The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I like the sound of a Victor Orthophonic phonograph, especially the large ones (like Credenzas) and mid-sized models (like the 8-4 and 8-12), but I just don't find any of those cabinets attractive in the least. On the other hand, I have seen Columbia Viva-Tonals, Brunswick Panatropes and Silvertone Tru-Phonics that I do find attractive, though I have never owned one or even listened to one play. If you have, would you care to weigh in on how they sound, and work, compared to Victor Orthophonics? Do they have issues the Victors in that class don't? Any other caveats?

I have a Brunswick Cortez. I actually think it's better than a Credenza. It sounds fantastic, even with acoustic records- full, clear and loud. The wood used is better than on the Victors. It's a lot harder to find though. The only weird thing about it is that the tonearm curves backwards. It takes a little getting used to.

http://www.vintageip.com/pics/brunswickcortez02-big.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1JhGHqZRs

Hyperion wrote:I like the sound of a Victor Orthophonic phonograph, especially the large ones (like Credenzas) and mid-sized models (like the 8-4 and 8-12), but I just don't find any of those cabinets attractive in the least. On the other hand, I have seen Columbia Viva-Tonals, Brunswick Panatropes and Silvertone Tru-Phonics that I do find attractive, though I have never owned one or even listened to one play. If you have, would you care to weigh in on how they sound, and work, compared to Victor Orthophonics? Do they have issues the Victors in that class don't? Any other caveats?

I have owned all of these machines. At one time I had the larger examples of the Victor, Brunswick, Columbia and Sonora machines displayed in the same room, where I could compare them directly. I found that, to my ear, the Victor machines were overall the best sounding. The Brunswick machines had a slight edge in the treble when compared with the wood horned Orthophonic models, and they certainly played acoustic records more naturally than did the Victor models, which tend to make acoustic discs sound rather flat.

The Panatrope machines do not have a folded horn. There upper range is scintillating,their mid-range is crisp and forward, but there bass response tends to be slightly defiecient. The Viva-Tonal machines have similar advantages and deficiencies, save for the largest models, the 800, 810 and 820. Though their horns seem to know naught of "Matched Impedance" theory the performance of the large machine is excellent.

NOTE THAT OF THE THREE MAKERS THE BRUNSWICK DESIGN SOUNDS BETTER THAN EITHER THE VICTOR OR COLUMBIA WHEN UNRESTORED. I have never purchased a Brunswick Prismatone or Panatrope which had a rebuilt reproducer, even machines which were the centerpiece of a collection. I cannot understand this, since even the Brunswick reproducer benefits from service.

The Tru-Phonic and Cecelian machines are distinctly second tier stuff. The tone arms tend to be stiff, using sleeve bearings rather than ball bearings, and the reproducers non-compliant. These machines can sound pretty good on their own, but they pale in comparison to the Big Three.

The Sonora Tonalic machines are well designed and have lovely cabinet work. The Tonalic reproducers are a not appropriately compliant, but quality accessory units like the Meltrope III, the Audak Polyphase Ultra, or even an Orthophonic or Panatrope sound box bushed to fit, will give you a truly fine sounding machine.

If you dislike the style of the Credenza,you might prefer one of Victor's 1928 models, say the 8-35 or the 8-9. These were redesigned entirely from scratch, and are fitted with the superior and more space-efficient metal horn. They are by far the best sounding of the American machines of this period.

8-35: 8-9:

Uncle Vanya wrote:

Hyperion wrote:I like the sound of a Victor Orthophonic phonograph, especially the large ones (like Credenzas) and mid-sized models (like the 8-4 and 8-12), but I just don't find any of those cabinets attractive in the least. On the other hand, I have seen Columbia Viva-Tonals, Brunswick Panatropes and Silvertone Tru-Phonics that I do find attractive, though I have never owned one or even listened to one play. If you have, would you care to weigh in on how they sound, and work, compared to Victor Orthophonics? Do they have issues the Victors in that class don't? Any other caveats?

I have owned all of these machines. At one time I had the larger examples of the Victor, Brunswick, Columbia and Sonora machines displayed in the same room, where I could compare them directly. I found that, to my ear, the Victor machines were overall the best sounding. The Brunswick machines had a slight edge in the treble when compared with the wood horned Orthophonic models, and they certainly played acoustic records more naturally than did the Victor models, which tend to make acoustic discs sound rather flat.

The Panatrope machines do not have a folded horn. There upper range is scintillating,their mid-range is crisp and forward, but there bass response tends to be slightly defiecient. The Viva-Tonal machines have similar advantages and deficiencies, save for the largest models, the 800, 810 and 820. Though their horns seem to know naught of "Matched Impedance" theory the performance of the large machine is excellent.

NOTE THAT OF THE THREE MAKERS THE BRUNSWICK DESIGN SOUNDS BETTER THAN EITHER THE VICTOR OR COLUMBIA WHEN UNRESTORED. I have never purchased a Brunswick Prismatone or Panatrope which had a rebuilt reproducer, even machines which were the centerpiece of a collection. I cannot understand this, since even the Brunswick reproducer benefits from service.

The Tru-Phonic and Cecelian machines are distinctly second tier stuff. The tone arms tend to be stiff, using sleeve bearings rather than ball bearings, and the reproducers non-compliant. These machines can sound pretty good on their own, but they pale in comparison to the Big Three.

The Sonora Tonalic machines are well designed and have lovely cabinet work. The Tonalic reproducers are a not appropriately compliant, but quality accessory units like the Meltrope III, the Audak Polyphase Ultra, or even an Orthophonic or Panatrope sound box bushed to fit, will give you a truly fine sounding machine.

