New MW Million-Dollar Diamond Disc Diaphragms Available!

[SonnyPhono]

Bob,

Thanks for posting your comments and thoughts regarding your new diaphragm and it's sound qualities. One of the hardest aspects of the design process was trying to remove the surface noise. These diaphragms are very sensitive and transfer information from the grooves very effectively. This is why there is such a large increase in volume and clarity. However, everything is amplified including the surface noise which was a hard characteristic to eliminate. Like you said, the final design still has some present, but not nearly like it is with other diaphragms.

I'm glad you are enjoying it and hope you will continue to do so for years to come!

Jeff Whittington
(Sonny)

[MicaMonster]

In regards to the Edison Tone Tests, here are a few factoids:

1, The discs used for the tone tests were special pressings, intended for tone tests (and engineered as such), and they were of the ABSOLUTE highest quality. They were NOT the regular run sandy sounding recordings of the WW1 era.

2, The Diamond Disc phonographs used for tone tests had a SPECIALLY EQUIPPED REPRODUCER, which had a monstrous stylus weight, which really beat the living snot out of the record, BUT gave substantial volume.

3, The Tone Test performers had to attenuate their voices DOWN to the volume of the phonograph.

If my memory serves me, these items were made apparent to me in the Jack Palmer book on Vernon Dalhart (a MUST-READ)

-MM

[JohnM]

It stands to reason that the company loaded the deck, but, even in light of that, Jeff and I have really accomplished something. If there is a more life-like and articulate diaphragm out there, I sure haven't heard it.

[SonnyPhono]

Many of the people who sent their reproducers to me for a rebuild with our diaphragms have received them back at this point and had time to test them for themselves. I wanted to post some of the comments and reactions of those who have sent me emails regarding their opinions pertaining to the diaphragm's sound qualities. Here is some of the feedback I have received recently for those interested in these diaphragms.

"I must say its the best overall sound I have ever heard from a diaphragm, original or not."

"Overall what ever your doing to make them works, and I am certain its going to be pretty popular."

"Yours has a good bass response, and is clear on the vocals and higher notes as well. The other thing that i noticed was a good amount of volume..."

"It does sound crisper and cleaner than the old diaphragm with a lot more clarity, high and mid-high end than there was before. "

"It sounds nice and clear, with more volume, and less apparent low-frequency rumble and other noise."

"The highs are amazingly crisp with no distortion. "

"Very satisfied. Clear, crisp, clean with very noticeable less surface noise."

"I had other reproducers re-built, and the sounds I heard from your re-build with your diaphragm were sounds I didn't hear with the other re-builds."

[SonnyPhono]

In regards to the Edison Tone Tests, here are a few factoids:

1, The discs used for the tone tests were special pressings, intended for tone tests (and engineered as such), and they were of the ABSOLUTE highest quality. They were NOT the regular run sandy sounding recordings of the WW1 era.

2, The Diamond Disc phonographs used for tone tests had a SPECIALLY EQUIPPED REPRODUCER, which had a monstrous stylus weight, which really beat the living snot out of the record, BUT gave substantial volume.

3, The Tone Test performers had to attenuate their voices DOWN to the volume of the phonograph.

If my memory serves me, these items were made apparent to me in the Jack Palmer book on Vernon Dalhart (a MUST-READ)

-MM

Edison's tone tests were innovative at that time. I have read about some of the details that were altered specifically for the tone tests as well. It seems a bit unfair, if you will, that Edison would change things to create a more pure and natural sound for a tone test demonstration in an effort to sell machines and records that didn't have the same characteristics. Regardless, the tone tests were very successful, enough so that other companies took on the same sort of strategies by staging live sound comparisons of their own.

I have my doubts regarding the second thing mentioned above pertaining to the reproducer being altered with a much heavier weight to increase volume. I don't doubt that Edison used a heavier weight in the tone tests, but don't agree that this would cause an increase in volume. For a long time I thought that the heavier weights in the Edisonic and Dance reproducers were to increase the volume, especially since Edison's original advertisements for these reproducers claimed just that. I have come to realize that a heavier weight on a Diamond Disc reproducer doesn't increase the volume at all. I looked into the subject quite a bit deeper when I read a post written by Greg Bogantz explaining that the increase in weight doesn't increase volume. It makes sense after I researched it a bit more and for those interested, here is why.

