Hi Jon ~ In addition to having the Orthophonic sound box (reproducer) in good condition, the other main factor for good fidelity in one of these Victrolas is that the air column should be relatively airtight from the reproducer diaphragm to the mouth of the "horn". Otherwise the sound will be weak and you'll lose the essential velocity of the air that the diaphragm pushes or vibrates. Like sipping a soft drink through a cracked straw, the content can't travel very far. Common areas for air leaks are the rubber gasket between the reproducer housing and the locating ring (this is a single piece that fits into the opening on the back of the reproducer, and reproductions are readily available); also at the slip joint on the tone arm which is connected by a metal threaded collar. It should be just loose enough to allow completely unrestricted movement of the elbow & reproducer. May require an easy disassembly, cleaning and lubrication, followed by careful adjustment before locking it with the set screw. Another area is where the tone arm support bracket bolts to the wood panel; if this hasn't been disturbed it should be fine but over 80 years these can have been monkeyed with. Not sure about the VV 4-3, but most have a cast-iron section under the wood platform and you want to make sure the bolts that connect it to the wood horn are nice and secure. The Orthophonic sound box is a pretty sophisticated assembly and has not been reproduced to the best of my knowledge. The cross bar is tapered, magnetized and set in ball bearings and the diaphragm/spider is also a highly engineered piece, both in terms of the specifications of the materials and various aspects of the design. On the whole, this isn't a simple thing to recreate as other reproducers are. If the potmetal is in decent shape (and there are many that have survived just fine), the most common need they have is to clean the ball bearings, cross bar and ball bearing races, replace missing bearings add new seals to retain the bearings (under the little side caps that have the concentric rings), and sometimes adjust the lock-screw that limits the movement of the diaphragm (if it has been messed with). Others on this list with more experience may have additional advice on the Orthophonic rebuild considerations. These are marvelous sounding instruments. I would avoid playing records made past the late '30s. On mine I pretty much limit the records I play on it to the 1925 - 1936 era. Much later than that the recording levels are too high to reproduce pleasantly and the records aren't as durable for steel-needle playback and that much mass. Better to obtain a high-grade early post WWII electric machine such as a high-end Stromberg-Carlson, E. H. Scott, some Magnavox and others with quality turntables combined with quality tube amplifiers. Best of luck on your acoustic experience quest. If you're anywhere near Santa Fe, NM, I have a friend here who has a beautiful example of one of these Orthophonic 4 series machines for sale. Andy Baron On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Jon Noring wrote: > Everyone, > > I'm not a collector of older phonographs, and know I'll never be one, > but I am interested in acquiring a spring-driven Victor Orthophonic > phonograph, probably the VV 4-3 (Consolette successor) with modernized > cabinet. It is my understanding a restorable VV 4-3 should not be hard > to find -- a lot of them were made (seems like 5 times as many as the > top-of-the-line Credenza/8-30 which is the "dream" machine among many > collectors -- Credenzas are amazing phonographs, having listened to a > couple in my life.) > > I'll use it to play non-collectible electrical 78s, mainly as a show > piece in the family room. It will also be a first step in studying > higher fidelity mechanical/acoustic playback systems which *does* > interest me... > > My impression is that the most critical component of an Orthophonic > for good audio performance is the sound box or reproducer, so I'd like > to get a more detailed understanding of the Orthophonic reproducer, > including its restorability. > > While I was visiting Jerry Blais in Oregon (again, thanks Jerry!) he > provided me a quick overview of the Orthophonic reproducer, and > mentioned that it came in two varieties: brass and pot metal. The pot > metal ones are much harder to restore and only a few people have > learned the knack to restore them, while the brass is easier to > restore. It does appear the brass ones were made for the earlier > models and are rarer and more sought after -- there may also be aural > differences between the two with, supposedly, the pot metal sounding > better. > > Anyway, that's my present understanding based on piecing together > snippets of information from a variety of sources... > > So, among the other Orthophonic experts here, what is the full scoop > regarding the reproducer, particularly with respect to the aural > differences vis-a-vis brass vs. pot metal, and restoration issues? > > And who are regarded as the top people providing Orthophonic > reproducer restoration service? > > I'm also curious to know if anyone has ever attempted to make a > reproduction Orthophonic reproducer out of brass or other more > durable metal, maybe using more modern materials for things like > rubber components (if it has any -- never seen one taken apart to > know what non-metal parts are inside!) I'm actually interested in > reproduction reproducers as part of my interest in mechanical/ > acoustic playback systems. Heck, if an Orthophonic reproduction > reproducer sounds as good as an original, I'd have no problem > using a reproduction reproducer for everyday use and put away the > original (if still working) for safekeeping... > > (If anyone here has studied the audio fidelity aspects of mechanical/ > acoustic playback, feel free to privately email me. I'm especially > interested in published research in the 1920's on "high fidelity" > acoustic reproduction.) > > Thanks! > > Jon Noring > > > (p.s., is the Orthophonic considered the epitomy of acoustic playback, > or did some other company make an acoustic playback phonograph during > the late 20's and 30's that supposedly had even better sound > reproduction?) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org