Opinions on the Victor/HMV No.4 soundbox

[B.B.B]

Friends,

Simply put, what is your opinion on the No.4 soundbox?

[OrthoFan]

I think, for its time, the #4 sound box offered a viable solution to playing the newly introduced electrical recordings. According to Baumbach, etc., it was designed to produce a flatter frequency range than earlier Victor sound boxes.

In the US, the #4 was fitted to the VV-1-70 table top Victrola, as well as a number of portable Victrolas, notably, the 1-5 ( http://www.victor-victrola.com/1-5.htm ) and 2-60 ( http://www.victor-victrola.com/2-60.htm ) It was also sold as an aftermarket upgrade to replace the Exhibition and #2 sound box on existing Victrolas.

In the UK, The Gramophone Co. used the #4 sound on all portables, table top and full size cabinet models, coupled with redesigned tonearms and horns, until about late 1927, when the Re-Entrant models replaced the more deluxe upright models. (It continued to be used on portables and tabletop gramophones until about 1932/33.)

In spite of its popularity, the #4 could not compete with the range of the sound boxes equipped with more modern aluminum based diaphragms, such as the Orthophonic, Viva Tonal, etc. According to "Orthophonic Radio Phonograph" from "Science and Invention," January, 1926, pp 802-803, 875-876, mica has inherent limitations concerning its reproduction capabilities:

"As good as this material has proven for many years in its utilization for sound box diaphragms, it was limited in the range of vibrations which it could cover, namely, about 350 to 3,000 a second, or about three octaves on the musical- scale. This means that the very low as well as the very high vibrations were never heard at all on the old style talking machine. This also holds true for all of the average type radio loud speakers.

Extended research work in the acoustical laboratories of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Western Electric Company, together with the aid of the Victor Talking Machine Company experts. brought out the fact that the best of all materials for a sound box diaphragm was duralumin, now widely used for airplane construction. This new material when tried in the form of a diaphragm of the proper shape, proved that it could respond to sound frequencies over 5-½ octaves, or from about 100 up to 5,000 vibrations per second, which covers practically the whole scale of speech or music, so far as the human car is concerned. Mica diaphragms also had the undesirable property of vibrating in sympathy with certain musical notes. The new orthophonic sound box has a diaphragm which is corrugated. or ridged in a certain fashion in order to give it rigidity and also to prevent any sympathetic vibrations which the diaphragm might try to assume. This new sound box is claimed to obviate all blasting, which is common to many radio loud speakers and phonographs of the ordinary type." FROM -- http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/ar173.html

My only criticism in the design of the sound box concerns the needle bar pivots, which I found, had a tendency to come loose or freeze up, depending on the temperature/climate. Getting the adjustment right was a real PITA.

[Henry]

.... mica has inherent limitations concerning its reproduction capabilities:

"As good as this material has proven for many years in its utilization for sound box diaphragms, it was limited in the range of vibrations which it could cover, namely, about 350 to 3,000 a second, or about three octaves on the musical- scale. This means that the very low as well as the very high vibrations were never heard at all on the old style talking machine.

I've seen similar statements over the years and feel that they are incorrect, certainly with respect to the low end frequency response. Keep in mind that at a'= 440Hz (second space treble staff, i.e., middle a' above middle c'), the octave below that (small a, top line on the bass clef staff) = 220Hz, and the octave below that, great A (bottom space on the bass staff) = 110Hz. Many musical instruments, among them trombone, bassoon, cello, double bass, tuba, etc.) can play considerably below great A, and are heard in these registers on acoustic as well as electrical recordings. The human voice can also produce low frequency vibrations; for example, I have an acoustical recording of "Asleep in the Deep" in which the bass sings a great D (one line below the bass staff), which is 73.4175Hz. The note is clearly audible and on pitch, as heard on my VV-XI with Exhibition. The ear and the math do not lie; whatever the theoretical calculations that have produced statements like the one quoted (for example, Paul Edie's measurements of Exhibition and no. 2 sound boxes), they are at variance with the direct evidence. As a musician, I find the measurements interesting, but for me the direct evidence is convincing.

For reference, the lowest note on the piano keyboard is subcontra AAA = 27.5Hz, and the highest note is five-line c (c''''')= 4180.16Hz.

[B.B.B]

As always, superb, detailed information, down to the very last hertz.

