Edison Phonograph, Questions
Paul Christensen
>Last week I said I hadn't gotten into antique phonos yet.
>"Yet" arrived over the weekend as an Edison upright Diamond Disk Phonograph
>in "William and Mary" style. Very nice cabinet and mechanism (except
...
>(1) Does the diamond stylus really last "forever?" How do I know when to
>worry about damaging my records? The seller told me there was a place
>that could replace your needle for $65. Dig out the old hi-fi stylus
>microscope? Still beats changing the steel needel after every play
>on a Vickie...
This is a debated subject, but many people claim that when properly maintained,
Diamond Disc needles can last almost indefinitely. Over time, the stylus will
actually begin to conform to the record grooves, but this doesn't affect its
playback quality. Unlike modern LP styli, the Diamond Disc stylus is rounded,
and countinued playback merely retains the stylus shape.
There are several ways to easily test the stylus quality before playing a
record. You should *always* do one of these before playing a valuable record.
(a) Move the stylus to the smooth blank area between the end of the record
and the label. Start the record turning, and lower the stylus onto this
area. Allow the record to spin for 4 or 5 revolutions. Lift the stylus
and examine the blank area on the record. If your stylus is good, there
should be *no* marks. If the stylus created grooves, it will damage your
record.
(b) Alternately, lower the stylus onto a record with a white paper label in
good condition. If the stylus doesn't cut or mar the label, it is in good
condition. If the stylus cuts the label, it must be replaced.
Personally, I prefer method (a), but either will work well.
You should always examine how the limit pin (in the front of the reproducer)
floats while playing a record. This pin should be free to float left and
right, up and down within the metal limit frame. If it isn't, you will end
up cutting your records instead of playing them! Problems with the limit pin
can be fixed by internal adjustments in playing height, etc...
Replacement Diamond Disc styli is more of a black art than a science. I
know of one collector who tried 5 different styli and only 2 of the 5 gave
acceptable sound quality. Some "new old stock" (ie. original Edison parts) are
available, but these may not be of relibale quality, depending on their source,
storage conditions, etc.
>(2) Seller recommended alcohol for cleaning the disks. Is that good?
>I did and no ill effects so far.
Be very careful on the type of alcohol you use to clean! Ethyl alcohol can
actually chemcially react with the condensite varnish used for the record
surface and destroy your records! Ammonia in certain glass cleaners (eg.
Windex) can also be damaging.
>(3) Couple of the disks have glued-on paper labels, but the rest just
>have the info and Thomas's picture molded into them, so you have
>to catch the light right to read them. Which style is older?
>Are the serial numbers assigned in chrono order?
Early Diamond Discs were originally etched, then electrotyped. These "labels"
are all black, and there are about 5 variations that evolved over time. Some
of the earlier records have two shields on them. Paper labels started after
1921. These records are generally *much* quieter than their predecessors.
Unlike Edison's cylinders, the Diamond Disc sequence numbers were assigned
based on the category of music, not on the order released. For example,
82xxx series were for classical, 80xxx for semi-classical (eg. hymns),
50xxx for popular, etc.. Some highly desirable series are the very late
electrically recorded records, 52xxx and 55xxx come to mind.
Many "black label" Diamond Discs have a sequence code in the rim that
indicates the date recorded. These start at A1 and go through C20 or so. You
should avoid sequence codes B1-B12 (unless you really want the title), since
these records were pressed during WWI, and Edison had to use inferior materials
causing very noisy playback.
>(4) Mechanism has been kept well oiled and greased, but makes a little
>noise that seems related to the governor shaft. Is that OK, or should
>it run deathly quiet? You can't hear it when it's playing.
My machine (C250 Chippendale) runs very quietly. You should clean your
governor pad and disc if the noise is coming from there.
>(6) Sometimes the springs "relax" internally with a floor-shaking thump!
>I know that's common on drum springs, but will fresh graphite grease
>(or whatever) get rid of that?
Sounds like your springs need to be cleaned and repacked with fresh grease.
This is a very dangerous task not for the faint of heart! There are many
experienced collectors who will service mainsprings for about $30 each. Well
worth the investment.
>(7) How hard/expensive is it to find a 78 lateral-cut adapter?
>What about the reverse -- I've seen Brunswicks with dual heads.
>Would be nice to hear Edison disks on an Orthophonic...
Lateral adapters are getting harder to find, and can run from $75 up. I
wouldn't pay over $90, though. Do *NOT* try to play Edison discs on lateral
machines. Several Diamond Disc adapters were made in the teens and twenties,
but the shallow grooves of the DD record require the feedscrew Edison used.
Playing a DD on an adaptor machine can ruin your records quickly. Edison
himself warned of this (read the fine print on an original envelope...it's
not all marketing hype).
Edison's high-end machines (C250 mechanism) had very large metal horns that
were close to the mid-range Victor Orthophonics. Most DD records did not have
the bass response that electrical recordings did, making a large 6-foot
Credenza horn overkill.
>(10) The speed control has to be set almost max to sound right.
>Below about 1/3 the machine stops. I'd expect 80 RPM to be in the
>middle of the range. Should I adjust the governor? Is there any way,
>besides my tonal judgment, to know what's the right speed?
You can adjust the speed control knob using a set screw under the baseplate.
It was designed originally to be set at 80rpm when turned all the way to the
stop post. However, some DDs are a little faster than 80 rpm, so I keep mine
near the middle of the range. This knob is supposed to stop the turntable
when turned all the way to the right.
It's easy to determine 80 rpm. Place a piece of thin cardboard or stiff paper
underneath a record, set the table spinning, and count the number of times
the paper hits your finger in a 15 second period. At 80 rpm, this should be
20 times. Repeat this until you get the desired count. Then, mark the
position (I use a small post-it note) on your speed control. Note that the
black marks on later Edison white label records are *not* a stroboscopic
speed adjustor! This is a common misconception.
Not all records were recorded at 80 rpm, through, despite Edison's claims.
Tonal judgement should always override 80rpm exact. But you should start at
80 initially.
>So, thanks in advance to the many (other) phono lovers on the Net.
>--
> knu...@iexist.att.com
>Line Mgmt: doesn't believe the schedule, and says so
>Middle Mgmt: pretends to believe the schedule
>Upper Mgmt: actually believes the schedule
Your welcome. Always happy to find someone who shares my excitement over
antique phonographs and period music!
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
michael.j.knudsen
> There are several ways to easily test the stylus quality before playing a
> record. You should *always* do one of these before playing a valuable record.
Thanks very much, I'll try (a) tonite. As a boy, I learned that steel
lateral needles definitely flunked the (b) paper label test!
> You should always examine how the limit pin (in the front of the reproducer)
> floats while playing a record. This pin should be free to float left and
Mine is just fine that way. But I notice thaat the treble response is best when
the pin is near the bottom. At least when scratching the needle with my finger--
doesn't make much difference on a record, strangely enuf. I've tried playing with the
cuing level not quite all the way down, to make the needle float near the bottom of its range,
and can't hear any difference. So not to worry, I guess.
> Replacement Diamond Disc styli is more of a black art than a science. I
"If it ain't broke...." will be my guideline on this.
> Be very careful on the type of alcohol you use to clean! Ethyl alcohol can
> actually chemcially react with the condensite varnish used for the record
> surface and destroy your records! Ammonia in certain glass cleaners (eg.
> Windex) can also be damaging.
Someone else recommended Windex, but not water -- since Windex is water and
NH4, I wondered about that.
So far I've used only isopropyl rubbing alcohol, with no apparent ill effects.
I have some ethyl alcohols from Scotland and Kentucky that can improve the
muiscal effects when liberally applied to the listener :-)
Thanks for all the data on record index numbers and label styles.
THis will help me in buying more disks, which naturally I want to do...
> Sounds like your springs need to be cleaned and repacked with fresh grease.
> This is a very dangerous task not for the faint of heart! There are many
> experienced collectors who will service mainsprings for about $30 each. Well
*Everyone* mentions the fingers -- I do like playing piano by hand.
I'll try inserting grease thru the screw holes, or just live with it.
The thumps seem to be less frequent and violent since I've been playing the beast,
so maybe the grease already inside is getting redistributed.
> wouldn't pay over $90, though. Do *NOT* try to play Edison discs on lateral
> machines. Several Diamond Disc adapters were made in the teens and twenties,
> but the shallow grooves of the DD record require the feedscrew Edison used.
