/dictiona ... trant_horn ), so the folded exponential horn fitted into the Columbia 112 would definitely qualify.

But, as phonograph/gramophone collectors understand the word--and in terms of the products offered by Victor/The Gramophone Co.--this style of horn is normally what is referred to as Re-entrant:

(From an Orthophonic Victrola owner's manual.)

While the Victor Talking Machine Co. did not use the term "Re-Entrant" in their advertisements, The Gramophone Co. did, though I don't think it was trademarked.

HTH,
OrthoFan

[anchorman]

Hi Orthofan,

What was the supposed purpose of the split horn from Columbia as used in the 700 series? I can’t figure what advantage that might bring. The things that seem most important are length, and taper. Did the split allow them to tune resonances in the horn to be more sympathetic to the tonal balance of the recording process?

[epigramophone]

Regarding the arm mountings, I’m not so concerned. The parts are relatively simple, and I have a lathe to make new ones out of brass or aluminum if need be.

How do the nicer Columbias sound compared with the HMV 102? It looks like the soundboxes might be interchangeable between the 102 and the Columbia number 9, number 15 and others. I’ve seen a number of HMV portables that have broken reproducers due to pot metal back breaking. Also not the end of the world to make a replacement, but nice to know if other reproducers can be used without much fuss.

Unless you use an adapter, the soundboxes are not interchangeable as the Columbia tonearm is of smaller diameter than the HMV.
Columbia soundboxes progressed from pot metal to brass. Unfortunately HMV went in the opposite direction.
The Plano-Reflex design was based on the mistaken belief that sound waves behave in the same way as light beams. That it works as well as it does is largely due to the excellence of the No.9 and No.15 soundboxes.

[Phono48]

This guy is showing a garrard 5 (5a?) in his 109…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7BP6bfHt50

No, that's a Columbia No.8. Garrard never made soundboxes.

Barry

[OrthoFan]

Hi Orthofan,

What was the supposed purpose of the split horn from Columbia as used in the 700 series? I can’t figure what advantage that might bring. The things that seem most important are length, and taper. Did the split allow them to tune resonances in the horn to be more sympathetic to the tonal balance of the recording process?

I think the idea was to make the taper more gradual, more "exponential-like," which in theory would enhance the bass quality; but, of course, it does nothing to increase the horn's length, which is just as important. I've listened to a couple of the midsize Viva Tonal phonographs that were fitted with this type of horn, and they seemed slightly weak in comparison with the Victor mid-size Orthophonic models such as the 4-40 or the 8-4 which used four-chamber re-entrant style horns--approximately five feet in length for both models.

OrthoFan

[anchorman]

This guy is showing a garrard 5 (5a?) in his 109…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7BP6bfHt50

No, that's a Columbia No.8. Garrard never made soundboxes.

Barry

I was talking about the motor. I’ve been told here it was a garrard 20 in the 109, 109a, and early 201, but the man in the video I linked clearly had a 5a motor in his 109.

Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion surrounding not just the motors in these machines, but the motors themselves. On the “gramophone museum” website from Australia there is information about various garrard motors, and the 5 and 5a are listed as being double spring motors, but they are very clearly single spring.

My 112a has a number 50 motor, also single spring. I’ve been trying to glean correct information about this family of portables for some time, but it’s much more scarce online than that regarding the victor and HMV machines.