Question on Columbia AT Cylinder Phonographs

[startgroove]

My apologies for my blunt attack on the subject. My intentions was not to force a defense, rather to attempt to establish a practical dialogue and logical explanation for early engineers to increase the sizes and weights of the floating reproducers.

Perhaps it would help if I gave some background. Back in 1978, I was in a discussion with a fellow collector about the qualities of various Columbia cylinder machine reproducers. We both wondered why some cylinder records sounded good on one model, and not so good on another. We dismissed worn needles, worn records and other factors that could be easily explained as not standard, and agreed that the subject needed exploration beyond discussion and speculation.

Over the next few years, I made numerous comparisons. Those were noted in my notebook, which has gone lost in the meantime. However, I remember the tests well enough to repeat them if necessary, and to discuss them here if you are interested.

Again, please forgive my pushy queries.

[phonogfp]

No apology necessary from my perspective.

I must admit that there have been times I've wondered about this too. Clearly, Columbia (and Edison) engineers were trying to coax more volume out of their cylinder machines. Yet, in my own limited experience, modern comparisons don't always demonstrate much difference. Just a couple of weeks ago I was picking out the best reproducer for a particular Graphophone to play brown wax. It's a rare occasion when I play brown wax, so I'm going for optimal performance, regardless of relative weight. My only requirement is a ball stylus. I compared an original Eagle-type reproducer, an early D (D1), a later D (D2), and a reproduction D2. I couldn't tell much difference between them except I think the Ds exhibited a bit less blasting. (Yes - they've all been rebuilt except for the repro!) I was hoping for a dramatic difference...

I can only conclude that the differences were more obvious 115 years ago!

George P.