If you dislike the style of the Credenza,you might prefer one of Victor's 1928 models, say the 8-35 or the 8-9. These were redesigned entirely from scratch, and are fitted with the superior and more space-efficient metal horn. They are by far the best sounding of the American machines of this period.

I was going to respond with my own views, but Uncle V. said it best and I agree with absolutely all of it, (for what that's worth...). I have several Orthophonic models and a Cortez. Would love a large Viva-Tonal.

Currently restoring a Credenza that someone plopped an electric turntable inside of. Haven't had this much fun with a restoration in a long time. I love putting things back right!

I didn't really buy my 8-30 for its looks but for its performance. You have to listen to all of the different machines in order to make an informed decision. Post your location and perhaps someone who lives nearby and owns one or more of these other machines will invite you to come over and listen. Credenza/8-30s are much easier to find than Brunswicks and Columbias.
The equivalent Columbia model to a Credenza/8-30 is the 800/810. The 800 and 810 are the exact same cabinet and works but the 810 cabinet has some added artistic touches. The Columbia sounds good and has pretty good bass response, although I don't know why. They invented a Rube Goldberg sort of dual horn arrangement to get around the WE patents. Definitely not exponential. A big advantage to the Columbia is that the reproducers are all brass - no potmetal at all.
The equivalent Brunswick is the Cortez, which, to me, is the most visually pleasing of the three. Soundwise, I am in complete agreement with Uncle Vanya. It sounds different than a Victor, but every bit as good in its own way. The only potential problem with the Brunswick reproducer is that the shell is made of potmetal and I have seen them cracking at the needle bar pivots.
I also agree about the 8-35 and the 8-9 with their metal horns. The all metal horn gives superior high end response which gives excellent sound on records made from 1935 on.
Of those mentioned, I have owned a Credenza, an 8-35 and a Columbia 800. I also have a friend who had a Cortez, so I have heard them all. My personal order of preference would be: 1. Credenza/8-30; 2. 8-35; 3. Brunswick Cortez; 4. Columbia 800/810, however any one of them does a great job on electrically recorded records of the period.

Jim

phonojim wrote:I didn't really buy my 8-30 for its looks but for its performance. You have to listen to all of them in order to make an informed decision. Post your location and perhaps someone who lives nearby and owns one or more of these other machines will invite you to come over and listen. Credenza/8-30s are much easier to find than Brunswicks and Columbias.
The equivalent Columbia model to a Credenza/8-30 is the 800/810. The 800 and 810 are the exact same cabinet and works but the 810 cabinet has some added artistic touches. The Columbia sounds good and has pretty good bass response, although I don't know why. They invented a Rube Goldberg sort of dual horn arrangement to get around the WE patents. Definitely not exponential. A big advantage to the Columbia is that the reproducers are all brass - no potmetal at all.
The equivalent Brunswick is the Cortez, which, to me, is the most visually pleasing of the three. Soundwise, I am in complete agreement with Uncle Vanya. It sounds different than a Victor, but every bit as good. The only potential problem with the Brunswick reproducer is that the shell is made of potmetal which I have seen cracking at the needle bar pivots.
I also agree about the 8-35 and the 8-9 with their metal horns. The all metal horn gives superior high end response which gives excellent sound on records made from 1935 on.
Out of them, I have owned a Credenza, an 8-35 and a Columbia 800. I also have a friend who had a Cortez, so I have heard them all. My order of preference would be: 1. Credenza/8-30; 2. 8-35; 3. Brunswick Cortez; 4. Columbia 800/810, however any one of them does a great job on electrically recorded records of the period.

Jim

Jim,

Not all Cortez/Brunswick/Panatrope reproducers are pot metal. I have a couple of all brass examples. Regardless of brass or pot metal housings, the Brunswicks have the tendency for the aluminum diaphragm to corrode away from the steel ring in the center, (due to the dissimilar metals), allowing the needle arm to break away from the diaphragm. Watch out for that!

By the way, all Brunswick Panatrope reproducers have a brass front. Don't let that make you think it's a "brass reproducer". You want to see a brass housing.

I knew the 8-9 posted above looked familiar...it now lives with me!

Here are some better open & closed shots of my 2 Orthophonic machines. Definitely a departure from the Credenza look.

Jerry, I didn't know Brunswick made Brass Panatrope reproducers. I remember having one on a smaller machine, equivalent to a Victor Consolette, which had some cracking and distortion in the needle bar crosspin mounts. Thanks for mentioning the dissimilar problems with the diaphragm. I have seen that, too, but forgot to mention it.

BTW: did you ever get the T-shirt problem straightened out?

Jim

Uncle Vanya wrote:
The Panatrope machines do not have a folded horn. There upper range is scintillating,their mid-range is crisp and forward, but there bass response tends to be slightly defiecient. The Viva-Tonal machines have similar advantages and deficiencies, save for the largest models, the 800, 810 and 820. Though their horns seem to know naught of "Matched Impedance" theory the performance of the large machine is excellent.

I believe Columbia may have known that their smaller Viva Tonal machines were a bit weak in the bass- some of their records of the era are a bit bass heavy

Here is a link to my Columbia 800. I have had the 810 as well and each seem to have some points that are good. A pretty large and full sound on many records. I have been recording it for some time and the more recent ones. Like the past week or more have the original rebuilt reproducer on it which has a larger tone than the previous one I was using. If it were in a upstairs room which it isn't, I think the sound would be better as the large basement isn't very good at refection the sound in a positive way. They weight a ton however. Some day when I can I would like to restore the cabinet which is savable but in the basement my mom balks at the fumes in the house.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5ab1rFHu0

Larry