Which Portable Would You Choose?

[3victrolas]

With the Union show coming up soon, I'm thinking about buying my first portable. I've looked at them in the past at shows & in the wild, but haven't seen one that I thought was a must have. So the question is, what portable would you look for & why?

[gramophoneshane]

If it's sound quality you're after, then you won't do better than an HMV 102. They're also considered to be one of the best designed & user friendly portables ever made. I don't think they're uncommon in the USA, so more than likely there'd be a couple at the show. Motor parts are the same as Victor, so should you ever need a new spring or something, they'll be easy to get. They were made right up until the late 50's, so you might even find one with very low milage
If you want the best of the best, go for a red leather & gold plated example, or you can pick one of many other colours to suit your decor, car or mood.
I also think the 102 will always hold it's value a little better than other "normal" portables because they have a worldwide reputation of being the best.
You don't have to worry about pot metal problems either because the only pot metal used was on the back of the soundbox, and I've never seen one that's been falling apart yet. You rarely even have to change the gaskets to recondition them, and it should handle any disc from any era extremely well.

If sound quality isn't your main concern, I'd go for something with a more radical design.
Maybe the large Decca Trench model with reflector in the lid, or something thats got a strong art deco influence.

I think the main thing to stay away from, is any ordinary looking portable of any brand- including HMV & Victor. I'd even include the 102 IF it wasn't the best portable ever made, because all the others are a dime a dozen with nothing going for them.
Unless it's the best, pretty rare or very unusual...it's just another portable.

You might find this thread an interesting read.

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... f=2&t=1415

I recommended the 102 to Eric & he bought one. When he got it, he sent me this message.
"Thank you SO MUCH for suggesting this portable to me. This thing is awesome! I never thought a portable could sound almost as good as my Credenza!"

[MordEth]

I think that Shane’s advice is very good, although I haven’t personally gotten to listen to an HMV 102.

I suppose part of the question is also how much you want to spend and what’s available. (And there’s nothing to stop you from owning more than one portable.)

Of the machines on which I’ve had an opportunity to listen to records, the HMV 101 is very nice:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRTRnI22tL0[/youtube]

As is the Columbia 163:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfRE60f9Ns[/youtube]
And the VV-50 has served John and I well on YouTube:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6vVIiG9U8[/youtube]
The Brunswick 101 is also an interesting machine, although I’d rate the machines above as being nicer, I think:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caxVnLgVi4c[/youtube]
(Of those, I think that the HMV 101 and the Columbia 163 are the lightest to carry, in that order. Just keep in mind that this is off the top of my head from memory...)

But definitely, if you can take a stack of records down to the park, out on the porch or to your next picnic/barbeque to enjoy, get a portable!

— MordEth

[gramophoneshane]

David,
I wouldn't recommend an HMV 101 really, even though I own 3 of them. Not as your primary portable anyway, although the sound quality would have to be far more superior to the VV-50's gooseneck arm & no.2 box. They would have been up with the best of them in 1925, but once the good Ortho models came out, they would fail dismally by comparison.

Not having ever heard a 2-55 in person, I really can't say which sounds best, but it sounds like they might be a pretty close match, and it's probably best to listen to both machines side by side.
I think I remember a similar discussion about the 2-55 & 102 on the old OTVMMB. Carsten & a couple other swore the 102 was better, while a couple others swore the 2-55 was better, so it might just come down to personal taste & maybe the types of music you play.
I guess you'd also have to consider pot metal issues & over all quality of both machines.
It does seem a bit odd that for the last 30 or 40 yrs, the 102 has been called the best machine by collectors from every part of the world if there was something better out there.

[AZ*]

I don't think they're uncommon in the USA, so more than likely there'd be a couple at the show.

Afraid not. I've been to the Union show 20 times. HMV 102s are rarely seen, except for the green one the record seller has that is not for sale. The guy plays records all weekend and almost never changes the needle.

[gramophoneshane]

What I was referring to was not the mere subjective preferences or even the anatomical differences of the ear that vary from one listener to the next, but the actual engineering and mathematics that are used (or not) to engineer a particular design. The proof, as they say, is always in the pudding, and the VV 2-55 always wins the pudding contest at the State Fair. The recipe isn't secret, just ignored for the most part.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I've lost track of the countless times I've heard exactly the same argument put forth regarding the Credenza & 10-50 whenever anyone says an HMV 202/3 or EMG delivers better sound. Even after horn dimensions were obtained from different sources, and it was found that the 202 tone chamber is 3' longer than that of the credenza, and at least 1' longer than the 10-50, and the largest EMG is 2-3' longer than a 202 horn, there are still those who refuse to believe that anything could out perform the Victor machines.
Still, much like the 102 portable, it seems to be common knowledge amoung collectors outside the USA, that the HMV & EMG are both superior machines, but I doubt any kind of poll has ever been recorded.
Probably the closed thing to a poll might be to watch ebay, where I'm sure you'd find there are many more 102's being sent to American collectors, that there are 2-55's being sent out.

Even if the 2-55 is a better sounding machine, one has to wonder if they would be a good long term investment, when the Victor soundboxes have a reputation of crumbling to dust, as do the tonearm brackets, although I don't know if the 2-55 uses them?
You can of course buy repro brackets, or change the soundbox to an earlier or later model, but that's all extra cost, and you no longer have a factory original machine.

