Sound Comparison Between Vic III and an 8-30X

[Dischoard]

Hey folks, I did a sound comparison playing a 1923 Casino Dance Orchestra record on the Perfect label played on both my Victor III phonograph and my Victrola 8-30X. After listening to both recordings I'm thinking some other things may have played a part in the differences in recording, mainly the proximity of the camera to each machine AND the fact that I didn't close the lid on the 8-30 (which I never do).

Initial impressions? I wonder which recording tickles your ear better than the other?

Here's the Vic III: https://youtu.be/S55kMUHlf4s

and

Here's the Victrola 8-30X: https://youtu.be/Cse06PDe3a0

[CharliePhono]

Snappy tune! I enjoyed. As I am a stickler (more or less) for period-correct music on acoustic machines, I will say I prefer the Vic III's reproduction of the tune, since it is an acoustic recording played on a machine from the acoustic period. As well, your phone (or whatever you were recording with) was more at less at horn level, which I feel afforded better sound.

I'm biased as, of course, the Credenza was not designed to play acoustic recordings, although undoubtedly many did as people certainly were not going to discard their recordings made prior to 1925. To my ear, the recording sounds thin and lacking the "body"/depth of the Vic III. Also, your recording device is well above the level of the horn, which perhaps affords an inaccurate comparison between the two machines. Leaving the lid up is open for discussion. I usually always close the lid on my Credenza, but I suspect that's as much because I enjoy the slow closing and soft "bump" the lid makes as it closes (ha). That, and it does naturally filter out a lot of inherent hiss and surface noise.

Interestingly (or not), I feel my HMV 101 reproduces acoustic and electric recordings with equal facility.

Thanks for the post!

[Dischoard]

Yes, I believe the same, thanks for taking the time to listen!

[JohnM]

One should always close the lid on Orthophonic Victrolas that have lids (as recommended by the manufacturer by a decal on the cabinet. This is because it creates a back-pressure against the face of the diaphragm when the lid is closed, directing more of the vibrational energy into the horn. It also reduces surface noise. Close the lid while playing.

[JerryVan]

One should always close the lid on Orthophonic Victrolas that have lids (as recommended by the manufacturer by a decal on the cabinet. This is because it creates a back-pressure against the face of the diaphragm when the lid is closed, directing more of the vibrational energy into the horn. It also reduces surface noise. Close the lid while playing.

I can hardly believe the lid was sealed in such a way as to create back pressure. I believe the closed lid served to muffle the extraneous, "unprocessed", sounds coming off the outer face of the diaphragm. By unprocessed, I mean not having gone through the orthophonic horn and therefore incongruous with the desired tones coming from the horn.

[OrthoFan]

What you hear basically confirms what Welch and Read stated in "From Tinfoil to Stereo" back in 1959.

With the introduction of the Number 2 sound box, the stylus bar ratio was changed from 1.44--as it had been for the Exhibition sound box--to 1.66. This accentuated the ringing tones of certain opera singers, notably Caruso, along with some instruments, etc..

The Orthophonic Victrola's sound box's stylus bar ratio was established at 1.25, which gave precedence to mid-range and bass frequencies. (This, of course, is coupled with the more flexible aluminum diaphragm/spider combination.)

As a result of this change, the author's claim, the earlier acoustic recordings "lost some of their incisiveness" when played on an Orthophonic victrola.

I've noticed, though, some acoustic recordings actually show an improvement in sound quality when played on my VV-4-40. For example certain Columbia acoustic recordings sound more three-dimensional. I've read that Colombia, in the early to mid 20s, took steps to capture as much room resonance as possible in order to accentuate bass notes--more mid-range and very upper bass frequencies. Perhaps, for this reason, when playing these records I hear more of a "bass thump" on the Orthophonic victrola.

OrthoFan

[Dischoard]

I hardly ever play my 8-30 with the lid down for two reasons:

1. The fix I did to the dampers didn't last very long and

2. It's just fun to watch the machine in progress, same reason Jukeboxes with viewing windows are more popular than those that are closed.

I will confess, I'm not much of an audiophile. I listen more for the energy and excitement in a performance than the "separation" and "spatial" properties of a performance.
And this coming from someone who plays live music with a group fairly regularly

[drh]

For whatever it's worth, here's the procedure I adopted aiming for comparable audio recordings from two machines (in this case, an Edisonic Schubert and an Orthophonic Credenza playing the same Edison recording in different formats). Text quoted from a longer article I wrote, which includes a link to the resultant video (https://www.tnt-audio.com/vintage/ediso ... nic_e.html):

Both machines sit in the same large room, facing each other from opposite walls at a slight diagonal. I suppose ideally I might have moved them to sit next to each other, but, trust me, no Edison machine is a lightweight, and you do not want to try moving an Orthophonic Credenza. ... Instead, I took pains to ensure the microphones of my Zoom H1n recorder would capture each at comparable level. I measured the distance between them and set up the Zoom on a tripod as close to exactly halfway as I could manage (I don't guarantee that I wasn't off by an inch or two, but it was very close). My video camera was mounted to a second tripod. To start, I turned the Zoom and set up the video recorder to focus on the Edisonic. I then proceeded to prepare each machine for immediate play--both motors fully wound, fresh steel needle in the Orthophonic reproducer, the Credenza's speed adjusted to ensure pitch would match that of the diamond disc player (which lacks easy pitch control), horn-covering doors fully open for each machine.

With these preliminaries completed, I undertook to record both machines in a single take. I started the audio recorder and video camera and first played the diamond disc side. At the end, I stopped the Edisonic and, letting both electronic devices continue running, I moved the video camera on its tripod and rotated the recorder to face the Credenza and then played the lateral record. Only after stopping the Credenza at the end of that record did I turn off the electronics. As a result, I had all the audio in one stereo file, maintaining relative volume of the two machines at the point where I had set the audio recorder midway between them, and I maintained that arrangement until all editing--trimming of extraneous material, fade-ins, fade-outs, and normalizing; I applied no noise reduction--was complete. The final step was to break each record's audio into a separate file and marry it to the corresponding video, discarding the distorted, level-limited sound track captured by the video recorder's internal microphone.

[phonojim]

Excellent job with the audio. The best that I have heard.

[VanEpsFan1914]

Unscientific opinion but some acoustic records are recorded in such a way that a later machine really brings out their best. I know Viva-Tonals and Panatropes are not usually as collectible as Victor Orthophonics, but considering they are still quite common to buy cheaply, why not give one of those a try? Tubby, thumping bass is not necessarily the definition of high grade audio. (I wish my upstairs neighbors knew that.) I had an Orthophonic portable that was pretty interesting but find that the records that sounded _good_ on that, sound _great_ on a Panatrope.

Just throwing it out there in case anyone is buying cabinet machines by brands other than Victor.

The best-sounding phonograph I've ever heard, to this day, remains a Brunswick Cortez in good working order.