Discussion: Which Machine Achieves the Best Sound Quality?

[oldphonographsteve]

I decided that I would start a discussion here as I have listened to so many different models and makes of phonographs that I wanted to ask you all for your opinion. What talking machine do you think reproduces best sound and why? Please let me know, I am sincerely looking forward to everybody's thoughts on the subject. I personally think that a like new condition diamond disc on a large Edison diamond disc phonograph achieves the best sound quality compared to all other phonographs of the acoustic period.

-Steve

[CarlosV]

I personally think that a like new condition diamond disc on a large Edison diamond disc phonograph achieves the best sound quality compared to all other phonographs of the acoustic period.

-Steve

Steve, I'll give you my opinion in a highly subjective theme. If your query concentrates on the pre-orthophonic, pre-exponential horns, and it is not limited to US-made machines, we need to look for the best reproduction in other sources than Edison-Victor-Columbia. The three utilized primitive types of horn, which limited severely the reproduction of whatever discs one would play on them. I know at least two better horn designs from the same period (I am talking before 1920) that provide superior reproduction in comparison: the (very) large horns of the French coin-op Concert Automatique and the German also coin-op Mammut. It is not so much the size that led to the improvement but their shape and the long path from soundbox to horn: by coincidence or not, both horns follow more or less the exponential expansion that some years later became the basis of the best designs of the acoustic era, like the EMGs, Ginns, and the orthophonics-reentrants. Now, when you combine the machine with the disc, there is a large variability of recording quality in any given brand. I have some excellently recorded Edison but also some of appalling quality (quality of reproduction, I am not talking about musical taste). Early Pathés were not well recorded, most were pantographic copies of cylinders. But I would argue that even the best recorded pre'1920 Edisons did not get a good reproduction in the Edison machines of the period, like the Hepplewhite or the Army/Navy (I have both, so this is first hand experience). I get a better reproduction from the Schubert, but this machine was produced by the late 1920s, when orthophonics already dominated the market and Edison was (maybe) paying more attention to horn designs. So my vote is for well-recorded (Victor, Columbia, Odeon) disc on a Mammut, such combination would provide the best sound quality up until orthophonics came to market.

[Uncle Vanya]

The Concert Automatique is certainly a stunner. When fitted with a lateral adapter and with a good aluminum diaphragm reproducer (I used the Limit FM) the machine's reproduction of electrically recorded discs is equally impressive.


As far as American machines of the electric era are concerned, for overall performance I like the metal horned Victor products of the 1928 season, machines such as the 8-35 and the 8-9. Good, well rounded bass and a sparkling upper range which is so often lacking on the earlier Orthophonic machines. Brunswick and Columbia machines of this vintage have their good points, too, but neither is to my ear quite as flexible with regard to source material.

The poor, ignored step-child of the Orthophonic line, the Consolette, has its place as a record player. Within its range it is very good. It's reproduction of the earlier acoustic recordings can hardly be bettered. The same acoustic system is found in the rather scarce Colony and in the early Granada machines. Don't entirely discount them as record players. They all also have good needle point alignment. Coupled with the relatively high needle point compliance of the Orthophonic system this cuts record wear to a minimum.

[larryh]

Of the commonly found machines from the period up to the mid 20's of which I have listened to for over 60 years now I would have to lean to the Edison phonographs using the 250 size horn. Among those for listening I prefer the large console models due to the fact the horn is more inline for listening to detail when sitting. At the uprights are fine at a distance especially when standing but tend to send much of the detail of the sound over my head. Granted Edison disc are spotty in quality, but when you have a good copy of them the sound is quite amazing. That also is dependent on the diaphragm and stylus condition as well. There is a fullness of sound that rarely comes though as well on other machines and makes listening quite satisfying to my ear. The other more popular companies like Victor and Columbia do have an advantage in that they sought out outstanding artist in a way edison wasn't as concerned about. Still the classical things by Cesar Sodero are among the most interesting of the period.

