|
Post by Cotton Joe on Dec 2, 2007 20:45:37 GMT -5
Anybody know anything about them? The Ultona specifically.
|
|
|
Post by lukewarmwater on Dec 2, 2007 21:22:01 GMT -5
Very well-built machines, built by Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., manufacturers of bowling alleys, back-bars, and pool tables. based in Chicago. www.brunswickbilliards.com/our_rich_history/important_events/index.htmlThe Ultona reproducer came in two styles -- the earlier having a second head for Diamond Discs. Hardware was either nickel or gold-plated depending on model. Horns were typically white composition material. Luke W.
|
|
ultona
Full Member
It's Not Easy Bein' Green
Posts: 164
|
Post by ultona on Dec 3, 2007 9:06:56 GMT -5
Ultonas, huh? Somebody call my name? Sean
|
|
henry
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by henry on Dec 3, 2007 20:08:37 GMT -5
First to market electrical playback (Panatrope) in 1926. I have an original National Geographic magazine Nov. 1926 issue with first(?) ad.
|
|
|
Post by Cotton Joe on Dec 5, 2007 19:09:22 GMT -5
Thanks guys. I just bought one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Dec 5, 2007 19:24:11 GMT -5
Joe, What model? Got any photos yet? ;D I only have two Brunnie portables, one I love the other I'm ambivalent about. Regards, J.
|
|
|
Post by orthophonic on Dec 6, 2007 8:44:21 GMT -5
Brunswicks are interesting machines to be sure! I have a very nice one with the ultona soundbox that works very well but its reproduction is less than you will get from a Laboratory model or a Schubert. All kidding aside, Edison machines play Diamond Discs better than any other machine that I have tried them on. Those machines are Brunswicks and more modern electric types with cartridges. I think that Edison had the very best of acoustic reproduction as far as I can determine from the various machines that I have.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Dec 6, 2007 12:56:28 GMT -5
I had a Brunswick Mod.117 with the Ultona head (which I sold last summer) and it was a nice solid machine. I did have to adjust the tone arm for DDs as it would chew them up right down to the condensite. There is a screw on top of the tone arm bracket that I fiddled with and finally got it to play DDs w/o damage. (not to fear, I used badly chipped or Hawaiian records!!) Even with the large mica diaphragm, Ortho's right. They don't play DDs like old Tom's machines but the other two styluses were more than adequate for shellac and Pathe verticals.
You can contact R.J. Wakeman, rjwakeman@ucdavis.edu he will be more than happy to help you if you have any probs with your machine. He helped me with his expertise on getting my machine back in adjustment to play DDs.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Cotton Joe on Dec 6, 2007 19:04:42 GMT -5
Joe, What model? Got any photos yet? ;D I only have two Brunnie portables, one I love the other I'm ambivalent about. Regards, J. Model 117. Serial Number 206256 No, sorry. I pick it up next Friday. It has the gold accent instead of the nickel. And, the cabinet is an oak finish. I got it for $190.
|
|
ultona
Full Member
It's Not Easy Bein' Green
Posts: 164
|
Post by ultona on Dec 7, 2007 7:43:41 GMT -5
Nice score, Joe!
Brunswicks are so much fun. Once you've got the adjustments right with the ultona, you'll be good to go. True, Edisons play better on a DD machine, but the Brunswick is certainly no slouch!
....and it's oak! I'm jealous! ;D
Enjoy it!
