In Defense of an Orthophonic

[@kraftpr]

Thank you so much for this enlightening information about the orthophonic reproducer. Thanks also for your continued great work in bringing these wonderful old recordings to the KZbin audience. It's truly a labor of love!

[@pete1729]

I like how the pleated aluminum diapragm from the orthophonic reproducer looks like the diaphragm from an Altec Lansing high frequency compression driver. Thanks for the fascinating lesson.

[@TheModernMillennial]

This is a bit like comparing a 2015 brand-new luxury car with one from a century ago, and then complaining that the older one isn't up to modern standards. Well, no shit! As collectors, we have to appreciate the hard work and YEARS of acoustic research that yielded - for the time - the best possible sound REPRODUCTION, not the best possible PRESERVATION (of the records). And to all the people saying that the Orthophonic soundboxes are "detrimental" to records - you're right. But we cannot blame Western Electric/RCA Victor for that because record preservation was not the focus - quality sound reproduction via acoustic technology was their focus, and one I think that they highly succeeded in.

[@randyknight00]

Thank you, Roger! After my post today on the APE fb page, you had suggested to go to this link on your channel. Thank you. It was very informative. I see I'm not the only one who get chastised for using antique phonographs.....much the same way you do!

[@hmosc]

Thank you for your excellent description of the orthophonic system and it's value. I agree with you 100%, but in reading the original Victor manuals it is recommended that the lid should be closed when playing records. I do this on my Credenza and the sound improvement is quite noticeable.

[@merrihew]

Yes, it does help cut down the surface noise (actually written on the inside of some HMV machines). I leave it open so people can watch and I place the microphone about 15 ft. away close to the floor - this helps.

[@madamerotten]

I really appreciate your effort and enlightenment. Not many people have a hint about this technology.

[@pax41]

Glad that you shared this information with us all.

[@BertieW0oster]

Great video, well said! Speaking of tracking angle, there was a thread at 'TheTalking Machine Forum' recently that involved using a custom angled flange gasket to improve the tracking angle of older Victor reproducers, such as the Victrola No2. It doesn’t involve modifying the reproducer or tone-arm, yet allows the old reproducers to track like an Orthophonic. If you also enjoy playing the pre-Orthophonic phonographs that is something to consider for reducing record wear.

[@Turkeydoodlers]

As a fellow phonograph collector I must say you have no needs to justfi yourself or be sorry It's your machine and records play what you like :)

[@cowtippingrocks]

I had a Victrola 4-3. Sold it a long time ago. Had such a great sound. The orthaphonic was definitly a nice machine!

[@CharlotteinWeimar]

Fascinating. i can remember my father using thorn needles which could be sharpened on a little device with a rotating sandpaper disc, and he also had triangular section green wooden[?} fibre needles which had to be cut with a special slicer. Do you have any opinions about the pre-electric recording of singers through the horn. I wish some of the best modern singers would try recording that way so that we could get some idea of how the sound of the voice is altered by the equipment.

[@merrihew]

I was quite fascinated by the Finial turntable and even obtained factory literature. A big problem that they could not deal with adequately was warped records.

[@dewey70]

Thanks for that explanation. I've never seen an Orthophonic sound box up close.

[@Jazzbaby1973]

Amen brother! Well done! I get these messages as well and I couldn't have put it better!

[@merrihew]

It is very similar or perhaps even the same diaphragm used in electric RCA horn speakers of the same period.

[@merrihew]

The reproducer that I use on the machine is a standard brass orthophonic. The one I used for illustration is an English HMV version (because the cover comes off more easily). Its the same as the American version but they didn't use ball bearings. I can't tell the difference in sound.

[@merrihew]

@bobbobato Actually, the material that was used to make 78's is much harder, more inert and holds up better than materials used to make subsequent media. Many brands of early tape disintegrate. Many early LP's (esp. RCA) develop "crackle" even if unplayed. Many CD's from the '80's and '90's are unplayable. You're correct that digitizing is the best way to preserve, but the technology will improve in the future and of all media, 78's will still be around in better shape for "restoration".

