Best sounding machine of the World War One period?

[bigshot]

Interestingly enough, my early acoustic records sound quite a bit better on my Brunswick Cortez than they do on my VV-X.

[Nat]

You Ed-heads have me just about convinced that I need a C-250! But why that particular model (what is the "laboratory series?) are the other models as impressive sonically - or is the 250 liked partly for esthetic reasons?

And a final question: f I do invest in one, am I right in assuming that the reproducer should probably be re-built? (I know Victor gaskets fossilize - do Edisons have similar issues?)

Sorry for all the questions, I've spent my entire life in Victor Land.

[phonojim]

@ bigshot: Of course they do, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The Cortez is a post-1925 machine designed to play electrically recorded records. The OP was referring to 1914-18 machines which were designed to play acoustic records. Actually, your records would probably sound better on an XVI than on your X.

@Nat: if you want an Edison you definitely should get one with a 250 horn. It does make a difference. I had several Edisons with smaller horns and traded up to a C250 about 15 years ago and have never looked back. As far as reproducer rebuild: definitely yes. Petrified gaskets are the most obvious problem area but there are 2 more that need to be checked. First is the horizontal pivot at the tail end of the weight; these often get gummed up and affect lateral movement of the weight. The second is the freedom of the stylus bar to rotate around the pin. This area will sometimes get dirty/gummy and limit the vertical movement of the stylus. The stylus bar should move effortlessly on the pin, but not have any slop or wiggle to it. And, Be sure to check the stylus as mentioned in several threads on this board. An Edison is a completely different machine with its own characteristic sound when compared to anything else and I'm quite sure you will enjoy it.

Jim

[De Soto Frank]

So, the C-250 horn is superior to the C-19 ?

How are they different ?

[fran604g]

[quote="De Soto Frank"]So, the C-250 horn is superior to the C-19 ?

How are they different ?

[/quote]

No difference, just the largest out of 1 of 3 sizes; the 100, 150, with the 250 being the largest until the Edisonic models. But, the C250 fits the OP's time frame, as opposed to the C19 which was introduced 17 months (April 1919) after WWI ended.


EDIT: God I feel like a dope! Not 17 months, 5! There's no entire year in there, must be tired from moving my daughter all day.

Fran

[barnettrp21122]

So, the C-250 horn is superior to the C-19 ?

How are they different ?

Quoting Frow's book: "Apart from the table models, three sizes of horn were installed in the disc phonographs. The smallest was for the $100 model and about eight of the least expensive machines, a second size was put in the $150 and $200 models and about three others, and the largest were found on the $250 and all above, including the Art models. This large size was also used on the Army and Navy Model."

C-250 and C-19 horns would be of the same largest size.
Bob

[bigshot]

@ bigshot: Of course they do, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The Cortez is a post-1925 machine designed to play electrically recorded records. The OP was referring to 1914-18 machines which were designed to play acoustic records. Actually, your records would probably sound better on an XVI than on your X.

The thing is, the Brunswicks are different from the Victors. From what I've experienced, acoustic recordings sound better on earlier Victor models than they do on Orthophonic machines, and early electricals sound better on Orthos. But my Brunswick is completely different. It plays acoustics as well or better than contemporary Victor machines designed to play them, AND it plays electricals very well too. In fact, I've played records up to the late 40s on it and they all sound very good. It's a very versatile machine.

I think that the exponential horn is the reason that the Orthophonics don't play well with early acoustics, rather than the soundbox. I have a VV-2-65 and it's a lot like my Brunswick. I can play just about any shellac lateral disk on it and it sounds good. Perhaps if you put a Orthophonic sound box on a VV-XVI, it would be very similar to my Brunswick.

[schallplatte]

An interesting discussion. Despite the strong preference expressed by many here for Edison DD machines with 250 horn, I think personal preference will depend heavily on the genre of recorded music. I've owned several large Edison DD machines over the years and they are capable of splendid sound with excellent tone reproduction. However, Edison recordings are very limited in terms of classical and operatic recordings of truly world class performers. Yes, there are some splendid Edison classical and operatic records, and a few notable performers, but they do not comprise an extensive library. They are relatively few. This was never a focus of Edison.

Victor Talking Machine Co and HMV produced extensive numbers of classical and operatic recordings during these years, they recorded the most celebrated artists of the era, and these recordings are unparalleled for the time period. To my classically trained ear as a musician, the best sound that I've heard for classical and operatic recordings prior to WWI is on outside horn Victors like my Victor III, IV or V with large wooden speartip horns. Of course this requires pristine copies of the records, an extremely well balanced rebuilt reproducer, and a large horn. My personal preference is for thorn or bamboo needles. In the right set-up with pristine records, the sound is extraordinarily good.

[Uncle Vanya]

The thing is, the Brunswicks are different from the Victors. From what I've experienced, acoustic recordings sound better on earlier Victor models than they do on Orthophonic machines, and early electricals sound better on Orthos. But my Brunswick is completely different. It plays acoustics as well or better than contemporary Victor machines designed to play them, AND it plays electricals very well too. In fact, I've played records up to the late 40s on it and they all sound very good. It's a very versatile machine.

I think that the exponential horn is the reason that the Orthophonics don't play well with early acoustics, rather than the soundbox. I have a VV-2-65 and it's a lot like my Brunswick. I can play just about any shellac lateral disk on it and it sounds good. Perhaps if you put a Orthophonic sound box on a VV-XVI, it would be very similar to my Brunswick.

Acoustic era records tend to sound flat on Orthophonic machines with folded wooden horns. The exponential shape of the horn is not the problem. Early records are reproduced with great brilliance in the little Orthophonic machijes with the straight "Western Electric" horn, as they also are on the late machines with metal horns such as the 8-35. In fact the little Concolette is just about the best all-around machine that I've found for playing acoustic records. They also don't wear the discs to any extent, and are so small that ther is room for one in virtually any record room.

[larryh]

I am currently playing two portable phonographs for the sake of comparison, plus I have no room for another large victrola in my house. I have a very good condition Brunswick Panatrope portable as well as what was a Orthophonic Portable which the reproducer was ruined by a poor repair service. So wanting a way to listen to acoustic recordings other than Edisons I put a #2 Victor reproducer on the Victor Ortho Portable. I am fresh in mind as to the effects of the two on acoustic recordings. I too recall that acoustic selections were not exactly to my liking using the orthophonic reproducer on my Credenza or Portable. However I would have to agree with the previous comment regarding the Brunswick doing a good job at the Acoustic as well as Electrical recording. It has a brighter as well as somewhat louder overall sound when heard though the Brunswick. The Victor # 2 has a decent clean sound, but the Brunswick over all gives a better performance.