Phonoland

Hey guys and gals! I have a question that I haven't been able to thoroughly Google to my satisfaction. I recently found a 19(16?) Victor Victrola VV-XI at a garage sale for 40 bucks. It didn't have a soundbox at all, but I managed to get a refurbished no 2 reproducer from an antique store in Pennsylvania. I also bought a huge stack of 78s ranging from 1915 classical music to 1940's and 1950's Opera and Showtunes. I know that the 78's from the teens through 1925 are acoustic records, and okay to play with the no 2 Reproducer, and that anything after 1925 would sound best on an orthophonic victrola, and records from the 30's and up shouldn't be played on a Victrola at all as the needles and heavy tone arms will wear them out eventually. But I have been reading about this rarer no 4 reproducer. Sources seem to say that this transitional reproducer works both on the acoustic records and the later electrical pickup records. My question is, if I found and used one of these reproducers will the later 78's lose their tinny high tones and sound better on my older machine? Will the tonearm be safer to play a 78's from say 1950 than the no 2? I got my stack of records super cheap, so eventual ruination isnt really a concern to me, but I would love to play them on my machine if a no 4 would make them sound good. Does anyone have a no 2 and a no 4 that can give me a comparison?

The No.4 is a far better box than either the No.2 or Exhibition. It has a bigger diaphragm, better needle bar pivots, and was designed for the early electric recordings, and sound wise fares very well with even the late 50's RnR recordings. These records will however still wear from a steel needle, but because of the better design they will wear slower than with an earlier box. Using soft or medium tone needles will also help prolong the life of later discs.
The main problem will be finding a Victor No.4 in usable condition. These were made at a time when the pot metal they used was very low quality, so most turn up with cracks in the casing that cant be repaired. Good ones are pretty highly sort after, so the price reflects this.
You can however get an HMV No.4, which was exactly the same, but they were made in UK & all but the very late ones were made of solid brass, so they will last several lifetimes. They are plentiful in UK, so they are not all that expensive, even when adding postage.

Hey awesome possum! So went ahead and bought a no 4 reproducer made of nickle, which seems not to be fraught with the evil *cue the ominous music* 'pot metal'. Another question, though -- The Orthophonic victrolas, are they orthophonic because of the soundboxes and their internal horn configuration? What would happen if I put an orthophonic soundbox on my 1916 VV-XI tonearm? Or could I get a tonearm from an orthophonic victrola with appropriate sound box and install it on a VV-XI? Has anyone else ever tried this?

lithic_leo wrote: The Orthophonic victrolas, are they orthophonic because of the soundboxes and their internal horn configuration? What would happen if I put an orthophonic soundbox on my 1916 VV-XI tonearm? Or could I get a tonearm from an orthophonic victrola with appropriate sound box and install it on a VV-XI? Has anyone else ever tried this?

The Orthophonic Victrola was designed as a system, and all parts were designed specifically to work together -- the sound box, tonearm and horn. Actually, the tonearm and horn were considered "one unit," in that there was a constant exponential taper from the opening of the tonearm to the mouth of the horn. In order to work properly, the system was designed to be as air tight as possible.

The opening of the Orthophonic sound box's throat is larger than that of the pre-Orthophonic models, so you'd need an adapter to fit it onto the tonearm.

Many years ago, using a homemade adapter, I tried out an Orthophonic sound box on the tonearm of a VV-80 and was not impressed. (The VV-80 was about the same size as the VV-XI.) While louder than the #2 sound box, it had a tendency to blast. The #4 sound box on the same tonearm sounded much better--but still no match for the Orthophonic tone chamber of even the smallest cabinet model, the Consolette (4-3), which has a small, albeit true exponential style horn.

Installing an Orthophonic tonearm & sound box onto a VV-XI would mandate drilling new holes, and making other modifications in order to get it to fit properly. While the tonearm portion would be correct for electrical records, you'd still be left with the earlier, improperly designed horn which adds resonance, etc. to the sound quality.

