It's 1970 and Columbia Records is beginning to feel the pressure

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

"How many CD players have you seen recently."

They are still being made. But for most of the market, they have become irrelevant. I see cheap CD portables (days numbered, I imagine, by MP3 players...although I think I still portable cassette players).

The high performance end of the market still has CD players, but even some companies I'd once never imagine in the DVD player business are making them now. Rega in England makes CD players, but does not list ANY DVD player. But that's not surprising. Their first love is turntables--which they still make--and only started making CD players a little more than ten years ago. Their home page says:

"The early bird catches the worm." (Proverb)
"The second mouse gets the cheese." (fact)
Rega
The last major hi-fi manufacturer to produce a CD player.

Here's a link to Rega's cheapest CD player. Even though it's their cheapest, it still costs a lot more than most people would ever think of spending...on an entire system. (The top of this page has links to two even more expensive. The Saturn is the next up. The Isis is the best.)

 
LordKenmore... yes the different types of needles were a sim

Victor (and other manufacturers) made soft tone, loud tone and extra loud tone needles. You just used the proper needle for the desired effect.

A properly restored Victrola, especially the ones from the Orthophonic era (1925-circa 1930) can sound amazingly great when playing clean, unworn Victor records from the same era. I have Victor's first automatic Victrola, which was introduced in 1927 - "It changes its own records!!" read the ads - and it sounds fantastic. It has an electric motor but the sound reproduction is all accoustic. The key is an improved "sound box" (pickup head) and a huge horn (the equivlant of an 8 foot straight horn) that was folded in the cabinet. That, coupled with the first electrically recorded discs, improved the sound.

The technology behind all this was developed by Western Electric at Bell Labs and was offered exclusivly to the Victor company in 1924. A bit of ego and procrastination on the part of the Victor execs lead to the technology being jointly licensed by the Victor Company and the Columbia Phonograph Company.

Once the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) aquired the Victor Company in 1929, the accoustic methods of reproduction fell in favor to all electric systems using cone speakers.

The book "Look for the Dog" offers a great history of the Victor Company as well as data and photos of the product line until 1929.
 
I inherited some 1920s records from my grandfather, and the difference between the acoustical and electrical recordings is like night and day. That has to have been the single biggest advance in recording history.

There's a Columbia "Viva-tonal" record of Efrem Zimbalist, Sr., (a renowned violinist, father of the TV star of the same name) that still sounds remarkably good, apart from the surface hiss. They seem to have captured practically all of the audible frequencies, although Decca's hi-fi was still a couple of decades away.

Thanks for all of the info in this thread. You guys are a treasure trove of information.
 
"They seem to have captured practically all of the audible frequencies, although Decca's hi-fi was still a couple of decades away."

I have heard it said that 78 RPM records at their best can be stunningly good. Although it's a challenge playing them right so you can hear them sound the way they should. In some ways, that era did things better. Records were, I've heard, routinely recorded direct to disk--that is, the microphone drove the cutting lathe to make the record master. By eliminating a middle step (tape, in later decades), one was closer to the original performance.
 
LP's no thanks. Nothing drove me to distraction more than hearing hiss or noise on an expensive classical album or set. It's probably why I never bought a huge amount of records back in the 60's and 70's although I did own and still have a pretty good turntable JVC quartz lock with a Stanton EEE cartridge. The cartridge itself cost me a fortune back then but I wanted excellent sound quality.
The advent of the compact disc I think was nothing short of an audio miracle.
 
It's funny how some people are bothered by noise, others aren't. I, myself, am not bothered. Others can't stand it.

For those who don't know, noise is a variable issue. Noticable noise and irritation from it varies wildly on the system. I have two cartridges I bounce between--a Grado and a Shure. The Grado drives me crazy at times because if there is undesirable noise on that record, it will find it. The Shure is better--much better--but the overall sound isn't as good as the Grado.

Even the turntable being used makes a difference.

Of course, there are problems with how some LPs were made. Although that's a problem with CDs, too. Any product made with poor care will be a bad product.
 
Some day I'd like to hear an Orthophonic Victrola in good repair with a good platter.

However, I have read that while the Orthophonic gave much better low end response, the highs were compromised by the system. It's too technical for me to remember the details off the cuff, but it has to do with how the high frequency sound waves tend to bounce backwards and get lost in the big folded horn. Even in the modern era, the electric equivalents of orthophonic, like the Klipshorn, were best for reproducing bass, and additional midrange and tweeter speakers are needed for a full response.

I retrofitted a late Orthophonic receiver (off an cheesy RCA Victrola portable I bought off eBay) to my tabletop Victrola X, and it's louder than the mica receivers and has slightly better bass response. But it also needs to be rebuilt and being a pot metal unit that might be close to impossible without destroying the casting.

