Real vs fake gramophone - how do they compare?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 бер 2023
- Lets a play a record and also have a peek at both of these machines and see how they compare! Let me know what you think in the comments. Thanks
#antique
#gramophone
#phonograph
#78rpm
#78rpmshellac - Наука та технологія
The fake one definitely sounds more hollow and has a worse sound quality than the Apollo which sounds much better and has a fuller sound to it… great video!!
Thanks 😀 👍. Yes, in comparison, the fake sounds pretty bad, though on its own it's passable
I don't know why I'm here, I have an exam tomorrow!!! But still worth it... I want one now
Hope the exam went well! 😀👍
the Apollo sounds more fresh, meanwhile the fake sounds haunting-ish and alot more cloudy
Yes, the fake sounds OK on its own, but just doesn't have the sound quality compared to the real thing. Thanks 😀 👍
The fake one sound very tinny. Can't wait till my columbia horn graphophone arrives!
Yes, in comparison the fake one is noticeably poorer. In isolation, it doesn't sound too bad ... 😅. I'm sure the Columbia will be great. Very nice machine to have! Thanks 😀 👍
I wouldn't have thought to play a 1926 record on a machine that old but since it's Imperial, it was most likely still acoustically recorded as they were one of the few to continue acoustic recording until 1928 or so. Yes, the particular HMV painting used on the fake as well as the soundbox are far more contemporary than they'd have you believe. The gramophone itself looks to be copying an HMV Monarch or something similar albeit with a brass horn which HMV never used on models that late. The famous painting itself depicts a G&T No. 2 (modified from being an Edison cylinder phonograph in the original Barraud painting) and almost immediately they discovered that brass was too tinny so they used tin horns. You can of course put the likes of a No. 5 on an external horn machine if it has that bigger tonearm or if you have an adaptor and I have seen it done on a few occasions. Historically however, people had already ditched external horns by the time the No. 4 rolled around and especially the No. 5. because they were deemed impractical and unsightly. I love that you're comparing the fake against the Apollo while Gramophonic Reevolution has it against a more juxtaposed Decca No. 50 and Tim Weeks compared more directly with an authentic HMV model. Even for having an early soundbox, that Apollo definitely sounds fuller.
Yes, the record is almost certainly acoustic and may date to a year or more before 1926, depending on where Imperial got it from. As you say, Imperial were late to electrically recording anyway. Both machines can cope with electrical records, within their limitations. The Apollo soundbox needs a rebuild, and the fake soundbox has been rebuilt, but it is a poor copy of probably an average soundbox:
ua-cam.com/video/C9FyvIl6VD4/v-deo.html
As you say, the case is probably a Monarch clone, though I have a couple of fake base units and they do vary quite a bit so presumably are made in different workshops. I've also seen some early catalogues, Pathe I think, which had similar corner columns. There definitely are some other interesting comparison videos around. These are my only 2 working horn machines so it was an obvious choice. The Apollo would also have been a cheap machine, so I think the comparison is fair enough 😉
I might well try some different soundboxes. Ideas for future videos! Thanks 😀 👍
Nice comparison 😎
Thanks 😀 👍
The quality of the fakes can be all over the place. The bad logo I think is based on a suitcase HMV lid decal. Twenty years ago, I had my heart set on an outside horn gramophone and it was the only way I can afford one. I knew they were fakes but it was my first gramophone and knew I was taking a chance on it. So my first eBay purchase went a bit awry because of a computer crash and because I did "buy it now" when I went back thinking the first one didn't go through bought two of them. No matter, I thought, one could be used at home and the other in my art studio. The first machine that arrived played perfectly to my great surprise with a bit of adjustment of the speed control. The second machine meant for the art studio could not hold correct speed or play all the way through a record. Based on how the cases looked, I decided to transfer the good parts to the second machine and use the first as a platform for experimenting and upgrading. The end results were that both machines play fine.
