Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 4, No. 6 (1930-03)

March, 1930 The Phonograph Monthly Review 189 machines both in quality and in price. But—and here the importance of the well-known trade mark becomes evident —one can not be sure whether the bargain is all that its makers claim for it. The element of chance is too high, and if one has guessed wrong, there is little or no redress. In buying a standard make, one has not only the guaran- tee of the manufacturer’s long experience and good repu- tation for both skill and fair dealing, but one knows that if the instrument or any part of it does not live up to specifications. “Something can be done about it.” There is a responsible company in back of the goods. There are direct representatives in all the larger cities, and dealers in almost every town. If you think that your purchase has fallen down in any particular, it is only necessary to state your case and produce actual grounds for dissatisfaction to have the matter remedied or your money returned. Home Trial Equally important as the above consideration is the tre- mendous advantages of home trial that is possible when one is dealing with the local agent for one of the leading com- panies. If one is purchasing a portable or a small table model, the dealer’s demonstration in his own display rooms is sufficient index of the instrument’s qualities. But if a large and expensive electrical model is under consideration, home test is not merely advisable, it is imperative. The cost of such an instrument is considerable, and it is worth its price only if it is to give satisfaction. Electrical instru- ments are at their best only when they are perfectly ad- justed for a definite purpose,—that is the room or rooms in which they are to be used, and the particular quality of reproduction that the owner prefers. Whether a specific instrument is going to prove suitable can be found out only by actual test under the same conditions that will govern its operation later. The many converts the phonograph has made during the last few years have been won over, first by having their interest aroused by a demonstration of the new instruments’ remarkable capabilities (in a dealer’s show room or audi- torium), and then by allowing the dealer to prove that the instrument would give equally effective and pleasing re- sults at home. “On The Fence” But the problem has not been as easy for the phono- graphic old-timers and connoisseurs. There are two things he demands to know before he purchases one of the new instruments: are they actually superior to his present sound box phonograph, and is there likely to be some revolution- ary new instrument available before long which will com- pletely supersede the current models? Phonographic opinion, both here and abroad, is hopeless- ly divided on these points. A current editorial titled “The Burning Question’ (i.e. will the electrical reproducer super- sede the old accoustical gramophone?), is typical of many articles in the phono-musical press. Manufacturers and editors repeatedly publish denials of the imminence of any radical change in reproducing media, but the frequency with which these denials appear indicates that the public’s attitude is very dubious. One of the many correspondents who have written us on this subject (M.D.N. in the Decem- ber 1929 issue) spoke of being on the fence, undecided whether to jump to the electrical pick-up side or that of the sound box. Most readers who have made up their minds on this point are still very much up in the air over what the immediate future may or may not bring in the way of improvements on old media or the development of entirely new ones. We wish that it were possible for us to settle these mat- ters definitely and finally, but obviously that is as impos- sible as it would be to offer a direct answer to the “best instrument” query. The best we can do is to attempt to shed some light on the problems involved. The Phonograph of the Future The continuous development in reproducing media made during the the last decade gives a reasonable basis for the widespread expectation that eventually we shall enjoy a phonographic Utopia, with its long-playing records, its substitution of sensitised film or wire for shellac disks, its television sets, and all the rest. Unquestionably the time will come when all these marvels will be procurable, but the eager forward-looker who expects them to spring up fully perfected overnight, or by next year, is going to be sadly chagrined. Let us look at the situation rationally and not with the hysteria with which it is so generally viewed by laymen. All of these ideal devices are already existent, but all of them are still in the experimental stage, between which and the practicable one extends a tremendous gulf. The long-playing that is attained by using narrower record grooves, has been proved quite impracticable; the instru- ment of the future will probably employ a roll of film or paper or wire. But although such instruments are pos- sible to make now, several considerations prevent their immediate introduction, and indeed even rule against their ever coming into as widespread use as the present day phonographs. The most important is their elaborate na- ture, and consequent expensiveness and delicate construc- tion. When they are made available on a marketable basis, their sale will necessarily be limited to people of consider- able means. Building up a sizeable musical repertory is a slow process at best, and with the limited demand for film recordings, its course will certainly not approach the rapidity with which the electrically recorded disk reper- tory has been built up. The Phonograph of Today and Tomorrow Another consideration is still more important. The phonograph manufacturers have expended millions in de- veloping the present processes and in maintaining technical staffs to devise constant improvements. Millions more are directly tied up in the instruments now on hand and in manufacture and in the myriad records that go to make up a catalogue. Many of these records, especially those of large symphon- ic or operatic works, enjoy a comparatively slow but steady sale. They can be made to pay for themselves and to show a profit only if the sale is continued over a number of years. The introduction of new instruments and records and abandonment of the manufacture of the present types would be a suicidal wiping off the slate of all the present great investments. Is it likely that the limited sale and high cost of production of the Utopian model would be incentive enough to persuade the manufacturers into throwing their present enormous assets to the winds? If proof were needed it is to be found in the fact that one large com- pany has recently installed a complete new plant of press- ing machines: within the last few years another company has introduced a patent pressing method in the factories of all its domestic and foreign affiliations. Another lead- ing company is constantly replacing its pressing equipment with improved machines. Would these expensive installa- tions be made now if the manufacturers planned to abandon disk records in the near or even the more distant future? The film-instruments will not spring Minerva-like in full perfection into the market. Their introduction will not parallel that of the electrical recording process by revolu- tionizing the entire industry. They will be introduced very cautiou_sly and for many years their cost will be far too excessive for the average person. And until long after they are finally marketable at any kind of reasonable figure, the present disks and phonographs will be generally used. The man who hesitates to invest in a phonograph or records today for fear they will have to be scrapped within a few years is conjuring up an entirely imaginary bogey, and denying himself a wealth of pleasure that he might otherwise enjoy. Remember Aesop’s fable of the dog and its reflection! Sound Box vs. Pick-Up The sound box vs. pick-up problem is a more debatable one, but it too yields readily to considered examination. The present trend in manufacture is to supply acoustical (or sound box) instruments only in portable or table sizes, while amplifying machines are made only in console models, often with radio combinations. This differentiation is a sound one, and correctly based upon the qualities of the two types. The accoustical phonograph (i.e., a non-amplifying in- strument employing a sound box) has many undeniable merits, merits so admirable that it is extremely doubtful that manufacture of this type will ever cease entirely, in the way that manufacture of acoustical records has ceased. It is less bulky. It is more fool-proof. It is simpler to operate. There are fewer parts to get out of repair. The volume of tone produced is better suited for a small room or apartment. When it is designed or adjusted to ensure proper weight on the record, needle track alignment, an