Columbia Viva-Tonal 611

[pierre1778]

Hi,

I'm a newbie to posting on this list and have a question about Columbia Viva-Tonal machines.

I'm looking at a 611, but I've read here that this model can be hard on records. Because I value my 78s as much as any player, I wouldn't want to get something that abnormally damages records. Is this true, and if so, is there a fix... or would that be worth it?

Also, I'm looking for a machine that sounds great with a wide range of discs (1900-1940), and it seems that's true of the Viva-Tonals.

Thanks,
Peter

[Oceangoer1]

I have a 611 that I have completely torn down and rebuilt/restored. I just have a couple things to do before I begin playing it regularly.

The 611 is a good small floor model. It does very well on later (1930's - 1940's) 78's. I think it handles the louder, later music well and doesn't blast like some other acoustic phonographs do. For 1920's 78's I would recommend a Victor Orthophonic machine, with a folded horn, but the 611 does a fairly good job. Because it is small, and only has a non-folded (possibly exponential?) horn, one cannot expect it to sound as loud or full as a Credenza, or other larger acoustic phonograph. However, this machine would be great for a smaller room (maybe a bedroom, or a study). I have mine in my bedroom, because a Credenza or something larger would blast you out of that room.

As for being hard on records, I believe there was a thread that stated this was only true if the reproducer wasn't correctly rebuilt. If you do purchase this, I would immediately send the reproducer to Steve Medved. He did a fantastic job rebuilding mine, and at a great price. The original diaphragm in a Viva Tonal reproducer is very fragile (as are most of the metal diaphragms) and an original one sounds better than a replacement diaphragm.

If you do purchase this machine, I can offer a lot of advice for restoring it. Also, there shouldn't be any pot metal in this machine at all, unless I missed something!

-Connor

[pierre1778]

Thanks, Connor... that's a lot of helpful information. The one I'm looking at has been in the same family for years, so I'm hoping the reproducer is original. I would still take your advice and send it off to be sure it's in good shape.

And it's for a smaller room, so that's good too.

I still have to see it in the flesh, but it appears to be in very good condition and I'll probably get it. If so, I'm sure I'll take you up on the offer of future advice... thanks for that!

Best,
Peter

[marcapra]

Of course, this is a 1920s phonograph with a heavy tonearm and reproducer. I have a Columbia Viva Tonal 810 model, but it has the same tonearm as your 611. I just measured the weight of the reproducer when it is on a record with my digital gram scale and got about 117 grams, which equals about 4.2 ounces. That is a similar weight to a Victrola Orthophonic tonearm. I just weighed the 78 tonearm on my 1949 Philco phonograph and the weight on the record is about 18 grams, which is about .6 ounces. So if your main concern is record wear, you might want to buy a post war phonograph that is pre-1955. That is before they changed the RIAA curve that made 78s sound too scratchy. The Columbia would not be a good choice for playing 78s from the 1940s as they would sound much better on a post war phonograph.

[Marco Gilardetti]

As marcapra said, if your main concern is wear, mechanical-acoustical gramophones will not suit your needs satisfactorily in any case. Some wear is, more or less, inescapable with them. However, how much "severe" said wear might be considered, it depends on your preset criteria, and also on how and how often you will play your records. Personally, although I suppose that the increased wear of my records might be measurable by microscope inspection or with a distortion meter, I do not perceive any change even in the records that I have owned since longer. Those that had significal wear ever since, are still worn pretty much the same way; those that were in good conditions at first, still play very well today. My educated guess is that back then people, for one reason or another, often didn't change the needle regularly at each play. Overplaying a record with a overused needle is what surely causes a quick and severe damage to the record, and as a matter of fact is something that I never do.

In any case, coming to your specific question, the arm of the 611 is a fairly well designed one, with a respectable geometry and a quite accurate tracking angle and overhang. The soundbox is especially well made, with ball bearings at the hinge of the stylus bar and a diaphragm and seals combo that allows for some compliance. The arm + soundbox assembly will not generate more wear, in general, than any other average gramophone arm/soundbox. Actually, those of the 611 will perform way better than most others (with less correct geometry / mechanics), even concerning records' wear. I wonder where and why you might have read the opposite, which sounds pretty nonsense to me.

Still concerning wear, it is important that the soundbox is carefully rehauled, that high quality needles are used, that the needle is changed at every record play, and that soft tone needles are used preminently. Concerning this last point, you will tend to use soft tone needles in any case, due to the high output volume of the 611, which is another advantage of this machine. Using fibre or bamboo needles, although a bit tricky, will reduce wear to an unperceptible minimum.

[OrthoFan]

... I wonder where and why you might have read the opposite, which sounds pretty nonsense to me....

I wondered about that, myself, and after some searching, spotted only one specific reference to Viva Tonal phonographs being "hard on records":

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/ ... 2/page-151

The poster also states, " The bass is not as 'Boomy' as the victor Orthophonic..." The Orthophonic model that comes closest to the 611, in terms of horn type and performance, is the Consolette (4-3), and that, certainly, does not have a boomy bass, since the sound cuts off at mid-range. Even the mid-size models, such as the 4-40, do not sound boomy (low, hollow sound), if the horn has been reconditioned, and the sound box properly rebuilt.

OF

[bigshot]

Tracking weight isn't really an issue with record wear... tracking is. If a machine is out of align or the soundbox isn't rebuilt properly, it will damage records over time. But not nearly as fast as if you reuse steel needles. 99 times out of 100, thrashed 78 records are the result of reused steel needles. I did a test with a new old stock Billy Murray record and my rebuilt VV-X. I transferred the record electronically, then played it 100 times changing the needle every time. Then I transferred it electronically again and compared the before and after. I couldn't discern any difference at all.

78s were designed to be played on acoustic phonographs. Shellac isn't the same as vinyl. Don't be afraid to play with your toys.

As for fiber and bamboo needles... I think they are sometimes worse than steel needles. I bought a batch of records that had been played only with fiber needles. I washed them and went to transfer them and within a few spins, my needle was covered in detritus from the bottom of the groove. I washed them again... same problem. Finally, I ran a steel needle through the records and it kicked up a huge pile of horrible stuff. It was finally clean enough to play electronically, but the "leaves in the rain gutters" had harbored mold, and the shellac was pitted. Total loss all because of fiber needles.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Ah, there it is.

As things are put in that message, it seems to me that the claim of viva-tonals being "hard on records" is totally unsubstantiated.

Concerning the other point (the "boomy bass" etc.) I got the impression that the original poster is referring to viva-tonal records, and not to the machines with which they are played.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Bigshot, I think the problem you had with those records is not due to the fiber needles themselves, but to the fact that some users of fiber needles also have the (questionable) habit of coating the records with paraffin to lubricate them.

I agree, however, that the claim of fibre/bamboo needles being more gentle on records is mostly based on good sense and advertisements of 100 years ago. Although reasonable, it is also, in turn, not well substantiated IMHO.

[OrthoFan]

Concerning the other point (the "boomy bass" etc.) I got the impression that the original poster is referring to viva-tonal records, and not to the machines with which they are played.

Oh, yes. You're right. I read that too fast.

I have to say, though, I've never thought of Victor Orthophonic records as sounding "boomy." Many do sound bass heavy, though, which I assume was done to enhance the bass performance of the all-acoustic Orthophonic Victrola. Along this line, I remember reading an article by Compton Mackenzie, who wrote for the Gramophone magazine, in which he disparaged "the cult of the bass" which impacted both recording technology and gramophone design during the mid-to-late 1920s.

OF