Edisonic vs. Orthophonic

[Schmaltz]

I think the real test would be to play an electrical diamond disc on both machines. I think there's more music on them thick records from the light bulb guy. But there's no real way to use an Edisonic reproducer on a credenza.

Carsten Fischer came pretty close to what you're suggesting when he adapted a Brunswick head to a Victrola 10-50. Here's the YouTube video he made, and be sure to read the note he attached to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM

[Dave]

and unlike the Edisonic's horn, the Orthophonic tone chamber is not only longer, but exponential in design.
Joe

The horn used by Edison for the Diamond Disc is exponential but much shorter and therefore not able to produce the lower registers with the authority of the Orthophonic.
Notice how the cross-sectional area increases exponentially with the length.

il_570xN.533750861_i8b1.jpg (27.96 KiB) Viewed 1128 times

[Joe_DS]

and unlike the Edisonic's horn, the Orthophonic tone chamber is not only longer, but exponential in design.
Joe

The horn used by Edison for the Diamond Disc is exponential but much shorter and therefore not able to produce the lower registers with the authority of the Orthophonic.
Notice how the cross-sectional area increases exponentially with the length.

I know that there have been discussions about this on other forums in the past--whether the DD horn has a true exponential taper--and whether a constant is involved in the expansion rate of its taper.

I know that the Orthophonic horn, designed by Maxfield and Harrison, used a specific taper rate that was contingent on the size of the horn's mouth, it's projected length, and size of its small end--all designed to match the impedance characteristics of the sound box. In contrast, the Edison DD horns were designed by trial and error, as was the reproducer, or so I've read.

Joe

[marcapra]

Comparing these two phonographs is like a Martian coming to Earth and asking "What should I eat, apples or oranges?" If you don't have a good Diamond Disc collection and are going to play mainly laterals with an adapter on your Edisonic, I would say go with the Credenza and vice versa. Records were meant to be played on the machine designed for them.

[gregbogantz]

There is no comparison. NONE of the Edison horns, cylinder or disc is exponential. The closest that Edison ever came to a proper horn design was by accident with the Amberola 1 and III horns which have a tapered expansion. All of the DD horns are little more than conical simpletons somewhat flattened. And they sound like it. The Credenza blows the doors off any of the Edisons. There are good reasons why the Victor orthophonics were easily triumphant in the market place over the Edisons and Columbias. They simply sounded better. And most buyers thought so when it came to spending their money on a record player. This, despite the fact that Victor's recordings were all over the place in terms of their quality. But a good record played on a large Victor ortho horn just can't be beat by any other all-acoustic playback system.

Much as I had hoped that the Schubert Edisonic that I have would sound appreciably better than my C-200, C-19, and C-250, the difference is sadly minimal. When I saw that the horn is nearly the same flattened conical design, it was clear why they all sounded about the same. Edison DD horns are primitive and they honk just like any other conical horn does. There is nothing the tiniest bit sophisticated about them. The honk produces a peak in the midrange of the frequency response. Some people think this improves the "presence" of the sound. Some people like it. But it's far from accurate. The Edisonic horn is longer which causes it to honk with a lower peak frequency than the shorter DD horns. That's all that's different.

The pre-orthophonic horns of Columbias, Victors, Brunswicks and the rest are similarly simple, plain, and unsophisticated. And they honk about the same, just at different frequencies. If you need proof of the way that a conical horn distorts the frequency content of sound, listen to a person speaking thru a typical conical megaphone and compare that sound with their natural voice without the horn. That's what a conical horn does to sound. But the orthophonic horns of ANY of the Victor orthos are vast improvements over any of the earlier designs. The smaller ortho exponential horns are already a big improvement, but the biggest Victor horns of the 8-9, the 10-35, the Credenza, the 9-40 and the 10-50 are simply the best all-acoustic designs ever sold to the American public. Period. They have better, more extended bass and smoother response throughout their entire frequency range than any other acoustic horns sold before WWII. I reserve judgement on the large British EMG horns that some listeners favor because I haven't heard one in person. But they weren't readily available in the USA anyway.

[marcapra]

In my experience with phonographs, despite all the people who say the Credenza is the best, I still haven't found one that could equal my Brunswick Cortez. I'm not saying I'm right, but just saying I haven't actually heard one that can compete. Even though the Cortez just has a large conical spruce horn, I still haven't heard its equal in an acoustic machine. I have owned in the past, a Credenza, an 8-35, and a Consolette. I'm anxious to hear a Credenza in good condition that can beat my Cortez. That would have to be quite a phonograph!

[edisonphonoworks]

Those Brunswick Panatrope acoustics, have a very good presence, and clarity to them that brings out details that Victor machines do not, may not have as much low end but it makes up for this in the other areas.

[Edisone]

I doubt any Credenza will sound better than your Cortez, because of the Victor's flawed horn design. Especially on spoken records, you can hear the sound bouncing around inside the horn instead of being projected the way an EDD or your Brunswick can. However, the sheer volume of most electrical recordings (and many loud acoustic ones) makes up for the Credenza's weakness in "projectivity". Acoustic Victor band records are much more pleasant on a Credenza - it takes out the ear-shattering blast that Edison called "the Victor ear-tickle".

As for the Edisonic, the reproducer itself does not impress me; I much prefer the Standard DD model & the 250 size horn. The Edisonic ads made some pretty absurd claims, as many ads are wont to do (Stereoscopic! Astounding! Flowing surging leaping contours! You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss 4 months' rent goodbye!) :

[FloridaClay]

There are so many possible combinations! My C19 has a good, rebuilt Edisonic producer on it. It is loud and clear, yes, but to my ear listening in my living room also harsh. I will keep it to have it in my collection for "show and tell," but I just ordered a rebuilt regular DD reproducer from George V. to use for my day-to-day playing.

Clay

[Valecnik]

Agree with you Clay. I've got an excellent Edisonic and Dance reproducer but they rarely get used. I stick with the Standard pretty much all the time.