[@1953childstar]

Very true !!! I have pristine RCA LP's from the early 1950's and they appear perfect, plus I play them with a 7ml conical diamond needle. Yes there is surface noise !!!

[@merrihew]

@teendude16 I know its counterintuitive, but the records then were very hard and molded with an abrasive that was designed to quickly wear down the very soft needles. Needles were only safe to be used for a single play. Later machines (actually, up into the 1950's) were worse for wearing despite having lighter tone arms. The records by then were made of softer material and the needles became permanent and super hard.

[@gmmix]

Interesting in the extreme and genuinely instructive. Thank you for taking the time.

[@joey1127]

Face it, those recordings were ment to be played on Acoustic equipment. Nothing sounds more boring than a 1929 disk played on modern 78 equipment with a stereo cartridge. The Ortho machine will win everytime! As far as ware, like this guy say's, CHANGE THE NEEDLE WITH EACH PLAY! They are not expensive at all...I use a Fiber needle myself. Thanks for posting!!!

[@Borriaudio]

There are many collectors who just like to complain, just for the sake of complaining. I make authentic "wax" phonogram blanks, and many dihards, either are jelous, or think it is an abomonation. I had brought some to a phonograph trade show, and many a dyed in the wool collector thought they were original brown wax Edison blanks, and when I told them that I had made them they gasped and walked away quickly. They could not tell them from a blank made in the 1890s.

[@merrihew]

Its not a loud speaker; its just a big horn (like a megaphone). It amplifies the weak sound given off my the reproducer. There are still a few modern speakers that use horns - like Klipsch.

[@merrihew]

@hilbert42 I agree completely. For "modern" playing, I have 8 different stylus sizes ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 mil and most are truncated elliptical.

[@theodorewhuning3564]

Bassett Hound Trio has done the same experiment on his You Tube channel, playing a disc on an Orthophonic Victrola 100 times. You can hear the results for yourself.

[@nmgt1048]

This illustrates that higher compliance, better quality needles have also existed in acoustic phonographs as well as in more modern electric ones and modern stereos. surprises me. Some years ago (1990s), I recorded 78's on tape using a 78 stylus that fitted onto a stereo cartridge and switched on a filter for the ones that are more worn. Also turning on the Dolby on a non Dolby encoded recording of 78s cleans up the scratch.

[@dutchjim66]

I have a Victor 10-50 and I use Kacti cactus styli. I compared the Kacti stylus to a new Laubscher stylus. The Laubscher sounded better, but not to the point that I would use them. The Kacti styli have not harmed my records. I advise anybody who has an acoustic phonograph to use styli that sound the best to them and enjoy listening to the music. Don’t feel you're ruining anything. The idea is to enjoy the music and not get lost in doctrinaire warnings.

[@merrihew]

Acoustic recording, of course, was very crude and responded better to some frequencies than others. That's one reason why some singers sound so much better than others who were highly regarded at the time.

[@acfinney1]

I sure hope he is in full recovery. It is a shame how many memories are discarded and met with fate of the thrift store. I hope that I am keeping these memories alive in some small way by purchasing and playing these records. Some people see dollar signs, but I try to beat the flea market and ebay guys. I buy to listen. My best to your mate.

[@teendude16]

It's nice to look at these vintage machines, but the saying goes, the tonearms and everything about these machines do and will continue to distroy the disc, because of many reasons but one is the tonearm weight and the nail needle that was used. Wear out can not be stopped on them, unless you dont play your disc;s on them. Thanks for the demo.

[@MyWillypilly]

Imagine , playing records on a machine they were designed to use.

[@rhineceres]

Thank goodness you're doing this work! We absolutely must preserve our recorded music past and You Tube is the new Public Library! You should be getting tax credits!!!

