kumbo1899 wrote:Sorry for the long read but thought it might be of interest as in my 56 years of collecting I have never seen one like this.
Certainly no apology needed. Thanks for the informative post.
And in addition to the sound, it turned out to be a handsome piece as well. My knowledge is not nearly deep enough to have recognized this was special. I am happy to see that you did and have rescued it.
Clay
Arthur W. J. G. Ord-Hume's Laws of Collecting
1. Space will expand to accommodate an infinite number of possessions, regardless of their size.
2. Shortage of finance, however dire, will never prevent the acquisition of a desired object, however improbable its cost.
I had an opportunity to examine this reproducer on Saturday (thank you Larry). Of particular note is design of the four holes in the throat. They are angled away from the center of the throat thereby accumulating sound waves from the diaphragm in an area that is about ¾ inch from the center of the diaphragm. Since the larger diaphragms convert lower frequency mechanical energy best away from the center of the diaphragm, it seems that the intent was to "capture" the lower sound range and attenuate, or "ignore" at least some of the higher frequencies. The fact that the diaphragm is much thicker than other aluminum diaphragms of the period, suggests that the goal was indeed to focus on the lower frequency range. Further, I wonder when this were made. If made prior to the Victrola 2 era, it certainly would be ahead of its time in more than one way. Does anyone have any further thoughts on this? Russie Ofria
Last edited by startgroove on Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
That is a very wonderful reproducer. I noticed the gaskets you used are the more plastic type white gaskets, I tend to think them very stiff and limiting. I had a reproduction Columbia disc reproducer with them in it, come into my shop onetime, and I immediately changed them to the above soft rubber, and the sound was much improved. I use the softer white rubber supplied by Ron Sitko, and have used for over 25 years with good results. (I started repairing machines when I was around 12 years old, and am now 41.
Actually the original was white rubber tube but split down one side then the mounted around the diaphragm. Not paper and not two rubber tubes but one. Made to accommodate the one with split. I followed the original design. Fits perfect. Sound is very obvious to lower registers but as mentioned earlier higher tone instruments such as clarionet etc. are clear and no blasting. LH
kumbo1899 wrote:Actually the original was white rubber tube but split down one side then the mounted around the diaphragm. Not paper and not two rubber tubes but one. Made to accommodate the one with split. I followed the original design. Fits perfect. Sound is very obvious to lower registers but as mentioned earlier higher tone instruments such as clarionet etc. are clear and no blasting. LH
How do you split the tube and keep it nice and neat? I recently got a reproducer that needs the same.
Resist the forces of evil in all their varied forms.
Doctor friend surgery scissors carefully and it is fine. When you slip on the diaphragm edge it simply adapts and slips on easy. Thanks for asking. After 50 years I still find new tricks and (oops slips)... LH
![[The Talking Machine Forum - For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings]](/styles/we_universal/theme/images/the_talking_machine_forum.png)
