Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Discussions on Records, Recording, & Artists
User avatar
Wolfe
Victor V
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Wolfe »

52089 wrote: So at least theoretically, they were cut simultaneously. What I don't undersand is, when you're cutting on 2 different lathes, why would you have to adjust the speed of the Diamond Disc lathe as a result?
Something to do with cutter head velocity? Good question.

Recording time wouldn't have been the issue since the DD's could encompass more anyway.

gregbogantz
Victor II
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:03 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by gregbogantz »

I suspect the change to 78.26 rpm was simply a nod to recent record industry convention. The latest electrical DDs recorded at 78 were released just a bit later than the Edison electrical phonographs, particularly the models C-1 and C-2 which were designed to play both DDs and lateral cut records. Adopting a consistent record speed made life easier for the player owner who didn't have to fuss with his speed control when changing from one type of disc to the other. Also, the adoption of the 78.26rpm speed is the result of using synchronous motors on the recording lathes operating on 60Hz AC mains power. This provided a stable cutting speed technology without the need for adjustment of the lathe. Synchronous motors in playback equipment were also becoming available at this time so that broadcast stations and other professional uses could be assured of correct speed playback.
Collecting moss, radios and phonos in the mountains of WNC.

52089
Victor VI
Posts: 3745
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by 52089 »

gregbogantz wrote:I suspect the change to 78.26 rpm was simply a nod to recent record industry convention. The latest electrical DDs recorded at 78 were released just a bit later than the Edison electrical phonographs, particularly the models C-1 and C-2 which were designed to play both DDs and lateral cut records. Adopting a consistent record speed made life easier for the player owner who didn't have to fuss with his speed control when changing from one type of disc to the other. Also, the adoption of the 78.26rpm speed is the result of using synchronous motors on the recording lathes operating on 60Hz AC mains power. This provided a stable cutting speed technology without the need for adjustment of the lathe. Synchronous motors in playback equipment were also becoming available at this time so that broadcast stations and other professional uses could be assured of correct speed playback.
That's an interesting comment, but I'll pick the nit that the needle cut discs and the very late DDs are are 78.8, slightly faster than the 78.26 syncronous motor "standard".

Do the C-1 and C-2 have speed controls? If not, precisely what speed do they play at (at 60 Hz)? I'm wondering if they clock out at around 79 so that "regular" 78s, needle cut Edisons, and Diamond Discs are all within 1 RPM.

gregbogantz
Victor II
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:03 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by gregbogantz »

The Edison C-1, C-2, and C-4 all have speed controls with mechanical governors. They were the induction disc type motor much like those used by Victor. This allowed them to play the wide range of record speeds that was common at the time. Although synchronous motors were available in professional turntables in the early 1930s, they just began to be seen in consumer players in the 1930s, but they were never very common until the 1960s. Most consumer motors up until then were the garden variety 2 or 4-pole induction motors which are not synchronous. They also usually did not have any speed control verniers so their platter speeds are often in error by a small amount.

I don't know for a fact what speed the latest Edison DDs and needle cuts were cut at, but I suspect that synchronous motors were used on the lathes simply because they produced consistent speeds that didn't need to be diddled with. The 78.260869 rpm speed is a direct result of using a 92-pole direct drive motor running on 60Hz mains power as done on some modern lathes such as the Neumann models of the 1970s. Any constant speed is possible if you resort to gearing the motor speed down with associated gears or belts and pulleys. In the latest models, the motor speed is crystal controlled and referenced from a local oscillator. This allows the use of universal mains power regardless of line frequency. This is true for both recording lathes and playback turntables.
Collecting moss, radios and phonos in the mountains of WNC.

User avatar
Valecnik
Victor VI
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:28 pm
Personal Text: Edison Records - Close your eyes and see if the artist does not actually seem to be before you.
Location: Česká Republika
Contact:

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Valecnik »

The biggest shame about recording needle cuts and diamond discs from the same masters is that they throw away almost half of the capacity of the diamond disc. Most of the needle cuts, of all manufacturers, were less than three minutes on a 10" disc while the diamond disc could accomodate ~ 4 ¾ minutes I believe.

