Was this EMG's answer to the Credenza & HMV 163?

[anchorman]

It depends on the music getting played, soundbox tuning, etc. Some records sound great, even without the deeper bass extension of the larger horns. Some does not. I've seen people who pull out different soundboxes for different records or styles of music. I can see no reason why you might get better (more pleasant to listen to) reproduction of a violin on a slightly smaller horn that favored the range of the instrument. Caruso is much nicer on a machine with a larger horn. The EMG oversize is covering more than 6 octaves, which is a tough job to do well for all of the frequencies. It's really amazing that they sound as good as they do. In modern times, most people are happy to get solid coverage of 4-5 octaves from a single speaker driver, and some advocate for even less.

[OrthoFan]

...Personally I find the credenzas entirely overrated. It could be that the one I listed to needed work on its horn. The wood can separate and allow air leaks compromising the sound. It may have also been the records that were played for me. Of the American machines, I much prefer the Columbia viva tonals.

Results vary depending on the overall condition of the Credenza, the soundbox, etc..

I wasn't all that impressed the first time I heard a Credenza. It was owned by a San Francisco based record collector who also owned several other phonographs/gramophones. I remember it had a "boxy" or "woody" tone, in which it sounded like vocals and some instruments were being played in a box. Also the bass was barely audible. As I later found out, the Credenza was pretty much in as-found condition. There was a major air gap between the tonearm and cast iron elbow, for instance, where the grease packed felt washer was missing. (The tonearm support was the older style, without the overhang, that used a felt washer and compression plate under the washer for an air tight seal.) Also, the wooden horn, itself, was not in the greatest condition.

What DID impress me was the Credenza owned by Joe (RJ) Wakeman, which I listened to a few years later. In addition to pumping out more of a non-directional sound, you could really hear--as well as feel--the bass response. You could also hear the spacing between instruments as they were played. (Joe had gone over the entire tone chamber, re-sealed all of the connections, treated the wood surfaces with glycerine, etc. and was using a first rate Orthophonic sound box restored by the late Bob Waltrip.)

Even a slight tweak can be helpful. I owned my VV-4-40 for about 15 years before I discovered that the screw fastening the cast iron elbow to the back of the horn was relatively loose. After tightening the screw and putting some addition sealant around the edge of the elbow, itself, I could hear actual bass coming out of the horn for the first time. It completely transformed the sound quality, making it on par with that of the VV-8-4.

OrthoFan

[Inigo]

True. Because of house layout and organisation, these last years I'm getting used to play 78s on small machines, portables and tabletops, that fit in the study room where the records are stored and where I spend most of the time at home. And I think they sound good. From the to time, though, I take with me a bunch of records and go to the room where the HMV 194 stands, almost forgotten... And I always get impressed with that sound. Maybe it's because its metal horn gets rid of those Credenza problems, and remains pretty airtight.
I always wonder and dream of that EMG sound, what may it be that overwhelms the orthophonics and reentrants... as you who know it in the flesh say it does... I've never listened to one in the flesh.

[emgcr]

Inigo, it must be time you visited the UK ?! Come for a visit for a few days---plenty of beds etc and we can introduce you to the joys of EMGs ! You are always welcome. Best thoughts, Graham.

[Inigo]

Thanks, it's very kind of you! Of course if I go there I will tell you all islanders. It would be nice to visit some of you.
I actually have been in the UK but once, when the clpgs centenary, and it was really funny. I met Carlos, and other many nice CLPGS colleagues that happen to be also in this forum, and others that sadly have passed away in these last years... Bill DM, Eddie Dunn, Pete Clinch.. It was a great event, and I spent a very nice weekend there in Malvern.

[chunnybh]

It depends on the music getting played, soundbox tuning, etc. Some records sound great, even without the deeper bass extension of the larger horns. Some does not. I've seen people who pull out different soundboxes for different records or styles of music. I can see no reason why you might get better (more pleasant to listen to) reproduction of a violin on a slightly smaller horn that favored the range of the instrument. Caruso is much nicer on a machine with a larger horn. The EMG oversize is covering more than 6 octaves, which is a tough job to do well for all of the frequencies. It's really amazing that they sound as good as they do. In modern times, most people are happy to get solid coverage of 4-5 octaves from a single speaker driver, and some advocate for even less.

