A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

snap, crackle and pop
H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 873
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by H. callahan » 15 Nov 2019 02:30

I hope this is the correct category to post something about grammophones and (acoustic) soundboxes.

I have a portable grammophone, all mechanical/acoustic, which allready is designed to play (early) electrical recordings. Apart from some improvements above old-style portables, like reduced tracking error for example, i found the amplification-factor of the lever bar is reduced in comparison to older (mica-diaphragm-)soundboxes. When measuring the upper part of the lever bar, being connected to the diaphragm, and the lower part of the lever bar, i get an amplification-ratio of about x1.38, so let´s say its x1.4.
With older soundboxes this ratio is bigger, like x1.7 for example, so on the "modern" soundbox, intended for electrical recordings, it seems like amplification-factor was reduced. I do get why, but i don´t get why they did not further reduce amplification-factor to, let´s say x1.0 or even x0.75.

Because this grammo still is so, so loud. It has the usual problems, soundbox needs service, tonearm-bearing too and i´m not quite done yet with servicing. But the further i get, not only the more precise sound gets, but also the louder. I allready have stuffed some rolled kitchen-paper-towel into the tonearm, maybe reducing volume by half, but now having serviced another part of the soundbox volume again is increasing.
The problem is that i have to use a medium tone steel needle for being able to hear higher frequencies and to judge about tracking etc. . But if i do use a medium needle it gets so loud i no longer can tell whether there is mistracking/distortion or whether its just my ears ringing. If i use a soft needle the higher frequencies are cut and i cannot evaluate performance.
Even acoustic records become problematic regarding volume - and these don´t contain higher frequencies, so i cannot use them for test plays!

So, why the heck, did they built soundboxes for electrical records with an amplification-ratio of about x1.4? I can´t think of a technical reason why they could not further reduce this ratio. On the soundbox i have all they needed to do to get an amplification-ratio of x1.0 was to move the bearing of the lever bar up by 3.5mm - without altering length and therefore moving mass of the lever bar.
Just move the bearing up by 3.5mm, make the upper part of the lever a little shorter and the lower part a little longer, then the total length of the lever was the same as before but the ratio would be x1.0 and not x1.4.
Enough space on the soundboxes housing to move the bearing up by 3.5mm, its all there.

Therefore my question, is there anything i´m overlooking? Had there been a loudness war with portables, or were all people 3/4-deaf 90 years ago or what the heck?
With a medium volume record, a medium needle and no kitchen paper in the tonearm, i guess i could play a dancehall for 50 people with just that portable.

Rog Beltmann
junior member
junior member
United States of America
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Jul 2019 17:33

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Rog Beltmann » 15 Nov 2019 13:53

You could try using a sewing needle to quiet it down. Just snap it off at the correct length. Older mechanical recordings are not as loud as electrical recordings. My VV-IX also plays electrical recordings too loud. I'm using a Victrola #2 for my soundbox. Mine sounds best when using early production 78s. Novelties and foxtrots are fun to listen to and have a lot of wood blocks, sirens and sound effects.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5808
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Coffee Phil » 15 Nov 2019 23:56

Hi H. callahan,

I have also been astonished at how loud portable acoustic players can sound. I do believe that most consoles had some provision for volume control however primitive. The doors could be closed like swell shades on an organ or a fabric ball could be moved in the horn.

I'm guessing most soundboxes were designed with consoles in mind and you got what you got with portables. I'm guessing the ratio of the lever bar was tailored to the characteristics of the diaphragm and horn.

I'm not surprised that the frequency response is effected by the stiffness of the needle.

Good information on the design considerations of gramophone soundboxes is likely to be hard to find today but this book which Bob Dillon found is good:

https://archive.org/details/ModernGramo ... reproducer

The book is rigorous and terminology has changed since 1929. For example decibels were in 1929 Volume Units.

With sufficient effort good information can be had from it.





You may find my Pioneer acoustic arm interesting:

gallery/image/47243/medium

While the turntable it is sitting on uses electricity and has plenty of sand to make it turn, from the stylus to my ears is totally acoustic.