> Playing a DD on an adaptor machine can ruin your records quickly. Edison
Thanks for the warning! I know of a beautiful big Brunswick with a dual head.
What about the lateral adapter, tho? Will my Edison feedscrew mess up lateral
disks, or do the adapters have a little swing arm to allow leeway?
> himself warned of this (read the fine print on an original envelope...it's
> not all marketing hype).
Nice to know. I hear Edison's advertising team was more than a match for anything
Madison Avenue has seen since, but this was honest. I haven't seen a disk
sleeve yet.
> Edison's high-end machines (C250 mechanism) had very large metal horns that
> were close to the mid-range Victor Orthophonics. Most DD records did not have
> the bass response that electrical recordings did, making a large 6-foot
> Credenza horn overkill.
6' horn should go down to 80 Hz, not bad. Sounds like my horn is not the biggest;
it can't be more than 4' at most. Do the Credenza horns have a "loop"
in the tubing? Pretty sure mine just goes down from the tone arm and straight
out. I've seen a smaller, plain oak machine with a smaller horn.
Once I get the Frowe (sp?) book these things will become clear?
> It was designed originally to be set at 80rpm when turned all the way to the
> stop post. However, some DDs are a little faster than 80 rpm, so I keep mine
> near the middle of the range. This knob is supposed to stop the turntable
> when turned all the way to the right.
OK then, mine sounds right just short of the high stop, so probably in spec.
Machine stops when turned below about halfway, tho not a problem.
> It's easy to determine 80 rpm. Place a piece of thin cardboard or stiff paper
> underneath a record, set the table spinning, and count the number of times
> the paper hits your finger in a 15 second period. At 80 rpm, this should be
I thought of this stopwatch method, but wondered if there was anything else.
Not that anything could be simpler. Sort of like how I regulate anniversary clocks.
> black marks on later Edison white label records are *not* a stroboscopic
> speed adjustor! This is a common misconception.
Hah! Strobe would help only if you had AC lighting current in your home,
and we know how Tom felt about that!
> Your welcome. Always happy to find someone who shares my excitement over
> antique phonographs and period music!
I especially like the music. I've learned so much about century-old music
from music boxes and now phonos.
Paul, where are you located? I'm near CHicago. --mike k.
--
m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
Paul Christensen
>In article <cpaul.760724756@cheetah>, cp...@informix.com (Paul Christensen) writes:
...
>> wouldn't pay over $90, though. Do *NOT* try to play Edison discs on lateral
>> machines. Several Diamond Disc adapters were made in the teens and twenties,
>> but the shallow grooves of the DD record require the feedscrew Edison used.
>> Playing a DD on an adaptor machine can ruin your records quickly. Edison
>Thanks for the warning! I know of a beautiful big Brunswick with a dual head.
>What about the lateral adapter, tho? Will my Edison feedscrew mess up lateral
>disks, or do the adapters have a little swing arm to allow leeway?
Yep, you guessed it - lateral attachments for Edison machines consist of an
arm that can freely swing from side to side, allowing for differences between
the Edison feedscrew and lateral threads. Another benefit of the lateral
attachment is that by still using the Edison feedscrew, your tracking error
is effectively minimized, and record wear is significantly less than on
other machines (eg. Victrols, etc...)
Note that Edison himself sold a lateral attachment for 6 months in 1919. He
stopped its production when it began eating into sales of his Diamond Discs.
Like Victor, some of Edison's entry-level machines were sold at cost to make
money from the record sales. Edison pulled his lateral attachment from the
market in conjunction with a marketing statement warning about "dangers" of
playing non-Edison records on an Edison mechanism.
>> himself warned of this (read the fine print on an original envelope...it's
>> not all marketing hype).
>Nice to know. I hear Edison's advertising team was more than a match for anything
>Madison Avenue has seen since, but this was honest. I haven't seen a disk
>sleeve yet.
I'm a big fan of Edison, but I'll readily admit that Edsion had some pretty
*poor* marketing ideas. Edison himself brought the eventual downfall of the
Diamond Disc. It was a technically superior product (he even had a long-play
version in 1929 that played 40 minutes at 80rpm!), but lacked the big-name
talent of Victor and Columbia. Edison insisted on running *every* part of
his business, and in approving every expenditure. He refused to pay the big
bucks that performers were being paid, feeling instead that people would pay a
premium for technical superiority, regardless of the performer. When you do
find a big-name performer on any Edison material it usually commands a
premium price (Billy Murray doesn't count..he sang into anyone's horn:-)
>> Edison's high-end machines (C250 mechanism) had very large metal horns that
>> were close to the mid-range Victor Orthophonics. Most DD records did not have
>> the bass response that electrical recordings did, making a large 6-foot
>> Credenza horn overkill.
>6' horn should go down to 80 Hz, not bad. Sounds like my horn is not the biggest;
>it can't be more than 4' at most. Do the Credenza horns have a "loop"
>in the tubing? Pretty sure mine just goes down from the tone arm and straight
>out. I've seen a smaller, plain oak machine with a smaller horn.
>Once I get the Frowe (sp?) book these things will become clear?
I don't have my copy of Frowe here with me, but my recollection is that the
Diamond Disc mechnanism came with three different horn sizes: 100, 150, 200.
The 200 was the largest horn, although by Victor orthophonic standards, it
was pretty small. I seem to recall the William and Mary also used the top
of the line mechanism: the model C250. This mechanism had the 200 horn,
double-spring motor (plays 5-6 sides), and gold-plated hardware.
The Victor Credenza (and later 10-35) had the largest horn ever made by Victor
in a commercial machine. It was folded over several times, allowing the 6 foot
horn to fit in a managably-sized cabinet. The Credenza remains one of the prize
machines in a Victor enthusiast's collection, and is still relatively easy to
find, although it has become a *hot* machine in Japan in recent years.
>I especially like the music. I've learned so much about century-old music
>from music boxes and now phonos.
>Paul, where are you located? I'm near CHicago. --mike k.
Mike, I live outside of Phila. We've got a regional phonograph show
coming to Newark, NJ on April 24, if you're interested. And of course,
there's the "biggie" in Union, IL in June.
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
george conklin
recommends Windex. I have used it for years with no
problems. It is amazing all the contradictory advice
out there. DD's are similar to bakelite. No too much
hurts them. Water will, since it also gets under the
varnish and disolves the filler (which changed from time
to time).
If you play the DD long enough, the old grease may redistribute
itself.
As for using Pathe heads on Edison DD's, the Pathe head is
supposed to have a sapphire needle in it. Remember: you CAN
play a DD with a sapphire needle.
The original DD's were celluloid. Back in the early 1950's,
not knowing any better, I played these records with an aftermarket
needle head which tilted to play Edison records. I recently tried
these disks out and found them to be in excellent condition. I
even played some varnish DD's the same way, with very little
damage. Of course, I do not recommend the procedure, but in
the 1920's people did this type of thing all the time.
If you DD needle is so sharp it cuts a groove on your DD's
inner circle, then WOW, you really have a problem. More
subtle is a needle which looks ok but is actually accellerating
wear and you do not notice it. The Expert Stylus Company
(in England) sells excellent replacements. Yesterday Once
Again carries them, as does APSCO.
.
George
george conklin
>knu...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>
>>In article <cpaul.760724756@cheetah>, cp...@informix.com (Paul Christensen) writes:
>...
>>> wouldn't pay over $90, though. Do *NOT* try to play Edison discs on lateral
>>> machines. Several Diamond Disc adapters were made in the teens and twenties,
>>> but the shallow grooves of the DD record require the feedscrew Edison used.
>>> Playing a DD on an adaptor machine can ruin your records quickly. Edison
>
>>Thanks for the warning! I know of a beautiful big Brunswick with a dual head.
>>What about the lateral adapter, tho? Will my Edison feedscrew mess up lateral
>>disks, or do the adapters have a little swing arm to allow leeway?
>
>Yep, you guessed it - lateral attachments for Edison machines consist of an
>arm that can freely swing from side to side, allowing for differences between
>the Edison feedscrew and lateral threads. Another benefit of the lateral
>attachment is that by still using the Edison feedscrew, your tracking error
>is effectively minimized, and record wear is significantly less than on
>other machines (eg. Victrols, etc...)
>
>Note that Edison himself sold a lateral attachment for 6 months in 1919. He
>stopped its production when it began eating into sales of his Diamond Discs.
