Electrically recorded 78s on an external horned phonograph

[GoCOOGS!]

Hi there yall!

I have a Standard Talking Machine Co. Model A, It has been worked on and is in beautiful condition. I also have an extra turntable that can play records with standard (no pun intended) holes.

With that being said, I acquired a bundle of records to play on it. I already have about 10 Standard Talking Machine company records but I wanted to play other brands with standard sized holes. A friend of mine warned me to only play acoustically recorded records that are pre 1925 and not anything that was electrically recorded. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

[52089]

The general concern is potential damage to the record and/or reproducer. This is a topic that has been discussed many times and has diverse opinions. I'd suggest searching the board for topics like "what records can I play" or "electric records on acoustic machine", etc.

[CarlosV]

Hi there yall!

With that being said, I acquired a bundle of records to play on it. I already have about 10 Standard Talking Machine company records but I wanted to play other brands with standard sized holes. A friend of mine warned me to only play acoustically recorded records that are pre 1925 and not anything that was electrically recorded. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

The main reason is that it will not sound very good, the electric records have a wider frequency range that will not be reproduced on the more primitive machines like the Standard. When electric records were issued, a whole new product line of machines was also put in place that had technical developments allowing the reproduction of the wider frequency range contained in these records.

[epigramophone]

As I have said many times before, a pre 1925 soundbox which has been properly rebuilt and adjusted should not damage electrical recordings, but it will not reproduce them to their full potential.
After 1925, and especially during the Depression years, many owners fitted later soundboxes to earlier machines to give them a new lease of life.

[drh]

As I have said many times before, a pre 1925 soundbox which has been properly rebuilt and adjusted should not damage electrical recordings, but it will not reproduce them to their full potential.
After 1925, and especially during the Depression years, many owners fitted later soundboxes to earlier machines to give them a new lease of life.

As a case in point, not long ago I bought a Victrola no. 4 reproducer--designed precisely to play electric recordings on machines not optimized for them--and fitted it to my Victor V external horn machine. I thought the results, based on fairly limited trials, were quite pleasing. Indeed, I have the idea, after more experimentation, that I may well rely on that combination and shed my Credenza, considering that I don't often play electric recordings on acoustic machines, preferring to put them on a modern turntable with a good modern cartridge and custom sized styli. I generally do the same with acoustic laterals, to be honest, especially since buying a Graham Slee Accession preamp. Vertical acoustics, on the other hand, I almost invariably play on acoustic machines; for whatever reason, I find they usually sound best that way, and Pathés in particular are challenging to track with modern, lightweight arms.

[Edit] One caveat to epigramophone's otherwise sound advice, supra: Never try to play vinyl pressings, be they late "vintage" or things like Historic Masters or even modern issues like those from Rivermont, on an acoustic machine.

[Wolfe]

Modern presses like Rivermont are microgroove to boot.

[larryh]

Usually I am of the school that electrical records for the most part don't sound very good on a player designed for horn recorded records. However just yesterday I pulled a record out of my Brunswick which I hadn't played for some time. It is an early columbia violin record with some orchestra accompaniment. I was taken by how well the record played. My thoughts are this. A record which has somewhat less frequency may play reasonably well. What I don't want to hear is a later 78 that drives the sound to harsh and almost unlistenable sounds. Too many of those on you tube it seems. After I listened to the Brunswick I put the same record on a decent Victor Orthophonic Portable and it had a bit fuller sound but not so extreme as one might have guessed. I don't see other than poor sound quality on many electric records on a acoustic machine , that it would do physical damage to the reproducer of the record? I do admit that I don't generally play electric records on acoustic machines. Now and then a record will play quite well dependent on the frequency of the recording.

Basically the horn machines are usually Mica diaphragms. They will peak out on some notes that the latter design reproducers could handle. I can think of several portables designed in the electrical era that used mica and had pretty decent sound.

[estott]

As I have said many times before, a pre 1925 soundbox which has been properly rebuilt and adjusted should not damage electrical recordings, but it will not reproduce them to their full potential.
After 1925, and especially during the Depression years, many owners fitted later soundboxes to earlier machines to give them a new lease of life.

There are many variables. Even on the best restored acoustic machine there are some electric records that will play well, and some which won't.

Regarding the one owned by the original poster. It is a Standard with a short horn and a small mica diaphragm. Even when it was new there were going to be some acoustic records it couldn't handle well. The design was a compromise.

[JerryVan]

For me, the bottom line is, try the record. You'll know very soon if it "blasts", or is overpowering the reproducer enough to create distortion. Soft tone needles can really help, but again, if it sounds bad, don't play it.

[Governor Flyball]

The main difference between acoustic vs early electrical recording is the bass response. Because the recording characteristic is constant velocity as opposed to later constant amplitude, the bass cut in the earliest electric discs is quite wide.

The orthophonic and other soundboxes design for electric records needed a greater compliance to track the wide wallowing bass groove of the early electric discs.

You will notice the orthophonic soundbox needle to diaphragm armature ratio was modified to better handle the bass. When playing an electric disc on an acoustic gramophone, I fasten the needle extended in the needle shank to make the ratio closer to the orthophonic ratio and provide better compliance to track the groove.

In the late 30's as electronic playback was becoming more common, the recording characteristic began to change toward constant amplitude. Thus meant a bass cut and a treble boost. Playing later discs on an acoustic gramophone yields a shrill sound. Also as permanent stylii led to v instead of a u shaped groove meant bad sound and excessive wear result from the later discs.