Here is a shot showing the stethoscope earpieces and the volume and stereo blend control:

gallery/image/47244/medium

Here is the "passive preamp" with which right and left volume and stereo / mono blend can be adjusted:

gallery/image/47140/medium

The Pioneer arm while not audiophile does sound better than what you would expect. While the control does work I have not found the need to turn it down. The mono blend may be useful for mono records and if I find a 78 stylus for it I'm sure it will be good for 78s. I still haven't figured a way to do vertical records without cheating and using electricity.

Here is a shot showing the soundboxes:

gallery/image/47139/medium

Phil

H. callahan wrote:
15 Nov 2019 02:30
I hope this is the correct category to post something about grammophones and (acoustic) soundboxes.

I have a portable grammophone, all mechanical/acoustic, which allready is designed to play (early) electrical recordings. Apart from some improvements above old-style portables, like reduced tracking error for example, i found the amplification-factor of the lever bar is reduced in comparison to older (mica-diaphragm-)soundboxes. When measuring the upper part of the lever bar, being connected to the diaphragm, and the lower part of the lever bar, i get an amplification-ratio of about x1.38, so let´s say its x1.4.
With older soundboxes this ratio is bigger, like x1.7 for example, so on the "modern" soundbox, intended for electrical recordings, it seems like amplification-factor was reduced. I do get why, but i don´t get why they did not further reduce amplification-factor to, let´s say x1.0 or even x0.75.

Because this grammo still is so, so loud. It has the usual problems, soundbox needs service, tonearm-bearing too and i´m not quite done yet with servicing. But the further i get, not only the more precise sound gets, but also the louder. I allready have stuffed some rolled kitchen-paper-towel into the tonearm, maybe reducing volume by half, but now having serviced another part of the soundbox volume again is increasing.
The problem is that i have to use a medium tone steel needle for being able to hear higher frequencies and to judge about tracking etc. . But if i do use a medium needle it gets so loud i no longer can tell whether there is mistracking/distortion or whether its just my ears ringing. If i use a soft needle the higher frequencies are cut and i cannot evaluate performance.
Even acoustic records become problematic regarding volume - and these don´t contain higher frequencies, so i cannot use them for test plays!

So, why the heck, did they built soundboxes for electrical records with an amplification-ratio of about x1.4? I can´t think of a technical reason why they could not further reduce this ratio. On the soundbox i have all they needed to do to get an amplification-ratio of x1.0 was to move the bearing of the lever bar up by 3.5mm - without altering length and therefore moving mass of the lever bar.
Just move the bearing up by 3.5mm, make the upper part of the lever a little shorter and the lower part a little longer, then the total length of the lever was the same as before but the ratio would be x1.0 and not x1.4.
Enough space on the soundboxes housing to move the bearing up by 3.5mm, its all there.

Therefore my question, is there anything i´m overlooking? Had there been a loudness war with portables, or were all people 3/4-deaf 90 years ago or what the heck?
With a medium volume record, a medium needle and no kitchen paper in the tonearm, i guess i could play a dancehall for 50 people with just that portable.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 704
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Bob Dillon » 16 Nov 2019 03:11

H. callahan wrote:
15 Nov 2019 02:30


Because this grammo still is so, so loud. It has the usual problems, soundbox needs service,
Try softer (diaphragm) gaskets in the soundbox. Hard / hardened rubber gaskets can increase volume and harsh tone. New silicone gaskets are a good choice. You want a little cushion, a little "give" for the diaphragm from the surrounding gaskets. With hard gaskets the diaphragm absorbs everything it's getting from the needle bar on it's own, resulting in more pressure on the diaphragm and the volume will be greater.

Back in the day they used to sell these gizmos that clipped on to the soundbox and applied a felt damper to the front of the diaphragm, I suppose to reduce tone or volume. Would only work if the soundbox didn't have a covering like an Orthophonic soundbox. Can't find a reference to one or advert at the moment. I've seen them though.

H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 873
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by H. callahan » 16 Nov 2019 04:36

@Rog Beltman:

Thank you for the advice, however i need to use a rather stiff needle to also get the higher frequencies, so a thinner needle is not an option - at the moment at least. Also i was afraid of using a sewing needle which likely does not have the correct shape and polishing at its tip.