>Like Victor, some of Edison's entry-level machines were sold at cost to make
>money from the record sales. Edison pulled his lateral attachment from the
>market in conjunction with a marketing statement warning about "dangers" of
>playing non-Edison records on an Edison mechanism.
If you look under the metal plate of a DD, you will find a screw which
will allow you to disengage the feedscrew. You simply raise the
halfnut and set the screw to hold up the bar. This lets you play 78's
exclusively without worrying about the feedscrew mechanism.
I used this feature in the 1950s when I played my Little Richard records
on my DD.
The large Edison horn was called the 250. When playing later
electrically recorded DD's, the horn DOES matter. The large
horn also gives more volume and makes the better
acoustic recordings sound "closer."
>The Victor Credenza (and later 10-35) had the largest horn ever made by Victor
>in a commercial machine. It was folded over several times, allowing the 6 foot
>horn to fit in a managably-sized cabinet. The Credenza remains one of the prize
>machines in a Victor enthusiast's collection, and is still relatively easy to
>find, although it has become a *hot* machine in Japan in recent years.
The later Victor horns were designed mathematically. They are
correct log designs. The orthophonic horns owe their design to
Bell Labs. This horn is what probably did Edison in in the
end.
>>I especially like the music. I've learned so much about century-old music
>>from music boxes and now phonos.
>>Paul, where are you located? I'm near CHicago. --mike k.
>
>Mike, I live outside of Phila. We've got a regional phonograph show
>coming to Newark, NJ on April 24, if you're interested. And of course,
>there's the "biggie" in Union, IL in June.
>
>Paul Christensen
>cp...@informix.com
>
>>--
>> m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
>>Line Mgmt: doesn't believe the schedule, and says so
>>Middle Mgmt: pretends to believe the schedule
>>Upper Mgmt: actually believes the schedule
George
Remember: Edison was roadkill on the old information highway.
Ray Machen
> And of course, there's the "biggie" in Union, IL in June.
>
>Paul Christensen
>cp...@informix.com
Do you happen to know when exactly in June? Is this at the 7 acre museum?
Ray
michael.j.knudsen
> Note that Edison himself sold a lateral attachment for 6 months in 1919. He
> stopped its production when it began eating into sales of his Diamond Discs.
Not surprising! I guess Edison had a monopoly on the vertical disks,
whereas several record companies besides Victor and COlumbia were putting
out 78s.
> *poor* marketing ideas. Edison himself brought the eventual downfall of the
> Diamond Disc. It was a technically superior product (he even had a long-play
> version in 1929 that played 40 minutes at 80rpm!), but lacked the big-name
> talent of Victor and Columbia. Edison insisted on running *every* part of
> his business, and in approving every expenditure. He refused to pay the big
> bucks that performers were being paid, feeling instead that people would pay a
Gelatt's book (The Fabulous Phonograph) mentions taht Edison also imposed his
own musical tastes and preferences on everything. He didn't believe
in piano accompaniment to operatic songs, and he preferred maudlin ballads
like "I'll take you home, Kathleen" to operatic arias anyway.
(I have "Kathleen" and ooh is it sickly!) He'd use what high-priced talent
he did have to record junk, or in the wrong pitch range, etc.
Still he put out some good country and pop and Afro-American stuff that's
a lot more interesting (and fun) today than yet another "Toreador."
> was pretty small. I seem to recall the William and Mary also used the top
> of the line mechanism: the model C250. This mechanism had the 200 horn,
> double-spring motor (plays 5-6 sides), and gold-plated hardware.
Mine is definitely double-spring, and maybe that brass down-spout tubing
where the horn passes below the deck is really gold. But total horn
length is only 3 to 4 feet, no doublings.
> The Victor Credenza (and later 10-35) had the largest horn ever made by Victor
> in a commercial machine. It was folded over several times, allowing the 6 foot
> horn to fit in a managably-sized cabinet. The Credenza remains one of the prize
> machines in a Victor enthusiast's collection, and is still relatively easy to
> find, although it has become a *hot* machine in Japan in recent years.
OK, so the Credenza is a Victor, not an Edison model.
If I do get a Victor, I'll try to hold out for something special,
like an Orthophonic (for the sound and the Bell Labs tie-in) or the
Credenza, which besides being large and probably well (?) decorated,
should sound good too.
I tried an Ortho recently, a real plane Jane. It was loud, but not
very clear or deep-toned -- either the record or the reproducer were not
up to par, probably the former. Or maybe some glue joints in the horn
were open -- most of it was wood, right?
> Mike, I live outside of Phila. We've got a regional phonograph show
> coming to Newark, NJ on April 24, if you're interested. And of course,
> there's the "biggie" in Union, IL in June.
Great -- I hit the Unio Antique Village last fall and got my first
cylinder music box. Some other phono pholks on this List hadn't heard
of Union yet, but by now they have :-)
I have some new problems with my Edison, but will post those separately.
THanks, mike k.
michael.j.knudsen
> If you look under the metal plate of a DD, you will find a screw which
> will allow you to disengage the feedscrew. You simply raise the
> halfnut and set the screw to hold up the bar. This lets you play 78's
> exclusively without worrying about the feedscrew mechanism.
I'll look for this. I take it you go at it from underneath, after
sliding the grille out. That big horn sure makes it hard to reach things
in there. I guess your bottom thrust bearing should be very well oiled
if you play 78s this way. My assembly swings a lot better since I lubed
things up.
WARNING -- old grease and years of dried oil often dry up with a shiny,
glistnening surface that *looks like* good fresh oil and grease.
In reality, the stiff grease slows things down and the hard dried oil
doesn't protect your machinery from friction. So poke at it with something
to feel it, and hit it generously with 3-in-1.
> I used this feature in the 1950s when I played my Little Richard records
> on my DD.
Little Richard on 78! My older brother went to a prep high school in hte
wilds of Tennesee back in the mid 50s, and brought back Little R,
Roy Orbison, and Chuck Berry on 45s. I must've been one fo the first
Pennsylvanians to hear "rock n roll" "race" music. But 78s....
We did have Bill Hailley and the Comets' "Rock around the Clock/ 13 Women"
on a 78 -- sounded great. Would love to have that one back again.
> The large Edison horn was called the 250. When playing later
> electrically recorded DD's, the horn DOES matter. The large
> horn also gives more volume and makes the better
> acoustic recordings sound "closer."
I hope to get this Frowe book and find out just waht size horn I do have.
If straightened out it would be slightly longer than most morning-glories.
> The later Victor horns were designed mathematically. They are
> correct log designs. The orthophonic horns owe their design to
> Bell Labs. This horn is what probably did Edison in in the end.
That and his "personal" approach to his record catalog.
Another example of Edison's NIH phobia, I'd bet.
Bell Labs freely offered the Ortho design and electrical recordings
to the phono and record companies. Victor took over a year to show
interest, sicne the electrical recording process smelled of r*d**
(you were literally not supposed to mention that around Eldridge Johnson).
Dunno if Bell Labs ever talked to Edison, but he did not like other
inventors fishing/swimming/skating in *his* pond.
I'd like to see some of the just-pre-Ortho Victrolas. Actually, some
of those old morning-glories had a pretty nearly exponential shape,
tho the famous Nipper horn is just a cone with a flare bell.
Too bad Edison didn't hire some tuba/baritone_horn maker to fold
a horn into his Dimaond Disk players. There's plenty of space in the
rear for the folds. But "mathematics" was a dirty word around Thomas
(geez there were lotsa dirty words back then, way before P.C :-)
> Remember: Edison was roadkill on the old information highway.
More like a rusted out Packard along the road -- he put a lot of mileage
on that highway before giving in. And don't forget movies, and even we
bookworms appreciate the brighter light :-)
Paul Christensen
>Mine is definitely double-spring, and maybe that brass down-spout tubing
>where the horn passes below the deck is really gold. But total horn
>length is only 3 to 4 feet, no doublings.
That's correct. Edison never released a machine with an "orthophonic" horn.
In fact, the largest horns you could get for Edsion machines were made for his
outside-horn cylinder machines (eg. Opera, Standard) by Music Master. The Frowe
book has a picture of an experimental DDisc machine with a Music Master horn for
greater volume. This ghastly prototype never made it to the public, though.
>I tried an Ortho recently, a real plane Jane. It was loud, but not
>very clear or deep-toned -- either the record or the reproducer were not
>up to par, probably the former. Or maybe some glue joints in the horn
>were open -- most of it was wood, right?
