The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Steve wrote: Can anyone please explain why the earlier incarnation had a conduit running through the floor? Surely the easier option might have been to build a new deeper cabinet or simply run conduit under the cabinet?

That is a very good question and the answer seems to be that Douglas Fitzpatrick was experimenting for some considerable time---a number of years---and often when such a process is undertaken the final result can be very different to that initially envisaged with many diversions along the route. The original Expert Senior cabinet legs had been cut off, pointing to further experimentation with levels etc and it seems likely that several variations were attempted. With the benefit of hindsight, he too possibly might have had the same query at the end but, as Andy says, optimal transmission angles and mouth orientation were the main driving/design forces after playing around with conduit length.

Steve wrote: Given the age of the horn, was it the intention of the maker to demonstrate the potential for improved sound via an acoustic method of reproduction as opposed to the more commonly accepted (from the 1950's onwards) electrical reproduction?

Yes that is exactly what he intended. It is understood that he had another large room at Sheringham Hall on the floor below which contained all the "modern" hi-fi equipment for direct comparison.

Steve wrote: Does anyone know anything about the house with exponential concrete horn constructed within its gable end?

Ian Maxted saw the house many years ago I believe, but, sadly, can now remember no more details.

Many thanks, Graham, for your excellent responses.

What this leads me onto is the question of whether anything recorded electrically (post-1925) on 78 RPM would be capable of being reproduced more accurately and faithfully on an acoustic system like this than the same record on electrical equipment? Would the "turning point" for electrical reproduction be the advent of microgroove records? Will ALL 78's be better through a huge acoustically amplified horn or just early / acoustic recordings? Does the post-1925 process greatly affect the comparison?

I assume that due to the low amplitudes and quality of a lot of early recordings, we'll never be able to seriously compare the two systems of reproduction? Do you know what the specification of the "modern equipment" was for comparison?

Steve wrote:Many thanks, Graham, for your excellent responses.

What this leads me onto is the question of whether anything recorded electrically (post-1925) on 78 RPM would be capable of being reproduced more accurately and faithfully on an acoustic system like this than the same record on electrical equipment? Would the "turning point" for electrical reproduction be the advent of microgroove records? Will ALL 78's be better through a huge acoustically amplified horn or just early / acoustic recordings? Does the post-1925 process greatly affect the comparison?

I assume that due to the low amplitudes and quality of a lot of early recordings, we'll never be able to seriously compare the two systems of reproduction? Do you know what the specification of the "modern equipment" was for comparison?

Very good questions Steve, but I feel (as a personal view only) unanswerable! Two points come to mind.

Neither horns/diaphragms nor speaker cones etc are intrinsically similar to the original sound sources (instruments, including the human voice, and the almost infinite combinations thereof) and the idea of whether one can truly faithfully recreate those original sounds is doubtful.

Secondly, EMGs and their ilk have that exceptional 'holographic' or 'solid' quality which I find no conventional loudspeaker can recreate (even if greatly superior in other technical/measureable senses).

What I'm saying is that for me, they don't compare, and there's a lot of subjectivity involved - not to mention psychoacoustics. Or to put it another way, there are different kinds of fidelity, not to mention kinds and qualities of listening pleasure to be had...

Thanks for the fascinating article and ensuing discussion. Very informative.

Clay

VintageTechnologies wrote: Apart from the issue of correct theoretical construction, do you suppose a large enough horn finally reaches a point of diminishing returns or even regression?

Another fascinating question ! I would not pretend to know the answer but logic and instinct might suggest that, so long as the correct exponential or logarithmic curve (another complex debate on its own) is observed, the spherical wave front (in the case of a circular horn) will continue to expand ad infinitum but way beyond/beneath the hearing capability of the human ear. If the curve is correct, the quality of sound should not deteriorate but volume might, depending upon the driving force of the soundbox/reproducer design. Matching of components has been found to be relevant and important.

The largest period horn I have listened to "in the flesh" is the Expert All Range which has a bell mouth diameter of 36 inches. It produces an impressive sound as does its slightly smaller cousin the EMG Oversize at 33 ½ inches. The output of both can be described as "holographic" but the expansion of each follows a slightly different exponential curve thus each sound is slightly different. The Expert also has fewer bends in the conduit. I have also heard both Nimbus horns, the first with a mouth diameter of some 40 inches (approx' 1 metre) and the second with an outlet of approximately 2 metres from memory ! The expansion rates of both the latter are very different compared with either EMG or Expert, thus the sound is also different again. Additionally, the largest Nimbus horn was driven by a parallel bore thin-wall (from memory) tonearm which, in my opinion, could be a mistake. Certainly, when the smaller Nimbus horn (now in my custody) was mated to an original cast brass EMG tonearm, the quality of sound output was pretty good. However, it always has to be borne in mind that the whole debate is very subjective and opinions will vary according to taste, age, musicality and hearing ability etc. Personally, I was not over impressed by the performance of the 2 metre horn, the sound from which had to be augmented with modern loudspeakers at a public concert.

For me, a horn (and the necessary system that goes with it) has to project the somewhat indefinable "holographic" effect of giving the illusion that the performers and/or instruments are actually in the same room as the listener. This seems to define the real "magic"---for it is such---of what it is all about.

Steve wrote:What this leads me onto is the question of whether anything recorded electrically (post-1925) on 78 RPM would be capable of being reproduced more accurately and faithfully on an acoustic system like this than the same record on electrical equipment? Would the "turning point" for electrical reproduction be the advent of microgroove records? Will ALL 78's be better through a huge acoustically amplified horn or just early / acoustic recordings? Does the post-1925 process greatly affect the comparison?

I assume that due to the low amplitudes and quality of a lot of early recordings, we'll never be able to seriously compare the two systems of reproduction? Do you know what the specification of the "modern equipment" was for comparison?

Hard questions to answer !

To comment in reverse order, I am afraid I have no knowledge as to what the "modern equipment" on the lower floor of Sheringham Hall consisted of but my information comes from a vintage car enthusiast friend who visited at the time. I think DF was probably an enthusiast just like any of us.

As far as comparison of acoustic versus electrical systems is concerned, for me, top quality modern electrical reproduction of all types of discs will always be very impressive/pleasurable indeed, allowing, inter alia, the attenuation of unwanted frequencies and infinite variations of augmentation but, as suggested in the previous post, the unique magic of an EMG/Expert acoustic horn system remains eternally compulsive and entrancing---sound projection, definition and clarity are unmatched. Each system is valid but I find the playing of every record on an EMG/Expert has enormous faithful presence and is an actual event.

Each system is valid but I find the playing of every record on an EMG/Expert has enormous faithful presence and is an actual event.

I'm following this thread avidly, and while I have no expertise to add on any matter, I think that the above comment really sums up that indefinable gift that the EMG/Expert gramophones offer. It's not that their wonderful sound is better than modern equipment etc., etc. It's that you feel you've listened to an actual performance with the artiste(s) in the same room or the next one - an actual event as Graham says.

I've been away for a while and have only just seen this thread.
Who would have thought it. Serendipity at it's best.
I haven't even yet had a chance to look over the research

Excellent bit of research. Well done lads for making the trip, it's not exactly on the way to anywhere else.
I only hope the restoration job end up in the right hands. Seems like a the curators have no idea on what to do.
In the spirit of the "Brontosaurophone", I would like it not restored as that is impossible but re-constructed using as many of the original parts as possible to create a scientifically, acoustically correct monster. A house that large should surely have a perfect corner to place the beast.
Seems to me you guys are on the correct path already..Good luck!!!!!
Very much looking forward to the next chapter of this epic saga.