@Coffe Phil:

Thank you for the link, i will have a good reading as its a lot of pages, but this should make it more likely to contain an answer to my question.
I get the idea that most soundboxes were designed for consoles in the first place, but a horn also does define volume. The bigger/longer a horn is the louder it gets, so a console should be even louder than an average portable.
I don´t know who, but somebody on this forum did display this japanese acoustic longplay record player. I think he even did have a portable model. As far as i recall the "soundbox" had a frequency range up to 14kHz maybe, quite impressive.

@Bob Dillon:

I gave the soundbox softer gaskets, but my experience has been that hardened rubber usually does turn volume down. Due to the hardened rubber the diaphragm cannot be moved as far left and right as with soft rubber - assuming that the hard rubber still is holding the diaphragm and has not shrinked releasing the diaphragm.
With soft rubber displacement of the diaphragm usually is greater resulting in better bass but also greater volume.
I once have seen a very early soundbox, from the acoustic aera, which had some cork attached to the outer part of the diaphragm.

I´ll have to do some reading in the book, because up to now i cannot see any reason why amplification factor cannot be reduced. This also should give some advantage apart from lower volume, like fewer record wear for example. There must have been a technical reason why they didn´t, unless they really had a "loudness war" going back then.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5808
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Coffee Phil » 16 Nov 2019 22:43

Hi H. Calahan,

I do believe that console acoustic record players could play louder than the little portables, however they often had means to control volume from simple swell shades (doors) in front of the horn to a fabric ball which could be moved inside the horn. As the ball is moved in to the smaller section of the horn the volume could be reduced. I would imagine the swell shades would look unsightly on the little portable but the ball attached to a string going around a shaft with a knob could be done and not look obtrusive. They make fabric dryer balls but they may be too large for the little machine.

The little Pioneer arm does sound pretty good but I don’t know about 14 kHz. Maybe, but I’m too old to hear it unless it is quite loud. The marriage of the little Pioneer arm and the Kenwood “rock” is not going all that well. For some reason Pioneer made it as a 7” arm so it won’t mount to the depressed armboard. I can get it to stick to the Kenwood plinth with its supplied rubber cup mount but it is too high and I have to stack records and platter mats to use it. It does seem more fitting to have it on a player which does not use electricity at all. I’ll keep watching eBay for a spring turntable motor and play with the governor to get to 33 1/3 RPM.

Phil

H. wrote:
16 Nov 2019 04:36
@Rog Beltman:

Thank you for the advice, however i need to use a rather stiff needle to also get the higher frequencies, so a thinner needle is not an option - at the moment at least. Also i was afraid of using a sewing needle which likely does not have the correct shape and polishing at its tip.

@Coffe Phil:

Thank you for the link, i will have a good reading as its a lot of pages, but this should make it more likely to contain an answer to my question.
I get the idea that most soundboxes were designed for consoles in the first place, but a horn also does define volume. The bigger/longer a horn is the louder it gets, so a console should be even louder than an average portable.
I don´t know who, but somebody on this forum did display this japanese acoustic longplay record player. I think he even did have a portable model. As far as i recall the "soundbox" had a frequency range up to 14kHz maybe, quite impressive.

@Bob Dillon:

I gave the soundbox softer gaskets, but my experience has been that hardened rubber usually does turn volume down. Due to the hardened rubber the diaphragm cannot be moved as far left and right as with soft rubber - assuming that the hard rubber still is holding the diaphragm and has not shrinked releasing the diaphragm.
With soft rubber displacement of the diaphragm usually is greater resulting in better bass but also greater volume.
I once have seen a very early soundbox, from the acoustic aera, which had some cork attached to the outer part of the diaphragm.