Most Orthophonic horns were wood, and Victor issued a whole service bulletin
describing adjustments and service for them. One exception to this was
a very short-lived machine (can't remember the number off-hand) Victor
introduced to replace the Credenza. This machine had a low profile and a metal
Orthophonic horn, which sounds more "brilliant" than others. Unfortunately, by
the time this machine was released, Victor's biggest sellers were the
electrically-amplified Electrolas. RCA bought out Victor 6 months later.
I've found it very dificult to find an Orthophonic machine with a good
reproducer. Most of them will play, but with *lots* of distortion. There
are very few people who can rebuild an Ortho reproducer properly: they
consist of an aluminum spirally-etched diaphragm and a floating needle arm
suspended by 6 ball bearings. If you can find a good reproducer, the mid to
high-end Ortophonic models can sound pretty incredible.
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
Paul Christensen
>In article <1994Feb9.0...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, geo...@nccu.edu (george conklin) writes:
>> If you look under the metal plate of a DD, you will find a screw which
>> will allow you to disengage the feedscrew. You simply raise the
>> halfnut and set the screw to hold up the bar. This lets you play 78's
>> exclusively without worrying about the feedscrew mechanism.
>I'll look for this. I take it you go at it from underneath, after
>sliding the grille out. That big horn sure makes it hard to reach things
>in there. I guess your bottom thrust bearing should be very well oiled
>if you play 78s this way. My assembly swings a lot better since I lubed
>things up.
Not to be picky, but I have to warn *against* playing 78's on a Diamond Disc
with the feedscrew disabled!!! The original adapters were designed to play
in conjunction with the feedscrew, and they do so very well. Without the
feedscrew, the short length of a 78 adapter (less than 7 inches) will create
tracking offset errors in excess of 60 degrees! Anything over 10 degrees
will start "eating" your records. The Victor II has an error of 40 degrees -
that's why you don't want to play your valuable 78's on older Victor machines.
My model X is not much better, I might add.
>> The large Edison horn was called the 250. When playing later
>> electrically recorded DD's, the horn DOES matter. The large
>> horn also gives more volume and makes the better
>> acoustic recordings sound "closer."
Edison had three different horn sizes (100,150,200), and these were included
with different mechanisms. The model 200 *horn* is associated with the model
250 *mechanism*.
>I hope to get this Frowe book and find out just waht size horn I do have.
>If straightened out it would be slightly longer than most morning-glories.
I found my copy of Frowe (Diamond Disc) at the Edison National Historic Site
bookshop. Last time I checked they had several copies left. Now I can't wait
until the cylinder book is re-issued later this year. Considering the
publisher's history, I won't believe any date I hear until I actually see
the book.
>> The later Victor horns were designed mathematically. They are
>> correct log designs. The orthophonic horns owe their design to
>> Bell Labs. This horn is what probably did Edison in in the end.
>That and his "personal" approach to his record catalog.
>Another example of Edison's NIH phobia, I'd bet.
>Bell Labs freely offered the Ortho design and electrical recordings
>to the phono and record companies. Victor took over a year to show
>interest, sicne the electrical recording process smelled of r*d**
>(you were literally not supposed to mention that around Eldridge Johnson).
>Dunno if Bell Labs ever talked to Edison, but he did not like other
>inventors fishing/swimming/skating in *his* pond.
One of the books I have includes a memo by Edison's chief recording engineer
detailing his visit to a Victor Orthophonic demonstration. In it, it is
mentioned that the instruments and singers are equally clear, albeit at
the expense of some distortion. Edison hand-scribbled a reply on the note
insisting that he would absolutely refuse electrical recording, since it
couldn't be done without distortion.
Near the end of the Diamond Disc, some of the last recordings were recorded
eletrically. These labels (series 52xxx and 55xxx come to mind, but there were
others) are highly desirable, and can sell for $20, $40, or more.
Unfortunately, the Edison company ceased record production within 6 months.
Edison also released a number of lateral (78 rpm) records under the Edison
Needle Type label. These records are hard to find today, and command a very
premium price.
My understanding is that by the time Edison released electrically-recorded
records, he had already transferred control of the record and phonograph
division to his son. Edison's son pushed forward with the long-playing
mechanisms and records, sold to the public as the "New Edison".
>--
> m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
>Line Mgmt: doesn't believe the schedule, and says so
>Middle Mgmt: pretends to believe the schedule
>Upper Mgmt: actually believes the schedule
Just my two cents (it may be worth just that),
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
george conklin
>knu...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>
>>In article <1994Feb9.0...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, geo...@nccu.edu (george conklin) writes:
>>> If you look under the metal plate of a DD, you will find a screw which
>>> will allow you to disengage the feedscrew. You simply raise the
>>> halfnut and set the screw to hold up the bar. This lets you play 78's
>>> exclusively without worrying about the feedscrew mechanism.
>
>>I'll look for this. I take it you go at it from underneath, after
>>sliding the grille out. That big horn sure makes it hard to reach things
>>in there. I guess your bottom thrust bearing should be very well oiled
>>if you play 78s this way. My assembly swings a lot better since I lubed
>>things up.
>
>Not to be picky, but I have to warn *against* playing 78's on a Diamond Disc
>with the feedscrew disabled!!! The original adapters were designed to play
>in conjunction with the feedscrew, and they do so very well. Without the
>feedscrew, the short length of a 78 adapter (less than 7 inches) will create
>tracking offset errors in excess of 60 degrees! Anything over 10 degrees
>will start "eating" your records. The Victor II has an error of 40 degrees -
>that's why you don't want to play your valuable 78's on older Victor machines.
>My model X is not much better, I might add.
I love all these theoretical talks from people who must look at
their machines and not play them.
I got my DD in 1948 and used it until I went to college playing
Little Richard and others. If you disengage the feedscrew, then
the nothe horn moves along with the record. Remember, steel needles
wear to the shape of the record. I were designed to wear to the record
shape. I am amazined how high the tracking angle is
with the feedscrew engaged...I leave it engaged today
because I play mostly DD's. Maybe we need a scholarly source
that a 10 degree angle eats records along with some
research. A 10 degree or more angle would not reproduce
the cutting lathe angles, but after that, what empirical
evidence is there that wear accellerates to the point of
EATING? If you are so concerned with wear, play all
your records electrically.
>>> The large Edison horn was called thei 250. When playing later
>>> electrically recorded DD's, the horn DOES matter. The large
>>> horn also gives more volume and makes the better
>>> acoustic recordings sound "closer."
>
>Edison had three different horn sizes (100,150,200), and these were included
>with different mechanisms. The model 200 *horn* is associated with the model
>250 *mechanism*.
Maybe you should check Frow (not Frowe) on this. I am going to assume
he knows what he is talking about. Frow clearly lists the William
and Mary as having the 250 horn, and I cited him in my posting.
Most dealers have no idea which records (DDs) are electrically
recorded. Dating DD's is very complex. There is a book on
this subject too. More interesting are the records made on
the 125 foot horn. Edison gave no indication which records were
electrical and which were not. Unless you play them back
electrically, the electric records just make your diaphragm
rattle. I understand that the "dance" reproducer overcame
this problem.
>My understanding is that by the time Edison released electrically-recorded
>records, he had already transferred control of the record and phonograph
>division to his son. Edison's son pushed forward with the long-playing
>mechanisms and records, sold to the public as the "New Edison".
Theodore did take over the business since he graduated from MIT
in physics and put the phono business on a scientific basis.
The LP records (only 12 of which were made) came before (not after)
the Edisonic and other ideas of Theodore. Theodore's influence
was with the Edisonic player, if you believe the biography. The
New Edison LP players only lasted about 2 years. The Edisonic
player has a long horn in it and is interesting to listen to.
It looks something like an early radio.
>>--
>ii> m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
>>Line Mgmt: doesn't believe the schedule, and says so
>>Middle Mgmt: pretends to believe the schedule
>>Upper Mgmt: actually believes the schedule
>
>Just my two cents (it may be worth just that),
>
>Paul Christensen
>cp...@informix.com
This is my two cents, based on Frow's book and on a
biography of Edison I just finished.
PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
blue amberol cylinders are sometimes acoustic dubs of
electric dd's.
George
David Breneman
: In article <cpaul.760724756@cheetah>, cp...@informix.com (Paul Christensen) writes:
With deletions...
