Which Portable Would You Choose?

[B.B.B]

As a proud owner of a Viva-Tonal 202, I must promote it a bit.
I’ve rebuilt the soundbox & sealed the tonearm-horn connection w/ heavy grease.
It’s a british #16 soundbox. And it has the plano-reflex tonearm.

plano_reflex.jpg (29.85 KiB) Viewed 2868 times

A very nice machine!

A friend of mine owns a HMV 102, so I’ve actually been able to do a side by side
comparison.
It’s in original condition, but with fresh gaskets in the soundbox.

The Columbia is considerably heavier & feels a bit sturdier.

But it was sound we talked about.

We played a large variety of records during several hours & I must, in the name of science, confess that during the end of the test I did get somewhat intoxicated..

Anyway, we both pretty much agreed on the following:
Generally speaking of course, on a wide selection of early (1925-1935) electrics.

The Viva-Tonal is louder.
The Viva Tonal “spreads” the music around a bit better
The HMV has a “warmer” feel
When right in front of both machines, the HVM has the most “prescence”

The Viva-Tonal might have slightly more bass, but it varied with different records.

When playing old acoustics, like Billy Williams, Caruso or German orchestras playing Wagner, there wasn’t much difference.

Both handled 40’s Kid Ory & Muggsy Spannier with style. No blasting at all.
Very clear & with good oooomphf.

In fact, when you put it all together, they both perform very well.
If I must chose, I’d take the Viva-Tonal for American blues & jazz
& the HMV 102 for dance-hall & opera.

As always, when it comes to sounds, only your own ears can be Your judge.

[estott]

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.

Thanks! That will be quite useful. I've cleaned the machine up and addressed some cosmetic issues, it's working well. I know what you're talking about with the horn but the fibre composite has the advantage of not ringing or buzzing. With a good record it puts out a nice sound, tends to respond best to late 20's and 30's electrics.

[1926CredenzaOwner]

!

[estott]

I'm telling you- DON'T BUY AN RCA PORTABLE! I still have nightmares about it attacking me in my sleep!

I'm going to assume you're joking about that

My RCA Victor 2-65 is as well built as any Victor machine. Later RCA portables were built by outside firms (like Prime in Milwaukee) and are not of remarkable quality.............but hardly demonic.

[1926CredenzaOwner]

!

[OrthoFan]

I’m not doubting the fact that your RCA Victor 2-65 has a nice sound. I, however, think that it doesn’t have an Orthophonic reproducer. It is my understanding that after 1929, RCA started using the "Toman" soundbox.

According to Baumbach/Paul Eddie, the 2-65 was produced until 1933, and came with an Orthophonic sound box:



"The VV 2-65 was a premium portable model introduced around 1930, after RCA had purchased the Victor Talking Machine Company. It featured gold plated hardware, a wood case covered with a textured brown fabric material brown covering. Like the VV 2-55, it used an Orthophonic Sound Box and a single spring motor. The 2-65 was discontinued around 1933.

The original selling price and production volumes are currently unknown."
FROM: http://www.victor-victrola.com/2-65.htm


I've come across three in the past 20 years, and all had Orthophonic sound boxes--ball bearing needle-bar pivots, mask, etc. Two had a conventional style Orthophonic diaphragm (with spider), while one had a diaphragm without the spider.

----------------------------------

estott, do you have any photos of your 2-65 you could post here?

[estott]

Here are a few pics of my 2-65. If it doesn't have an Orthophonic soundbox it looks very much like it- I haven't opened it up. The handle is a replacement but a decent one. The paint is flaking off the inside of the horn and the cloth has shrunken, otherwise it's quite nice. The walnut veneer panel in the lid is a nice touch.

[OrthoFan]

Boy, that's a nice one. It certainly looks like the type of Orthophonic sound box used on the 2-55. Easiest way to tell for sure is to remove the front mask, which is held in place by screws. If the sound box has not been overhauled, that's probably a good idea, anyway, since the gunk covering the ball bearings should be removed, and the ball bearings cleaned or replace before playing too many records.

Another sonic restoration tip is to unscrew the fastener holding the two parts of the tonearm together, pack it with grease, and reinstall it. I remember that there was a post about this several years ago on the OTVMMB, and the general consensus was that it prevented minute air leaks in the joint and improved the sound quality, somewhat.

To re-fasten the fabric, dampen it slightly and work a little white glue between the fabric and wood, then pat it down until it sticks firmly. Rather than try to re-stretch the fabric, you may want to find some matching shoe polish and go over the area. I had a similar problem with a portable and found that Kiwi's Scuff Coat worked fine to color minor seam gaps, but I'm sure that there are probably better things to use.

[estott]

Boy, that's a nice one. It certainly looks like the type of Orthophonic sound box used on the 2-55. Easiest way to tell for sure is to remove the front mask, which is held in place by screws. If the sound box has not been overhauled, that's probably a good idea, anyway, since the gunk covering the ball bearings should be removed, and the ball bearings cleaned or replace before playing too many records.

I'll get that done sometime, though I'm feeling quite cautious about it. I've removed the grille and screen, there's a layer of felt under it, and under that is an Orthophonic soundbox- only thing different from the usual is that there's no spider.

To re-fasten the fabric, dampen it slightly and work a little white glue between the fabric and wood, then pat it down until it sticks firmly. Rather than try to re-stretch the fabric, you may want to find some matching shoe polish and go over the area. I had a similar problem with a portable and found that Kiwi's Scuff Coat worked fine to color minor seam gaps, but I'm sure that there are probably better things to use.

I had to do some MAJOR regluing but it's not bad now. There has been shrinkage of up to ¼ of an inch in spots but I think the results are acceptable. The covering responded well to a good scrubbing followed by a coat of paste wax.

[OrthoFan]

I stumbled upon this page the other day -- http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=VTM ... iew=videos

He has several videos of portables including the 2-65:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNva77BeDfw[/youtube]


...the 2-55:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSx0jpWtk6A[/youtube]


.... and the 2-35, the cheapest Orthophonic Victrola available at the time:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D0dLWaP6NU[/youtube]

The 2-35 actually does sound quite good, providing you can find one with an undamaged sound box--which was nearly identical to the #16 sound box used on the first-series HMV 102s. Unlike the standard Orthophonic sound box, the #16 is made out of stamped metal, cannot be opened and cannot be repaired.