You do mention the 2-55 horn as having a somewhat longer horn. Perhaps posting the actual dimensions of the horn may give those of us who have never heard the 2-55 a better idea as to how much better the Victor machine might be.

[larryh]

I wish I lived near some collectors that owned any of the above well rated items. Personally I have a fascination for portables since I first found my Brunswick Panatrope way back in high school. Unfortunately I was never able to really hear it as the sound box had been damaged and in those days no one fixed them. Latter I have owned quite a few common ones most lacking in the ability to complete a record without winding down or really poor sound quality. I keep seeing the reports on the HMV 102 and would love to hear one in person. I have a Telefunken that appears to be quite similar in design and has a reasonably good sound. I think it was Shane perhaps the other day that mentioned the Brunswick 101 as having a solid sound that was appealing in some way.. It got me to drag mine back down out of the attic an play a few things on it. Its really an ugly little beast I must say. The designers must have come cheap on the cabinet to that one. But if you put it on a solid surface, not too high, say coffee or end table height and sit out a way from it, it does a fair job and projecting a clear but scaled back presentation of a record. Its not any console or upright, but what I like about the Brunswicks is the quality of the motors. I have owned many noisy, even after professional repairs, Victors but I think every Brunswick I have owned you can't tell the motor is running unless you look at it. Quite a feat considering none of them has ever been degreased and the victors all were.
But back to sound. I think since it is an early design that the latter units using a reflector hood will give a wider sound range than the Brunswick will, but not necessarily a clearer one. One warning though, I found out the hard way that those shiny brass and nickle arms are usually pot metal and will break in a heartbeat if you over tighten a screw in them.

I am also interested in that Victrola V 25, I don't think I know which one that is, have to look it up. I owned the heavy bulky Victor 50 and it wasn't anything to write home about. The small sized Victor 2 sounds even more restricted played though that cabinet to me. A larger diaphragm is a real plus on a portable because they need the added depth to help them sound well to my ear.

[OrthoFan]

If you prefer the circa pre-1925 acoustic recordings, probably the VV-50 would be your best choice. With a properly rebuilt #2 sound box, they provide a sparkling, room-filling sound.

If you like the electric era recordings, and live in the US, probably the 2-55 would be your best bet. I've owned both a 2-55 and an HMV 102--both with excellent, restored sound boxes--and can honestly say that the 2-55 is somewhat louder, has a stronger mid-range response, and a less directional, more widely dispersed sound quality than the 102.

This is not to say that the 102 is, in any way, lacking. If anything, the 102 seems to convey an impression that there is more bass, probably because the horn's mouth at the base of the lid is about half the size of the 2-55's, which impacts how the musical scale is dispersed. To my ears, it sounded more like a small, electrically amplified phonograph.

In terms of ease of use and overall design--including weight--I think that the 102 is the hand's down winner. It's about ten pounds lighter than the 2-55, has a noiseless automatic brake (the 2-55's brake makes a clicking noise), and has a convenient needle storage compartment that is isolated from the horn/motor-board, so there is less change that the needles will vibrate in sympathy with the music. It's also, to my eyes, much more attractive.

Another option would be to locate a good condition, or restorable, Columbia Viva Tonal portable, such as the 163. While slightly heavier than their Victor/HMV counterparts, the larger Viva Tonal portables closely match their performance. Some 25 years ago, I acquired a 163, which was my first "high quality" portable. Not knowing what to expect, I took for granted that the rather anemic, shrill tone it pumped out was typical for all portable models. Then, at the suggestion of a friend, I made some minor adjustments to the sound box's needle-bar pivot, loosening it up a bit. I test played a circa-early 1940's red seal Columbia big band record and was absolutely floored by the sound quality! For the first time, I heard bass, or what sounded like bass, coming out of an acoustic phonograph. When I was told that the 2-55 sounded even better, I started my hunt for that one.

Of all that I've owned, I think I liked the Columbia the best from an ascetic standpoint--it really is quite beautiful with the wooden paneled interior; but preferred the comparatively ugly 2-55 for its powerful sound quality.

[estott]

I've recently picked up a VV 2-65 which puts out a very nice sound and was originally quite spiffy, though mine has cosmetic issues. The Orthophonic soundbox plays well and shows no pot metal issues (thank god)

[OrthoFan]

I've recently picked up a VV 2-65 which puts out a very nice sound and was originally quite spiffy, though mine has cosmetic issues. The Orthophonic soundbox plays well and shows no pot metal issues (thank god)

For whatever reason, the later Orthophonic sound boxes--those used on the portables, and some later cabinet models--don't have the problems of the earlier ones. I've come across about a dozen 2-55s--in person--in the past ten years or so, and none had sound box issues, though a few had cracked and swollen tonearm back-brackets.

The 2-65, BTW, is a nice, relatively lightweight portable, and is similar in appearance to the HMV 102. I understand, though, that the horn is made out of some type of composite, fiber based material fitted to the visible plated metal mouth, and has a slightly hollow sound compared to the all metal, longer horns installed in the 2-55/102. Still, I wouldn't mind having one. They should easily outperform the later (RCA, Birch, Silvertone, etc.) portables.

I don't know if you'd be interested, but a schematic for the 2-65 is available in PDF format on this page -- http://www.nostalgiaair.org/Resources/620/M0043620.htm Just click on the floppy icon to save it to your HD, or on the "eye" icon to view it.