:
: > Sounds like your springs need to be cleaned and repacked with fresh grease.
: > This is a very dangerous task not for the faint of heart! There are many
: > experienced collectors who will service mainsprings for about $30 each. Well
:
: *Everyone* mentions the fingers -- I do like playing piano by hand.
: I'll try inserting grease thru the screw holes, or just live with it.
: The thumps seem to be less frequent and violent since I've been playing the beast,
: so maybe the grease already inside is getting redistributed.
spring drum. The wrong way usually results in injury. The right way
is to kind of "walk" your hands around the drum, sort of like the way
you'd grip a car's steering wheel, letting out an inch or so of spring
with each movement of your hands around the drum. Needless to say,
if the phone rings, you can't put this down to answer it...
: > wouldn't pay over $90, though. Do *NOT* try to play Edison discs on lateral
: > machines. Several Diamond Disc adapters were made in the teens and twenties,
: > but the shallow grooves of the DD record require the feedscrew Edison used.
: > Playing a DD on an adaptor machine can ruin your records quickly. Edison
:
: Thanks for the warning! I know of a beautiful big Brunswick with a dual head.
: What about the lateral adapter, tho? Will my Edison feedscrew mess up lateral
: disks, or do the adapters have a little swing arm to allow leeway?
The lateral-cut adapters I've seen for Diamond Disk machines do allow
some side-to-side movement to compensate for the fact that a typical
lateral-cut record has a much coarser pitch than the Edison Records.
: > himself warned of this (read the fine print on an original envelope...it's
: > not all marketing hype).
:
: Nice to know. I hear Edison's advertising team was more than a match for anything
: Madison Avenue has seen since, but this was honest. I haven't seen a disk
: sleeve yet.
I'd post a gif, but I don't have a scanner. :-(
:
: > black marks on later Edison white label records are *not* a stroboscopic
: > speed adjustor! This is a common misconception.
:
: Hah! Strobe would help only if you had AC lighting current in your home,
: and we know how Tom felt about that!
"Westinghouse's current will kill you all!" I doubt if he really
*believed* this - he was probably just naturally ticked off that
somebody else would be making the profits from an industry which
he founded. Same thing with the Phonograph. Edison seemed to always
have the Betamax - better technically, but not the standard people
bought. The last remaining vestige of the National Phonograph Company
is the Dictagraph Corporation.
--
David Breneman Email: da...@jaws.engineering.dgtl.com
System Administrator, Voice: 206 881-7544 Fax: 206 556-8033
Product Development Platforms
Digital Systems International, Inc. Redmond, Washington, U. S. o' A.
michael.j.knudsen
> In fact, the largest horns you could get for Edsion machines were made for his
> outside-horn cylinder machines (eg. Opera, Standard) by Music Master. The Frowe
check out their history in my radio books and see what it says about their
phono horns. BTW, early radio owners could buy a "speaker" driver that
you stuck on your phono in place of the reproducer, thus using your phono's
horn. Probably sound pretty decent on an Ortho.
> introduced to replace the Credenza. This machine had a low profile and a metal
> Orthophonic horn, which sounds more "brilliant" than others. Unfortunately, by
> the time this machine was released, Victor's biggest sellers were the
> electrically-amplified Electrolas. RCA bought out Victor 6 months later.
That would be quite a colection item. Hmmm, did Victor make electronic
phonos before RCA did? I know Brunswick's Panatrope was the first.
> I've found it very dificult to find an Orthophonic machine with a good
> reproducer. Most of them will play, but with *lots* of distortion. There
That jibes with my memory -- loud but lousy. From way back when I owned
a tabletop Victrola, I remember that my Dad's old Ortho records were recorded
very loud, so that little Nipper really howled. Loud records would be
all the more likely to bring out distortion in the repro.
> suspended by 6 ball bearings. If you can find a good reproducer, the mid to
> high-end Ortophonic models can sound pretty incredible.
I remember my Dad describing his first Orthophonic -- he must've scraped for years
to buy it, but he could hear it a block away clear as a bell.
Even modern 78s should sound good. Now if you didn't have to change
the needle every 3 plays... mike k
--
m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
michael.j.knudsen
> in conjunction with the feedscrew, and they do so very well. Without the
> feedscrew, the short length of a 78 adapter (less than 7 inches) will create
> tracking offset errors in excess of 60 degrees! Anything over 10 degrees
> will start "eating" your records. The Victor II has an error of 40 degrees -
> that's why you don't want to play your valuable 78's on older Victor machines.
Very true -- I had visions of large tracking angle errors, but didn't realize
how ruff the error could be on your records. I'll be careful with my little
portable 78 player. Ever heard of "Outing" in upstate NY?
Edison's vertical disks probably don't care about tracking angle -- ironic,
since his machines reduce the angle so well.
> Edison had three different horn sizes (100,150,200), and these were included
> with different mechanisms. The model 200 *horn* is associated with the model
> 250 *mechanism*.
Other than visually comparing horn sizes, is their any way to be sure
which mech you have? I gathered that double springs rules out the smaller
machines. There's precious little info stamped on the cabinet woodwork
or the machinery -- like model no, serial no, date, etc.
My serial number comes from the shipping bill I dug out of the record rack.
Not stamped anywhere on the machine!
> I found my copy of Frowe (Diamond Disc) at the Edison National Historic Site
Maybe the Union Museum (Antique Village) has a few. I need an excuse
to call them anyway...
> Near the end of the Diamond Disc, some of the last recordings were recorded
> eletrically. These labels (series 52xxx and 55xxx come to mind, but there were
> others) are highly desirable, and can sell for $20, $40, or more.
Sounds like a great way to really see how good a machine is -- whether
your reproducer needs rebuilding, etc.
I'll keep an eye out for *one* of them.
> Edison also released a number of lateral (78 rpm) records under the Edison
> Needle Type label. These records are hard to find today, and command a very
Playable on any victrola too. Gelatt's book mentioins the late electrical
DD's and the cant-lick-em=join-em 78s.
> My understanding is that by the time Edison released electrically-recorded
> records, he had already transferred control of the record and phonograph
> division to his son. Edison's son pushed forward with the long-playing
Gelatt doesn't mention this at all.
Really pays to have more than one book at hand.
I'll work on finding a Frowe. --mike k
Paul Christensen
gotten a little out of hand. George Conklin makes the best point of all in his
last posting: if you're really that concerned about record wear, you shouldn't
play your records on an acoustic machine in the first place.
If you're like me, and find that many acoustically-recorded 78's don't play
well (or at all) on modern 78 rpm turntables with the proper cartridge and
needle, then you'll want to minimize record wear. I own two machines capable
of playing disc records: a C250 Chippendale Diamond Disc, and a VV-X Victrola.
Of the two, the C250 w/lateral adapter (and feedscrew engaged) produces much
less record wear than the ol' Victrola. This is based on my experience playing
late-50s on both machines: my Victrola (in perfect condition) has degraded
late 78s in less than 10 playings. There's been no noticable degradation on
similar records played on the DD w/attachment. Not to mention the better sound
of the larger horn.
geo...@nccu.edu (george conklin) writes:
>In article <cpaul.760897990@cheetah> cp...@informix.com (Paul Christensen) writes:
>>knu...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1994Feb9.0...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, geo...@nccu.edu (george conklin) writes:
>>>> If you look under the metal plate of a DD, you will find a screw which
>>>> will allow you to disengage the feedscrew. You simply raise the
>>>> halfnut and set the screw to hold up the bar. This lets you play 78's
>>>> exclusively without worrying about the feedscrew mechanism.
>>
>>>I'll look for this. I take it you go at it from underneath, after
>>>sliding the grille out. That big horn sure makes it hard to reach things
>>>in there. I guess your bottom thrust bearing should be very well oiled
>>>if you play 78s this way. My assembly swings a lot better since I lubed
>>>things up.
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I have to warn *against* playing 78's on a Diamond Disc
>>with the feedscrew disabled!!! The original adapters were designed to play
>>in conjunction with the feedscrew, and they do so very well. Without the
>>feedscrew, the short length of a 78 adapter (less than 7 inches) will create
>>tracking offset errors in excess of 60 degrees! Anything over 10 degrees
>>will start "eating" your records. The Victor II has an error of 40 degrees -
>>that's why you don't want to play your valuable 78's on older Victor machines.
>>My model X is not much better, I might add.