The longer distance to the horn making things better may be true but when I look at the most successful ones on you tube the horn is very large as well as the taper being long. The edison design made the taper longer, but kept a pretty small horn attached to it. Perhaps on electrical records which they were designed to reproduce the difference in bass production was overcome due to the new recording process. Compared to the 250 horn of the earlier machines I lean to finding the sound deeper and richer on the old horn rather than the new smaller one.

[startgroove]

I think the Pathé Actuelle is the best sounding phonograph. I have perfectly good ears (yes, I've been tested) and so what I hear is probably about as normal as it can get. To me the Actuelle has the best sound in terms of fullness, clarity, clean-ness, volume and Signal To Noise Ratio. Mine seems to have a very slight deficiency in the high frequencies compared to say an Orthophonic player, but the low notes seem to come through cleaner and louder than an Orthophonic player. Russie

[bigshot]

For clarity, my Brunswick Cortez does pretty doggone good. It doesn't reproduce the bass as well as an orthophonic, but it does a very good jobs with early acoustics, which the orthophonic tends to muddy up. It even does a good job with mid 40s red label Columbias- very versatile.

[Uncle Vanya]

Compared to the 250 horn of the earlier machines I lean to finding the sound deeper and richer on the old horn rather than the new smaller one.

I certainly agree with you there. The sound given forth by the 250 horn is more to my taste than that of the Edisonic unit.

[Victrolacollector]

I know this is a very controversial topic, but as far as sound goes, I think my Magnola Talking Machine gives a very good sound, maybe better than my Victors. The Magnola, has a spring loaded tone arm that seems to take a lot of weight off the records. The horn is a patented horn that was used in these machines. (I have a file photo of the patent, its on my home computer).

As far as the best sound of the larger companies, I think the Edison Diamond Disc has a better sound, if the recording is good.

Here is the order of sound quality from machines that I have heard (or own):

1. Magnola Talking Machine
2. Edison B-19 Chalet
3. Victor Orthophonic (J 1-80)
4. Victor Victrola VV 1-70
5. Victor VV-IX

I own a Pathé, but even with the large reproducer, the very thin tone arm does not seem to bring out the tone and volume, many instruments and background sounds do not seem to be noticeable.

[phonojim]

I love my 8-30, but I have to admit that my 8-35 has better high frequency response and does a much better job on '30s - 40s big band 78s. That said, I'm not giving up the 8-30 anytime soon. My wife has Steve Stanton's phone number for "when the time comes...".
For cylinders, my Triumph D2 with oak cygnet and either diamond B or O reproducer, depending on what I happen to be playing.

Jim

[winsleydale]

From an aspect of clarity and life-like-ness, I would venture to say that any evenly-playing cylinder phonograph with a properly tuned Diamond-series reproducer, coupled with a directly-recorded cylinder has HANDS DOWN the best sound quality. Even better than a perfectly clean Diamond Disc (I am talking NOS here, no surface noise at all and pristine grooves). However, obviously the cylinders are comprehensively lacking in bass, and fullness. But for the human voice there is simply none better. Each gentle breath is captured fully and reproduced much the same (I imagine) as how it went down the recording horn a hundred years ago.

From an aspect of all-around fullness of sound, from a musical, non-vocal standpoint, I haven't much to say. Given my severely limited experience, I can only state that my VV 8-12 has much more for bass than my Edison disc machines (of which I have three, and each with different horn sizes), and generally a warmer sound. However, the Diamond Disc machines (when paired with records that aren't crap) are much better for discerning between instruments in an ensemble. My litmus test for that sort of thing is clarinets v. flutes. Even on my orthophonic machine with an electric record (from the 30s I think, but could be up to the 50s - haven't looked into it), it can be quite difficult to tell those instruments apart. However, on my Diamond Disc machine (especially my new C-150 which is miles ahead of the H-19 and even sounds a bit better to my ear than my W&M console with the 250 horn), the clarinets are very much clarinets, and the flutes are very much flutes.