[@DouglasEiner]

How in the heck would one get the 'Victrola-Sound' out of digitizing the music-? To me, many of the songs from those eras only sound 'like-they're-supposed-to' when played on original equipment. Digitizing those old records can destroy the unique character of the songs in much the same way as colourizing old movies usually does. IMO

[@luisvivanco6897]

Excellent, but you made me feel bad. We have a Victrola in our house, which has the first type of reproducer (the mica one). Now I long for an Ortophonic one, hahaha!!! Congrats.

[@theoldmet]

Well, the mica one (like a No 2. repro) is considerably lighter than an Orthophonic.

[@gnativerson]

luv the sound your machine (played on a Karlson enclosure loaded with Nirvana fullrange) and the wonderful records -- - I'm possibly getting a Victor Orthophonic Victrola Moedl VE-8-4. Does the VE-8-4 have the large folded horn? is it folded? Where's the low frequency cutoff for VE-8-4?

[@spyroscc]

Everything you say is correct. That's why I never play mint or rare records on this machine. People should be VERY careful about playing almost any 78 on any machine other than an orthophonic (or perhaps Vivatonal or EMG).

[@sanfranphono]

Hello Merrihew, great explanation. Just one comment: Victor was always bad with tone arm alignment. They always used a straight tone arm (I can think of 2 exceptions), and even that alignment was suboptimal. With the long tone arm it did not matter much, still, Victor got complaints about excessive record wear, and issued a recall in 1928 to exchange the tone arm gooseneck with one that had a better geometry. Your machine with the dual head, however, was excluded from the recall.

[@AlbertBenajam-ww1db]

(The WORM GEAR is in the case, weas on cylinder players visible) Shallack records were softer after mid 30s. After WW2 many tecords were plastic material containing, whilé some were vynel 78s that were advertised as UNBREAKABLE, many were hard plastics marked "break RESISTANT" They were to a degree Shallack would break to fragments if dropped, these would vrack or chip. But were also soft on a way. ===== In acoustic era 1+REC0RD DUSTERS came with instructions t 9 dust the just BEF0RE playing to remove dust and dirt. AFTER to remive NEEDLE GRIT. Like the colonel use there were wax sticks marked as RECORD WAX to lubricate and 1uiet scratch. Namboo and thorn needles were solf on promise pf teduced wear AND economy by tepointing them. The clippers were for A NEW POINT F0R EVERY PLAY. Bamboo meedles still made.

[@Garr1984]

Aside from the Orthophonics, there were/are no better phonographs to play 78s on until Hi-Fi was invented some 20 years later.

[@85scampi]

Certain messages sound familiar to me also. I too only use my radiogram for uploading. Interesting about the soundboxes. I find that my HMV 'Exhibition' soundbox gives poor sound quality on electrically recorded discs.I seldom use the machine now.

[@merrihew]

I just added to my remarks that they apply to HMV/Electrola as well.

[@andrew.dallas]

Number 1- Who paid for it or whom does it belong to? Number 2 People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do!

[@joeking1722]

I play acoustic recorded 78 records that are designed for the Victrola vv- ix. I also use it for more modern 78's. That's 30's and 40's.

[@merrihew]

@sanfranphono Thanks much for that info. I don't believe its mentioned in the latest edition of his book (Maybe I'm wrong). What happened to CAPS? The web site is gone.

[@accordeonsteve]

Actually, I have the same model of gramophone than you, but with the crank. Thanks for the informations that I can transfer for friends.

[@sanfranphono]

@merrihew Merrihew, Bob Baumbach published the 1928 recall letter in the CAPS magazine The Soundbox a couple of years ago. Yes. it's just the gooseneck that's changed, for your machine, the recommendation was to slightly reposition the motor to get a better alignment. Victor just didn't care and used straight arms evenon the short arm portables, which is pretty bad. Compare that with HMV or UK Columbia machines, which always have beautiful angled alignments.