OK, so maybe I got a little out of hand when I threw out these numbers. See
below for a scientific real-world calculation of the actual tracking offset.
> I love all these theoretical talks from people who must look at
>their machines and not play them.
Please, let's not get into a name-calling here. I'm simply a phonograph nut
with a degree in electrical engineering. Pretty dangerous combination, huh?
>I got my DD in 1948 and used it until I went to college playing
>Little Richard and others. If you disengage the feedscrew, then
>the nothe horn moves along with the record. Remember, steel needles
>wear to the shape of the record. I were designed to wear to the record
>shape. I am amazined how high the tracking angle is
>with the feedscrew engaged...I leave it engaged today
>because I play mostly DD's. Maybe we need a scholarly source
>that a 10 degree angle eats records along with some
>research. A 10 degree or more angle would not reproduce
>the cutting lathe angles, but after that, what empirical
>evidence is there that wear accellerates to the point of
Here's one: The Compleat Talking Machine, by Eric L. Reiss. Specifically, on
pages 99-102 the geometric discussion of tracking offsets and errors. On these
pages, a discussion is given on drawing a line (AB) through the needle and
parallel to the diaphragm. Next, draw a line through the tip of the needle to
the spindle (CD). Finally, draw a line through the needle at 90 degrees to
line CD and call it EF. The difference between (AB) and (EF) is your tracking
error.
According to Mr. Reiss, "Anything higher than about 2degrees will
result in a great deal of record wear. Anything above 12 degrees is a
disaster. The Victor II, depsite the fancy tapered tone-arm has a tracking
error in excess of 17degrees! This then, is NOT a machine to play rare
records."
Based on my calculations using this method, the adapter I have varies between
0 degrees (at the beginning of the record) to about 5 degrees in the center.
Certainly much better than my model VV-X. Also, the feedscrew assures that
the tracking offset remains constant across the record. (An entirely
different discussion). Disengaging the feedscrew leaves you with a 4.75"
tonearm (since my adapter is designed to swing freely). Real calculations
with this configuration result in tracking errors between 0 degrees and 45!
My real point is that with the feedscrew engaged, the mechanism is most closely
approximating (but of course, not duplicating) the truly linear (no error)
method that was used to cut the record. Note that the Diamond Disc mechanism
is not *truly* linear tracking like the cylinder machines were. However, the
pivot point of the horn is sufficiently long enough to minimize error.
The feedscrew also eliminates the lateral mass of the horn, which can
be more damaging than tracking offsets or errors. This was the reason Victor
moved to the tapered tone arm in the first place. Early Berliner and Victor
machines (the "trademark" machine is a good example) were able to compensate
for tracking weight, but not for the lateral mass of the horn itself.
>EATING? If you are so concerned with wear, play all
>your records electrically.
AMEN! I couldn't agree more.
>
>>>> The large Edison horn was called thei 250. When playing later
>>>> electrically recorded DD's, the horn DOES matter. The large
>>>> horn also gives more volume and makes the better
>>>> acoustic recordings sound "closer."
>>
>>Edison had three different horn sizes (100,150,200), and these were included
>>with different mechanisms. The model 200 *horn* is associated with the model
>>250 *mechanism*.
>Maybe you should check Frow (not Frowe) on this. I am going to assume
>he knows what he is talking about. Frow clearly lists the William
>and Mary as having the 250 horn, and I cited him in my posting.
You're correct. See my (later) posting. Teaches me to trust my memory all the
time.
>>Near the end of the Diamond Disc, some of the last recordings were recorded
>>eletrically. These labels (series 52xxx and 55xxx come to mind, but there were
>>others) are highly desirable, and can sell for $20, $40, or more.
>>Unfortunately, the Edison company ceased record production within 6 months.
>>Edison also released a number of lateral (78 rpm) records under the Edison
>>Needle Type label. These records are hard to find today, and command a very
>>premium price.
>Most dealers have no idea which records (DDs) are electrically
>recorded. Dating DD's is very complex. There is a book on
>this subject too. More interesting are the records made on
>the 125 foot horn. Edison gave no indication which records were
>electrical and which were not. Unless you play them back
>electrically, the electric records just make your diaphragm
>rattle. I understand that the "dance" reproducer overcame
> this problem.
I have a single Diamond Disc that was recorded electrically (52500, He
Whispers His Love to Me...). The difference is quite astonishing. It plays
clearly and quietly without any noticable distortion from the reproducer. It
also is relatively basic (vocals, background orchestra), so a good, lively
Charleston might be different. My understanding from a number of collectors
is that the "dance" reproducer used a much heavier weight (4x) to achieve
its volume. This reproducer can damange DDs, I'm told.
> PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
>acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
>blue amberol cylinders are sometimes acoustic dubs of
>electric dd's.
Yes! I have one such cylinder *and* the corresponding Diamond Disc (Hail to
the Spirit of Liberty March, NY Mil. Band). The DD quality is far superior.
But the quality of this "dubbed" cylinder is not as good as earlier direct
recordings.
> George
>
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
Paul Christensen
>In article <cpaul.760897055@cheetah>, cp...@informix.com (Paul Christensen) writes:
>> In fact, the largest horns you could get for Edsion machines were made for his
>> outside-horn cylinder machines (eg. Opera, Standard) by Music Master. The Frowe
>Music Master? They made some good early radios, and speakers. I'll
>check out their history in my radio books and see what it says about their
>phono horns. BTW, early radio owners could buy a "speaker" driver that
>you stuck on your phono in place of the reproducer, thus using your phono's
>horn. Probably sound pretty decent on an Ortho.
In fact, later Orthophonic machines included a lever that allowed the
horn to be switched between the reproducer arm and a radio speaker.
>> introduced to replace the Credenza. This machine had a low profile and a metal
>> Orthophonic horn, which sounds more "brilliant" than others. Unfortunately, by
>> the time this machine was released, Victor's biggest sellers were the
>> electrically-amplified Electrolas. RCA bought out Victor 6 months later.
OK, I've got access to my reference library now. The machine that replaced the
Credenza (later renamed the 8-30) was the model 8-35. I have seen this
machine, and the sound is definitely more "brilliant" than the Credenza,
because of the 8-35's metal horn.
>That would be quite a colection item. Hmmm, did Victor make electronic
>phonos before RCA did? I know Brunswick's Panatrope was the first.
Actually, Victor never made their own electronics. The Victor electronic
phonographs were sold under the tradename "Electrola", and used RCA parts!
In addition, a number of later-model Victor phonographs (both acoustic and
electric) could be purchased with an optional radio, also made by RCA. This
close relationship made it logical for RCA to take over Victor in 1929.
Note that the Brunswick Panatrope was the first electronic phonograph to be
*demonstrated*. Some authorities say the Victor Electrola was the first
electronic phonography to be *sold*. Either way, the internal electronics
for both Brunswick and Victor were made by RCA!
>Even modern 78s should sound good. Now if you didn't have to change
>the needle every 3 plays... mike k
If you're using a modern steel needle, recommendations are to replace it
with *each* play. Some older, original needles were designed to play more
than once (on changers, for example).
Paul
michael.j.knudsen
> I'd like to end this debate on playing 78's on a Diamond Disc. It's really
> gotten a little out of hand. George Conklin makes the best point of all in his
You guys have all been so nice to me, it hurt to see a flame war brewing.
Looks like the fire's out. Good, let's enjoy some records...
> If you're like me, and find that many acoustically-recorded 78's don't play
> well (or at all) on modern 78 rpm turntables with the proper cartridge and
> needle, then you'll want to minimize record wear. I own two machines capable
Yes. Even electrical records (like my pre-war set of Novachord pop tunes)
sometimes sound terrible on what should be good, if not totally correct,
electronic equipment.
My DD machine not only sounds decent but I'm pretty sure it's not chewing
up my still small set of records. (BTW, I just got Reiss and he says the Edison
diamond styli are shaped like smooth doorknobs and just glide over the groove
like a toboggan (my analogy, not his)).
> late 78s in less than 10 playings. There's been no noticable degradation on
> similar records played on the DD w/attachment. Not to mention the better sound
> of the larger horn.
Certainly, but if you had an Orthophonic, would you be looking for a vertical
adapter? Too bad you can't retrofit a feedscrew to the Ortho.
> method that was used to cut the record. Note that the Diamond Disc mechanism
> is not *truly* linear tracking like the cylinder machines were. However, the
> pivot point of the horn is sufficiently long enough to minimize error.