I totally agree. Different records suit different gramophones and then different soundboxes tuned to a certain machine. We haven't even touched types of needles yet or even room acoustics....

Was this EMG's answer to the Credenza & HMV 163?

I don't think so, I don't believe EMG tried to compete with or emulate HMV in any way. EMG were generally a few years behind the "Big Boys" in acoustic technology which was moving so fast back then the "Big Boys" were already going electric by the time the Mk VII was released in 1928. EMG of course carried on their acoustic journey well into the late 1930's and even into the 1940's.
The MK VII was Davey's first design for EMG and it sure made an impression. It's simply a beautiful thing to look at with the Darrieulat cabinet and listen to, especially pre-electric records.. It reminds me of a Cascade Gramophone. Very upfront and in your face.

[Inigo]

Out of EMGs... It's true that the sound of acoustic recordings is highly improved when played on the modern gramophones with exponential horns. In a certain way... this would be the real thing. I'm lately thinking that the introduction of microphones and all that stuff is kind of an artificial sound, especially in pop recordings. Classical electrics are still something more natural, as there are no forced sounds, it is done with ambient mics. Some dance band records made in large venues using ambient mics also seem more natural to me.

[Marco Gilardetti]

It's true that the sound of acoustic recordings is highly improved when played on the modern gramophones with exponential horns.

It's curious that you write so, as I seem to think quite the opposite: that early acoustic recordings really shine and stand out when played on period machines that were "ear-tuned" to get the best out of them. When played on orthophonic machines, at least to my ears their limits and lack of fidelity / linearity are emphasized and as a result they sound rather dull. But of course this may be a matter of personal tastes, and perhaps (why not?) even a psycho-acoustic projection of what you expect to hear coming out from a specific type of machine.

[Inigo]

It seems to sound dull because you get much more middle and bass, and they show their comparatively poor treble register, it's true. But I always get nicely surprised to hear it in a better overall balance, without that ringing tone in the mid-treble register, which hurts my ears. I must add that I've never got an exhibition soundbox to sound well, so the tone is not shrill or too tubby, metallic, etc. I'm hands down with this. So the sound of these machines never thrilled me. Not even my experiments with aluminium diaphragms and soft suspension have given good results in the Exhibition if compared with a HMV 5B that I always have at hand for reference. Maybe in too used to the 5B sound, so all others sound tubby or shrill to me. Even the no4 which I loved, I cannot tolerate now except in soft piano and violin recordings...

[OrthoFan]

.....I must add that I've never got an exhibition soundbox to sound well, so the tone is not shrill or too tubby, metallic, etc. I'm hands down with this. So the sound of these machines never thrilled me. Not even my experiments with aluminium...

My Exhibition sound box was repaired over 30 years ago by the late Bob Waltrip. Instead of using the conventional white tube gaskets positioned in front and in back of the diaphragm, Bob used GE silicone caulk--which stays semi-soft--for the back gasket, and a white tube gasket for the front. This totally eliminates the mid-range peaks, and allows the tone of the sound box to be adjusted by tightening or loosening the pivot joint screws.

Bob's justification for doing this was based on his belief that the original gaskets Victor used were much softer than those available at the time. I think he told me that they had a higher gum content which is why they deteriorated over time, turning hard as rock. As a result, he said, when conventional modern gaskets are used, only the center of the diaphragm is able to pivot properly with the movement of the needle bar, whereas the method he devised allows nearly the entire diaphragm to move. (I've been able to confirm this by gently moving the needle bar. Nearly the entire diaphragm plunges back and forth when I do this.)

Along this line, according to Bob, the much softer back gasket dampened the diaphragm's tendency to ring on certain notes.

Bob also always insisted that the left screw--as the sound box faces you--should be somewhat tighter than the right screw when adjusting the pivot tension prior to attaching the needle bar to the diaphragm.


Whatever. I once played a record for a friend whose exact reaction was "Amazing. I can't believe that's an Exhibition sound box."