Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Discussions on Talking Machines & Accessories
Post Reply
User avatar
ImperialGuardsman
Victor II
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:01 pm
Personal Text: Nothing like blaring Caruso out of your college dorm window...
Location: Oregon

Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by ImperialGuardsman »

I was wondering how much of an improvement the "fat" tone arm had over the thinner tone arms that came before? Does anyone have a fat arm and a thin arm version of the same machine to compare or perhaps ones with at least similar horns?

For me, it would be a comparison between a table top and a console, not fair at all.

I imagine there is a volume difference, but how much? Is the quality of the sound any different?

Thanks,
Nicholas
ImperialGuardsman

OTAPS (Oregon Territory Antique Phonograph Society) Member


~Also a member of Suscipe Domine and The High Road forums~

User avatar
Henry
Victor V
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:01 am
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by Henry »

When Victor went to the fat tone arm (called "taper tube" in Victorspeak) c. 1917, it almost simultaneously began supplying the no. 2 sound box along with. It would be interesting to audition both forms of the tone arm with each sound box, in turn, on the same machine (say, a VV-XI, which had a long production run and was one of the models that was produced with both combinations, i.e., Exhibition with thin, no. 2 with fat). Perhaps someone on the board has done a four-way and can report the results on his/her ears.

User avatar
ImperialGuardsman
Victor II
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:01 pm
Personal Text: Nothing like blaring Caruso out of your college dorm window...
Location: Oregon

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by ImperialGuardsman »

It would be great to see if it was a real improvement or just another example of "trial and error" before the Orthophonic systems came out.
ImperialGuardsman

OTAPS (Oregon Territory Antique Phonograph Society) Member


~Also a member of Suscipe Domine and The High Road forums~

phonojim
Victor IV
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Mid - Michigan

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by phonojim »

I think this was trial and error. They were on the right track because it was at this time that they began to taper the crook (the part of the arm that attaches to the soundbox) but overall, there was still so much error that it didn't make a lot of difference. The greatest difference by far was the change to the No. 2 soundbox. Victor did a lot of experimenting over the years, but I don't see much science involved.

Jim

estott
Victor Monarch
Posts: 4175
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:23 pm
Personal Text: I have good days...this might not be one of them
Location: Albany NY

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by estott »

The funny thing to me is that when they redesigned the arm to remove the gooseneck they ended up with very little of a taper at all. I guess it didn't matter so much with the Orthophonic soundbox and horn.

phonojim
Victor IV
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Location: Mid - Michigan

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by phonojim »

The thin Ortho arm is supposed to be part of the exponential horn system ie:from the soundbox to the horn mouth.

Jim

User avatar
kirtley2012
Victor IV
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:10 pm
Personal Text: Buyer of broken things
Location: North Shields, UK
Contact:

Re: Victor "fat" tone arm vs the "thin" arm

Post by kirtley2012 »

emg/expert gramohones have reletavely thin tonearms, where as a victor credenza has a fat one, both sound amazing, i think it is more or less the same, the main deciding factor being the horn and soundbox (and also the horn conduit for the gramophones with them)

Post Reply