Say, does anyone know the geometry of Edison's recording lathe?
Might it in fact have duplicated the negative tracking error of the DD player?
"Negative" compared to the "positive" error caused by any rear-mounted arm.
Also, this 125-foot horn -- did its opening take out a whole wall
of the recording studio? It should be good down to 4 Hz -- too bad Edison's
lab wasn't in San Francisco :-) Seriously, this should be fun reading
if it's in Frow. Would've been adept at recording a large group.
> >EATING? If you are so concerned with wear, play all
> >your records electrically.
> AMEN! I couldn't agree more.
Long ago there was a discussion somewhere about the best cartridge and needel
for doing this. Many claimed that '40s and '50s phonos weren't so great,
and that '60s flip-over cartridges were bad for your 78s. What should I believe?
I have several old radio-phonos that I could get working, and a Grunding
that plays just fine. And a classic Califone that I gave away cuz it didn't
sound that great on 78s no matter how I adjusted the weight :-(
> >he knows what he is talking about. Frow clearly lists the William
> >and Mary as having the 250 horn, and I cited him in my posting.
OK, glad that's settled. And I ended up having the large horn too :-)
> I have a single Diamond Disc that was recorded electrically (52500, He
> Whispers His Love to Me...). The difference is quite astonishing. It plays
> clearly and quietly without any noticable distortion from the reproducer. It
> also is relatively basic (vocals, background orchestra), so a good, lively
> Charleston might be different. My understanding from a number of collectors
THis makes good sense. Electrical recording seems to have been abused to
make records louder, but its real advantages are frequency response
and ensemble balance thru mike placement and mixing, and dynamic range.
An electrical record that doesn't overlaod you 'ducer should be a real
treat to hear, other things (surface quality) being equal.
> is that the "dance" reproducer used a much heavier weight (4x) to achieve
> its volume. This reproducer can damange DDs, I'm told.
You want some outa-control theory? Well, "in theory" any record can be made to
play as loud as you want (once or twice!) just by changing the leverage
ratio on the stylus bar, to make the diaphragm move an inch or more!
You'd have to put many pounds of weight onto the needle and the record,
and turn the turntable with a steam engine, but it's "theoretically" possible.
Of course your records won't last long, and avoiding distortion is harder.
I get the idea that vertical grooves and knob styli would tolerate more of this
abuse than later grooves with sharp needles.
> > PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
> >acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
Say, how did Edison produce the DD disks? By hot-stamping from
metal masters? Did musicians have to record several masters,
or was that practice already history by then?
Supposedly lateral disks were easier to master and stamp.
BTW, either of you ever hear of Outing, a maker of portable phonos
in NY State? --mike k
michael.j.knudsen
> In fact, later Orthophonic machines included a lever that allowed the
> horn to be switched between the reproducer arm and a radio speaker.
Neat. I'll look for this feature whenever I consider buying an Ortho.
Let's see, an Ortho and a 250-horn DD would represent the ultimate in consumer-
level acoustic playback gear, right?
> OK, I've got access to my reference library now. The machine that replaced the
> Credenza (later renamed the 8-30) was the model 8-35. I have seen this
> machine, and the sound is definitely more "brilliant" than the Credenza,
> because of the 8-35's metal horn.
The Credenza had a wooden folded horn? I need more books...
> electric) could be purchased with an optional radio, also made by RCA. This
> close relationship made it logical for RCA to take over Victor in 1929.
A chance to combine two hobbies! I have seen reproduced ads in my radio books
of radio and acoustic phono in one cabinet -- seems like a strange and
wasteful combination, except when the radio used the phono horn (great idea)
or the later, present-day usage of the radio amplifier and speaker.
Gelatt's book paints RCA as a bloodsucking giant who wanted Victor just
for its big Camden factory and zillions of phono dealerships, and
couldn't wait to slash phono production and recording as well.
But given the technology, the merger was inevitable, tho hardly any
excuse to stop recording.
> Note that the Brunswick Panatrope was the first electronic phonograph to be
> *demonstrated*. Some authorities say the Victor Electrola was the first
> electronic phonography to be *sold*. Either way, the internal electronics
> for both Brunswick and Victor were made by RCA!
Not surprising, since Brunswick made wooden cabinets and put RCA Radiola 18
chassis in them. I had one and sold it off. Nice cabinet.
Didn't Brunswick also have an alectric recording technique using
a photocell microphone? And some old radio-phonos, including Philcos,
used photocell pickups.
> If you're using a modern steel needle, recommendations are to replace it
> with *each* play. Some older, original needles were designed to play more
Yeah -- I saw the flip side of a so-so 78 turning lighter shade of black
under my little Outing's needle. Makes me wonder about the Victrolas
out in antique shops, where anyone can crank up and play the "demo" record.
I won't pay much for that record...
BTW, I saw a nice Emerson acoustic lowboy, with an internal wooden
horn. You open the door on one side for record storage, but the
other side opens too, to reveal this beautiful horn built up of planks.
I guess they wanted to show it off! Only $175 in a nice shop.
I never realized Emerson went back to acoustic phonos.
--
m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
Paul Christensen
>Yes. Even electrical records (like my pre-war set of Novachord pop tunes)
>sometimes sound terrible on what should be good, if not totally correct,
>electronic equipment.
...
My guess would be that before the early 1950's there was no standard for
record equalization. Each record manufacturer had their own EQ curves. Once
standards were established, they changed several times until the early 1970s
when the current RIAA standard was solidified. I'm told there is a company
in CA that sells equipment that adjusts for the different EQ standards on
older records.
>> > PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
>> >acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
>Say, how did Edison produce the DD disks? By hot-stamping from
>metal masters? Did musicians have to record several masters,
>or was that practice already history by then?
>Supposedly lateral disks were easier to master and stamp.
Frow's book has a detailed appendix (with pictures) showing the 20-odd steps
in Diamond Disc production. Lateral discs were relatively simple to produce -
shelac was poured into a metal form and allowed to harden. Edison's discs
were a lot more difficult (and thus, more expensive) to make. Basically, a
1-inch thick wax master was used for recording. This master was then electro-
plated, and used to produce the female metal moulds. The records themselves
consist of a composite core, which was painted with several coats of
Condensite varnish. This varnish layer was then stamped with the moulds.
Because of this, you often find old Diamond Disc records whose surface has
started to peel from the core. As long as they're properly cared for (and
not exposed to water), you should be able to prevent this.
recorded, electroplated to form a
>BTW, either of you ever hear of Outing, a maker of portable phonos
>in NY State? --mike k
Sorry, never heard of them. George, have you?
Paul Christensen
cp...@informix.com
Paul Christensen
>Not surprising, since Brunswick made wooden cabinets and put RCA Radiola 18
>chassis in them. I had one and sold it off. Nice cabinet.
Someone once told me (I've never seen this in print, though), that Brunswick
manufactured a number of Edison's cabinets. Unlike Victor (who had arguably
the most advanced furniture factory in the world at the time), Edison never
made any of his own cabinets.
The story I was told was that Edison left Brunswick with 5000 empty phonograph
cases that he had ordered, and ended up not taking. Brunswick then decided
to enter the phonograph business to get rid of their stock. I'm not sure about
this one, though. I believe that the Brunswick of phonograph lore is today's
manufacturer of bowling alley equipment.
> m.j.k...@attt.com /// knu...@ihades.att.com
-Paul
cp...@informix.com
Paul Christensen
>> machine, and the sound is definitely more "brilliant" than the Credenza,
>> because of the 8-35's metal horn.
>The Credenza had a wooden folded horn? I need more books...
"Look for the Dog, an Illustrated Guide to Victor Talking Machines" by
Robert W. Baumbach is *the* definitive source on Victor phonographs. This is
a truly excellent book, with a history of Victor, its developments, and a
detailed synopsis (with pictures) of every Victor phonograph ever released.
A must-have if you're interested in Victor products.
Paul
David Breneman
:
: I love all these theoretical talks from people who must look at
: their machines and not play them.
: I got my DD in 1948 and used it until I went to college playing
: Little Richard and others. If you disengage the feedscrew, then
: the nothe horn moves along with the record.
Yes, but the tracking force required to move it is enormous compared
to, say the tracking force required to move the tone arm of a Victrola.
: Remember, steel needles
: wear to the shape of the record. I were designed to wear to the record
: shape.
