edison dance reproducers - just hype?

[brianu]

I recently found my first edison dance reproducer, well, a few months ago, but more recently had it rebuilt... the sound is good, clear and all, but honestly it's not that much louder, if at all, than any of the other edison reproducers I've been using, whether standard or edisonic. and I'm trying them all on the same machine for consistency's sake... so were these really all that special, or just another gimmick from the period?

[phonophan79]

Weren't they specifically made for just as the name implies... dance tunes? Not that Old Man Edison released many... but from what I recall, aside from using it on an Edisonic machine itself, it would probably sound better, at least, using it on the 52000 electric series records?

[gramophoneshane]

I've never had the chance to listen to the dance reproducer, but I heard my first Edisonic last christmas, & I have to admit I was disappointed.
It had been properly rebuilt, but I was expecting a lot more volume than it delivered.
It left me wondering if that extra weight/wear on the records was worth the expense of buying an Edisonic reproducer, for that little bit of extra bang.

[larryh]

The edisonic heads are louder and do tend to bring out some things more so than the standard heads. But if you have a sensitive diaphragm often there is not much difference. In fact if your rooms are not really large, I think the standard head is a better choice.

Until I was ask to work on a diaphragm for the Dance Reproducer yesterday I hadn't read real closely the information in Frows book about them. I was sort of surprised to read that the edison records were purposely made louder for dancing situations in the twenties. That may explain why some nearly blast you out and others seem rather tame. The fact that they were doing this on purpose came as a surprise to me though. It also mentioned that the dance reproducer would play most but not all things well. That also surprised me?

I find in working on the diaphragms that I can obtain now and then one that will project louder than the others. Sometimes I can tell why, and other times its a surprise to me as well. I know that I also read that edison used a special diaphragm in the tone test so they were able to fudge the results in comparison to the home machines a bit too.

I have noticed lately that some really late acoustic things almost to the electrical recording period, instead of being extra loud and clear as they were earlier get very quiet. I have been wondering what the reason for that may have been?

[gregbogantz]

Despite Edison company advertising propaganda to the contrary, the Dance and the later Edisonic reproducers are NOT LOUDER than the earlier designs. There is a simple reason for this: There is no mechanical difference in the shape of the stylus bar, ergo, no additional mechanical advantage or "amplification" difference. These later designs with the greater tracking weight do produce less mistracking distortion which was necessary to accommodate the louder RECORDING levels that were being done in the electrical recordings. Thus, the reproducer may sound louder when playing an electrical recording, but that is due to the RECORDING being louder, not the reproducer. There is considerable mistracking and distortion when using the earlier Edison DD reproducers to play the later electrical recordings unless you use a modern diaphragm design which has lower mass and higher compliance than the original. This can cause the playback of the older reproducer to seem to be a little less loud, but it's only marginally so and is due to the stylus not following the full extent of the modulations in the recording. In other words, it's distorting. Bottom line: the Dance and Edisonic reproducers will play with less distortion than the earlier designs. That is the intention of their design.

[phonophan79]

...and the Edisonic's are combined with the bigger horn. :-p

[youtubehd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTDl9ZPU6M[/youtubehd]

[JohnM]

Despite Edison company advertising propaganda to the contrary, the Dance and the later Edisonic reproducers are NOT LOUDER than the earlier designs. There is a simple reason for this: There is no mechanical difference in the shape of the stylus bar, ergo, no additional mechanical advantage or "amplification" difference. These later designs with the greater tracking weight do produce less mistracking distortion which was necessary to accommodate the louder RECORDING levels that were being done in the electrical recordings. Thus, the reproducer may sound louder when playing an electrical recording, but that is due to the RECORDING being louder, not the reproducer. There is considerable mistracking and distortion when using the earlier Edison DD reproducers to play the later electrical recordings unless you use a modern diaphragm design which has lower mass and higher compliance than the original. This can cause the playback of the older reproducer to seem to be a little less loud, but it's only marginally so and is due to the stylus not following the full extent of the modulations in the recording. In other words, it's distorting. Bottom line: the Dance and Edisonic reproducers will play with less distortion than the earlier designs. That is the intention of their design.

Greg,
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the logic -- doesn't the action of the stylus having to overcome (lift) the inertia of the greater mass of the Edisonic/Dance weight putting the lever system and diaphragm under greater tension make the reproducerl somewhat louder (lever ratio being a constant)? Extrapolating the other direction, how loud would any DD reproducer be if the weight to overcome was only a gram or so? There is actually two levers at work in a DD reproducer the way I see it: one lever acting as the stylus bar in it's bosses; the other a compound lever between the hinge block and the tip of the stylus. Adding weight changes the load with all other factors remaining equal except output (work at the diaphragm)?
This would seem like a fairly simple physics calc to me but it has been too long since I've had the class to jump right in!

[Valecnik]

I recently got some DD reproducers rebuilt by Steve M. who by the way does excellent work. As a result, I have a few with different characteristics to compare with eachother, including one rebuilt by the late Bob Waltrip. I won't attempt to argue the physics but here are my observations to my ear.

Basic conditions:

• same machine
• same records
• same relatively large living room/dining room kitchen combination.
• 3 year old and 5 year old not home, dog not barking

Results to my ear:

• Edisonic (original diaphragm) not noticeably louder than standard reproducer with original, Greg B or Waltrip Diaphragm. And then ther's that extra weight on the records. I almost never use it.
• Edisonic perhaps sounds a bit more strident because of heavier weight and less tracking distortion
• For dance records I prefer the standard reproducer with Greg B diaphragm, I really like it.
• When I need a bit less volume I like the sound of the original diaphragm
• Waltrip diaphragm for whatever reason seems very sensitive and good on the early recordings, aka "Frosties", is loud on the dance tunes but distorts pretty badly even on later acoustic dance tunes.

My hearing is fine as far as I know but I think others of you could have different opinions because of personal preference or simply because your ears are more/less sensitive to certain frequencies?

[Lenoirstreetguy]

Either my Edisonic is louder or I'm hallucinating. I can only take one record on it before my ears start to bleed. They MUST be louder: the spring tension on the stylus bar and the larger floating weight loads the diaphragm with much more potential energy than a standard repro, does it not? In the dance repro diaphragm is spring loaded as well is it not? We refer to this phenomenon sometimes as a dynamic tension in the piano biz where the soundboard is in effect just a big diaphragm. (Also in the old Charles Atlas ads, but I digress... )

Jim

[larryh]

Either my Edisonic is louder or I'm hallucinating. I can only take one record on it before my ears start to bleed. They MUST be louder: the spring tension on the stylus bar and the larger floating weight loads the diaphragm with much more potential energy than a standard repro, does it not? In the dance repro diaphragm is spring loaded as well is it not? We refer to this phenomenon sometimes as a dynamic tension in the piano biz where the soundboard is in effect just a big diaphragm. (Also in the old Charles Atlas ads, but I digress... )

Jim

Jim, you are not hallucinating. The Edisonic reproducer is a more intense sound and is louder. Small details are more apparent, but as in my statement they seem to be best suited for very large areas rather than the small living room.

Larry