Reproducer Comparison: Exhibition vs. Victor No.2

[ewok]

It's interesting that my wife, who is a music teacher by profession, always insists that Brunswick's sound better than Victrola's. Maybe maybe mica size and horn material do matter.
I also made a video yesterday with comparison of Exhibition, Victor No.2, and HMV No.4. This time the recording is Caruso's "For You Alone" recorded in 1910 and the machine is VV-XVI. For saving time, each reproducer only played one stanza.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsEfnXF ... e=youtu.be

This is a video containing test on (in order) HMV No.4, Victor No.2, and Exhibition with pop music (Fox Trot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koM4ZlMO3Tg

[larryh]

I agree with your wife who obviously is very much attuned to hearing subtle differences in sound. In my work on diaphragms I find that some tend to simply feel that when a machine is playing loudly that is the goal. I tend to listen to the more quiet passages and various tones and instruments and how they are reproduced. The brunswick when I first tired one surprised me by adding a feeling of depth to the records that I had not heard with them previously. I will say that the latter larger reproducer european machines also achieved the same purpose.. Edison tends to when working well, reproduce the sounds in a way that makes the record performance much more like the real instruments playing in your living room. This holds pretty much true until some of the last acoustics by Victor or others reached the zenith of their abilities, at that point in the early mid 20's many records are quite full and rich, but still not quite up to the realism of a edison of the period. In fact in many ways the acoustic edisons can produce a more satisfying overall sound that many of the electric versions that go for many times the cost. I think as someone mentioned that the sound from acoustic horns reproduced by the same is the right match of impedance which gives reasonably true sound picture..

As a side light I decided to part with my Credenza when the Chippendale Edison I had sitting in the same spot turned out from the next room to vastly out perform the sounds of the instruments, both in tone and in realism of volumes. That came as a rather large surprise to me as I had always found that at least on popular things the orthophonic system did a pretty good job at reproduction, but a comparison was surprising to me.

Larry

[Uncle Vanya]

the Brunswick acoustic system is very good indeed, but to my ear it is lacking in the reproduction of some solo instruments, and vocal music. The added breadth of tone afforded by the larger diaphragm, which is so pleasant when one is playing orchestral or band music does tend to blur the highlights so important to the solo voice. When I play records on acoustic era machines, I tend to change reproducers to fit the record, This brings the best of all possible worlds. A large Sonora Superfine soundbox (Palliard manufacture) for some orchestral discs, a No. 2 for Caruso and Galli-Curci, an Exhibition for Kreisler, the Sonora for Heifitz (why, I don't know, it just sounds better to my ear) and a Concert sound box for early, noisy pressings.

[Henry]

Probably most, if not all, of us are familiar with Paul Edie's work in re: Victor sound boxes, but just in case here's the link: http://www.victor-victrola.com/Soundbox%20Article.htm

There are so many variables that influence what one hears in recorded sound playback; it would seem that generalizations can go only so far. Even the results obtained by Edie must be qualified as to adjustment and condition of sound box, particularly with respect to age and characteristics of gasket material and diaphragm. Suffice it to say that the results he obtained apply only to those particular three sound boxes and their conditions as of the time of testing---a small sample, indeed.

[Uncle Vanya]

Yes, but the work is not all that well conceived, I'm afraid.

Years ago, shortly after paul published his work, he purchased a VV 8-12 from me. When he came to pick it up, I had the machine playing with an unidentified reproducer. Paul found this reproducer to eb very fine indeed, decent bass, crisp mid-range, nice on electric records, and outstanding when playing acoustic discs. Paul was, to say the least, shocked when I pointed out that this wonderful alternative reproducer was a properly rebuilt Victrola No.2, with a soft rubber isolator and an Orthophonic tone arm fitting.

[Henry]

Yes, but the work is not all that well conceived, I'm afraid.

Suggest improvements?