UK Viva-Tonals

[OrthoFan]

Some questions in this post string came up concerning Viva Tonal Columbia phonographs produced in the UK -- http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... f=9&t=3747

I'm wondering, did the first series (circa 1925-1927) use the straight, tapered tonearms coupled with the divided horns --



...and were these replaced by the Plano-Reflex models?

Steve? GramophoneShane?

[gramophoneshane]

Sorry OF, but I couldn't tell you. I've only ever owned one Columbia disc machine (a table model 20A) which was pre-viva-Tonal.
I only had it a few weeks before I sold it, mainly because I wasn't too keen on the pot metal tonearm, although I thought it sounded good with late acoustic Columbia records.
Other than a couple Viva-Tonal portables, I haven't really come across others in my travels, and to be honest I cant even remember what tonearm these had, or if they were UK or US models.
We didn't even have Viva-Tonal records in Oz. They were marketed as "New Process" records.

* I was just reading CP's book, and according to him, the UK Viva-Tonals did indeed have a divided terne plate horn. It makes no mention of the tonearm but I would assume it was the same as the US models- at least until the Plano-Reflex was introduced.

[OrthoFan]

Hi Shane:

Many thanks. I'm guessing that the divided horn machines were eventually all phased out in favor of the Plano-Reflex models. I've seen the tone chambers used in some of these, and they are very similar in construction to those used in the larger Prismaphonic models equipped with the "Prisma-tic horn."

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mikecha ... ismaphonic

[gramophoneshane]

Actually, when I was in high school, a friends mother had a small Plano-Reflex console model, and it had the same horn as in your original post. I dont know if it was a transition model or what??
Problem is, never having owned any of them, I dont get a chance to check out the horn designs.
Most dealers & collectors dont take too kindly to attacking their machines with a screw driver to take out the motor board lol.

[Viva-Tonal]

The 110 portable didn't.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

The Plano Reflex tone arm seemed to have been the feature of the 1929 line. This ad is from October 1928 and gives all the news that's fit to print. I've never heard one of these, but they say they sound quite nice. I had a dickens of time scanning this because as you can see The Graphic that this came from is far bigger than my scanner. ( That's the English news magazine The Graphic, not the Amberola Graphic. )
I have wondered though if Columbia's analogy between sound and light really holds up because of the vast difference in frequency between sound and light.
Jim

[Edisone]

I have a table model VT with the reflex arm and divided horn, if that helps.
I believe that there shouldn't be reflections OR curves in a horn system - the ideal would be straight (and too long to fit in a cabinet or many rooms! )

[OrthoFan]

The Plano Reflex tone arm seemed to have been the feature of the 1929 line. This ad is from October 1928 and gives all the news that's fit to print. I've never heard one of these, but they say they sound quite nice. I had a dickens of time scanning this because as you can see The Graphic that this came from is far bigger than my scanner. ( That's the English news magazine The Graphic, not the Amberola Graphic. )
I have wondered though if Columbia's analogy between sound and light really holds up because of the vast difference in frequency between sound and light.
Jim

Many thanks for posting the image and the information. I seem to remember reading that they were introduced around 1929, and that pretty well confirms it.

I'm no scientist, but I question whether the analogy behind the Plano-Reflex principle is even remotely correct. Seems to me, a light beam is slightly different than a sound wave. Along this line, it doesn't seem to take into account the air pressure changes within the chamber caused by the fluctuating diaphragm--the column of air pushed back and forth by the back and forth movement of the diaphragm, itself.

If there is an advantage over the previous designs Columbia produced, I'd guess that it had more to do with the fact that the horn expands at a more or less constant/exponential rate, in spite of the flattened surfaces, and is generally longer and larger than those fitted into the earlier models.

Of course, the ideal tone chamber, as Edisone noted, would have NO bends or flattened areas between the sound box's throat and the horn's mouth -- kind of like a giant, exponential version of the front-mount models.

BTW, there was one of the larger Plano-Reflex floor models for sale on the UK eBay board awhile back -- similar to this one -- Click Here -- but it garnished little interest from the local collectors. Too bad these NEVER seem to surface in the US market.

OF

[Steve]

I know it's a little O/T but I recently saw (in a private UK collection) a one-off HMV prototype cabinet model from about 1926 (?). It had the standard '5a' soundbox and tone-arm but below the motor-board the horn split into two separate saxophone horns, one slighter longer / larger diameter than the other. The mouth of each could be obscured by one of a pair of doors above the record compartment. One horn appears to be for treble and the other bass. It's a very weird machine and as I said, possibly unique. Apparently the horns were marketed by a UK company in the pages of The Gramophone?

The principle though was identical to the original post shown here, albeit much bigger.