[@frenchmarky]

Hey, can I ask exactly what model of Orthophonic reproducer that you show opened up in the video? I recognize the diaphragm but the bearings look more like what are on my old Victor #4 reproducer. Is this some later model of Vic ortho soundbox, or did you just put an ortho diaphragm into an older soundbox? And what kind of bearings are in it, needle bearings or ball bearings or (?) Thanks!

[@maxi1crawf]

Well it would not stop me playing 78's on my gramophone, that's what they were made to play on after all, I do however only ever use a needle on one side then change it and also apply a couple of "strokes" of candle wax to the surface of the record every so often as suggested by "The Colonel"

[@esroberto1]

Yeah, that candle wax thing is utterly moronic. Just a terrible fucking idea. Like these morons you see squirting water on their LPs to play them.

[@merrihew]

@sanfranphono Very interested to hear more about this. I've only seen two different tone arms on acoustic orthophonics, all S shaped (shorter for the small machines). Was it just the removable outer end section that was involved?

[@PKamargo]

The ortophonic reproducer can be used in any windup machine and keep the characteristics you mentioned (less wear of records) or not?

[@theoldmet]

To Roger York (or anybody) what's your opinion on Tungstone needles and how they affect wear ?

[@Credenza1925]

This a good point for me. It's a question i always have. What about when you use cactus needless? I heard once that this kind of needles produce less damage to the records...?

[@merrihew]

@78Maniac Yes, I have it. What would you like to know?

[@Bigband78]

Just gave away a 2 door Credenza Grill that your missing. Was in my basement 20 years.

[@merrihew]

Not missing. I had removed to replace grille cloth with correct reproduction.

[@paulritchens6301]

Have you tried thorns with this machine ? I use only thorns or bamboo and the sound is superb , plus no real worry of damage

[@frenchmarky]

OK thanks for clearing that up for me. Mark

[@tarstarkusz]

Don't listen to spergs on the Internet. You have the records, play them and enjoy them.

[@shosha1878]

Is possible to attach an Orthophonic Reproducer to an Old Victor Victrola of 1911, and get a benefit of sound and record care?

[@merrihew]

I have done it and there is definitely an improvement in sound. You will need to exchange the rubber flange on the back with one from an Exhibition or No. 2 Victor reproducer (the original ones used on the earlier models). The diameter of the end of the tone arms is different. However, it will be very difficult to gret the old flanges off without destroying them. But reproductions of the flanges are available at reasonable cost.

[@shosha1878]

Do you know where to get a good ortophonic reproducer and make it fit on my Victor-Victrola 1911? Thanks.

[@clyth41]

As far as I'm concerned these records were meant to be played on a Phonograph, because that's what the only thing that was available at the time so you telling me all the people in the 1930s and 40s were wrong using a Phonograph?... Sick of people saying this. I'll play my records as I want.

[@zacharybowen4247]

the pre 1935 records were made with pumus and were heaver to accommodate the heavy arm and reproducer

[@georgedabrowski6900]

No matter what you call the reproducer, the steel needle still does some, if insignificant, damage to the record. Nothing sounds like Caruso singing "Studenti Udite" on a Victrola with your hands cupped behind your ears a foot away from the horn, but I'll stick to the stereo and a few grams tone arm for Mississippi John Hurt. Have a neat copy of Dick Powell singing "We're in the Money" but someone must have turned the needle: looks okay, but plays noisily, and only sounds good on the cranker or maybe pressing gently on the needle, but I don't know that you can get cartridges anymore, so I'll listen to it on the web, if I can locate it. I have a Frank Stokes on Victor which you can only tell by seeing the composer's name faintly and, of course, by the number in the shellac. The playing surface looks virtually as if it is not there, although you can hear the record somewhat. Clearly 90 years ago or whenever somebody must have used one needle forever and eventually chewed up all their records. This is often how you find old blues records, c'est la vie. I have always felt that you find what you're meant to find. I was not really interested in blues, so I just never found much of it, though my late twin found a fair amount, and I certainly wish I'd found more records with Scrappy Lambert doing the vocal and way fewer with Irving Kaufman, who had an insensitive, ugly, annoying voice. This from someone who grew up on Caruso, Bjoerling, Gigli and heard Corelli live at the old and new Met. Good luck to all old record enthusiasts, and treat your records well!

