Custom Players?

[Nat]

I realize that virtually everyone here is involved in collecting and restoring authentic old machines, as am I (at a lesser degree!). But has anyone done any work designing a better machine - perhaps a sort of "angelic Frankenphone?" Perhaps something like the machine that Nimbus built for their re-recordings? http://www.wyastone.co.uk/nrl/pv_transfer.html

I play my acoustics on a VVIX and my electrics on a Credenza. The former sound awful - muffled - in the Credenza, so I have been wondering if the re-entry horn would sound better with acoustics if I built an adapter to play them on the Credenza with say, a Number 2? Or perhaps try the same experiment with my 255? Or how would they sound on a 190 or a 260?

Or start from scratch and build a whole new instrument with various parts - NOT pretending that it's anything original.

Thoughts?

[JohnM]

The re-entrant horn in and of itself does not make any record sound better. It is part of an electro-mechanical equation that consists of a number of factors beginning with the electrical recording process and the resultant recording on one side of the equals sign and the phonograph and it's component parts on the other side. These components include the reproducer (actually a lever-action transformer for purposes of the equation) and it's sub-values that include the ratio of the distance from the needle tip to the pivot bearings of the stylus bar, and from the pivot bearings to the center of the diaphragm. The distance that the record groove on one side of the pivot flexes the diaphragm on the other side of the pivot is calculated to move a column of air with the exact displacement of what the re-entrant horn contains. Also, the horn is expanding at the proper mathematical rate to process that column of air. Adapting a No.2 soundbox to fit on an exponential re-entrant horn is a mis-match that doesn't take advantage of the desirable and intended acoustical characteristics of either the soundbox or the horn.

[Nat]

I can hear that, and I do take your point - My real question was more wondering if anyone has messed with a souped-up machine, larger horns, etc. for acoustic recordings? It shouldn't be too hard, given that Victor, etc. were constrained by case size and the need to fit into rooms.

Thanks for the post - I always learn!

[OrthoFan]

Hand-built, more or less customized, record players, with long exponential horns, and hand-tuned sound boxes, were popular in the UK from the mid-1920s, into the early 1940s. The gramophone produced for the Nimbus recordings, in fact, was patterned after one of the best models, the EMG Expert.

... another one, painted white:

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


Many consider this to be the ultimate acoustic gramophone for playing both acoustic as well as electrically recorded records--depending on how the sound box is adjusted.

There were many variations on this design, for instance --


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF22AS3Fv0Q[/youtube]

(While it sounds very nice, judging from the video, it's rather a clunky arrangement. I'd probably break the horn trying to connect it to the cabinet. )



As for swapping sound boxes to get the most out of various types of records, I used to do that when I owned my Credenza. While, as John notes, it was a mismatch from the standpoint of the machine's overall design and performance specs, I found that a #2 sound box, connected to the tonearm using a simple rubber adapter, worked very well on most acoustic era records--not all. For electric era records -- those meant to be played on acoustic phonographs -- the Orthophonic sound box was the best.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

Fiddling with an acoustic player for the best sound is half the fun and a time honoured tradition . The English especially in the 1920's experimented like the audiophiles in the 1960's . The Gramophone Magazine was full of ads for custom soundboxes made to fit either an HMV tone arm ( which was like a Victor) or a Columbia . The soundbox on that Cascade in the video is in fact one of them : the Meltrope, but there were lots of others.
The Gramophone Magazine people sold a few accessories of their own. I'll attach a scan of two of them: the Lifebelt and their weight adjuster. The Lifebelt was a piece of rubber hose that connected the soundbox to the tone arm. It added more compliance to the system thereby improving bass response and cutting surface noise without reducing the treble. They pushed it as a wonderful little accessory. And damned if it doesn't do just what they claimed! How do I know you ask? Because I made one and you can see it on my trusty Victor III. So you can see I like to experiment: different soundboxes...different needles...making fibre needles from bamboo skewers...great fun and a great way for a small businessman like myself to avoid doing something useful like bookeeping .
Speaking of building a machine from scratch, I have an article in on old Talking Machine Review International: that collector's journal from the 70's in which the author describes doing just that..making his own version of a properly designed acoustic machine with a huge horn. I'll see if I can find it later. And speaking of the Nimbus machine, I've never been particularly impressed with the sound they get, but maybe I've never found the best reissue.

Jim

[OrthoFan]

Hi Jim:

I've seen the ads for the Lifebelt, and had wondered how well they would actually work. I guess I'll have to hunt down some rubber hose.

BTW, I'm sure you already know this--but in case anyone else is interested--the entire archive from 1920, onward, of the Gramophone magazine is available online -- http://www.gramophone.net/ You have to be a member to download the individual files in PDF format, but it's relatively simple to join.

As for the Cascade, I wasn't going to mention this, but 23 years ago I tried making an exponential type horn extension for a Consolette I owed that was missing its grille. I created a roughly exponential horn that measured about five feet in length out of chicken wire covered with paper-maché, and shoved the small end into the horn's mouth until it stuck into the cast-iron portion. I think I used a small table to brace the mouth end of the horn which kept it from slipping.

It actually sounded very good. For the first time, I heard true bass coming out of the little machine--about on par with the Credenza, though not as loud. Unfortunately, the paper-maché did not hold up very well and the horn began to crack and crumble after a few hours, so I gave up on the idea.

[spin78's]

The Credenza horn sounds pretty good but I often wonder about its design. Seems to be a lot of wasted space in there to me. If the lenth of the horn really matters, why is there only 6' of horn in a cabinet the size of a tuba?

Here is a video of a No.2 piped (literally) into a Credenza horn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-j2Kj35OoE

I've been using foam rubber gaskets for my No.2 rebuilds with amazing results. Not quite as good as a No.5 soundbox....but pretty close.

[OrthoFan]

The Credenza horn sounds pretty good but I often wonder about its design. Seems to be a lot of wasted space in there to me. If the lenth of the horn really matters, why is there only 6' of horn in a cabinet the size of a tuba?

Actually, the six foot Orthophonic horn represents one of the most efficient uses of cabinet space, considering the expansion rate/taper, length and mouth area required for the tone chamber to match and maximize the performance characteristics of the sound box. Every component of the sound box--the size of the movable area of it's diaphragm, the diaphragm's flexibility, the length of the needle-bar and it's allowable movement, etc.--was, in turn, designed specifically to match the acoustic characteristics/output of the (electrically recorded) records. The ultimate goal of the designers was to reproduce as much of the range of the newly introduced electrically recorded records, as possible, without adding distortion, or sacrificing one end of the audio spectrum for another--i.e., emphasizing bass over mid-range or treble.

If it were stretched out, a Credenza sized horn would be very similar in shape to the horn designed by EMG, Nimbus, etc. --a gradual expansion throughout most of the horn's chamber, culminating in a very large area for the mouth--which alone, would take up most of the cabinet's space. Along this line, adding length to the Credenza horn would mandate expanding the already large size of the horn's mouth (as well as reconfiguring the expansion rate) to preserve the exponential shape, and match the characteristics of the sound box.

A good example is the VV-10-50, which is equipped with an Orthophonic horn approximately 7.5 feet in length. The horn's mouth is considerably larger than that of the Credenza, even though there is only a relatively small difference in length.