gregbogantz wrote:This is just my opinion and not based on any scholarly research. But before the introduction of the Victor #5 orthophonic reproducer, I don't believe that there was any real science applied to reproducer design. It was cut-and-try, and buy-guess-and-by-golly. "Gee Ralph, that little twiddle that I did to the needle bar sounds better, don't ya think? We'll apply for a patent with some jibberish claims that really don't mean anything and then let's put into production". You see all kinds of little tweaks and twiddles done to the basic design of the reproducer from the very first Victors all the way up to the #5, and in all the competitors' designs. And they all turn out to be pretty much the same basic design when you ignore the details that don't really contribute much to the sound of the units.
But the Victor #5 was actually designed from an analysis of the need to match the exponential horn that these were used with. Western Electric made a big deal about the "matched impedance" blah blah of this design, but most of that was pretty much hot air so far as the reproducer goes. The soundbox design is STILL not much different in principle from all the earlier ones. However, they did manage to address some significant issues such as the use of a more compliant diaphragm as realized in the use of the corrugations in the aluminum and the need for reducing the moving mass of the vibratory elements. Beyond that, the "matched impedance" jargon was mostly sizzle used to sell the newfangled steak. The biggest improvement in the Victor ortho phonos was the use of the expenential horn which WAS in fact a result of proper mathematical analysis applied to the problem of designing an mechanical impedance transformer that is required to couple the high-pressure output of the reproducer to the low pressure emission from the mouth of the horn. That's what the horn is - a mechanical impedance transformer, not an amplifier as it was commonly referred to in early advertising.
I totally agree with this statement. It seems to be a toss up between the Victor Exhibition and Victrola #2, both are good soundboxes to play the acoustic recorded records (prior to 1925ish). However, the Victrola #4 with its larger diaphragm and the needle bar set-up, was a better improvement, it allowed better movement in the needle bar to play the new electric records in addition to acoustic records. The Orthodontic was the next of all of the Victor soundboxes, especially in playing electrically recorded recordings. Like Greg said, it really was the exponential horn that made the difference.
As far as other makers of independent machines, to be truthful, I hear very little difference between a Cheney, Magnola, Star, Kimball or any of those machines. I think alot of the reproducer ads were more hype than anything. I will say that the horn in my Magnola is a wood horn, and seems to sound pretty good. I once stumbled on a patent drawing for the Magnola horn. I think the horn material and design may be more crucial then the reproducer.
![[The Talking Machine Forum - For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings]](/styles/we_universal/theme/images/the_talking_machine_forum.png)
