Tell me about the Viva Tonal series...

[ImperialGuardsman]

Particularly the 700 series. What Victor was the 710 made to compete with? Did they use pot metal? How do they track and do they wear records fast? All that jazz.

Thanks,
ImperialGuardsman

[marcapra]

I just acquired a Viva-Tonal model 800. That's the big one in walnut which was Columbia's answer to the Credenza or 8-30. I'm not an expert in tracking, but I would guess that like the Victor Orthophonic machines, it would track better than a pre-Orthophonic Victrolas or Columbias. I bought mine from an expert who knows how to rebuild the reproducer properly and seal any cracks in the horn. The sound from mine is fantastic! The 710 is the medium size Viva-Tonal and probably the most common found today. So I guess it would compete with the Victrola 8-4 or 8-12 machines.

[OrthoSean]

I have a 711 (same as the 710, but with a different motor). It's a very nice machine, tracks well and sounds great. It's not a machine I play often enough to comment about record wear, but I haven't noticed any issues with the few discs I keep in the cabinet and do play somewhat regularly. Mine has a rebuilt reproducer, but I confess I haven't sealed the horn yet. Still, it's loud and sounds great, The horn sealing is on my list for a Summer project!

Sean

[ImperialGuardsman]

So no pot metal issues or anything like that?

[marcapra]

Viva Tonal phonographs don't have any pot metal parts to my knowledge. You are thinking of the older Grafonola phonographs. Even the reproducer is brass.

[ImperialGuardsman]

Viva Tonal phonographs don't have any pot metal parts to my knowledge. You are thinking of the older Grafonola phonographs. Even the reproducer is brass.

Wow, I just figured that they would have continued using it as they had done before in the Grafonolas. Interesting how they moved towards brass while Victor moved towards pot metal.

[Victrolacollector]

I wonder if Victor thought Pot Metal sounded better, pretty sad they gave in to pot metal in the later years, like many of the "generic" brands that used pot metal several years prior.

[gregbogantz]

The reason that potmetal was used was simple - it was cheaper to make. Casting potmetal required little or no final machining which was much less labor-intensive and time consuming compared with turning the entire structure out of a chunk of metal on a lathe. That's a no-brainer for corporate beancounters. Quality was irrelevant if it cost too much. Same as today, except now the stuff is molded out of plastic which is cheaper still.

[estott]

The reason that potmetal was used was simple - it was cheaper to make. Casting potmetal required little or no final machining which was much less labor-intensive and time consuming compared with turning the entire structure out of a chunk of metal on a lathe. That's a no-brainer for corporate beancounters. Quality was irrelevant if it cost too much. Same as today, except now the stuff is molded out of plastic which is cheaper still.

They also said that the pot metal was acoustically neutral - while there might be some technical validity to that (brass can vibrate in response to certain frequencies, pot metal won't) I think they just pit a scientific gloss on it for publicity. When it was new who was to know that it would deteriorate so alarmingly?