Advice about Cylinder Phonographs

[De Soto Frank]

Bill,

I tried to match the "substrate beat" to a metronome, as best I could... ( Seiko electronic metronome )


I think we're in the ball-park...


I'm pretty certain that the original field recordings were not made at 160 rpm, at any rate...

[phonogfp]

This thread went from looking for a cylinder phonograph to recording/blanks, but if you're still looking for a phonograph, this looks like an excellent choice for you (no affiliation):

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... =9&t=19752

George P.

[De Soto Frank]

Sorry George, we did get distracted, and I contributed to that...

[phonogfp]

Sorry George, we did get distracted, and I contributed to that...

Hey - we all run in various directions on these threads...I'm not complaining. (A day or two ago, I posted a Recording Attachment for an Opera or School in a thread titled, "Amberola 1A question - feedscrew/halfnut tension." ) Good information is good information...

George P.

[Chuck]

Mark,

I stand by my previous nomenclature of the
acetate disks. That is what they were always called
by the folks back in Milwaukee who used them and
sold them.

Of course, that does not necessarily mean that
they were all made from some acetate compound, but to
be historically correct about those times, and those
people and those very episodes of personal experience
I had with them when I was a young boy about 8 years
old, everyone always referred to them as "acetate disks".

I put this information out there to steer interested
parties in that direction of inquiry if they so
choose to follow it. My stating the generic term
"acetate compound" points in that general direction.

I am just speaking from practical experience here
and from distant memory of the terminology we all
used at the time.

Whether they were acetate or some other kind of
lacquer needs to be investigated more thoroughly, I guess.

But I do stand by what I said.

Chuck

[Victrolacollector]

I am thankful for this forum, years ago when many of us began collecting we did not have the abundance of information and expertise that we find on the forum. And in that I say this can be a big help in exploring your options for a cylinder phonograph.

I own a few different models of cylinder phonographs. I will say this I have learned the expensive way what I wanted in a cylinder phonograph. My recommendation is to buy from reputable people on here. I have had great experiences with sales on the forum. Some of the sales on the online auction have not been as good. You will often find a machine, if lucky for $200-300.00 and it may not stop there, you may have to put in about $200 and up in parts alone to get it up running and presentable. I have done that before. So what may have appeared to be a good deal, would have been better buying a good complete working machine for $600-$700.00.

My suggestion, if you need a powerful enough machine that can play and record cylinders go with a Edison Home or Fireside with a 2/4 minute combo attachment, get a nice set of C an H reproducers and a recorder.


The Gem and Standards seem to be lacking in power, and the best Triumphs are more expensive. I do not recommend many of the Columbia machines as they are mostly 2 minute machines, and recorders are not as easy to find.

Also, if you like to play 4 minute cylinders on a dedicated machine, pick up a little Amberola 30, it will play 3 cylinders through and they sound great. Just make sure you have the reproducer rebuilt with new gaskets, diaphragm and possibly a new stylus.

All the best,

Jerry

[victorIIvictor]

Chuck wrote, "I put this information out there to steer interested parties in that direction of inquiry if they so choose to follow it."

That was the intention of my lengthy post, as well.

"Whether they were acetate or some other kind of lacquer needs to be investigated more thoroughly, I guess."

It has been thoroughly investigated, documented, and my quote from Dr. Biel gives some reasons why the misnomer "acetate disc" was used in the past and why it persists. I think it is especially important for anyone attempting to re-use the lacquer coating on the recording discs that you mentioned in your earlier post to realize that the substance is, unlike cellulose acetate, highly flammable. I didn't mention this in my first post, but that is an equally important reason for putting this misnomer to rest. I'm sure my post will not succeed in that, but I think it's important to share this information and document its source, for historical accuracy, protection of the disks themselves when encountered by modern-day users, and for protection of those who may wish to re-purpose what is on those discs. In my view, that is more important than what term vendors long ago used, but I thank you for documenting your source, and so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Best wishes, Mark

[winsleydale]

To address a few chaps' recent posts, I have by this time arranged to purchase a nice Standard 2/4 from Mr. Jerry B. It's coming in working order as far as I understand and with a recording head and C reproducer. I know that it isn't as strong as a Home or Fireside but I am not setting up a record factory, so I am sure it will be fine.

If it turns out I need a stronger one, I guess I'll have to expand my small collection

Nevertheless, I am glad that the thread continues to expand; I learn more with every post.

[Chuck]

The movie industry stopped using nitrocellulose film
because it so frequently burned up in the projector.

The material used for later movie films was changed
to some other clear flexible substance.

I would not doubt for one second that at some point
an acetate compound was used for this, as well as
for some brands and kinds of those one-time recordable
discs.

The real gist of my original post on this subject was not
meant as a definitive statement that acetate is the
compound used on every one of those records ever made.

The reason I used the generic term "Acetate" was in
the context of it being only suitable to be recorded
upon one time. It was never meant to be shaved and
re-recorded such as a brown wax blank can be.

Nor was I suggesting that any of the old acetate discs
be "repurposed" by salvaging the material and attempting
to re-use it.

But now, let's go back to the context of my original
post which was meant to show that the material
(what ever it may be) which was used for the one-time
recordable discs was never meant to be recorded upon
more than once.

The context of the original post was meant to show that
should this or any similar material be used to
construct a blank cylinder, then this blank could
be recorded upon....exactly....once.

It was meant to show the contrast between that, and a nice thick brown wax blank which can have as many as 21 shave and record cycles in it.

That was the context of it. NOT whether it's
nitrocellulose or acetate or some kind of lacquer.
What ever it is, it is good for a number of times
of being recorded upon of exactly ONE TIME.

Chuck Richards

[martinola]

Winsleydale - I think you'll find the Standard B to be a real workhorse. I'm sure you'll enjoy having it.

Regards,
Martin