Reproducer/record compatibility

[JohnM]

I was reading a recent post on one of the other discussion boards concerning a beginning collector wondering what type of disc macine to buy that would play all 78's satisfactorily. GS suggested that the novice buy an Orthophonic machine as that would play both acoustical and electrical recordings, and this is certainly a valid answer. I think it should be noted that the progression of reproducers offered by, at least, Victor, reflect a progression of changes in the recording process. The characteristics of these reproducers were an intended match to the recorders used at a given time and intended to extract the most from the recordings of a given time period. The early strap reproducers were for zinc process Berliner discs, the Clark-Johnson was for Johnson's wax master Berliners, the Concert for Monarch and Grand Prize-era Victors, the Exhibition for 'patents' labels, the No. 2 for 'batwings', and the Orthophonic reproducers for electrical process records. The label changes on records were indicative of significant changes in recording technology in the studio that required changes in reproducers on machines to be fully compatible with the improved recordings. Variables include diaphragm thickness, diameter; distance ratio of stylus bar from needle tip to pivot, and pivot to diaphragm center; and stylus bar mounting method.

Certainly one can play a Berliner disc on a Credenza, but the purity of the process is lost to a degree without playback equipment of compatible vintage. This does not take into account excessive wear on recordings because of the use of less forgiving equipment!

John M

[larryh]

John,

I pretty much agree with you on this with a few exceptions perhaps, and those are rather recent. Normally I have felt that a good acoustic machine designed pre 1925 was the best way to get the full effects from acoustic recordings and that pretty much holds.. A couple of things were pointed out in a discussion maybe here or elsewhere a while back that suggested how well Columbia Banner records sounded when played on the Credenza. So I broke with my usual thoughts and gave it a try. Yes the Banner labels did sound quite rich on the Credenza to me also. Now that might be because the recording of Columbia for some reason has always seemed fuller and slightly richer tone to me and perhaps the credenza is capable of bringing that out farther. Another thing that has me wonder at time is the fact that a simple mica Diaphragm is used in both the acoustic and electrical reproduction era and often with quite good results. So in some ways the play back source is in many ways the same. Of course the length and shape of horn improved with time as well as size of machines in either era. I was listening to day to the three sizes of edison horns on the same record. It was rather interesting how much difference there was in the three. The larger 250 was snapping out the instruments and accessories quite loud and crisply. The 150 while one I liked in the house setting, ( rather than in the large basement where this comparison went today), was much quieter than I recalled when put up against the direct sound from the 250 and some of those things like wood blocks they like to tap on certain jazzy records were noticeably less crisp and loud. When I got to the poor 100 horn machine, the tone and presence were again lessened and much of the warmth went out of the sound. (same reproducer on all here).. When it came to the Electrical recordings edison improved the diaphragm and added more weight and comments that some records will not reproduce as well on the earlier reproducer due to the frequency level of the latter recordings.. I haven't personally found that to be much the case, and in his situation the recording horn was enlarged but the common shape was retained for the most part.

So If I were to suggest which machine to play the largest variety of records with, I would still choose the Brunswick for Acoustic pieces since it is capable of playing all three major record types, all be it not as well in some cases as the original. Here I refer to the Edison as the sound is superior with the Edison diaphragm over the Brunswick in tone and volume. But you can hear a version of the Edison if you wish.

For total overall sound, I hold with the fact that for my ears the Edison sound capabilities are so far advanced over the other systems of the acoustic period that it even shocks me sometimes. That doesn't mean I think the quality of recordings is better from a artist standpoint, but that the ability to reproduce many things so realistically that you just marvel at the sound. I have done to some remodeling of furniture and addition of a stereo speaker set up to my living room, moved the Brunswick back into the room and the C 250 has gone to the Basement next door where I walk and do other projects. I know the Brunswick is good and can have a fine tone. But when I started that Organ Record today and those realistic tones emerged there was no doubting the quality of realism Edison created. My biggest fault with him is the records are so hard to store and take up so much space and the limited range of good artist in the instrumental records. Stokowoski just does a better job of capturing the orchestra sound than who ever conducted many of the Edison classical pieces. But Edison still holds the edge to me in the punch and presence those insturments have within the piece.