Sean
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Jan 26, 2008 22:46:05 GMT -5
....and it's oak! I'm jealous! ;D Enjoy it! Sean Did somebody say OAK!?! Looking forward to seeing some photos Joe. Congratulations! Regards, J.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Feb 10, 2008 9:12:46 GMT -5
My two cents here. Long ago I owned many large victor models. As a fan of "Listening" rather than collecting machines, I often was put off by the Victors extra harsh and loud tones. When I purchased my first brunswick ultona console I was thrilled to compare recordings and find that the brunswick was revealing things that the Victors were not. Personally I would say that is due to the larger reproducer size which Victor resisted till very late. Also, though some say it makes no difference I still contend that a wood horn tends to be more mellow that a cast iron one. Not many cast iron violins around! With all that in mind, my recent quest for Edison sound has led me to realize that no company came as close to realism in an acoustic recording than those. The qualities that brunswick have are admirable. A warmth of tone, and the ability to play many records in a row without aural burn out some harder sounding machines can cause. Even Edison can be trying for lengths of band records for some reason. I think the Brunswick sort of mellows the overall effect and while losing a bit of sharpness of the edison it does give a pleasing sound. I have mentioned this before but will repeat it for those who haven't read it. Back in the mid 60's a friend of mine was performing at Powell Symphony Hall in St. Louis, he got them to allow us to haul a large oak victor down on the stage one evening while it was closed. We played many types of records. Particularly some vocal stars. While in the home the victor was ear blasting and shrill in really loud parts, in the hall it was stunning. The low and medium ranges were fine and the loud sections were soaring, filling the hall. You had to be there to appreciate it.. What came to be so surprising was that in the home the Brunswick mimicked that effect. Not overly loud in many places, but then raising to a clear and soaring effect at the loud parts, just like the victor on the stage. I can only feel that the rendition and effect created by the recording engineers at brunswick came the closest to the real performance sound.
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Feb 10, 2008 10:52:32 GMT -5
Larry, I had this hysterical vision of violinists with one Charles Atlas arm from holding a cast iron violin! What type Victor did you use? An outside horn Victor, Victrola or Orthophonic? Victrolas are loud-I'll give you that. However, soft-tone or fibre needles as well as various Sound-Boxes for different recordings can make all the difference in the world. Just this past year I've discovered how amazing the Exhibition can actually be, especially for Operatic Bat Wing Red Seals. For popular pieces of the late acoustic era and early electric I'm a great fan of the HMV No. 4 (as I've mentioned once or twice before ) I keep missing out on Victor No. 4s on the 'Bay to do a comparison. I do think our particular listening mode and our ears make the experience very different for each of us. I have a rather small "music room", a VV-X fills the room completely-aurally with most acoustic Victor Bat Wings. The Granada, though not as loud, has a fuller range, obviously, and that is very much suited to the small dimensions of the room. I also have an H-19 in there, that is the quietest of the three. I tend to listen in a low chair across the room at the height of the Granada's horn, a little below the horn of the H-19 & VV-X. This seem the best for that room. My parlor is a much larger room, if I ever get it done, that will be the home of my C-19, My VV-XI and hopefully a larger Ortho. model-someday. I would like a Brunswick someday. I heard Bill's 117 last year, they do have a mellow warmth as opposed the the crispness of the Victrola. This is why we have to have more than one machine. ;D ... at least that is what I keep telling family and friends when I buy another machine! Regards, J.
|
|
henry
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by henry on Feb 10, 2008 21:31:38 GMT -5
John, you nailed it as far as the Victor is concerned. I'll add a couple of more thoughts. Whatever the sound box, and as you know I have an Exhibition, it has to be expertly rebuilt and adjusted, and careful consideration given to choice of needles depending on nature of the recording (e.g., soft-tone or fiber needles as you mentioned). Also, on the XI and similar Victrolas, the horn IS wood, at least the larger surfaces (and therefore most of the horn's square inches/feet) are, so that's really not the issue here, IMO. OTOH, room volume (i.e., LxWxH) and room ACOUSTICS make a very big difference. All these and other factors add up to a rather complex set of variables, which no inflexible prescription or formula can possibly accommodate. Just my 2ยข worth.
|
|
|
Post by neophone on Feb 10, 2008 21:59:50 GMT -5
Henry,
Yes that can't be stressed enough; the reproducer-whatever type must be in good working order, fresh gaskets and properly rebuilt. I've heard the wood vs. metal argument; primarily concerned with outside horn models, yet much of the same applies to internal horn machines. There are a few differences though: shape and size of the horn and what type of metal. Cast iron doesn't behave as the brass, tin or light steel. So even though the Victrola has a substantial part of it's horn made up of cast iron, it behaves very differently than the sheet metal horn of the Grafonola. We have heard this argument before regarding Orthophonics compared to ,HMV Re-entrants. We tend to think in straight comparisons of all these types, yet machine "A" might compare favorable to machine "B" in a direct comparison in your music room, however machine "A" may sound harsh and strident in my den.....
But we do like to make our comparisons and debate the pros & cons of various phonographs! I know I do! ;D
Regards, J.
|
|