Best Sounding Edison Diamond Disc Machine

[Victrolacollector]

What is the best sounding Diamond Disc machine? Which model would you recommend?

[edisonrestorer64]

well it all depends on the horn I would think. I have a Edison c-150 I love mine.
but my cygnet attached to my Edison d standard sounds good also.

[winsleydale]

Having tested the 100, 150 and 250 size horns with the same reproducer and record to this end, I think I can faithfully say that the larger horn sounds the best. This would lead me to the obvious conclusion that the Edisonics were truly the best, especially with the beefed up reproducers. However, I have unfortunately never had a chance to hear one in person.

[Valecnik]

If you mean pre-Edisonic, the William & Mary upright imho.

[ambrola]

What is the best sounding Diamond Disc machine? Which model would you recommend?

I think the C-19 is the best all around DD machine.

[A Ford 1]

I should think sound quality would depend on horn size, stylus condition, reproducer condition, reproducer type, and horn elevation i.e. upright vs console vs Edisonic. Also the room will have an impact on the sound. A local collector owning many different makes of electric Radio-phonographs, a C-250, A-1 and many different makes of cylinder machines said the C-2 sounded outstanding and the C-1 had an even higher end amplifier then the C-2 but they are a different form of reproduction . Now the previous is a run on sentence!
Allen

[Lenoirstreetguy]

If you mean pre-Edisonic, the William & Mary upright imho.

I find it interesting that after 1918 or so most of the photos of Tone Tests..either formal or informal...show them using a William an Mary rather than a C250 or C19 even though they all had the large " 250" size horn. This implies that either the William and Mary sounded better or they were trying to stimulate sales ( which I understand were slower than the company would have liked.). But I have heard several collectors opine, like Valecnik, that for some reason the W.and M. sounds better. Perhaps cabinet resonance helped the bass and smoothed the surface noise?
Here's two William and Marys and two tone tests, one formal in Albany NY and one informal in Chicago( 1919)
Jim the DD Fan.

[fran604g]

Well, to further diversify the opinions here, and potentially confuse things even more (unintentionally); I own a nice A 100 that came with a very late, and very nice, perfect sounding gun-metal reproducer in which the combination blew away my Chippendale C 250 (with a period appropriate reproducer).

I was really impressed and wondered why this supposedly "inferior" sounding low-budget machine outperformed what was arguably the best sounding DD machine produced, so I tried this particular reproducer in another Chippendale (a very late C 19) that I bought after the A 100, and similarly, the sound was splendid; the volume was great.

Recently I bought an Edisonic Schubert with no reproducer; I played it with a gold plated Edisonic reproducer that I had with one of my Chippendales, and it sounded beautiful, albeit much louder than the "Regular" reproducers I own (I've come to understand that the term "Regular" reproducer was used by the Edison company to differentiate the pre-Edisonic reproducers from the "New Standard" - or "Edisonic" - reproducers after their introduction to the public as an upgrade for their personal machines in May 1927).

I also own another Schubert with it's original reproducer, and it sounds pretty much the same as the gold one used with the first Schubert.

In short, I've used that "Regular" gun-metal reproducer on every DD Phono I own, and it always comes through with flying colors.

I also have a relatively early, and completely original, nickel plated reproducer with the "flange" mounted stylus bar. In comparison, it has a very noticeably diminished volume, and - to my ears - a sort of "muffled" tone signature.

My thought is that the later gun-metal "Regular" reproducers may generally sound better than their predecessors, and in my own personal experience, also better than the "New Standard" reproducers.

Another point that needs consideration: assuming the very last "Regular" ones were still being produced in some fashion in late 1929, the latest "Regular" reproducers can be up to 17 years younger than the earliest produced DD reproducers, and unquestionably this should influence their sound. I'm sure there was quite a lot of improvement in the manufacturing and production techniques used for the later ones.

The moral of the story? I believe that any of the four different sized horns - "100", "150", "250", and "Edisonic" (I'm excluding the A/B 60 & A/B 80 models, because I know little about them personally) - can sound very nice, dependant completely on the reproducer in my humble opinion.

And even then, after finding the perfect combination for you personally, the records will be the "wild-card".

Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of them all, especially when compared to my Victrola XVI.

It's good to understand that the volume output and tone quality of all Diamond Disc Phonographs is a function of both the reproducer and the horn. Generally speaking, the larger the horn, the louder the volume, but the reproducers were in a seemingly constant state of research and improvement, so a very early reproducer on an Edisonic might not sound the best, or it could sound as good and loud as a Chippendale - or a William and Mary, for that matter.

And then, there is the topic of reportedly different weight loads used on the different reproducer iterations along with their development, dependant on their production time period.

I equate this whole thing to my modern audio systems, in that sound reproduction is only as good as "the weakest link in the chain". A great amplifier is only going to sound as good as the speakers, or as good as the stylus and cartridge combination on one's turntable...

...or those nasty mP3 files that most people don't seem to find as crappy sounding as I do.

I would be remiss if I also didn't bring up the reality of a poorly functioning mechanism, too. If the Phonograph doesn't function properly; the motor is noisy, for instance, that will also have a detrimental effect on the sound. My C 250 has an upgraded "shock-proof" 3-weight governor of the type used for the Edisonics and LP Phonographs, but because all of my other machines function perfectly, I hear NO discernible difference between them due to motor noise.

I have never heard a "Dance" reproducer, on any machine, and look forward to trying one out on all of mine to see how it fits into the "chain".

Just my $.02, you know; I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm always interested to hear of other's experiences.

Best,
Fran

[fran604g]

If you mean pre-Edisonic, the William & Mary upright imho.

I find it interesting that after 1918 or so most of the photos of Tone Tests..either formal or informal...show them using a William an Mary rather than a C250 or C19 even though they all had the large " 250" size horn. This implies that either the William and Mary sounded better or they were trying to stimulate sales ( which I understand were slower than the company would have liked.). But I have heard several collectors opine, like Valecnik, that for some reason the W.and M. sounds better. Perhaps cabinet resonance helped the bass and smoothed the surface noise?
Here's two William and Marys and two tone tests, one formal in Albany NY and one informal in Chicago( 1919)
Jim the DD Fan.

I think it might be time for a "THROWDOWN" between a Chippendale and a William and Mary!

I'm ALL for that!

How can we make this happen?

In all seriousness though, I'd bet there is some validity to the possibility.

Fran

[Uncle Vanya]

The post-1915 uprights with the 250 size horn (all of the "Official Laboratory Models" included all sound the same when the reproducer and record are the same. I have tried this. No dofference acoustically between the William and Mary and the Chippendale uprights. The consoles are less satisfactory to my ears because of the low position of the horn relative,to a seated listener. I don't care for the Eidsonic machines myself. Despite the longer horns they do not to my ear have any apparent added bass, but have unpleasant resonances in the upper bass and the midrange. To my ear the 250 horn with the New Standard reproducer is just about as good as it gets, and I have done side by side comaprasons. ,of course everyone has different ears and so it would be best for a body to judge for themselves. Something that I like might be auditory poison to another.