You're best bet might be to hunt down one of the smaller Orthophonic models such as the 4-3, 4-7 or 4-20. While no match for the Credenza, in terms of bass output, they provide a room-filling full sound, and are a tremendous improvement over any of the earlier models for playing electrically recorded records.

Another option, believe it or not, is the 2-55 portable, which has an amazing performance for it's size--more like a small electrically amplified phonograph. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSx0jpWtk6A

And, while harder to find in the US, many argue that the HMV 102, which was produced until the late 1950s, is better still.

Thanks everyone for the incredibly good information! One more question -- I've been reading about needles made from fiber/bamboo/cactus needles etc. Apparently there was a special cutting tool made for the Victrola back in the day, and bamboo needles that could be recut after each play. Has anyone at the forum used fiber needles with the cutting tool? How does a fiber needle sound vs a soft tone steel needle? Does anyone know of a source of bamboo needles on the internet? It seems that would be the untimate way to preserve later 78s that arn't necessarily supposed to be played on a vintage machine. Any thoughts?

There were a number of fiber (triangular bamboo) needle cutters on the market, and they come up for sale from time to time on eBay. Not sure what the going price range is now.

There's a description/illustration of one of the more complicated ones on this page -- http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... f=2&t=1132

The cutters were fitted with razor-like blades to slice the needle at a sharp angle. You could also do the same thing using a razor blade--the type used in box cutter knives. This page does a good job explaining how to make your own fiber needles -- http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/talkingmac ... eedle.html

In order for a fiber needle to work properly--play an entire side of a record--the sound box has to be in good condition. Fresh, soft gaskets (holding the mica diaphragm in place) should be installed in place of the original hardened gaskets. In addition, the back rubber flange of the sound box should also be replaced with a new soft insert. (Actually, a sound box should be restored with fresh gaskets prior to playing any record with ANY type of needle.) Also, the record, itself, has to be in good condition or the needle will wear very quickly.

In terms of overall volume, a fiber needle sounds very much like a soft tone needle, though more mellow, with less surface noise.

Joe_DS and TripleSpring -- Thank you both so much for the awesome information!

Yet another question for anyone with more experience than I (which would truly be anyone). I have a few 78s now that are actually from the 20s. They sound pretty good as they are, but I would love to give them a thorough (safe!) cleaning. I have read about using a very thin soap and water scrubbing, then letting them dry for a good 24 hours. I have also been reading about people who have used WD-40 on them, and there seems to be a massive difference of opinion on how safe this is. Can anyone give me advise on this? Is there another cleaning solution that is just as effective or more so?

Not knowing anything about cleaning the records, I would think that WD is one of the worst things one could do to ANY record ! I would think that WD would at least damage any label it contacted--let alone what it may do to the record itself. Ron Rich

I tried WD-40 on a few 78s, years ago, and if memory serves me right, there was some degradation of the surface. Since the shellac based compounds varied from manufacturer to manufacturer, as well as over time, I'd say your best bet is to use the method most collectors I've known have used --

First, brush the record's surface using a very soft bristle brush (actually, a baby hair brush, available at most well stocked drug stores, baby goods stores, etc.)

Second, put a few drops of dish detergent onto a damp rag or sponge, work up to a lather, and wipe the groove gently, in the direction of the groove--not across the groove.

Third, rinse the record under the tap, using lukewarm to cold water--NEVER HOT! (Avoid getting the label wet.)

Fourth, pat the record dry and then set it on its edge to dry completely, overnight.

After the record has been washed, all you'll need to do is brush or wipe it from time to time to remove surface dust.

This method applies ONLY to shellac based records. Cleaning Edison Diamond Disc records is a totally different process. (Water will harm these.) Along this line, avoid getting the later, laminated Columbia records too wet. Probably a lightly damp rag or sponge, and final wipe down, is all that is needed.

HTH,
JDS

Hello,

I confer with Joe_DS, that the luke warm soapy water is the best method, I never done this on 78's but LP's and 45's I have had no problems at all.

Regards
Alan

Alan Hood
ami-man
UK