Best Sounding Edison Diamond Disc Machine

[fran604g]

In defense of the Edisonic machines, I find the sound that comes from my Beethoven is superb. Although I would admit that the sound that comes out of my C250 Chippendale is also superb using the same Edisonic reproducer. The horn is placed low on the Edisonic machines making a seated position the best way to listen to them. The nice thing about the Chippendale is that the big horn is just the right height for seated or standing listeners. I've said this before, but just to repeat: When I had a new hardwood floor installed in my dining room and living room, all the furniture and the old carpeting were removed. So I put my Chippendale at one end of these two rooms, about 50 feet. So that was about 50 feet of nothing but hardwood floors and walls and the sound was the most amazing that I've ever heard from an acoustic phonograph!!! Putting the furniture back in and a rug deadened much of that amazing sound unfortunately. Only one person mentioned the sound of the Edison C-2 radio/phonograph. I've only heard a C-2 once at the CAPS show in Buena Park, CA. Luckily, I will be acquiring one this spring at the Stanton auction, so I can report on its virtues then.

Several weeks ago I heard my first, and thus far only, electronic Edison: a C-2.

I thought it sounded wonderful. The electrically recorded selection that was played for us was very different sounding (obviously what one would expect) from anything I've heard acoustically reproduced.

In regard to the OP, should we remain in the acoustic realm, or include all Diamond Disc Phonographs?

Even the rebranded portables might provide interesting results. The P-1 is reported by Frow as having been claimed by the company to have the "...longest horn in any portable - 'the new principle reflex horn.'" Whatever that might really be.

He further states that the "...ballbearing tone arm had an exponential characteristic." Puffery? I wouldn't be very surprised at that.

I wonder how the portables might stack up against other "high-end" portables of the period?

Fran

[larryh]

I agree that location is a large factor in what you hear from a given machine. My William and Mary Console is currently the machine that I have in my living room. The room is amazingly vibrant, sometimes almost too much so.. But the sound is better than what I hear from the Jacobean which is in my moms large dining room. It sits in a mostly open room with a short wall and column on both sides of the entrance. If you listen beyond the large opening the sound is not as rich as when you pass though the opening where the sound is noticeably better. Its not that the machine can't produce the sound but rather the room is interfering with how it seems at a distance. The Chippendale is in my moms rather large basement. It sits at an angle and the sound is quite good due to the hard walls and floor, but not quite like the sound in my living room.

Customers making a choice in which machine to purchase probably had several things to consider.. Price, cabinet and sound. There is a reason Edison called the 250 horn the "Laboratory Model" I don't need a digital readout to know that the sound is both deeper and somewhat louder. Its not much different than buying a small bookshelf speaker of lower quality and a high end quality speaker of a large size. Your going to hear more from the better one. I think the machines are much the same.. How the sound travels may be influenced by how far from the machine you are.. I know that my uprights are better heard standing. Its just something you can hear as you raise up, the sound becomes stronger.

How each person hears the music though apparently varies from person to person. How it is judged depends on both the room and location of the machine, and the listeners personal judgements as to how they are hearing it. The records also can be an issue as some are very fine in both tone and volume, others are weak and rather dull due to that, mostly because of the pressings from what I have read.

Mechanically produced sound is a trade off. Sometimes when we get really exceptional sound and detail at the low end the upper volumes are overdriven which causes and overly harsh upper end.. Waltrip was known for preferring the medium levels saying that as I mentioned, the louder versions often exaggerated the sound in places. I tired to have a balanced sound in my work, sometimes its not as loud as others. I find however that for the serious listeners balance and overall effect is more important than everything loudly produced. Its something that I have always disliked about Victors, having ones ears assaulted by the buzzing ear drums due to the extreme volume they can produce.

[CarlosV]

Even the rebranded portables might provide interesting results. The P-1 is reported by Frow as having been claimed by the company to have the "...longest horn in any portable - 'the new principle reflex horn.'" Whatever that might really be.

He further states that the "...ballbearing tone arm had an exponential characteristic." Puffery? I wouldn't be very surprised at that.

I wonder how the portables might stack up against other "high-end" portables of the period?

