why everyone should appreciate acoustic Diamond Discs more

[MicaMonster]

-or- Why EVERYONE should have an Edison Diamond Disc Collection

Here I go again. Praising the mostly overlooked technical phenomenon which collectors in passing call "them heavy Diamond Discs." Its common knowledge...the later electrically recorded discs sound great, but unfortunately for the fan of music, also cost a pretty penny (not as much as they were 15 years ago, but still a King's investment).

I love Diamond Disc records. I think part of my passion for them is that they are the underdog. The musical selections are 2nd rate, the musical arrangements are 2nd rate (or 2 minutes too long!), and the vocal talent that Edison employed left much to be desired. And, THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING! The records take up space, and require you to put floor supports under your record room to keep the floor timbers from collapsing. The paper labels fall off, the condensite lamination splits, peels, and you often encounter edge flakes, edge swelling, flea bites, and other weird wear anomalies that not even a high level university astrophysicist could explain. The discs themselves are an artifact of an artifact, based on the hill-and-dale technology which Edison himself developed in 1877 and then "shelved" to pursue more important endeavors. They are ¼" thick because the wood powder cores themselves act as acoustic dampers reflecting the weight of the diamond stylus back up into the reproducer, carrying sound along with it. Gently touch the surface of a record while playing it, and you will feel the record vibrating in harmony with the reproducer....extraordinary.

I digress.

The later electric discs are great. But, they are NOT my favorite!

"What's that you say? NOT your favorite?"

That's correct. Although the later discs are recorded with centrally placed (or multiple) studio microphones....they lack something. They lack reality.

My absolute favorite discs are the earliest ones sold in the first few years of Disc production, leading up to World War I. The recording quality is outstanding, and furthermore this is enhanced by a disc laminate that was smooth as silk, and highly refined. When the war broke out and Edison's Laboratory was forced to re-examine the condensite lac compound, changes were made to the mixture, but the problem with recording quality (excess surface noise) was NOT due to the new "velvet" lac, but to the recording matrixes not receiving enough electroplating during production. Because of this manufacturing flaw, TONS and TONS of these discs were destroyed (burned) at the factory, and only a percentage of production was sold to dealers. This was after "batch samples" were auditioned by staff and found satisfactory. And I don't mean satisfactory like, "GOOD," but satisfactory along the lines of "ADEQUATE."

I digress.

(again)

So, why am I talking about this. Because I like early acoustic Diamond Discs. And why? Because they contain qualities of ambience and realism that the later electric discs (and most 78rpm lateral records, for that matter) lack completely.

Studio echo. The sound of the vocalist's breath control, the resonance of a guitar, and the timbre of a saxophone. Violins never sounded so good. Vasa Prihoda......even more genius when heard in person, through the phonograph! The list is endless. The Diamond Disc "system" is a closed one. They were recorded SPECIFICALLY for Edison Diamond Disc phonographs to reproduce.

-*BUT*- and this is a big but - although the mechanical reproduction of Diamond Disc phonographs produces "that Edison sound," it does have its technical limitations.

I encourage, strongly, that fellow collectors pull those etched label and later paper label acoustic discs, and re-examine them. Play them back ELECTRICALLY with a modern turntable.

Much like playing back brown wax cylinders and Blue Amberols with an electric pickup, you will hear things you never thought were on the record. Records you passed on at the "$1 per disc" box will take on a whole new respect.

Today I pulled out an E+ copy of an early 1920's "red star" disc (meaning that the Edison dealer would not get an account credit if the record was returned) of Al Bernard and Frank Ferara playing TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, on DD# 51299 (side R). What a great recording.

Sorry, but Al Bernard sounds like crap on lateral 78rpm discs, ad he sounds worse on dubbed Blue Amberols (Brits: "Blue DAMNBEROLS). You can't change my opinion if you put a gun to my head.

Bernard takes the song and makes it into something that you should listen to. Human ears are made to be held captive by analog sound. MP3 sound is just deplorable. Edison Discs and cylinders are the closest thing we have to a time machine. And when they play clean, the effect is even more significant. Edison Disc Records are still relevant. More now than ever.

Quartettes, Orchestra Pieces, even your old copy of the Poet & Peasant (pts 1 & 2) take on a new reality when played back electrically.

So, dig out that old tube amp, bridge your cartridge to sum the vertical signal, and rediscover one of THE most overlooked gems of collecting: the acoustic Diamond Disc.

[Damfino59]

I couldn't say it better. I have always preferred the acoustic diamond discs over the electrics. And my playback equipment is mechanical with a true tone, mono tube amp or a KAB preamp.

[Valecnik]

TOTALLY agree! It's easy to hear the dramatically better sound quality of an Edison disc if you play it in the same room on either vintage or " modern" (tube amp) powered equipment. It's especially apparent if you can compare the same piece recorded on Edison with the same title recorded about the same time on a lateral disc.

For example, I have an E+ recording of "U.S. Field Artillery March", by N.Y. Military Band recorded on Edison disc about 1918 or so. I've also an E+ recording of the same piece on Victor, recorded about the same time by Sousa's band. No comparison. The Edison disc is loud and crystal clear. The Victor disc is equally as loud, possibly a bit louder but sounds like you are listening with a blanket over your head.

The Edison disc is one of those etched label discs that are supposed to "sound so terrible" btw.

[Lucius1958]

As for electric vs. acoustic playback: I have never actually heard an acoustic DD played back 'live' on a modern setup, but the electric transfers I have heard online always seem to lack something for me, compared to listening to a well-restored reproducer on my Chippendale... Still, if I ever get a chance, I'd love to hear a good modern playback in person...

It's true about the wartime discs: I have occasionally found some very good recordings from that period.

Bill

[larryh]

Wyatt,

Your quite right about the quality of sound on edison disc. I have nearly all acoustic pieces as I came in here around the time the electric things were bringing well over 500.00 some days. But after I found a few of them I agree that unless its a truly wonderful late recording the electrical reproduction in my mind leave much to be desired. Often they sound distant where the acoustic version is upfront in sound. The early disc are often overlooked, perhaps because many of the vocals of that period sound like that period, where as the later 20's singers were more up to date in styling. Of course edison hung on to many of the early people and so you still get those pieces you mentioned that sound like your grandfather singing a young mans song.

For my taste the longer play is a decided advantage. I enjoy edisons classical selections and his conductor or musical supervisor was Ceasar Sodero who went on to be head of columbia records classical division and conductor of the metropolitan opera before his demise in the 40's. I think that is why there are so many interesting classical selections of the operatic nature. Granted they may not have been as forward as Victor or Columbia with famous name orchestras but many of the selections of the latter acoustic period are amazing in their depth of sound.

I still marvel at how realistic they sound at a distance. Its like you have the artist playing in the next room. My credenza tended to sound distant an somewhat shallow in comparison..

Larry

[VintageTechnologies]

The musical selections are 2nd rate, the musical arrangements are 2nd rate (or 2 minutes too long!), and the vocal talent that Edison employed left much to be desired. And, THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING!

And yet, when it comes to popular music, such as fox-trots, jazz and blues, I consider the musical arrangements and performances on the Edison label to often be greatly superior and preferable to the Victor version of the same song. Some of the in-house talent, such as the Broadway Dance Orchestra and Atlantic Dance Orchestra, were consistently good. I like the extended arrangements made possible by Edison's longer playing time. I only wish Edison had recorded much more by the Original Memphis Five!