So, my VV-XI would improve if I upgrade it from a No.2 to a No. 4, at least for those early electric, lovely jazz records.
Yes, I am aware that it won't compare to an Ortophonic, but until I can save up the $ to cover the shipping cost for a Credenza across the Atlantic, it'll have to do

[gramophoneshane]

A no.4 will definately be a BIG improvement over an Exhibition. The only records I'll play with an Exhibition are G&T or early HMV one siders. Anything else sounds bad IMO. I've only got one No.2, and I can't tell much difference at all between it & an Exhibition.
I'd stay away from the Victor no.4, because they use that crumbly pot metal apparently, but a nickel plated HMV no.4 has a solid brass bezel & back, & will last another lifetime.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

The acousticians say that the upper harmonics (the upper partials) of the notes that are technically below the range of say, acoustic recording or a mica soundbox, give the listener the impression that he/she is actually hearing the fundamental which is not in fact reproduced.
That said acoustic recordings have a wider frequency response than is usually credited.
Speaking of the Number 4, here's a spiffy little brochure that someone ( who?) posted before and that I saved. You can see that Victor was pleased with the effect of the 4 on the older machines. Some of which, though obsolete were less that two years old. This is the Victor version of updating to Vista.

Victrola No4.JPG (22.88 KiB) Viewed 6449 times

Victrola No 4b.JPG (26.28 KiB) Viewed 6448 times

[larryh]

For my self, I don't know exactly what went wrong with the Victor 4 sound box but the literature I have read on it often mentions that critics thought it was the worst reproducer victor put out. The few I have ever owned were puny sounding and I never could figure out why. I agree that the larger mica is most definitely a plus in cases of the Brunswick or other late machines. I attribute the greater depth of the detail on the Brunswick to the size of the mica reproducer mostly.
It seems that way back I had a table model of the orthophonic era #4 reproducer type machines. It had a rather pleasant sound it seemed, but has other issues which caused me to part with it. But then I don't care a bit for the Exhibition model either. In fact most victors are a bit too harsh for my ears.

[Valecnik]

I did not even know that a no. 4 would fit onto an earlier Victor? Again shows how much we can learn from this forum! So I think I will look for a nice one to try on my Victors III, IV and V horn machines. Do you guys think i would be happy with the result? Who could do an expert restoration if I found one?

Granted I play most of my 78s on modern equipment anyway but nothing can beat seeing and hearing that record play on original equipment!

[Steve]

Who could do an expert restoration if I found one?

Anyone with a screwdriver!

Seriously though, the one thing that makes the No. 4 so great is also the very same thing that makes it a soundbox incapable of adjustment or "fine tuning". The stylus bar pivots back and forth on small pins held securely in place within cylindrical barrels, capped with screws on the outer part. As long as the stylus bar rocks back and forth freely, the job is done. All you have to do is unscrew the back-plate and replace the gaskets.

I would however STRONGLY RECOMMEND not to use the red gasket rings which are currently available. Instead try getting some conventional gasket material and rebuild the same as you might an Exhibition. The gaskets I use have a lot more "give" in them than the modern synthetic gasket rings being produced today and all my No. 4's sound better as a result. The Ron Sitko type are not the same as the originals if Victor and HMV used the same type to begin with. The HMV type was a single piece of circular rubber with a groove in the centre for the diaphragm to rest in. The Ron Sitko type are supplied as two loose rings for front and back of mica. They are good but personally I prefer using the Exhibition method instead. The red rubber gasket ring (one piece) is available from "soundgen" on Ebay but the rubber is too hard in my opinion and can easily be bettered by doing what I said.

[B.B.B]

Who could do an expert restoration if I found one?

Anyone with a screwdriver!

Seriously though, the one thing that makes the No. 4 so great is also the very same thing that makes it a soundbox incapable of adjustment or "fine tuning". The stylus bar pivots back and forth on small pins held securely in place within cylindrical barrels, capped with screws on the outer part. As long as the stylus bar rocks back and forth freely, the job is done. All you have to do is unscrew the back-plate and replace the gaskets.

I would however STRONGLY RECOMMEND not to use the red gasket rings which are currently available. Instead try getting some conventional gasket material and rebuild the same as you might an Exhibition. The gaskets I use have a lot more "give" in them than the modern synthetic gasket rings being produced today and all my No. 4's sound better as a result. The Ron Sitko type are not the same as the originals if Victor and HMV used the same type to begin with. The HMV type was a single piece of circular rubber with a groove in the centre for the diaphragm to rest in. The Ron Sitko type are supplied as two loose rings for front and back of mica. They are good but personally I prefer using the Exhibition method instead. The red rubber gasket ring (one piece) is available from "soundgen" on Ebay but the rubber is too hard in my opinion and can easily be bettered by doing what I said.

Great information!

I was just wondering on how to rebuild No.4, lots on information on Ex & No2, but that explains it, it's really so easy that you don't need a guide
Great w/ the heads-up on gaskets.

Is there any gasket/mounting-flange where the soundbox connects to the tone-arm? And if so, who supplies them?

So, in your ( anyone else for that matter), between thumb & elbow, how much should you pay for a decent no.4, in need of a rebuild.

On eBay, I've seen prices from £20-25 up to over £100