[@briant7265]

"Look at this beautiful record! Check out the printing on the label! Isn't it fantastic!?" ...also... "Look at this beautiful phonograph! This was the state of the art 100 years ago! If only you could hear the sound quality!" ... also... "I'm never going to play these records, especially not on this phonograph. The record quality might degrade, and the phonograph might need maintenance, and then we wouldn't get to experience the sounds of these records and phonographs." Preservation is wonderful, but so is the actual ability to see and hear history. With the ability to make high-quality digital recordings from these devices and records, every recording should be recorded into the "historical documents" for the enjoyment of future generations and alien civilisations.

[@sanfranphono]

@merrihew I have NO ! idea. First time I see it.

[@glennmillerfan]

I Still Use Modern Record Players To Play My 45s,LPs,Home Recorded 78s,And Paper Records Including The Hit Of The Week Records Of The 1930s.

[@merrihew]

Edison records and reproduction were superior to other pre-orthophonic machines due to thinner diaphraghms and lighter needle pressure. However, the scientifically designed much longer, folded horn of the orthophonic produced better bass response.

[@1953childstar]

In addition, Edison had "final approval" of all record releases, so the music was "odd"..

[@Arabhacks]

Do not get me wrong, I understand that this machine is not used every day, But, records wear, that is a given. I have several older 1 piece stereo tuner/ record changers in that the changer has died. I simply removed the changer and mounted a board in place and have a laptop in its place, an older laptop works fine to play music through the stereo proper. I like the music, but the internet works fine for me. Enjoy this as much as you like, I do.

[@LordMgls]

Hi! I've bought 4 complete operas, 3 of which are historical records in 78s. The thing is, it looks as though they've never been played before! I really have no idea how much one of those 3 sets of records could do. Anywhere between $200 and $5,000 wouldn't surprise me. I have an orginal HMV 103 which reproducer hasn't been rebuilt though it seems to be in good shape. When I play records (new needles every time) it DOES clearly wear them out - you can see a little dust coming out but I've never noticed changes in the surface though I've played some records more than a dozen times. Do you think it's advisable for me to play these records on my HMV exceptionally? What's the alternative you suggest for me to listen to the records? Thanks :)

[@esroberto1]

99% of all classical/opera album sets are essentially worthless -- I've bought hundreds of sets in like new condition for a few dollars here and there. One collector told me a good estimate of value would be about a dime a pound, haha. So play them and enjoy them, any way you like, and don't worry about it. If you remain concerned, look into fibre needles -- they're just triangular lengths of bamboo that can be cut with a special cutter for repeated use until they're used up, and they don't harm records whatsoever. And they sound wonderful. Cutters show up on eBay now and again.

[@allanalogmusicat78rpm]

The dust is from the needle, not the record. The record abrades the needle. It's part of the design, and it's why you use a new needle for every side of record you play.

[@bobbobato]

How does this kind of loudspeaker compare to modern ones?

[@Arabhacks]

The ONLY machine that does not wear records is the one that uses a laser pickup, 100% optical in nature. I no longer have a means to play records, it is all on digital format of one sort or another, no wear issues, not that I do not care about the music, but that I like to listen to the music.

[@Idelia412]

You should hear records on an acoustic EMG gramophone made only in Britian and it played much better than the Orthophonic did.

[@merrihew]

Actually a friend has one of the larger EMG machines as well as an orthophonic 10-50 which has the largest of all orthophonic horns. I've done quite a bit of comparison listening and I actually prefer the orthophonic. The EMG is a bit smoother in the upper frequencies but the orthophonic has noticeably better bass response.

[@theodorewhuning3564]

Wasn't the Diamond Disc phonograph "scientifically" designed.