Still, it's so entertaining to put a lively march or dance tune on the Victrola and enjoy recorded music without need to use even a milliwatt in the process. It just seems more magical to me.
 
"Still, it's so entertaining to put a lively march or dance tune on the Victrola and enjoy recorded music without need to use even a milliwatt in the process."

One practical plus is that the Victrola will work even if the power is out.

As for performance, I heard one person claim that Victrola wasn't the best brand. His vote was for Edison. Although Victrola was, from what I understand, good...just not as good. For today, it does have the real plus of being fairly common, and probably better supported.

There are modern single driver systems. As always, there are compromises, no matter what you do. But some people do love a single driver system because the strengths are so great and the limits don't matter to that person.
 
My understanding is that the Edison phonograph used a completely different recording method - with vertical features in the grooves instead of the side-to-side method that Victrola used. And that the Edison required a different type of needle - which had a sort of ball on the end - for playback.

The main other gramophone I've seen for sale is the Columbia. It looks quite similar to the Victrola, but I don't think Columbia ever had an Orthophonic type of reproducer or horn.

And yes, during the last blackout in the neighborhood (about a year ago), I cranked up the Victrola and played a few tunes in the relative dark. It was actually kind of nice to have the amber street lights dark for a while.
 
Columbia did have a system similar to the Orthophonic

The "Viva Tonal" machines made in the late twenties had an improved sound box to play the new records. I am not sure they used a "re-enterant" type horn like the Victor machines did. I only had one, a MOL model, some years ago and don't recall if the horn was folded or not. A lot of the high end Viva Tonal models used electronic amps and cone speakers instead of the horn. The Columbia Viva Tonal machines are not so common (or collectable) as their Victor counterparts (Can you tell I am a "Friend of Nipper?"). Not sure if they didn't sell as well or if they simply didn't age as well.

If I recall correctly, The Edison company didn't care about the talent who was recording the discs, it was all the same to them. Victor, on the other hand, signed up the most famous stars from Opera, etc to record its records. Who would you rather listen to - Enrico Caruso and Nellie Melba or Moton Slotnick and Olive Splotnick?

Sudsmaster, anytime you are in the CT area, stop by. We can do a few loads in the W1918 and listen to Othophonic Victrolas and Electrolas (Victor's entry into all electric sound reproduction). After all these years (on "thathomesite" and here, it would be nice to meet you!

Alan
 
I've heard that Edison did use a different system. I think I've seen a record, which is much thicker than a Victrola record.

I can't remember the details, but at least one company had the ability to play different types of records. One had to change the reproducer assembly or something like that. Edison MIGHT have done this on some models.

Lord Kenmore/formerly J2400
 
"Victor, on the other hand, signed up the most famous stars from Opera, etc to record its records. Who would you rather listen to - Enrico Caruso and Nellie Melba or Moton Slotnick and Olive Splotnick?"

That is a real plus for Victor. I think the Edison being better was a technical issue...but obviously if the selection is poor/limited, one is better served by something that may not be as technically good, but does have the selection.

Lord Kenmore/Previously J2400
 
Actually Edison disc records were called "Diamond Discs

The grooves were laterally cut in a 'hill and dale' pattern (like the Edison cylinder records were) and were played with a diamond stylus. Victor and other manufacturers were cut vertically (like the lp's that started this thread). You could not play one on a machine designed for the other. It was either Pathe or Aeolan Vocallion that offered machines that had special tone arms that had both soundboxes mounted. The user simply rotated the proper playback head for the type of disc being played.

I have heard that the later electrically recorded Diamond Discs have quite excellent sound, but I have not heard one first hand. I think those discs are pretty rare since they had lost the market to Victor and the other laterally cut discs.
 
Class Trip

Anytime you're in the New Jersey area, the Edison Museum in West Orange has regular tours. One of the features is they bring you into a "sound studio" of sorts where they have various phonographs and play them for you. The sound on even the very early ones is surprisingly good. They also have the "Black Maria" on display, used for the first motion picture recordings. The museum just re-opened after a period of renovations.
 
Panatrope

My mom remembers her father's phonograph was called a Panatrope, which appears to have been made by Brunswick. She says that you could hear it all over the neighborhood when he cranked it up. He favored Victor Herbert and Rudolf Friml. Anyway, I assume it was all-electric but information on the web is scarce.
 
Brunswick

Google Brunswick Panatrope,its very interesting.Several sites.Yes it was electrically amplified,some came with a Radiola,and at 1200 in the 20s.It read around 1925 they started their machine,Thanks Bobby
 

Latest posts

Back
Top