Well I have ranted long enough. .Happy forth of July all.

Larry

[gramophoneshane]

I totally agree John. I've always thought that all records sound best played on a machine of the same period, and that includes vinyl from the 50's, 60's & 70's etc.
I'd even go as far to say that some brands of records sound best matched to the same brand of machine. I prefer the sound of my good clean Brunswick records on my Brunnie Madrid with ortho style box, to how they sound on my 202. Years ago I had a Columbia table Graphanola, and late acoustic Columbias sounded better on it than my HMV 109.
I guess my main reason for suggesting an Ortho machine was because you can play pretty much anything and you'll get pretty good sound from earlier recordings, and great sound from your early electrics right up to the 50's recordings. So although a Berliner might sound better on an early machine, it's still bearable or even enjoyable to hear them on a Credenza, but I doubt anyone could sit through a dozen Doris Day records played on a Berliner lol.

I still think I'd recommend an Ortho machine to anyone who was thinking about getting into phono collecting with one machine, because it would handle any brand of lateral record from any era.
The only exceptions would be if someone was going to only buy/collect a specific type of record, like Berliners or Victor batwings. Then I'd recommend a machine that matched that specific type of recording.
The other exception would be if someone said they wanted to start off with 2 or 3 different machines straight away, then they could get a variety of eras to play a variety of recording.

[larryh]

Shane,

I figured we were about to hear from you.. I personally have never liked recordings made much after 1930 on the Credenza with some exceptions. Many are so over recorded the poor reproducer just can't handle the sound well and gives a very raspy type sound not hear in earlier records except rarely.. You may have a exceptional reproducer?

To add to the machines of the correct period for the best effects, I have just tried something with lousy results.. I purchased a good Elac Turntable that will change records, partly because somehow I started collecting 45 albums a while back and also that I have some fairly nice late 78 albums. But I have to say after purchasing a 78 needle for the Elac all the way from Germany, the results are way less than satisfying due to the sensitive quality of reproduction the turntable has. Way too much surface noise to suit me.. Here is where a great old 50's or late 40's table model or console would play rings around this hi fi set up even though they included the speed for it. I am having a Magnavox portable from the early 60's rebuilt and from what I heard on it before the work, I know that the 78's sets will be much more satisfactory from that more limited ability machine.

[gramophoneshane]

Well, it's not an exceptional soundbox, but they are HMV 5a's & 5B's I use on my 202. I have heard that the Victor Orthophonic soundbox is better & louder, but maybe thats not a good thing where later records are concerned?
This is my 5B in this clip I think, and I don't think it sounds raspy. Of course, hearing it on video doesn't do the sound justice. I actually prefer the sound of this 78 on this machine, than the same recording on 45, on any of my electric turntables, old or new.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zESzxsIak[/youtube]

I must say too, I can't stand the way 78's sound when played on a period electric machine that uses a sapphire needle & ceramic type cartridge. I've got a couple different valve radiograms that with 3 speed TTs & I only ever play 50's & 60's mono vinyl on these because they sound great, but 78's sound empty & suffer from high surface noise.
I seldom play 78's electrically, but when I do, I'm only ever happy with the sound from an electric pick-up that takes a steel needle. I've actually got a Garrard 301 transcription turntable with an old HMV bakelite electric pick-up for steel, that I use when I do play 78's electrically lol.
It runs into a Philips 4 in 1 midi system that cost about $500 in around 1999. It doesn't sound quite as good as a similar pick-up through a valve amp, but it still sounds better than any of my 3 speed TTs using a sapphire.
Maybe you should try a 1940's pick-up & steel on your 78's? You might be surprized at the improvement in sound quality over a sapphire.They're usually dirt cheap on ebay, and you just put 2 RCA plugs on the wires and plug it into your stereo system.