[@TheModernMillennial]

The Diamond Disc phonograph is a special case, because while Edison did design his acoustic recording process + record manufacturing (process, ingredients, etc.) to be as scientifically advanced as possible, the phonographs themselves were not - they were basically just common Amberola units of the time adapted to play disc records instead of cylinders. This isn't a criticism on the part of the Edison Company, but it does show that the Orthophonic units were the first scientifically-designed "system" of scientifically-advanced recording processes, record manufacturing AND superior phonographs to play them on.

[@esroberto1]

@@TheModernMillennial That's not entirely accurate. Edison was an actual scientist, so by definition, anything he created was indeed scientifically designed. But more importantly, you're working from the premise that his cylinder phonos weren't scientific marvels -- they absolutely were, and a century later, you can still play a 4M blue amberol cylinder on an Amberola phono thousands of times with no trace of damage. Of course he's gonna apply as much of that science as is possible to his disc phono design, and why wouldn't he?? As such, the round shape of the permanent stylus in Diamond Disc player presents the same profile to the groove from the rim to the center, and doesn't use the pull of the groove to move the reproducer across the surface as the record plays. Thousands of plays, zero damage. Pretty damned scientific.

[@glennmillerfan]

I Do Not Like How My 78s Sound On The Modern Stereo Machines,So I Use A Webcor From The Early 1950s To Play All My 78s After 1931 On And I Bought An Eagle Gramophone From The Early 1930s Off Ebay To Play My Records Before 1931

[@acfinney1]

Good video. In my opinion, I think that you should enjoy your records as much as you like. You will not be able to take them with you and chances are, your Grandchildren may use them as frisbees or sell them for peanuts. PLAY THE DAMNED THINGS AND QUIT LISTENING TO THESE WHINERS. I have a stack of 15 LPs on my Motorola as we speak. All priceless........muhahahahah!

[@AlbertBenajam-ww1db]

Comments---- ____ EDISON The reproducers of Dimand Disks (and cylinders) DON'T touch the records! Of you lower the tone are (by cuing lever) it dous not reach turmtable but diamond needle is able to enter grooves. Also as in cylinder machines (and todays CD players) the record is mechanicaly driven across record.

[@AlbertBenajam-ww1db]

RECORD MATERIALS play doctor in the 1930s, and even less durable after WW2. After 1945 any records were made of plastics other than vinyl. Records made of vinyl like materials were sold as "Unbreakable", but the other kind were sold as "break resistant" as they chipped or cracked instead of shattering. RECORD DUSTER directions said to use just before playing to clean of dust and right AFTER playing to REMOVE NEEDLE DUST. WAX STICK directions claimed they reduced needle scratch and prevented wear.

[@vintageaudioworkshop]

Comment made me laugh, my mate (pensioner) nearly died & while he was in hospital his two sons took his entire record collection to the waste skip yard. Funny

[@zacharybowen4247]

that's only true for 78's made after 1935 because those records were made for electric players that didn't have the heavy arm and reproducer

[@xshi6649]

Just ignore those vinyl cultists. If these idiots truly love records they would’ve learned there were different kinds of records and many can be played back safely with a steel needle. If a record is designed to be played back acoustically, then I will put it on my gramophone and play it, period😂

[@acfinney1]

@Arabhacks These records will outlast you.

[@bobbobato]

That's very interesting, however I think you should be using modern equipment. Anyone who owns old records should feel compelled to digitize the music in as high a quality as possible, making sure to actually record the music, rather than recording another machine playing the music. No matter how good a shape a disc is its not going to last much longer. I'm only 20 now and by the time I'm 65 I seriously doubt it will still be safe to play any 78rpm using any equipment.

[@EricBrownBey]

phil potato those photographs from a full reason it was not made to sit there and not play records it was made to play records that is what it's for and so if someone wants to play records on a phonograph they should do that.

[@esroberto1]

"a disc is ... not going to last much longer..." Why? Who lied to you? These records have been 100% chemically stable for a century. What the hell are you talking about?