OPERA REPRODUCERS

[Valecnik]

It would have been nice to keep this discussion going, but the last two posters obviously need to amuse themselves at the expense of others who might wish to contribute.

I will thus re-phrase my question:

Why would a less-versatile reproducer capable of ruining certain types of cylinders (the A) be more desirable than a more-versatile one (L), if they are both in tip-top shape? Is it simply the perceived improvement in fidelity on Amberols?


Raphael

I would strongly disagree that the A is a "perceived improvement" over the L. The improvement is real. The A definitely sounds superior, wider dynamic range and better ability to handle loud passages in the recording. If you think of adjusting the bass and treble on a modern receiver, 0 to 10, listening with the L, M or N is somewhat like bass 3, treble 10 while listening to the diamond A, B, C is more like bass 5, treble 5.

[Raphael]

I would strongly disagree that the A is a "perceived improvement" over the L. The improvement is real. The A definitely sounds superior, wider dynamic range and better ability to handle loud passages in the recording. If you think of adjusting the bass and treble on a modern receiver, 0 to 10, listening with the L, M or N is somewhat like bass 3, treble 10 while listening to the diamond A, B, C is more like bass 5, treble 5.

Bruce,

In light of your comparative analysis, I guess it boils down to the degradation of my hearing, and that of other old-timers that feel the same as I do. It’s nice to have a conversation with someone like you who isn’t insulting or talk nonsense.

Thanks,
Raphael

[PeterF]

We all know that cost does not necessarily track quality, in this hobby.

Another pervasive example of this is the ridiculous notion that brass-bodied early orthophonic reproducers somehow sound better than the later pot-metal ones, which is hogwash that allows folks to rationalize paying huge dollars for them.

Raffy’s dealer perspective on the L vs the A, based primarily on dollars, might be also explained by something more simple.

It could be that the Diamond A is perceived by the average (and less-knowledgeable) customer as more desirable because:

- it looks more attractive or impressive somehow, or

- due to the relative rarity of the L, the customer doesn’t know enough about it to want it - thinking that it doesn’t have compatibility, etc, or

- most photos* of Operas show an A installed, and the more casual customer thus assumes the L is incorrect,

...or something else entirely, that we hobbyists don’t think of, because we’re too immersed/knowledgeable - as hobbyists.

It would be nice to find out whether Edison ever supplied the Opera and Amberola 1B machines with an L and an A, or offered a choice, or simply stopped including the L in favor of the A. Seeing that they had offered ring adapters to allow backward compatibility for smaller reproducers on large-eye carriages, I’m going to theorize the A just took over, with L becoming an extra cost option.




*this comment is specific to overseas buyers with limited English skills, who often search online for photos of machines as a means of validating “correctness” of items they are considering for purchase.