Getting Started with cylinder recording

[RAK402]

Sterling,

That is similar to my approach, but yours is much nicer.

Very cool!

[Chuck]

Sterling,

That looks like a very good experiment there with
the 1.5 inch diameter speaker and the cut down plastic
funnel! The only improvement I might suggest would
be the sealing of the narrow end of the funnel to
the recorder tube. The way it is now may not have
quite a completely airtight seal, but it's close.

You will be quite surprised though at how much the
sealing of the last few tiny air leaks can boost the
level of your cylinder recordings.

As for finding a shaver, keep checking ebay and craigslist. A few years ago I needed another spare
shaver as a backup and finally found one on craigslist
for $25. It needed serious work, it had a mouse nest
in the motor compartment, and it needed to be totally
disassembled, cleaned, lubricated, and reassembled.
But the good news there is that it turned out to be
a very nice machine and it works just fine. I bought
it suspecting it might only be good for a few parts,
but it turned out to be a decent complete shaver!

So, keep looking. They are definitely out there lurking
in garages and basements. And cheap too, nobody knows
what they are nor what they do.

Chuck

[ambrola]

Welcome to the forum. I am Shawn Borri, and I am kind of a thorn in the side of the collector community. I am more of an audio mad scientist than a collector. But I have recorded a few thousand cylinders and make phonogram recording blanks. If you check out the post of myself and Chuck Richards you will find much on the subject of cylinder recording and record making. Dubbing is best done making a little cardboard horn, big enough to encapsulate a 3-5" full range speaker, sealing the end of the horn, roll low bass 30-100 cps 8 db, increase the 250 cps range 4db and decrease mid range in the 1000 and 3000 cps range 5db, increase the 6-10,000 cps range 8db where it falls off. This is where I get the best dubbing on most cylinders. most talking records make with a 30" long by 3" end horn, band records, a 56" brass horn, a 36" brass cone horn works well too for instrument recording. For solo instruments a 25" long by 6" opening cone horn works well. You can make the cone horns out of poster board or manillia cardboard folders, rap them with electrical, or masking tape. speak about 2-3" from the horn use an even spaced diction, and constant volume. S's and ch sound emphasized, if you give an old man style consonants with a slightly whistled effect intelligibility with be increased.

Come on Shawn, we all aren't as smart as you. I don't understand any of this? I have always just used a 14 inch horn and played into it with good results. If your having volume trouble, check the cutter on the recorder? I play guitar and have used my Amp. next to the end of the horn and recorded some real good stuff.

I don't understand much of what he describes either, but that doesn't make any of it untrue, nor does it mean it shouldn't be said. I appreciate Shawn taking the time to explain his methods. It's very generous of him, given the countless hours he's invested in honing his skills.

I wasn't being mean, just kidding around with Shawn about his knowledge on recording. All I have ever done sounded like crap unless you just speak into the horn and talk very loud. The amp worked well, but just one instrument can be played. I like the idea of the cup Sterling made. That is a very good idea, and looks like you wouldn't loose much volume. Someone should make them for sell.

[edisonphonoworks]

The speaker and funnel looks like a very good idea, and is similar to what I have used. It takes quite a bit of
work and experimentation, but that is what you are doing, and you are finding better and better results as you go along.

[Sterling Cooper]

I've found a few suggestions to add weight to the floating head of the recorder, in the form of a metal washer. How much weight is optimum?

[Chuck]

In my experience, adding weight doesn't seem to
help much. In fact, if everything else is working
properly, a plain old Edison home recorder has about
the ideal weight as it was made from the factory.

Other factors which come into play in the overall
situation are: Hardness of the blank. That can then
be changed around by warming the blank to make it softer.
Then there's the condition of the recorder cutter itself.
How sharp is it? Does it have any tiny nicks or chips out of it?

The one big problem with adding weight is the fact that
as the grooves are cut deeper, they also grow wider.
This is due to the round shape. Adding much weight at all can then very quickly lead to recordings which
have the classic "echo-around" problem where sound from
one groove echos into the next one. This is because
the sound undulations become cut so wide that they
actually get clear over into the area occupied by the
"next" groove.

I actually had one recorder I rebuilt which uses the
one stylus I have which has a tapered hole in the center
and found it to be digging way too deep even with the
standard weight!!

So, some way had to be found to take weight off.
The question then became how to remove weight without
damaging any Edison original parts. How could an
"anti-gravity" device possibly be made that would
somehow mysteriously "pull up" on the weight using
some undefined force? A spring perhaps? A rubber band?

The answer came by using a tiny ceramic magnet glued
up inside the recorder body. Then a tiny steel plate
was glued to the top of the recorder weight. By
positioning the magnet and the plate just exactly right,
the magnet pulls up on the plate just enough to
lighten the recorder weight by just the amount it
needs to work properly with that "tapered hole" cutter.

I call that the "magnetic lift", and it works
remarkably well, and so does the tapered hole cutter!

So, in short, adding weight does not seem to help much.
But if you want to try it, add a tiny bit at a time
and see what happens. You will soon add enough that
the recorder will make "echo around" in the "next"
groove.

2mcutter.txt

(956 Bytes) Downloaded 71 times

[edisonphonoworks]

By the way the price sheet Chuck posted is for the recording points Rich Goodin and I had made in 2003, and the company still has them in stock it is just that a decent quantity needs to be ordered to purchase them, and they have both varieties. I can attest that these recording sapphires are the finest ones made in recent times,they are cupped and conical centered recording points. Using anything else in a recorder, except a good original Edison cupped center sapphire really is a waste of time and money.

[martinola]

Shawn,
I'm sure you mentioned it elsewhere, but how many cutters would be a "good quantity"? Any idea of what they would go for if there were enough pre-orders to make it worthwhile?
Regards,
Martin

EDIT: DUH! I finally noticed the attachment to Chuck's post.

- MK

[Sterling Cooper]

Can an Edison Home phonograph be made to shave a cylinder very well? Mine runs pretty good.

[Chuck]

The Edison phonographs do have shaving attachments.

I personally have never tried shaving a blank on an
Edison phonograph.

However, from my experience using high speed motor-driven Dictaphone shaving machines, it becomes apparent that the Edison phonographs lack speed and power.

I suppose that if a person is really determined to shave
a blank on an Edison phonograph, that it is possible.

It would take many very shallow cuts. Not at all sure
what the shaving knife adjustment is on those machines
but if it's not easily moved in, in very small increments such as .0005 inch or maybe .001 inch each time, the whole process could turn into a very frustrating mess very quickly!

My guess is that if too deep of a cut is attempted
on these machines, it will simply stop the machine.

My impression of them is they are too slow and too
weak to do a good job. But there's always one way
to find out. Try it and let us know!

Meanwhile keep checking craigslist and find a real shaver.