The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

[youtubehq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=806Y7Cbcoc8[/youtubehq]

Pretty interesting - and clever - video, what do you think?

I actually have very little experiences on the soundboxes made before 1925, and the only Mica-based soundbox I have is the HMV No.4 soundbox from early 1950s. I used to have an "Electrola" Soundbox, which is what I think a German copy of No.4. I actually have a Columbia mica soundbox, but the diaphragm is totally shattered into pieces so I can't use it.

The Best Soundbox I have ever dealt with - in my humble opinion - was HMV No.5B, as I can play anything I have - from 7-inch G&Ts to The Beatles 78s - without too much trouble. I have 3 Black Victor Orthophonic soundboxes (Japanese made), 2 Columbia Soundboxes in a perfect condition, and some handmade ones, but none of them sounds that good compared with No.5B.

Very interesting video. I agree with most of the youtube posters. The Orthophonic sound box pumps out a nice full tone, in comparison with the #2, which is somewhat harsh on some notes. Still, it does give the record a nice, "old fashioned" tone.

To really hear a difference, though, you'd have to try it out using an Orthophonic Victrola. Even the lowly Consolette pumps out an amazing sound in comparison to any standard Victrola that came before it. Oddly, the horn of the Consolette does not look all that different from the earlier Victrola type horn, at first glance; but the constant (exponential) taper--from the small end of the tone arm, to the mouth of the horn--makes a world of difference.

One experiment I did, when I owned my Consolette about 20 years ago, was to try out a refurbished #2 sound box on the tonearm, using an adapter made out of a small rubber hose. The difference in sound quality--from what it sounded like on a (pre-Orthophonic) Victrola--was amazing. I tried out several Paul Whiteman acoustic fox trots, and they sounded more like electric than acoustic recordings. I also tried out an early electrical version of "Tales from the Vienna Woods," and while the mid-range was not as full as it sounded with the Orthophonic sound box, the upper range sparkled.

Interestingly, I've found that the Orthophonic sound box performs better than the HMV 5a/b, at least on my VV-4-40, which is fitted with a small, re-entrant (four chamber) horn. I once compared an expertly refurbished 5b with my more or less as-found Orthophonic sound box. (I remounted the hardened back rubber flange in silicone caulk, and re-did the ball bearings, and put a few drops of "goo-gone" around the edge of the diaphragm to swell the gaskets, but that's about it.) While the range of either sound box was about the same, the Orthophonic sound box pumped out slightly more volume. In addition, unlike the 5b, where the sound seemed to be concentrated at the mouth of the horn, with the Orthophonic sound box, the sound spread out across the room. The bass notes also had more "sonic punch."

One of these years, when I have a few dollars to spend on the hobby, I want to acquire a couple of spare sound boxes, just for experiments sake. One thing I've always wanted to try is mounting an aluminum diaphragm, suspended in ultra soft gaskets--such as silicone caulk--into the shell of a #2 sound box. I'd also try out different designs for the fulcrum springs--curved, flat, etc.--to get the pivot as compliant as possible. I'm wondering if I wouldn't end up with a poor man's version of an EMG/Ginn sound box.

Ortho_Fan wrote:Interestingly, I've found that the Orthophonic sound box performs better than the HMV 5a/b, at least on my VV-4-40, which is fitted with a small, re-entrant (four chamber) horn. I once compared an expertly refurbished 5b with my more or less as-found Orthophonic sound box. (I remounted the hardened back rubber flange in silicone caulk, and re-did the ball bearings, and put a few drops of "goo-gone" around the edge of the diaphragm to swell the gaskets, but that's about it.) While the range of either sound box was about the same, the Orthophonic sound box pumped out slightly more volume. In addition, unlike the 5b, where the sound seemed to be concentrated at the mouth of the horn, with the Orthophonic sound box, the sound spread out across the room. The bass notes also had more "sonic punch."

