ID this Brunswick, please?

[PeterF]

Thanks Sean for that note - I've never been able to hear any difference whatsoever between my 10-50 and Credenza, and thus I think of them as duplicative.

When you've compared your own examples of the two, have you used the same record and soundbox and identical new needles? If anything, I'd have thought the 10-50's additional plumbing and joinery (and possible air leaks) might make the sound suffer on the 10-50 a little. The horns should be otherwise physically the same.

Space considerations prevent me from having those two machines plus the 8-8, 8-9, and 8-35 all in the house, so the 8-9 and 8-35 are gonna go, and the Credenza will likely go out on long-term loan to a young collector friend when the 8-8 is ready to come in. I'm also interested to hear what, if any, distinction you hear between the metal and wooden horned orthos beyond brightness - is the bottom end comparable? As we know, the differences between the two horns include material as well as the actual design of the air passages, so I'm curious about what effect that might have on bass response.

As for the big daddy Cortez, I think your comment on how Brunswick discs sound good on it is very telling. It's been discussed elsewhere how electric Victors sound great on orthos and sometimes not so hot on other machines...and Viva-tonals also sound great on orthos. Could it be that Brunswick, recognizing that their horns would be limited by patent restrictions, adjusted the EQ on their electric recordings to fit their hardware best?

[CharliePhono]

Looks like the Valencia, shown above.

No, they're not Orthophonics, but the Panatropes are still wonderful sounding machines, well worth owning. Be cautious of pot metal damage in the reproducers. Like Orthophonics, not all Panatrope reproducers are pot metal. Also, there is a steel grommet in the center of the aluminum diaphragm, to which the needle arm attaches. The dissimilar metals can cause the aluminum to oxidize in that area and allow the grommet to break away. Just something else to be aware of. I say make an offer and pick it up!

Hello Jerry. You are correct: It is indeed the Valencia and not the Madrid. The two are similar, but the grille on the Valencia matches the one I'm looking at as well as the cabinet design. Thanks for the heads-up on potential pot-metal pitfalls!

[OrthoSean]

Thanks Sean for that note - I've never been able to hear any difference whatsoever between my 10-50 and Credenza, and thus I think of them as duplicative.

When you've compared your own examples of the two, have you used the same record and soundbox and identical new needles? If anything, I'd have thought the 10-50's additional plumbing and joinery (and possible air leaks) might make the sound suffer on the 10-50 a little. The horns should be otherwise physically the same.

Space considerations prevent me from having those two machines plus the 8-8, 8-9, and 8-35 all in the house, so the 8-9 and 8-35 are gonna go, and the Credenza will likely go out on long-term loan to a young collector friend when the 8-8 is ready to come in. I'm also interested to hear what, if any, distinction you hear between the metal and wooden horned orthos beyond brightness - is the bottom end comparable? As we know, the differences between the two horns include material as well as the actual design of the air passages, so I'm curious about what effect that might have on bass response.

As for the big daddy Cortez, I think your comment on how Brunswick discs sound good on it is very telling. It's been discussed elsewhere how electric Victors sound great on orthos and sometimes not so hot on other machines...and Viva-tonals also sound great on orthos. Could it be that Brunswick, recognizing that their horns would be limited by patent restrictions, adjusted the EQ on their electric recordings to fit their hardware best?

The 10-50 has a slightly larger horn than a Credenza, measurements have been posted someplace before, perhaps the old forum, but I think it's a two foot difference. I removed all the plumbing from mine, sealed the horn, made new rubber gaskets for the plumbing fittings, sealed with silicone and reassembled everything, tore the tonearm assembly down, cleaned and regreased all the joints etc etc. I do this with all my machines and it makes a huge difference. The 10-50 was a bear of a job, but worth it.

My ears hear a bit more "full" sound with wooden horn orthophonics, certainly a little more low end and a little less high, but to me more balance. That said, the metal horn machines have just something else with later, say 1928-30 or so Scrolls. I don't know what I'd call it, sparkle? EQ was changing from 1926-1930 even with the way Victor recorded so this certainly accounts for a good deal of what I'm hearing.

As for reproducers, I consider myself lucky, I have three New Old Stock ca. 1930 "RCA Victor" stamped orthophonics on the back that are identical to the older ones but have more stable pot metal. These things still have super supple isolators and have never been touched, they don't need it. I use these primarily with either half tone NOS Victor steel needles which at times can even be just too much. My others, including my brass ortho that came with my Credenza, have all been rebuilt. Still, they each have their own sound until you get to the later "RCA Victor" ones, which (mine, at least) all sound identical. The "machine originals" stay on each and get used for casual playing, but when I want the best, I put one of the others on.

Lastly, don't get me wrong, I like my Cortez and play it often. I filled the storage with Brunswick records mainly of the 1926-1930 era. One of my favorite things about it and other higher end Brunswicks is the four spring, nearly silent motors along with an easy to rebuild reproducer. Mine seemed to be fine when I got it until I decided to take it apart this past Spring and discovered the pivots were gunky and frozen. A little penetrating oil and some adjustments made it sound a whole lot better, even better than I imagined.

Sean

[PeterF]

Excellent summary, thanks.

Quite rare to find original reproducers of any kind that don't need to be rebuilt. All of my orthophonics were rebuilt by the late great Bob Waltrip, and various of them were tuned by him for playing various types of music and records, so I have the luxury of customizing my listening experiences. Of course when doing any sort of comparison testing I use the same reproducer and record on all machines being compared.

In any event I'm looking forward to implementing the metal-horn sparkle at our place, sometime this spring.

I've got a Brunswick Panatrope portable, with reproducer also rebuilt by Bob, and it sounds fantastic. It must have a similar motor to the home machines, because it too is virtually silent and very powerful. Weighs a ton though.

[bigshot]

I think the difference in reproducers might be most of the difference between an Orthophonic and a Brunswick, particularly with the way they handle acoustics. In general, the best sounding records on my Brunswick are Viva Tonals. Classical orthophonics sound really good too. Everything else just sounds good, even 40s and 50s records. I have a VV-2-65 with a later Orthophonic sound box, and it plays acoustics acceptably, but only with a soft tone needle, which tends to dull the dynamic spikes

I don't think anything has ever been rebuilt on my Cortez. It's built like a tank.