Years later, I sold the second machine to someone fully informing her of its true origins. She's been very happy with it. The one I kept got a different motor with matched turntable and crank, adapted a different tone arm as well as refinished the extremely fake case, (the motor board is plywood!) painted the back bracket to something more presentable and have a temporary horn elbow made from a PVC plumbing elbow painted to sort of match which I hope to improve upon somehow. I learned a bit from taking apart the Garrard Model 30 motor, and finding out why it wouldn't play correctly or a full wind (broken, shortened spring reattached) The buzzy soundbox is in my spares. A few years later I got a beautiful Columbia BI Sterling with a beautiful nickel plated morning glory horn among other actual antique machines since the purchase of the fake HMV. Yet, now and then, I'll give the fake a go on an acoustic era record and have a bit of fun. I've noticed that the Garrard Model 30 motors are now being copied, have no idea if they're any good or not.
I sort of have 2 of these machines also. The other one is just the base unit, without tonearm, bracket or horn. I suspect someone used the horn as a lampshade or similar! It has a Thorens style motor, not like the Garrard clone in the one I demonstrate. Both machine were bought used, so I don't know how old they are, but they have 100% new parts. Thanks for the info on your 2. Very interesting to read 👍😀
@@mrrgstuff I got my fakes in 2002 when they were still doing the Victor/HMV gooseneck style tone arms. One of them made quite decently, the other shockingly angled wrong.
I've seen the gooseneck type and back bracket sold as spares, but even though one of my machines is missing this, it just wasn't cost effective to replace all the missing parts. Would have been cheaper to buy a whole new machine 😅. The complete one I do have, has the swan neck type, but is made of brass and very heavy
The fake one sounds 'strangled' and its governor sounds like it's chattering, well either that or there's not much 'flywheel' effect to smooth things out. Is the turntable lighter? It also looks like the rake on the soundbox/needle is excessive.
The turntable will be lighter and the brack bracket was a bit loose, so the rake could well have been wrong. The fake doesn't sound too bad on its own, but yes, it seems to have a rather poor frequency response compared to other machines, or at least that is what it sounds like. I have not compared them scientifically, but I may in the future. Thanks 😀 👍
The fake sounds horrid! As I expected. Interesting video!
Thanks 😀 👍. Yes, in comparison to the Apollo it is pretty poor. In real life, on its own it is actually suprisingly passable 😉😅
That appolo is a thing of beauty
Thanks 👍 😀. Glad you liked it!
Always wanted to know what the fake gramophone sounds like, which a lot of people said wasn't good at all and only suitable for display which is often the case with the few gramophones that exist in these parts ... mere reproductions. Many thanks, blessings to you and yours. 🙂
These fakes are a curious breed as although really intended for display, all the parts are there and they do 'work'. Having seen videos of them being assembled in the workshops, I don't think though that they are tested and can be so poorly adjusted as to destroy records. Will a little work though, they tend to be usable, though certainly not something to play decent records on, and the sound isn't great. I do enjoy playing around with them though 😅. Thanks 😀 👍
COOL
Thanks 👍 😀
Very nice comparison, the fake is awful
Thanks 😀 👍. Yes, it is shown up really badly by the Apollo 😅
THAT PHONTY IS A SPY!?!?
I just bought a fake it's a 1978 I hope it sounds better than yours...but the Apollo is Sooo NICE!!! Sounds LOVELY. So Romantic.
Thanks, yes, I am pleased with the Apollo. It would have been a small/cheap machine when it was new, but it certainly does have the look. The fake ones can be made to play reasonably well but are sold more as decorative pieces with moving parts. As far as I understand, ensuring they can play a record is not something the manufacturers pay much attention to. Not sure what you mean by 1978? I have a playlist of videos about fake gramophone I own, which you may find interesting:
ua-cam.com/play/PLsCYUbO6xxnSQxENr28Cg05DiRuC5O47w.html&si=vFpa1q1_EOwtCSON
Thanks 😀 👍
The original sounds really good, the fake sounds - not good (I’m being kind).
Somewhere, I have a 1929 recording of Jack Hylton & His Band/Orchestra playing “When Day is Done” but I use slightly more modern “tech” (a modern GL75 turntable with a modern cartridge and a suitable 78 stylus and preamp for all of the 78rpm replay replay standards), a few tweaks and It’s really good.