Last Thursday, I had to pick up a bunch of 65 note rolls for my Aeolian, and got my very first opportunity to here the Victor Ortho in action. It was a 10-50, and in the same massive room, the gentleman has a 202 Re-entrant. This was a bit of a dream come true for me, as I've always wanted to compare the 2 machines.
Both my partner & I agreed, that both machines sounded the same except the 202 had slightly more volume. This is really the opposite to what I've heard other collectors say, so my guess is that the added volume from the 202 was purely because of it's larger horn. The 202 was even in a less than ideal position, being hemmed in by various other machine.
I'm going to spend the day there to do some record listening, hopefully in late November when the owner returns from a trip abroad, and I intend on asking if we can do some experimenting & swapping of the soundboxes on the 2 machines. I do get the feeling the Victor will be the better soundbox though, and that the 5a only sounded as good but slightly louder because of the larger horn.
If what I expect and have heard is true, I may even be after a Victor Ortho box myself to upgrade the 202 after xmas

Hey Shane,

You finally got to hear a 10-50!! Yay!!!

Now you know I wasn't crazy all those years I've been saying a 202 and 10-50 should sound similar.

Seriously, the sound on a 10-50 that's had the horn and all the joints properly sealed is a very loud and nice sounding machine. It's a shame that even with YouTube it's just not easy to get across how nice any of these machines can sound.

And my $.02 on the ortho vs. HMV soundboxes, well, the HMV 5A and 5B used felt gaskets, which would make the seals just slightly not airtight, no? Wouldn't this explain why they have a softer sound? It always seemed that way to me. I must say I like the HMV 5A very much for playing UK HMV discs with a half tone needle, it acts as it's own crackle filter for those crackly HMV pressings. If I'm playing Victor Orthophonics, I always opt for a US orthophonic reproducer, they are certainly louder.

Sean

I must have missed your post Sean.
I never thought you were crazy. I also thought both machines would sound similar given the horn sizes, but with the 202s added volume & it's ability to play even rocknroll records without distortion, I still believe (along with many others)the 202/203 is the best internal horn machine ever made.

I completed restoring the HMV 5A box I got on ebay, I can't really tell much difference between it and the bunch of Victor 5As and 5Bs I rebuilt (playing on my 10-50.) Since I wasn't crazy about it having a felt seal, I just put a couple of drops of fine oil into the felt before reassembling it, to keep me from worrying so much about the felt not keeping as perfect a seal : ) Perhaps it has a bit stronger bass than the Victors, probably just my imagination though. Pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell which of these boxes were in my machine with my eyes closed, they all sound great to me.

Maybe if I was still 20 instead of 50, and hadn't been listening to death metal for the last 20 years I could be a better judge. Come to think of it, in another 20 years and if I'm still breathing, the frequency range of my ears will probably match up pretty good with a Victor #2's output chart!

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Does the orthphonic fit naturally or did you need to make some sort of adjustment?

Small mica vs. large aluminum diaphragm utilizing its full diameter to really move the air behind it = no contest.

Interesting video. I used to have the Victor VV-IX with the No.2 soundbox/tapered arm, and watching that reminds me of why I was never really satisfied with the sound of it, which was always a bit wiry, like the one on the video. Instead of selling the machine like I eventually did, an Ortho soundbox would have been a worthy purchase, if I would have known then what a difference it could make! Even on that humble machine.

If you're replying to my post, on my 10-50 it normally takes an orthophonic #5 but the HMV #5 also fit, after I installed a new rubber ortho (#5) flange rubber in it. I've goofed around with trying my #2 and #4 on this machine too, just to compare the response. These also required swapping out the flange for the #5 size. Pretty sure any of the Victor boxes except maybe the Exhibition will fit either an ortho or pre-ortho tonearm as long as you have the corresponding flange rubber installed in the soundbox, which is held in with two screws. The HMV had an old rubber which had a big protruding lip around it that wouldn't allow me to fit it onto my Victor tonearm, but installing a new rubber fixed that. Pretty sure there are adapters that let you use a box on either type tonearm, so that you don't have to swap out the flange ring every time.

The HMV No.5, 5a, 5b & 16 should all fit straight onto a Victor arm designed for an ortho soundbox, without changing the flange at all. Not sure why yours wouldn't.
You should only need to reduce the size of the hole in the flange if you wanted to fit it to an earlier gooseneck arm designed for an Exhibition or no.2.