The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

In the 1920's there were three top phonograph manufacturers Victor Talking Machine, Edison and Brunswick Balke Collender Company. Of these three many collectors often debate quality of reproduction. My Grandfather and Great Grandfather's were repairman of the Edison and Victor machines. The reproduction quality depends on many variables good quality records in good condition! The machines must be properly serviced with lubricated and carefully adjusted parts. The reproducers must be repaired and restored with fresh gaskets, work on the diaphragms and any other worn parts. Lets look at the Edison "standard" reproducers and the Victor Exhibition and Victrola No. 2 soundboxes.

1. Have the Victor Exhibition or Victrola No. 2 soundbox cleaned, rebuilt with fresh gaskets, replace any
worn or broken tension springs and back flanges. If you have an Edison, have the reproducer rebuilt with
fresh gaskets, try to preserve the original diaphragm, it is like KFC there is a secret process that can
not be duplicated. There is no comparison to an original Edison diaphragm, replace any worn styluses.

2. Have the motors serviced with lubrication and proper adjustment.

Put on a clean record and carefully lower the stylus onto the record.


You will notice that between the two machines that a Edison Diamond Disc sounds more lifelike and richer in tone than a Victor

There are many that would say that it was Victor, Edison and Columbia as the top 3. Brunswick being 2nd tier.

The quality of reproduction is a combination of things. Edison had a superior recording process, as well as superior (for acoustic) reproduction.

Columbia was in the top tier because they sold so many machines and records. As far as the performance quality goes a Columbia Grafonola is about on the same level as Brunswick.

I'll second that. Edison, to my ears anyway, was superior as far as sound quality. Plus I think it was Columbia that really started the commercial ball rolling as far as sales were concerned, and price. And talking about sound quality, my newly found Pathé table-top machine is crisp, clear, and the loudest phonograph in my current collection. And I mean loud! Yet I would agree with Phototone to place Columbia in the top three over Brunswick. BK

Columbia made good to fine machines and records which steadily gained in quality. Their disc machines have one point of inferior design- a lack of tone arm bearings. Victor arms have ball bearings and pivot points and offer little side resistance to the groove and less record wear. With your average Grafonola the arm is a simple friction fit- if it's loose enough to allow free movement the sound leaks, if it's tight it increases the side resistance and increases groove wear. It's a shame, Columbia machines usually have superb motors and the more expensive ones have fine cabinets.

estott wrote:Columbia made good to fine machines and records which steadily gained in quality. Their disc machines have one point of inferior design- a lack of tone arm bearings. Victor arms have ball bearings and pivot points and offer little side resistance to the groove and less record wear. With your average Grafonola the arm is a simple friction fit- if it's loose enough to allow free movement the sound leaks, if it's tight it increases the side resistance and increases groove wear. It's a shame, Columbia machines usually have superb motors and the more expensive ones have fine cabinets.

Speaking of tonearm sound leaks, I recently discovered that Brunswick had the most innovative idea for an airtight seal (besides the Edison reproducer/horn assembly). Brunswick's Ultona phonograph patent described a reservoir in the tonearm base that the tonearm pivots on. The idea was to fill the reservoir with oil to form a liquid seal. I removed my tonearm to inspect, and sure enough, there is a concentric channel that the edge of the tone arm pivots within. After I do some other maintenance, I intend to try that liquid seal. How many in this forum knew about this feature?

I'll admit it, I never knew that. My Brunswick BR-260 is pretty loud as it is, but I'll have to check that out!

Sean

I agree on the quality of the Edison Diamond Disc. A good machine with a well tuned reproducer is a joy to listen to. The Brunswick, however, gets a bad rap, I think. I had a Brunswick console that played with a warm mellow tone (probably due in part to the composition horn), plenty of volume, and the Diamond Disc side of the reproducer played great. Also, most Brunswick motors I have heard run absolutely silently. They must have had a superior lubricant.

I agree, John....my BR-260 sounds fantastic. I rebuilt the Ultona in it and it's a really pleasant "player" and not too bad of a looker too!

Sean

Speaking of tonearm sound leaks, I recently discovered that Brunswick had the most innovative idea for an airtight seal (besides the Edison reproducer/horn assembly). Brunswick's Ultona phonograph patent described a reservoir in the tonearm base that the tonearm pivots on. The idea was to fill the reservoir with oil to form a liquid seal. I removed my tonearm to inspect, and sure enough, there is a concentric channel that the edge of the tone arm pivots within. After I do some other maintenance, I intend to try that liquid seal. How many in this forum knew about this feature?[/quote]

Doesn't seem that this idea made it to the owner's manual (AFAIK). Wonder if it might work on a Victrola?