I´ll have to do some reading in the book, because up to now i cannot see any reason why amplification factor cannot be reduced. This also should give some advantage apart from lower volume, like fewer record wear for example. There must have been a technical reason why they didn´t, unless they really had a "loudness war" going back then.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 704
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Bob Dillon » 17 Nov 2019 02:08

H. callahan wrote:
16 Nov 2019 04:36
must have been a technical reason why they didn´t, unless they really had a "loudness war" going back then.
Going back to the days of cylinder phonos and then beyond, loud reproduction was frequently touted as a virtue in period adverts of acoustic machines and records. I do not think that a typical portable gramophone should be ear splittingly loud though. I'm not aware of any "loudness war" going on between the various manufacturers either.

Does your machine sound like this ? Or what. :P

H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 873
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by H. callahan » 17 Nov 2019 04:54

@Coffe Phil:

I havn´t yet heard of fabric balls being used as volume control inside horns. It´s interesting to hear, as i was quite surprised to find that putting kitchen roll inside the tonearm did not seem to affect frequency range a lot. I expected it to reduce higher frequencies most, but actually it still plays very clear (with a medium needle). Only bass may be thinned a little, on the other hand with a medium needle higher frequenices get louder so its not that easy to judge about bass being equal/louder/lower.

By the way in this book also is mentioned that they indeed did add an abrasive substance to the shellac mix to wear down the needle. They do not explain physically though, but they at least mention that it was done during the acoustic aera to save the record from wear, see page 143.

@Bob Dillon:

I envy the Auxetophone as it has full volume control. Well, its not easy to compare my portable to a pressure-grammophone but maybe this helps to get an idea of volume:

My appartment isn´t huge so i cannot flee to great distances but i can try to hide around a corner or two.
volume of my deaf-o-phone.JPG
(34.96 KiB) Downloaded 55 times
With kitchen roll allready inside the tonearm, a record of average volume and a medium needle i no longer can tell at position I whether my ears are ringing or whether its tracking distortion. Distance is about 4 feet. At position II, about 9 feet, it does depend. Low volume passages are ok but loud passages on most records still make it hard to tell a difference between ear-ringing and distortion - so i have to flee to position III, about 15 feet, for being able to stand these passages.
This with kitchen roll inside the tonearm allready having reduced volume to about a half - and with the soundbox still not being fully restored. It still has a considerable air leak which, once sealed, again should increase volume. ](*,)
...

I have done some reading in this book and though it covers all the aspects of grammophones and soundboxes, with the lever bar having a chapter of its own, they do not really go into amplification-ratios and what to watch out for about these.
All they say in the chapter about the lever bar is:

"It should be noticed that if the distance l1 from the needle point to the pivots is less than the distance l2 from the pivots to the diaphragm connection the velocity at the diaphragm end is greater than at the needle end in the ratio l2 / l1. The pressure is therefore stepped down from the needle to the diaphragm in the ratio l1 / l2. This is the "turns ratio" of the transformer."

I do get that the diaphragm will have greater velocity when there is an amplification-ratio above x1.0, i also somewhat get that there will be more pressure exerted on the diaphragm at an amp-ratio below x1.0, because then this part of the lever is shorter - but with a soundbox "fewer pressure" usually means "fewer volume". But this is not the case when the upper part of the lever is longer than the lower part. When the upper part is longer volume is increased.
Anyway if pressure exerted on the diaphragm increases at amp-ratios below x1.0, this might be a reason for not giving soundboxes an amp-ratio below x1.4 as it might exert too much stress on the connection point of the diaphragm.

In another chapter though, dealing with record wear they state that by using a longer needle the ratio of l1 and l2 can be reduced which will result in fewer record wear, while decreasing volume at the same time though. And there is no warning like "but don´t do it or you will blow the diaphragm", so it seems like it should be possible - well, it seems to be as i allready tried a longer needle and it did reduce volume without blowing the diaphragm.

Again in the chapter about the lever bar they go into why the lever bar is thinned out on its upper part. Unfortunately they explain it with an electrical circuit, which i´m not capable of to understand, but later they explain that thinning the upper part of the lever does act like a filter which cuts off higher frequencies and they give 5kHz as an example for cut off.
As this book was first published in 1929, when electrical recordings were around for like 3 years, not going above 5kHz in frequency range, i presume that soundboxes of this period, which mine is, were designed to cut off above about 5kHz - as all being above 5kHz anyway just is surface noise.