[larryh]

Well those 78's from the later period will do quite well on the machines from the late 40's, early 50's, after all it is the period they were made to be played. But I am not by any means an expert at how various modern machines, well or old ones for that matter work.. you already know I mostly go by what I am hearing, and if the result is good, I like it, if it doesn't I don't. It would be almost impossible to determine how a machine might sound from the original electrical period say of the 40's or so with out really hearing it in person. The variations of results are probably most wide as is the case now depending on the quality of equipment. Again, I don't have the technical knowledge, but didn't the period machines use that crystal cartridge? I have owned a number of latter 78 era machines and some had thumb screws that extended from the front that allowed for changing the needle. Those if working right would do quite well as you say. I also had the Zenith Cobra Arm versions which must have been crystal? They did a good job too as long as everything was working.

I haven't linked yet to your download of the orthophonic era machine, but will. I would say that perhaps if it plays a bit less loud that might be a factor that would be in its favor as most orthophonics do best on a soft to medium needle most of the time. In fact, I recall reading in the instructions for playing them that a soft needle was recommended for most things, and the loud only rarely. Over driving is the cause of a lot of audible distortion on any kind of phonograph.

[Schmaltz]

Good topic; I agree, also, that the year in which the reproducer was marketed has a direct bearing on the records that will sound optimal when being played through it. A batwing Victor with a catalog number in the 19000s will sound OK through an Orthophonic or an Exhibition but really good with a #2 or a #4.

More generally, I have found this theory especially true when the record is worn. Acoustic laterals that are too worn or scratchy to sound good on a modern turntable (even with the correct stylus) leap back to life on an acoustic lateral machine. The records that I keep in the storage area of my VV-X are actually near death, but they're good titles, and that machine manages to hide the worst of the surface noise. Some of my favorites have a new lease on life thanks to that humble machine.

To chime in on gramophoneshane's latest post: I can vouch for the way that crystal cartridges in 40s machines (when properly rebuilt) can make that period of record sound very good. Red-label Columbias, particularly, sound great on that vintage of machine.

And, to Larry's most recent post: yes, over-driving is the central issue with reproducers of all ages and types, seems to me. Each one of the reproducers we've been discussing here had a specific flex-motion range designed into it, reflecting the amplitude in the grooves of records available at the time. If the amplitude of the record being played is less, or more, than the cartridge was designed for, then the playback cannot be optimal.

[larryh]

Shane,

I will have to give the machine its due. It does a surprisingly good job especially on those ballad type things with a somewhat subdued instrumentation. In the Tennessee Wig Walk I can detect that overdrive effect to a degree, but not offensively. In thinking it over, I had a number of later things which would do quite well on the Credenza. At one point I went though all my later Christmas things and found a fair number that would play satisfactorily on the it, and then the rest just became unbearably over driven for the reproducer. Maybe my reproducer is in need of some work, but it plays very well in most instances and I tend to think its the record at issue when it won't. Pop things are offenders too later on, but the worst to me is the symphonic things, even in the late 20's they can be very taxing to listen too. The exceptions to this were the Columbia record sets which had a richer smoother sound. I have read where Europeans stuck with Acoustic phonographs well into the 40's often and I wouldn't be surprised that the reproducers used were a somewhat for forgiving type for the later records.. Its also probably true that european recordings were better matched to the mechanical reproduction as well.

As to the 45 version sounding better on your machine. I don't doubt that it might. I have read that the critics often preferred the 78 version to the 45 release of the same recording at least till they got their act together and figured out what they were doing. Those European 45s often have vastly superior sound to ours in the same time frame.

[larryh]

Hi Bob,

I think if I am reading Shanes post right he says the Crystal Cartridge does not sound good, or am I misreading something which wouldn't surprise me. I only wonder what was better at the time if so?

[Schmaltz]

Hi Bob,

I think if I am reading Shanes post right he says the Crystal Cartridge does not sound good, or am I misreading something which wouldn't surprise me. I only wonder what was better at the time if so?

Hey, Larry -

re-reading gramophoneshane's post, I see the part where he mentions ceramic carts specifically (IIRC, those were the ones featuring the dual-stylus flip-over style of needle, standard equipment on phonos made in the 60s and early 70s). Those are the ones he doesn't like, and I have also found that they bring out lots of surface noise on 78s.

I was going to ask gramophoneshane about his use of the word "electric," but he explained it in the next post.