[78-L] Acoustic gramophones sound comparisons, and experiment proposal.

[Dave Burnham]

That's a good suggestion!  I've been dissatisfied with the thin sound of my credenza compared to others I've heard; I've even had Sean Miller around to look at it and he worked extensively on it and made some improvement, but it's still not as good as others. I saw one in Jacksonville FL which sounded glorious but it was an electric motor version with a 25 Hz motor which had no torque whatsoever. 

One thing to keep in mind, these machines were designed to play electrical recordings, not acoustics. 

d

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Inigo Cubillo <ice261263 at gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just finished reading of R. J. Wakeman book on Brunswick. Very nice.
> 
> I believe it was there where I read that the sound of the big acoustic
> Brunswick gramophones with the conical spruce wood internal horn was of
> surprising quality, and even a comparison with Credenza was rated at an
> overall 90% sound quality of the Brunswick against the Credenza.
> 
> In other places, even Youtube videos, I've read about comparisons between
> the big exponential Viva-Tonal Columbia gramophones and the Credenza, and
> some experiments done interchanging the Columbia no.15 soundbox and the
> Orthophonic, playing on either machines. Also results were that Columbia
> sound was good, but not as good as the Credenza.
> 
> In older e-mails at 78-L, years ago I raised again the question of
> comparison, this time between the huge reentrant HMV models. My question
> was about the sound difference between the 193/194 (second model in the HMV
> range) and the biggest 202/203. Someone told that the difference was the
> same as between the third size (163) and the second (193/194).
> 
> This raises again the question. Any colleague collector has carried on such
> tests and can comment about sound differences? I'm mainly interested in
> qualitative comparisons between the sound volume and overall quality of
> sound between different brands. Kinda of "louder and mellower" or "more
> brilliant", etc. Also comparisons between soundboxes (HMV/Orthophonic, HMV
> 5A and 5B, Viva-Tonal, or Brunswick metal diaphragm soundboxes).
> 
> I also have my own opinions, of course, about tests done --audibly
> only, without any testing apparatus. I own ---and have listened to for
> years--- HMV portables 101 and 102, a 127 tabletop model, and the second
> size reentrant console 194. I also own a british Columbia 113 (the huge
> portable model, equal to the american 163) with the no.15 soundbox. Also
> owned ---not now--- a late spanish Columbia portable model wich was a copy
> of a Paillard, with a Paillard soundbox. also own a no.17 Thorens soundbox,
> same principle as the Paillard. I've been doing comparisons between the HMV
> soundboxes nos. 4 (mica), 5A (aluminium diaphragm as the Orthophonic, with
> tangential creases in the diaphragm outer edge) and 5B (radial creases).
> Also did comparisons exchanging soundboxes between them.
> 
> I would like to sustain a conversation/discussion with others that have
> done such comparisons, and exchange opinions and knowledge. I've never
> listened to a Credenza with wooden horn, nor a Viva-Tonal console or a
> Brunswick one, except in YouTube videos!. Dunno anything about them "in the
> flesh".
> 
> I'd also like to know if any collector colleague has ever compared the
> wooden horned Credenza with the HMV reentrants (terne plate horn). I
> suspect that the HMV horns, although being stiffened at some points, with
> double-plates and internal posts, must have a stronger resonance than a
> Credenza, if only for the difference of the latter having a wooden horn
> mouth.
> 
> Mad plans have raised on my mind: What if we fill the HMV console with fine
> sand, from the bottom to just over the horn upper plates under the motor?.
> I think it can be done, and I'm almost sure that the sound quality would
> certainly improve, for the sand would kill all resonances of the big
> external horn plates. The sand would fill competely the internal cabinet
> space between the horn and the walls. The 194 cabinet is more or less
> airtight, and no holes exist except two or four 1/3" holes at the cabinet
> floor. These can be temporarily closed, and used for sand removal when
> needed. The horn mouth is screwed to the cabinet front behind the grille
> screen, and no sand could either escape by the cabinet front. The upper
> part of the sand infill could be sealed by means of a plastic sheet or
> whatever, just to protect the motor from the sand dust.
> 
> Main drawback... the weight of the cabinet would greatly increase... robust
> casters must be placed on the legs, or the gramophone previously installed
> over a wheeled platform before performing the experiment.
> 
> Someone has ever performed such an experiment?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Inigo Cubillo
> Madrid, SPAIN
> ​​
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l