That's interesting to hear. I also have one machine with a decent modern 78 cartridge. It's in this video here:
ua-cam.com/video/MXGczxwlMYc/v-deo.htmlsi=JeAkcRF_FfFwxNVy
Thanks 👍 😀
An interesting & detailed comparison. I'm guessing the motor in the fake is a genuine vintage spare, judging by the robust casting & it looks well built. The motor in my recently posted fake looks like a cheap copy, with its thin gauge top & bottom plate & its flimsy pillars. I think the inferior sound is due to the cheaply made soundbox, which, if its anything like mine, is very light. There's no stylus bar pivot on mine, just thin strips of steel, which are supposed to, and do, sort of flex! If yours is anything like mine, the joint between the tone arm & the horn is far from 'sound tight' to the further detriment of the tone. That said, one of the beauties of the analogue record grooves, is that they can be 'read' by almost anything that's in contact with the vibrating needle. A pin though a matchbox gives surprising, though faint results! I bought the fake, because its part of 'gramophonic history' & as a warning to those who may be duped into believing they're genuine antiques. Mine of course, was not sold as such.
I thought the motor was a real Garrard when I found the machine, but since have decided it is a fake, or at least not made to the same quality as ones found fitted in vintage machines. I took a closer look at it in this video: ua-cam.com/video/qo6Vxul8-iw/v-deo.html
I have a couple of these fake soundboxs and yes, like yours, they don't have any proper pivots. The Sonata they are based on doesn't look that great either: ua-cam.com/video/C9FyvIl6VD4/v-deo.html
I also agree that the joints on the tonearm are far from soundtight. I had to repair the angle joint:
ua-cam.com/video/BZMeE8b1Njs/v-deo.html
I think had that been ok, somebody would have beaten me to buying it as a display piece! I agree, though, that it is fascinating how little is required to get the sound out of a record, and I do enjoy building DIY machines still, even though I have the real thing! 😉😅. Thanks 😀 👍
@@mrrgstuff Thanks for the links. Enjoyed the detail!
Thanks 😀 👍
Difference - even with laid down work at the new one! Also keep in mind that the original one, wasent the most expensive at the market, when it was new.
Yes, the original machine was a small cheap one when it was new. Have you seen this video?
ua-cam.com/video/vDpsJK8J7WQ/v-deo.htmlsi=41qNf_Q6X48U-tqa
Thanks 😀 👍
How does the Bollyphone sound with the Apollo soundbox? I much preferred the sound of the Apollo.
The fake has a non standard soundbox fitting, but I can get around that! 😉. I'll try and do some tests with other soundboxes. Thanks 😀 👍
The Apollo is so sweet sounding it's quality shows through in heaps the fake, well, fakes are never as good as the real deal are they. I wouldn't give it floor space.
The Apollo certainly sounds better and gets the floor space I had intended to use for the fake! 😅. I'll keep the fake for the moment, though, as it's quite fun, and there are lots of things I can try with it. Thanks 😀 👍
@@mrrgstuff I wondered if there was anyway of improving it with upgrades perhaps, hopefully?. I will look forward towards that end, if so..
Yes, there are certainly a few things you can do. You might thus playlist interesting:
My fake gramophones: ua-cam.com/play/PLsCYUbO6xxnSQxENr28Cg05DiRuC5O47w.html
Thanks 😀 👍
Hello can you do a video on how to get a real gramophone I have looked for one for years.
The apollo phonograph sounds very good then that assophone.
Yes, Apollo is definitely better, though needs a soundbox rebuild as there is some unwanted noise from it. I think the fake is surprisingly passable when heard on its own. Thanks 😀 👍
1:25 oh i feel bad for the apollo gramophone
I have an idea: I have an old Brunswick gramophone, a stand-up cabinet model to be exact. However, it's motor is absolutely gutted; there's basically nothing left but the chassis. How hard would it be to buy one of these fake gramophones & gut the motor for it's parts, or perhaps just swap the motors entirely?
It's an interesting idea, and I think I once did see one type of fake motor being sold as a drop in replacement for broken gramophone motors. Unfortunately, even if the fake motors were of good quality (which they aren't), it would be quite tricky to achieve. There were many different models of gramophone motor, and swapping parts or whole motors only really works when its an exact replacement or a very similar model from the same manufacturer.
