#2 reproducer can play any 78 easily.

[PeteLeoni]

*If* the proper gaskets are used such as *Walt Sommers' red closed foam gaskets,* and *if* you center the mica properly in said gaskets, *if* you get the tension springs adjustment correct on a properly shaped needle bar (corrected for a straight needle bent by past "dropped needle mishaps)

You *will* find that a #2 reproducer can play any 78 except of course plastic records that can't take the weight.

I've done 4 in total Victor #2 reproducers so far and the fact is as follows:
A Victor #2 reproducer in proper repair has *zero* issues with the dynamic range of newer electronically mastered and cut 78s. I am about to get some #4 brass units to redo. I will report, but I have been a recording engineer for a long long long (ugh) time and if there was a problem I *would* hear it. Much respect to Victor #2 reproducer engineers who were thinking far ahead. Fear not the #2 reproducer on any but plastic, which imo are not true "records of the era" anyway and need light tracking force. We ain't got dat here.

[Jim_Cannon]

I agree. That is my "go to" reproducer on my VV-XVII. I have a #4 for it, but I like the sound from the #2. The instrument originally came with an Exhibition, which I have rebuilt and it plays "ok", but the #2 sounds better. I only play acoustics on this machine, though. I have a Credenza for my electric records.

[PeteLeoni]

I should add...

I've done 4 Victor #2 reproducers so far and the fact is a #2 in proper repair has no zero with the dynamic range of newer electronically mastered and cut 78s. I am about to get some #4 brass units to redo. I will report, but I have been a recording engineer for a long long time if there was a problem I would hear it. Much respect to Victor #2 reproducer engineers who were thinking far ahead.

[PeteLeoni]

I agree. That is my "go to" reproducer on my VV-XVII. I have a #4 for it, but I like the sound from the #2. The instrument originally came with an Exhibition, which I have rebuilt and it plays "ok", but the #2 sounds better. I only play acoustics on this machine, though. I have a Credenza for my electric records.

Glad you see it. Funny how that works. The #4s are rarer I guess but the ones I have heard, which looked redone properly did not sound much better imo.

[JerryVan]

I agree. That is my "go to" reproducer on my VV-XVII. I have a #4 for it, but I like the sound from the #2. The instrument originally came with an Exhibition, which I have rebuilt and it plays "ok", but the #2 sounds better. I only play acoustics on this machine, though. I have a Credenza for my electric records.

Glad you see it. Funny how that works. The #4s are rarer I guess but the ones I have heard, which looked redone properly did not sound much better imo.

The #4 needle bars are supported by frictionless pivot pins that do not restrict movement as do the very rigid #2 suspension springs. That's got to sound better and be easier on records.

[PeteLeoni]

I am quite sure the #4s will sound better. I don't yet have any to play with. Some folks think (and I have been told that #2s will not play back newer 78s well) I have found that if you set them up right they will have enough headroom, but not if they aren't set up right. Looking forward to playing with #4s when they arrive.

[PeteLeoni]

Report on #4a vs #2
So far I've noted the #4 reproducer has marginally more bass than the #2 but I believe what most people were previously comparing the #4 with is a #2 that hasn't been restored properly.
There was a huge difference in the #2 when I replaced the rubber gaskets soft foam gaskets from Walt on the #2.

The foam made more difference than the difference between a #2 and #4a

I think the 4a is marginally better but neither seems to have a problem with unduly wearing these electronically recorded discs at all and neither distort or unduly compress the record, which to me would indicate it was wearing the record , energy has to go somewhere after all. #2 is very loud even with soft needles so I think that energy is not being lost in chiseling the shellac away.

[streetmechanic14]

Interesting to see a professional engineer endorse what my very un-professional ears have told me for years- that a properly-rebuilt Exhibition or Victrola No.2 does a fine job playing early electrically recorded records. Of course a Credenza does even better, but the claim often repeated, that listeners circa 1925 were unhappy with the new records might have to be taken with a grain of salt.

On a related note (kind of), it's always surprised me that any 1930's record collectors could be persuaded that their Credenzas were obsolete; Tommy Dorsey or Benny Goodman scroll Victors sound great to me played on a good Orthophonic. Changes seem to have been made around 1941 (equalization maybe?) to my ears making the later records inappropriate for acoustic playback- although I should mention that practically any record can be played on an Expert/EMG, but generally I play post-1940 stuff on modern equipment.

-Dave

[PeteLeoni]

I am not endorsing it as "HiFi" that's for sure! (-: , but for what it is and with those soft compliant gaskets at least they don't seem to constrain the movement of the needle much, which would be compressing adding undue distortion
and chiseling away the shellac. I think Walt Sommers must have put a great deal of thought into the compliance of that closed cell foam in those gaskets.Thats made the difference in those #2s, making them pretty equal to the others. (Or better possibly) I don't have an Exhibition here right now but it compares well with the 4a since the gasket change and careful rebuild.

[PeteLeoni]

Remember one thing before any of you take my advice or read my reviews or tips on anything. I am a condemned man who routinely uses WD-40 to clean his records, both shellac and vinyl, and furthermore I clean my spring in diesel. You have been warned.