User avatar
Wolfe
Victor V
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Wolfe »

Valecnik wrote:The biggest shame about recording needle cuts and diamond discs from the same masters is that they throw away almost half of the capacity of the diamond disc. Most of the needle cuts, of all manufacturers, were less than three minutes on a 10" disc while the diamond disc could accomodate ~ 4 ¾ minutes I believe.
A DD can play longer than that, I'm sure there's no reason a Needle Cut couldn't pass 3 mins either.

In case someone is confused, they weren't dubbed from one master,like Pathé discs, rather, cut independently on separate lathes. Probably what you meant anyway. :)

User avatar
Valecnik
Victor VI
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:28 pm
Personal Text: Edison Records - Close your eyes and see if the artist does not actually seem to be before you.
Location: Česká Republika
Contact:

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Valecnik »

Wolfe wrote:
Valecnik wrote:The biggest shame about recording needle cuts and diamond discs from the same masters is that they throw away almost half of the capacity of the diamond disc. Most of the needle cuts, of all manufacturers, were less than three minutes on a 10" disc while the diamond disc could accomodate ~ 4 ¾ minutes I believe.
A DD can play longer than that, I'm sure there's no reason a Needle Cut couldn't pass 3 mins either.

In case someone is confused, they weren't dubbed from one master,like Pathé discs, rather, cut independently on separate lathes. Probably what you meant anyway. :)
You're correct Wolf. I was just swagging on the 3 min and 4 ¾ min because I did not know exactly. You are also correct about being cut independently on separate lathes. The longest 10" diamond disc I have is a Radereman recording, "All Alone". I've never timed it exactly but I'm sure it's bumping close to 5 min. :)

Lenoirstreetguy
Victor IV
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Lenoirstreetguy »

I'm going to throw another wild card into this discussion. I've read that the final diamond discs were actually dubbbed from the lateral master. Doesn't Dethlefson say this? I know it was discussed in an article in the old Amberola Graphic which I will dig for. This of course only applies to the very last issues of 1929 but for them at least it would explain why one would notice an inferiority of sound. I would beg the question as to why they just didn't cut a diamond disc master simultaneously.
Jim

User avatar
VintageTechnologies
Victor IV
Posts: 1651
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by VintageTechnologies »

Lenoirstreetguy wrote:I would beg the question as to why they just didn't cut a diamond disc master simultaneously.
Jim
I suspect there was some economic advantage for doing that, just as Edison dropped live recording of Blue Amberol cylinders in favor of those dubbed from disc masters. I think the Diamond Disc format (and cylinders) would have been discontinued shortly thereafter, even if the company had survived. They were an anachronism. Releasing Edison laterals was a good indication that by 1929 there was no question in the company's mind that 78's had trumped all other formats.

Lenoirstreetguy
Victor IV
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Diamond Disc vs Edison Needle Cut sound quality controversy

Post by Lenoirstreetguy »

I found the article in the Amberola Graphic and it was indeed Ron Dethlefson's research . The pertinent entries were gleaned from the Cash books and the Booking Calendar for the New York studio in 1929. The note in the booking calender for August 15 reads Discontinued making direct recordings for " Diamond Disc" records except on special requests from Orange.
I've got one of these very late electrics , 52645 Why Can't You and Little Pal by B.A. Rolfe's Orchestra which was recorded on August 28 so would therefore be dubbed, but I have to say it sounds great and it's very clean work for a 1929 dubbing. The only hint being a bit of overloading at the end.
And I suppose running a second DD cutter wouldn't be quite as simple as splitting the signal from one amp. The equalization setting would probably be different for the lateral and vertical cutting head.

Jim

Post Reply