I must take exception to Anthony Sinclair's opinion that the Columbia
800 series of large Viva-Tonal machines are better than the big Victors. I
don't have the instrumentation yet to back up my observations, but I have
done considerable experimentation with my 810 and comparing it to my
Credenza, 10-50, 9-40, and 10-35, all of which have the large horns. I have
made adapters which allow me to mount the Columbia #15 (Viva-Tonal)
reproducer to the Victor tonearm as well as mounting the Victor ortho
reproducer to the Columbia tonearm. The Columbia 800 horns are not as
accurately curved as the Victors and do not fully represent the proper
exponential taper. They are piecewise linear-curved rather than having
smooth curves in many places, for example. Consequently, they lack both the
lowest bass and, more particularly, the highest treble that you get from the
Victor horns. Lacking the treble gives the first impression that the
Columbia horn has better low end. It doesn't. It just seems that way
because it has such poor treble response. It also isn't quite as efficient
and so doesn't play as loudly as the Victor design. That said, the smallest
Viva-Tonal (600 series) horns are virtually identical to the Victors and
sound just about the same - very good for their size. I can't speak to the
performance of the middle (700) series of Columbias because I've never had
the opportunity to play with one.
The Columbia #15 reproducer is no match for the Victor ortho, either.
The Columbia has a much stiffer diaphragm which produces a considerably
lower compliance and which requires a higher tracking force to avoid
mistracking. The #15 is heavier and plays with a slightly heavier force
(140 grams) than the Victor (135g). There is very little attempt to
optimize the compression volume space in the #15 whereas Victor apparently
realized that the design of this space is important. This is the space
behind the diaphragm and before the outlet of the throat. In face, the
later Victors included the "phasing plug" in the throat to further improve
the compression air flow which has the effect of slightly flattening the
midrange peak in the frequency response. Not a big difference, but it is in
the right direction. The phasing plug technology is now commonly used in
all modern compression horn drivers. The net result is that the #15 has
less bass and poorer tracking ability (due to low compliance yet a high
resonance), while still not producing as good treble (due to the higher mass
of the diaphragm) compared with the Victor.
By the way, I strongly recommend that you use "soft-tone" needles for
ALL your acoustic playback. The reason is that these thin needles flex
considerably during play which increases the compliance of the system at the
needle tip which results in less mistracking and consequently less wear of
the record groove. You still get very good, plenty loud playback
performance with less record wear.
Greg Bogantz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Medved" <steve_noreen at msn.com>
To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Some questions about Orthophonic
reproducers--restorability, reproductions
Anthony has a late Columbia viva tonal and in his sound chamber it had
better performance than the credenza, he is not on this list but I could
check and see if I have the article he wrote.
Steve
> From: Bruce78rpm at comcast.net> To: phono-l at oldcrank.org> Subject: Re:
> [Phono-L] Some questions about Orthophonic reproducers --restorability,
> reproductions> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:16:40 -0500> > There were several
> other Companies that produced so called "orthophonic era" > type
> "acoustic" phonographs designed to complete with the Victor > Othophonics,
> including Columbia Viva-Tonals, and the Brunswick Panatropes. I > believe
> Pathe even got into the fray as well. In addition to having an > early two
> door Victor Credenza with a brass reproducer and folded > exponential
> horn. I was also fortunate to find about 10 years ago, a > Brunswick Model
> 15-8 acoustic, Exponential Type Panatrope Phonograph. > Although this
> machine does not have a variation of the folded horn found in > the Victor
> orthophonics, it does have an excellent advanced reproducer, as > well as
> an unusually long "double gooseneck" tone arm. The horn is the > typical
> Brunswick "Spruce" horn, found in earlier Brunswicks. Despite this, > I
> can say without hesitation, that the overall sound projection and tonal >
> quality, of a mid to late twenties electrically produced record coming
> from > that machine is truly impressive. Maybe someone who is lucky enough
> to own > one of the Columbia Viva-tonal late twenties phonographs could
> chime in with > a comment as well. .----- Original Message ----- > From:
> "Jon Noring" <jon at noring.name>> To: <phono-l at oldcrank.org>> Sent:
> Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:43 AM> Subject: [Phono-L] Some questions
> about Orthophonic > reproducers --restorability, reproductions> > > >
> (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> >> >> > -- > > No virus found in this
> incoming message.> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.> > Version: 7.5.516 /
> Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: > > 1/30/2008 9:29 AM> > >
> > _______________________________________________> Phono-L mailing list>
> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org_______________________________________________
Phono-L mailing list
http://phono-l.oldcrank.org