To cut off, the upper part of the lever needs to be flexible to some extend. If now the amplification-ratio of the soundbox was reduced by making the lower part of the lever longer and the upper shorter, flexing of the upper part would be reduced - which would shift cut-off into higher frequencies.
To get cut-off down again to 5Khz the upper part of the lever bar had to be made even thinner, which might have introduced difficulties in assembling as a very thin lever just might have been bent or snapped during assembly of the soundbox.

This so far is the only reason i can see why they did not reduce the amplification-ratio of soundboxes. Unfortunately they do not go into this matter in this otherwise detailed book.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5808
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Coffee Phil » 17 Nov 2019 16:57

Hi H. callahan,

I'm not sure if Victrola ever used "mute balls" in their machines but I remember seeing them in Edison machines.

Here is an example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/254378207811

The seller claims that it came from a working machine. I suppose that has to happen to supply parts for other machines but it still pains me to see these machines having to die to harvest parts.

Phil
H. callahan wrote:
17 Nov 2019 04:54
@Coffe Phil:

I havn´t yet heard of fabric balls being used as volume control inside horns. It´s interesting to hear, as i was quite surprised to find that putting kitchen roll inside the tonearm did not seem to affect frequency range a lot. I expected it to reduce higher frequencies most, but actually it still plays very clear (with a medium needle). Only bass may be thinned a little, on the other hand with a medium needle higher frequenices get louder so its not that easy to judge about bass being equal/louder/lower.

By the way in this book also is mentioned that they indeed did add an abrasive substance to the shellac mix to wear down the needle. They do not explain physically though, but they at least mention that it was done during the acoustic aera to save the record from wear, see page 143.

@Bob Dillon:

I envy the Auxetophone as it has full volume control. Well, its not easy to compare my portable to a pressure-grammophone but maybe this helps to get an idea of volume:

My appartment isn´t huge so i cannot flee to great distances but i can try to hide around a corner or two.

volume of my deaf-o-phone.JPG

With kitchen roll allready inside the tonearm, a record of average volume and a medium needle i no longer can tell at position I whether my ears are ringing or whether its tracking distortion. Distance is about 4 feet. At position II, about 9 feet, it does depend. Low volume passages are ok but loud passages on most records still make it hard to tell a difference between ear-ringing and distortion - so i have to flee to position III, about 15 feet, for being able to stand these passages.
This with kitchen roll inside the tonearm allready having reduced volume to about a half - and with the soundbox still not being fully restored. It still has a considerable air leak which, once sealed, again should increase volume. ](*,)
...

I have done some reading in this book and though it covers all the aspects of grammophones and soundboxes, with the lever bar having a chapter of its own, they do not really go into amplification-ratios and what to watch out for about these.
All they say in the chapter about the lever bar is:

"It should be noticed that if the distance l1 from the needle point to the pivots is less than the distance l2 from the pivots to the diaphragm connection the velocity at the diaphragm end is greater than at the needle end in the ratio l2 / l1. The pressure is therefore stepped down from the needle to the diaphragm in the ratio l1 / l2. This is the "turns ratio" of the transformer."

I do get that the diaphragm will have greater velocity when there is an amplification-ratio above x1.0, i also somewhat get that there will be more pressure exerted on the diaphragm at an amp-ratio below x1.0, because then this part of the lever is shorter - but with a soundbox "fewer pressure" usually means "fewer volume". But this is not the case when the upper part of the lever is longer than the lower part. When the upper part is longer volume is increased.
Anyway if pressure exerted on the diaphragm increases at amp-ratios below x1.0, this might be a reason for not giving soundboxes an amp-ratio below x1.4 as it might exert too much stress on the connection point of the diaphragm.

In another chapter though, dealing with record wear they state that by using a longer needle the ratio of l1 and l2 can be reduced which will result in fewer record wear, while decreasing volume at the same time though. And there is no warning like "but don´t do it or you will blow the diaphragm", so it seems like it should be possible - well, it seems to be as i allready tried a longer needle and it did reduce volume without blowing the diaphragm.