In a larger cabinet machine like your Brunswick, it might be possible to mount a different motor. However you would almost certainly need to drill new holes in the motor board and also a new crank hole in the side of the case as the old one is unlikely to be in the right position. You'll also find the speed control won't line up and may be a different mechanism from your existing one, so you would have that issue to solve. Finally the winding crank will probably be too short for the case and not reach the motor. Remotered machines do exist of course and you may be interested in this video about one I have:
ua-cam.com/video/3-9UU49Zm5A/v-deo.htmlsi=PymNAk22wGcTvQIS
Thanks 😀 👍
@@mrrgstuff Thanks for the advice! Do you happen to know any good places to find a new motor perhaps?
Ebay is always worth a look. Machines which are too far gone are often broken up for parts and a working motor is quite resalable. I'd also recommend joining The Talking Machine Forum, if you can. There are a couple of selling/buying sections in there along with much other gramophone/phonograph discussion and well worth a read. 😀👍
Thank you for putting this video together. That crap-o-phone sure sounds horrible!
It doesn't sound too bad played on its own, but it not as good as the real thing, certainly. Have you seen this one: ua-cam.com/video/JebB8UkgcxM/v-deo.htmlsi=TpcKcfJ2kmrl3D2x
Thanks 😀 👍
I want to get a fake one because of price. Seeing your videos I am sure a fake one could be adjusted to take from it the better sound.
Yes, the fakes certainly can be improved. The simplest and probably the most effective way is to change the soundbox. It's easy enough to do, but I cover some issues in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/ypwS4mJ6WEQ/v-deo.html
Thanks 😀 👍
@@mrrgstuff Many thanks!
Now the fake sounds more terrible, but it has a more haunting sounding feel to it. Like a hospital patient on their last legs enjoying their favorite music for the last time, or a youth visiting said hospital a century later and this is what they hear lingering on the damp moldy air always somewhere close by, but never leaves their side either.
Thanks 😀 👍. Glad you enjoyed the video 😀
In my opinion, these fakes would be much more pleasing to look at if they just put more effort into making the back bracket and reproducer look accurate. But then again, they aren’t trying to fool hobbyists, they’re trying to fool people who don’t know any better.
It's a good point. I think these fakes are evolving, though, as I have seen 2 sorts of curved back brackets on some examples. The reproducer is a pretty accurate copy of a much later reproducer. I have done a more detailed video on that, here: ua-cam.com/video/C9FyvIl6VD4/v-deo.html
Thanks 😀 👍
No comparison..
The fake needs an early sould box fitting!
Indeed. Have you seen the tests in this video?
ua-cam.com/video/JebB8UkgcxM/v-deo.html
Thanks 👍 😀
2:48 yo apollo gramophone is lucky
Such a shame they don't make good replicas
I just don't think there is the demand for them. These fakes are mainly used for display 🤔
@@mrrgstuff guess I and other enthusiasts will have to save a couple grand for a semi decent phonograph, because these replicas just ain't worth it sadly.
But thanks for testing these out so that others can see the difference
0:44 0:49
A song about a screw
I got one of the fake ones from India, it was total junk, they gave us a refund but still…
Yes, they are really sold as decoration pieces with moving parts, rather than actual working gramophones. Of course, as they are bought and sold across the antiques industry, it is not always obvious to an uninformed purchaser that they are not the real thing. With some effort they can be made to play reasonably well, and I have made quite a few videos on them, like this one:
ua-cam.com/video/qo6Vxul8-iw/v-deo.html
Thanks 👍 😀
no treble on the newer machine
Yes, it sounds very muddy. I hope to try it with some other soundboxes. Thanks 😀 👍
The crapophone sounds so bad because of the badly designed sound box (needle holder too stiff, no real pivot point, diaphragm directly clamped to the housing).
The soundbox is copied from a Thorens design which better but not by much:
ua-cam.com/video/C9FyvIl6VD4/v-deo.html
I will try some other soundboxes on it to see how much improvement I can get. Thanks 😀 👍
The fake is a scam, built by parts, that doesn't belong together. It could possibly be a decoration, but not look like the real thing
Have you seen this video I made on this subject:
ua-cam.com/video/t3FQ1F03QUI/v-deo.html
Thanks 👍 😀
@@mrrgstuff I was in a gramophone forum, it was also a topic with the Indian fake gramophones.
Ok, the point I was trying to make is that most of these fake machines are now using brand new parts, and not recycled ones from old machines. It would be true to say though that a fake Garrard motor doesn't really belong in a horn machine, as real horn machines usually had other motors.
ca
Sorry, not sure what you mean? Thanks