Fran

The Edison portable has a reasonably long horn (for a portable), but there is nothing exponential about the horn or its arm (actually there is no such thing as an exponential tone arm), and it is pretty ordinary in terms of sound. Does not come close to a Victor 55 or to a Columbia 113. But then, Edison's portable plays lateral discs, not DDs, so including it in this thread would be comparing apples to oranges...

[fran604g]

But then, Edison's portable plays lateral discs, not DDs, so including it in this thread would be comparing apples to oranges...

A very good point!

[edisonclassm]

Without a doubt, the finest sounding Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph is the C-2 when having been serviced properly. Unfortunately there are very few who know how to service them properly so as a result there are too few that sound good.

[fran604g]

Another point I'd like to clarify for the OP (he is still among us, I hope): when I use the term "larger" applied to the various horns to describe their sizes, I don't necessarily mean the exit opening diameter; though that can be an easy way to identify them visually, it's not an accurate way to understand their actual volumes.

As others here are aware - but some may not be; the definition for the size of the horns should be understood to mean larger in the sense of "volume"; ie., as simple as length times circumference, as in a cone, or as complex as true logarithmic growth or expansion.

As was pointed out by a couple of respondents, the Edisonic horn opening is smaller than the "250" horn but the length of the Edisonic is longer; by my "guesstimation" not much longer - maybe 3 or 4 inches. With a quick measurement of both of their exit openings, I calculate the Edisonic to be about 10% smaller than the "250".

Now, obviously it would be possible to calculate the internal volumes of them all mathematically, which might be quite an undertaking (at least for this math-and-physics-challenged individual), considering the more-or-less exponential (again, NOT exponential in the way a true "exponential horn" expansion is logarithmic) expansion of their diameters along their lengths; but instead using a much simpler and organic method: I intend to measure the 4 post-1915 type of horns using their internal "displacement".

You know, the good ole Archimedes way.

Unless, of course, someone here has already done that; then I would love to see the results. That would save my getting water all over the house.

One last point:

I have to believe that the more pronounced "oval" shape of the non-Edisonic horns must come into play as well. I know from my own experience - generally speaking again, through my modern systems - that a round exit opening HF horn sounds terrible and "honky" (maybe the term "beamy" is more accurate?); whereas a horn exit opening that approaches more of an elliptical or rectangular shape with rounded corners sounds smoother.

Trust me, I don't understand most of the science behind all of the acoustics involved (I'm nowhere near smart enough to), I'm just unceasingly fascinated by the topic.

Fran

[marcapra]

In regard to the OP, should we remain in the acoustic realm, or include all Diamond Disc Phonographs?

The original poster asked what was the best sounding Diamond Disc machine. I think we would have to include the C-2 as it certainly was a diamond disc machine, in fact, the last one made.

[mikejk]

A little more food for thought on the discussion.
In combination with the 250 horn in a late C 19, and a good recording, I have been using a Dance reproducer that I have rebuilt using a larryh True Tone diaphragm. Both springs are hooked up, the stylus bar spring and the top diaphragm spring. Folks, this is an outstanding set up with the 250 horn and sounds very, very good. Crisp and clear with added depth and better tone but without the sometimes unpleasant shrill of the Edisonic/New Standard.

just my thoughts.
Mike

[marcapra]

Mike, that set-up sounds great! How did you put the two springs back on as the Truetone diaphragm does not have two springs?

[mikejk]

marcapra,
When I first purchased the diaphragm from Larry I used it in the Dance WITHOUT BOTH springs and it sounded great that way. As time went by, not having it set up as designed began to bother me.

The stylus bar spring was easy to re-attach because I had left it in the speaker weight, so just needed to hook it back up to the bar.

As for the diaphragm top spring, a hook was fashioned by pushing a sewing pin with a large head up through the bottom of the diaphragm and through Larry's top button and sealed with shellac, cut off and turned over into a hook. It is working very well. I did not have an original top spring and don't know what one looks like so I had to be creative and try something that was around. This was a spring taken from a ball point pen. This spring is strong enough to lift the center of the diaphragm slightly when at rest and will let it level out when loaded with tension. All I know is it sounds great and , I hate to say this because it is controversial but I feel the springs have improved the performance.
Mike