Again in the chapter about the lever bar they go into why the lever bar is thinned out on its upper part. Unfortunately they explain it with an electrical circuit, which i´m not capable of to understand, but later they explain that thinning the upper part of the lever does act like a filter which cuts off higher frequencies and they give 5kHz as an example for cut off.
As this book was first published in 1929, when electrical recordings were around for like 3 years, not going above 5kHz in frequency range, i presume that soundboxes of this period, which mine is, were designed to cut off above about 5kHz - as all being above 5kHz anyway just is surface noise.

To cut off, the upper part of the lever needs to be flexible to some extend. If now the amplification-ratio of the soundbox was reduced by making the lower part of the lever longer and the upper shorter, flexing of the upper part would be reduced - which would shift cut-off into higher frequencies.
To get cut-off down again to 5Khz the upper part of the lever bar had to be made even thinner, which might have introduced difficulties in assembling as a very thin lever just might have been bent or snapped during assembly of the soundbox.

This so far is the only reason i can see why they did not reduce the amplification-ratio of soundboxes. Unfortunately they do not go into this matter in this otherwise detailed book.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 704
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Bob Dillon » 17 Nov 2019 19:12

Victor Victrolas never used any volume controlling measures except opening and closing the front doors on the front of the cabinet machines.

circularvibes
long player
long player
Posts: 1486
Joined: 24 Sep 2010 02:09
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by circularvibes » 17 Nov 2019 20:42

Brunswick used to have a sliding board with a hole in the throat of the internal horn. A lever would open or close the aperture and control volume. Otherwise, this is where the term " put a sock in it" came from.

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 704
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Bob Dillon » 17 Nov 2019 20:59

Aeolion-Vocalion also used a volume control baffle at the throat of the horn, which was operated by the Graduola, an early remote control device.

H. callahan
senior member
senior member
Posts: 873
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by H. callahan » 18 Nov 2019 02:02

Coffee Phil wrote:
17 Nov 2019 16:57
Hi H. callahan,

I'm not sure if Victrola ever used "mute balls" in their machines but I remember seeing them in Edison machines.

Here is an example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/254378207811

The seller claims that it came from a working machine. I suppose that has to happen to supply parts for other machines but it still pains me to see these machines having to die to harvest parts.

Phil
Very interesting, thank you for the link.
I guess the sellers intention is to show that the mute ball still is functional, when saying "it comes from a working machine". Maybe the mute ball was the only part of that machine still being functional.

circularvibes
long player
long player
Posts: 1486
Joined: 24 Sep 2010 02:09
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by circularvibes » 18 Nov 2019 02:10

H. callahan wrote:
18 Nov 2019 02:02
Coffee Phil wrote:
17 Nov 2019 16:57
Hi H. callahan,

I'm not sure if Victrola ever used "mute balls" in their machines but I remember seeing them in Edison machines.

Here is an example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/254378207811

The seller claims that it came from a working machine. I suppose that has to happen to supply parts for other machines but it still pains me to see these machines having to die to harvest parts.

Phil
Very interesting, thank you for the link.
I guess the sellers intention is to show that the mute ball still is functional, when saying "it comes from a working machine". Maybe the mute ball was the only part of that machine still being functional.
They may also have had a barn find that wasn't worth restoring. There are many machines out in the wild that aren't in structural condition or visually appealing to bother restoring and the parts may be more valuable than the sum.

Coffee Phil
vinyl addict
vinyl addict
United States of America
Posts: 5808
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 08:22
Location: California

Re: A question regarding amplification-factor of soundboxes for grammophones

Post by Coffee Phil » 18 Nov 2019 03:35

Hi Bob,

That is a beautiful machine!

That “wired remote” looks to be a very refined version of the controls on the dash of cars which I had which used Bowden cables the control the throttle, choke, and vents. I’m pretty old. I even have a car with the throttle and spark advance on the steering column and a pre-Bowden cable ridgid rod for the choke.

Is that second soundbox for vertical records?

Phil


Bob Dillon wrote:
17 Nov 2019 20:59
Aeolion-Vocalion also used a volume control baffle at the throat of the horn, which was operated by the Graduola, an early remote control device.

Post Reply