I'm thinking about getting a Orthophonic and I need help

[pughphonos]

I agree with Estott. The Victor Victrola web site has a study posted based on sound wave analyses that were made of most of the Orthophonic models--and it states that the Granada was among the top performers for overall pitch range. That influenced my own shopping around and in 2011 I bought a Granada--and have been really happy with it.

Here's the link:

http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victrola%20Horns.htm



Ralph

[Uncle Vanya]

I agree with Estott. The Victor Victrola web site has a study posted based on sound wave analyses that were made of most of the Orthophonic models--and it states that the Granada was among the top performers for overall pitch range. That influenced my own shopping around and in 2011 I bought a Granada--and have been really happy with it.

Here's the link:

http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victrola%20Horns.htm



Ralph

The open horn Granada machines, which share their horn design with the Consolette/4-3, Colony, and Alhambra I and Alhambra II are indeed sterling performers, with fine full middle register and scintillating trebel, but they are rather deficient in bass. These open horn machines are ideal units to use when playing acoustic records and do a really fine job even with electric vocal recordings, but are rather lacking in their reproduction of orchestral or dance records when compared with larger instruments. The folded-horn Granada machines are distinctly mediocre, having both a rather flabby treble and somewhat weak bass. The Victrola 4-40, which replaced the Granada in the Victor product line is a far better machine all around, and may be had very cheaply indeed. Its horn is not quite as large as that of the 8-4 or 8-12, but its all-around reproduction is righ, full and well-balanced.

[Uncle Vanya]

You really can't go wrong with a Credenza if you have the space for it. They are large, but very handsome and sound great. They were Victor’s break though top of the line machines used to first demonstrate the then new Orthophonic sound quality that blew earlier acoustic phonographs out of the water (bumping up the range by about 2 octaves).

Usual issues are, as others have mentioned, mostly about pot metal. The tone arm support brackets can break, but good reproductions are readily available and easy to install.

The main issue with just about all Orthophonics is the pot metal reproducers. They are often cracked and can't be taken apart to service without disintegrating. There is a guy name Peter Wall is San Francisco who works on them, though, and he can sometimes perform miracles in getting them to sound good again without disassembling them. Of course best of all is to find an early Credenza made before the shift to pot metal whose reproducer has brass parts instead. You can recognize them because the reproducer has 7 of the tear-drop shaped holes rather than 9. If you find one of those in your area on Craig's list or such at a good price, pounce on it. The brass reproducers alone can bring north of $400 on eBay.

Personally I prefer spring wound machines to electrics, but your call. As I recall the electric phonograph motors have some very large old-fashioned resisters in them that might be hard to find, among other things.

That a machine has a Radiola does not make it any less an Orthophonic. Before 1929 RCA and Victor were 2 separate companies. Victor bought the Radiolas from RCA and added them to phonograph cabinets to meet the demand for combination radio phonographs.

These early Radiolas are handsome, but can be a real pain to service. Much of the electronic bits for some of them were put in metal boxes, referred to as "catacombs" by collectors, and then the box was filled with something like tar that has to be removed to replace parts.

On the early Orthophonics the Radiolas and the phonographs also shared the internal horn. There is a set of gears used to shift the sound channel from the phonograph to the radio and back and those are made of pot metal which will usually have fallen apart. And the wiring harness for the Radiola looks like an accident in a spaghetti factory and often needs replacing because the wire insulation has rotted.

I have a 9-15 with a spring wound phonograph and a battery operated Radiola that I bought because they are pretty rare and I like antique radios as well as phonographs, but I will likely just leave the Radiola portion of it as something to look at rather than operate as the restoration of it would just be too expensive to do as it should be done due to all those issues.

Clay

If one is interested primarily in listening to records any of the combinations which speak through an orthophonic horn are mere curiosities. One wold wan a machine with a dynamic speaker, and as been pointed out the pre-1929 electric reproducers are a bit too complicated for a fellow who does not have some background in old radio. The same is NOT true of the 1929 model Micro-Synchronous Electrolas, which, by the way were wholy engineered and constructed by Victor, with NO input from the Radio Corporation. These machines are just about the best sounding electric talking machines offered to the public before the scarce "Higher Fidelity" models of 1936. They are also relatively inexpensive, for they sold quite well and electric phonographs are for some odd reason not popular with either radio or phonograph collectors.

I would think that an ideal pairing would be a little Consolette or 4-3, or an open horn Granada along with an Electrola RE-45 or RE-75. One should well be able to acquire such a pair for less than $1000. The Consolette/4-3 in particualr is a tiny thing, and may easily be incorporatated into the decorative scheme of 'most any room without dominating it, whilst the Electrolas are suitable centerpieces.

[pughphonos]

I loooove this forum. People can speak to their experiences and let the rest decide for themselves, case by case.