I think that "designed to wear to the record shape" is too charitable.
They did wear, but as they did the sound quality deteriorated, and
after playing 3 or 4 sides the sound quality was absolutely horrible,
because the amount of surface area of the needle in the groove was
greater than the space between audio wave crests. This did cause
excellerated wear on the record. Most talking machine manufacturers
(especially Victor) warned that a steel needle should be turned over
after one side and discarded after the next side, and that bamboo
needles should be sharpened after each playing. The Victor Tungs-Tone
tungsten filament needle was called "semi-permanent" because it could
play a few hundred sides before needing replacement due to wear. The
bottom line is, if you can see facets on the point of the needle, which
is uaually the case after playing one side, it's worn out.
: I am amazined how high the tracking angle is
: with the feedscrew engaged...I leave it engaged today
: because I play mostly DD's. Maybe we need a scholarly source
: that a 10 degree angle eats records along with some
: research. A 10 degree or more angle would not reproduce
: the cutting lathe angles, but after that, what empirical
: evidence is there that wear accellerates to the point of
: EATING? If you are so concerned with wear, play all
: your records electrically.
The farther the difference in angle between the recorder and
reproducer, the greater the bias in the swing of the needle in the
groove. As the needle follows the modulations in the goove, it
will not swing from side to side but at an angle, which tends to
chip material from the groove walls. The sound quality also
suffers, because of the resistance to free travel of the needle
caused by the result of the offset in angles between the groove
and the needle (not worded well, but I think you get the picture).
Of course, vertically-cut records can be tracked from *any* angle,
which demonstrates the obvious superiority of Edison's technology. :-)
: Maybe you should check Frow (not Frowe) on this. I am going to assume
: he knows what he is talking about. Frow clearly lists the William
: and Mary as having the 250 horn, and I cited him in my posting.
I need to get this book. Anybody have an ISBN number for it?
: Most dealers have no idea which records (DDs) are electrically
: recorded. Dating DD's is very complex. There is a book on
: this subject too. More interesting are the records made on
: the 125 foot horn. Edison gave no indication which records were
: electrical and which were not. Unless you play them back
: electrically, the electric records just make your diaphragm
: rattle. I understand that the "dance" reproducer overcame
: this problem.
Why is this the case? Are the modulated greater than the acoustic ones?
: Theodore did take over the business since he graduated from MIT
: in physics and put the phono business on a scientific basis.
: The LP records (only 12 of which were made) came before (not after)
: the Edisonic and other ideas of Theodore. Theodore's influence
: was with the Edisonic player, if you believe the biography. The
: New Edison LP players only lasted about 2 years. The Edisonic
: player has a long horn in it and is interesting to listen to.
: It looks something like an early radio.
Interesting. I've never seen one of these.
: This is my two cents, based on Frow's book and on a
: biography of Edison I just finished.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you post title/author/ISBN? The last Edison boigraphy I read
was written right after his death, and the author is a little
starry-eyed. It don't like historical revisionism, but I do prefer
objectivity to hero-worship.
: PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
: acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
: blue amberol cylinders are sometimes acoustic dubs of
: electric dd's.
Another interesting fact I was not aware of. How did they "edit"
these? I mean, the Diamond Disk played longer than the Amberol, so
they must have had to copy excerpts only.
This discussion of "state of the art recording techniques of the 20s"
is fascinating - it's amazing how much of this stuff that I read 20
years ago is coming back.
David Breneman
: My guess would be that before the early 1950's there was no standard for
: record equalization. Each record manufacturer had their own EQ curves. Once
: standards were established, they changed several times until the early 1970s
: when the current RIAA standard was solidified. I'm told there is a company
: in CA that sells equipment that adjusts for the different EQ standards on
: older records.
Yes, there were many "standards" for 78s, and it wasn't until the
introduction of the 45 and 33-1/3 formats that equalization was
standardized. The Bogen amp in my Dad's state-of-the-art (for 1956)
Hi-Fi has about a dozen EQ settings, "Pop", "RIA", "NAB", "BBC",
"RCA", "Euro", etc.
george conklin
one play.
>: I am amazined how high the tracking angle is
>: with the feedscrew engaged...I leave it engaged today
>: because I play mostly DD's. Maybe we need a scholarly source
>: that a 10 degree angle eats records along with some
>: research. A 10 degree or more angle would not reproduce
>: the cutting lathe angles, but after that, what empirical
>: evidence is there that wear accellerates to the point of
>: EATING? If you are so concerned with wear, play all
>: your records electrically.
>
>The farther the difference in angle between the recorder and
>reproducer, the greater the bias in the swing of the needle in the
>groove. As the needle follows the modulations in the goove, it
>will not swing from side to side but at an angle, which tends to
>chip material from the groove walls. The sound quality also
>suffers, because of the resistance to free travel of the needle
>caused by the result of the offset in angles between the groove
>and the needle (not worded well, but I think you get the picture).
>Of course, vertically-cut records can be tracked from *any* angle,
>which demonstrates the obvious superiority of Edison's technology. :-)
Actually the drag in the pot metal bearings of the Edison adapters
was more than the drag on the ball-bearings of the Edison moving
horns. Therefore, if the feedscrew was disengaged, the horn tended
to track very well on its own and kept the angle rather constant. I got
tired of responding on this issue since some people considered it
flaming.
>: Maybe you should check Frow (not Frowe) on this. I am going to assume
>: he knows what he is talking about. Frow clearly lists the William
>: and Mary as having the 250 horn, and I cited him in my posting.
>
>I need to get this book. Anybody have an ISBN number for it?
The book is George L. Frow, The Edison Disc Machines and the Diamond
Discs: A History with Illustrations." Published by George L. Frow,
"Salterns," Seal Hollow Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3SH, England.
ISBN 0 9505462 5 9. You may need to write to Frow for it. He
responds quickly.
>: Most dealers have no idea which records (DDs) are electrically
>: recorded. Dating DD's is very complex. There is a book on
>: this subject too. More interesting are the records made on
>: the 125 foot horn. Edison gave no indication which records were
>: electrical and which were not. Unless you play them back
>: electrically, the electric records just make your diaphragm
>: rattle. I understand that the "dance" reproducer overcame
>: this problem.
>
>Why is this the case? Are the modulated greater than the acoustic ones?
Yes, the electric discs were LOUDER which was the rage at the time.
Some people think that louder was the only real advantage for these
records, although they did have bass notes the acoustic
records never had. They were loud enough to cause my reproducers
to rattle. There is also a book on how to date the records so you
can tell which ones were made with Edison's famous 125 foot horn.
>: Theodore did take over the business since he graduated from MIT
>: in physics and put the phono business on a scientific basis.
>: The LP records (only 12 of which were made) came before (not after)
>: the Edisonic and other ideas of Theodore. Theodore's influence
>: was with the Edisonic player, if you believe the biography. The
>: New Edison LP players only lasted about 2 years. The Edisonic
>: player has a long horn in it and is interesting to listen to.
>: It looks something like an early radio.
>
>Interesting. I've never seen one of these.
>
>: This is my two cents, based on Frow's book and on a
>: biography of Edison I just finished.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Could you post title/author/ISBN? The last Edison boigraphy I read
>was written right after his death, and the author is a little
>starry-eyed. It don't like historical revisionism, but I do prefer
>objectivity to hero-worship.
>
>: PS: The blue amberol cylinders made after about 1916 were
>: acousic dubs from DD's. Therefore, even the high numbered
>: blue amberol cylinders are sometimes acoustic dubs of
>: electric dd's.
>
>Another interesting fact I was not aware of. How did they "edit"
>these? I mean, the Diamond Disk played longer than the Amberol, so
>they must have had to copy excerpts only.
The blue amberols could run 4 minutes and most DD's were not that
long. They were dubbed with long tubes which really did not look
like horns. Frow has a picture. Some people posting to this board
claim they can tell the difference. Early phono societies had heard
rumors of this practice, but the copies were good enough that the
issue was not settled for years later, I gather.
>This discussion of "state of the art recording techniques of the 20s"
>is fascinating - it's amazing how much of this stuff that I read 20
>years ago is coming back.
>
>--
>David Breneman Email: da...@jaws.engineering.dgtl.com
>System Administrator, Voice: 206 881-7544 Fax: 206 556-8033
>Product Development Platforms
>Digital Systems International, Inc. Redmond, Washington, U. S. o' A.
George