Uncle Vanya, it's interesting that you find that the folded horn Granada is inferior to the open horn (earlier) version...and admittedly the sound waves study that is posted on the "Victor Victrola" does credit the open horn Granada with good range. Mine is a folded horn (very late serial number), but I have found it to be entirely satisfactory. I actually owned a 4-40 for awhile and find my 4-4 (late Granada) to be better. "Jus' sayin'."

Ralph

[Uncle Vanya]

I loooove this forum. People can speak to their experiences and let the rest decide for themselves, case by case.

Uncle Vanya, it's interesting that you find that the folded horn Granada is inferior to the open horn (earlier) version...and admittedly the sound waves study that is posted on the "Victor Victrola" does credit the open horn Granada with good range. Mine is a folded horn (very late serial number), but I have found it to be entirely satisfactory. I actually owned a 4-40 for awhile and find my 4-4 (late Granada) to be better. "Jus' sayin'."

Ralph

An un-restored 4-40 may well be the inferior of a folded horn Granada. The late Granada has an all-wood horn, which remains fairly well sealed if the machine has been stored in good conditions. The small parts of the much larger 4-40 horn are mde of jointed cast iron. The sealant in the joints hardens and falls out over time, so an untouched 4-40 horn is apt to be terribly leaky, and so the machine's reproduction will be flabby and weak. A properly restored 4-40 is a very fine machine indeed.

Note that I am speaking from extensive personal experience. I've owned literally hundreds of Orthophonic machines over the years, and before my fire had the full range of horns displayed in restored, playing condition in the same large room to allow adequate comparason. When the display was fully set up we had an 8-35, a Credenza, a Revere, 8-12, 8-4, 7-30, 7-25, 4-40, 4-20, 4-7, Granada (folded) and 4-3 (which of course shares the same horn as the straight horn Granada and the Colony. the only of these machines which have survived are the 8-12 which is in Paul Edie's collection (the machine that he tested back in 1999) and my Revere, which went to Mark Ginter.

[pughphonos]

Uncle Vanya, thanks for letting me know how extensive your collections and experience have been. I respect that greatly and now known to whom to turn about specific Victor issues.

The 4-40 had been shipped to me (from Pennsylvania to Illinois) and that no doubt did not help maintain the integrity of the horn. I then sold it to a local antique phonograph man and it's not impossible that I could buy it back from him and then see to its proper restoration. I like the design of that cabinet; more elegant than the Granada, that's for sure. This is something I must ponder.

I'm sure you know that my comments are always well-intentioned. There are quite a number of fellows on here who have tons of knowledge. But those of us who are relatively new to the field aren't going to learn unless we ask questions and put ourselves out there a bit. I'm happy to be a "newbie" and have egg on my face from time to time. After all, my motto is "Can We Talk?"

BTW, the fellow who started this string: I wonder what machine he's decided on--if he has as yet.

Ralph

P.S. OK, I'll take the leap, Uncle Vanya. Who is around who could analyze and repair the horn on that 4-40?

[Uncle Vanya]

You could, I'm sure, do it yourself, if you know how to use a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a caulking gun and a paintbrush. A digital camera or cell-phone that would allow yu to post pictures would be helpful, too. Any number of us could walk you through the relatively simple procedure, should you care to undertake it.

[syncopeter]

I agree with the reasoning about folded vs unfolded horns. Some years ago a friend of mine and myself did a side-by-side comparison between an HMV table model 130 (unfolded exponential horn) and a model 163 (folded horn, roughly comparable with a Credenza. We used the same reproducer on both machines. The 130 had a little less bass but sounded more balanced and had superior reproduction of the upper mid and high registers. The loss in the bass was more than compensated by the much clearer sound. That's also why EMG/Expert gramophones sound so great. They may be a bit unwieldy because of that gigantic external horn and do need a really large room for optimal music reproduction, but they are by far the best sounding acoustic gramophones ever made.

[gramophoneshane]

[ The first series sets (RE-45, RE-75) can be greatly improved by the substitution of one of the 1931 model "Inertia" (Cobra) tone arms for the straight arm. the "cobra" arm improves needle point compliance, lessening record wear while improving reproduction.

Is this an acceptable practice in USA in the eyes of collectors?
I know if I had anything from an electric HMV 600 to a humble 101 and changed the tonearm, it would instantly devalue the machine & a lot of collectors wouldn't touch it.
Putting the tonearm & 5b soundbox from a 102 onto a 101 would improve sound quality too, but I doubt I could ever resell it for full 101 price, even though the it now had a better & more expensive reproducer.
A really nice off-brand machine, like a Brunswick, with the wrong arm would drop by up to 75% of it normal value because it's no longer original, so what makes the RE-45 & 75 any different?

[FloridaClay]

Originality is very important to, I would say the great majority of, collectors here in the US as well and hybrids are devalued unless it is something that could easily and fairly inexpensively be put right again.

Clay