Volume, (or simply the loudness of sound) is measured in decibels which is actually a measurement of pressure. The diaphragm in the DD reproducer vibrates up and down to create the sound that originates from the top of the diaphragm and is focused and broadcast out of the horn opening. This sound's volume is proportional to how much pressure the diaphragm is creating when it flexes up and down compressing the air while doing so. If the diaphragm's up and down movement is increased, so too is the amount of air that is moved which will increase the volume of the sound heard.

That being said, the diaphragm flexes up and down as a result of the diamond stylus traveling over the hills and dales in the groove of a disc. The height of the "hills" and depths of the "dales" dictates how far the diaphragm flexes as the stylus following them pulls and releases the linkage as it travels along the record groove. Since the diaphragms movement matches that of the undulations in a record, it's the amplitude of the undulations themselves that dictate how loud a record will be. If the vertical change between a hill and a dale is greater, then so too will be the volume as the diaphragm will flex more while the stylus travels over them. The weight on a reproducer won't play a factor in the resulting volume of a record provided the stylus is constantly in contact with the hills and dales of the grooves. It is true that if you add a heavier weight to a reproducer, the stylus will have an increased downward pressure as a result. However, no matter how much pressure is added from a heavier weight, the stylus can only follow the hills and dales in a record groove which remain constant. Again, the amplitude of these hills and dales in the grooves of a disc determine how far the diaphragm will be flexed and released by the linkage which is directly connected to the stylus bar. So as long as the stylus is in constant contact and doesn't leave the groove of a record, the volume will be the same regardless of the weight on a reproducer.

I tested this awhile back using one of our diaphragms. I used an Edisonic reproducer with one of our diaphragms and played the first 30 seconds of a Diamond Disc. I used my dosimeter to check the average and peak decibel levels during the 30 seconds the disc was played. Then I removed the Edisonic weight and replaced it with a Standard weight. I switched the stylus bar from the Edisonic to the Standard as well to make sure all variables were the same with the exception of the weight differences. After playing the same 30 seconds of the disc, the average and peak decibel levels were nearly identical between the two weights. This is because the diaphragm movement was the same with each weight as both were able to keep the stylus in constant contact with the groove of the record.

All of this is hard to explain in writing and I hope I didn't make things confusing or hard to follow. It's really an interesting concept and until I tested it, still had doubts about it all. I would love to have or hear one of the original test tone discs though. I remember reading about them at some point and if I recall correctly they were a bit softer in composition which cut down on surface noise. I may be wrong on that but for some reason that sticks out in my mind. Either way, Tone tests were an interesting aspect of the Edison Diamond Disc history.

[larryh]

Ok I have been holding off here for various reasons and will comment on the finished version of the new diaphragm soon, however all the above comments from buyers are quite true. Finally a diaphragm that really does live up to the hype which is not always the case by any stretch.

On the tone test I have a few thoughts here. Of course I am not an expert, but I can hear. From extensive work with diaphragms and using various reproducers including a Edisonic type head I have not been inclined to agree that it is not louder. A simple switch of a diaphragm from a standard to a edisonic head will instantly tell you your getting more volume and what is more important it is able to bring out more detail in the music. I know that some do not listen from the same perspective that I may, but even a diaphragm as well suited to the standard head as Jeff and Johns is notched up in volume when played with an edisonic reproducer.

As to how the Edison Company projected their machine in a large hall here I do see their reasoning and do not find it faulty. Often I have noted that where as in my rather small and lively wood floor living room my edison with the right diaphragm is very loud and satisfying to hear, when I take the same head over to the large basement area of my moms home an play it, it can be diminished due to the overall space it needs to cover. To really hear the greatest detail in that setting I have to sit somewhat to the front of the horn where the full effect will be concentrated. Edisons seem to be quite dependent on the surroundings to enhance the sound buy it doesn't mean that the quality of sound heard when a boost is given so that the sound will carry more like what is heard at home is done in a hall. Then those a large distance from the stage can still get the similar effects to what would be heard at home.

I think some of that stems from the fact that many critics were not satisfied with the volume of edisons machines compared to others. That is one of the great advantage this new diaphragm has, large and clear sound which does bring out the various details well. But still it was not the ear splitting type volume that Victor was able to produce. At one point long ago A couple friends and I were able to take a large Victor to the Stage of the Keil Opera House in St. Louis which has recently been gloriously been restored and opened again. In that setting it was stunning to hear how the opera singers that often at home would make your ears buzz came though with marvelous soaring loud portions an equally as nice lower portions. So in their case the reverse was somewhat true, the machine actually played better in a very large hall at least to the ear, than in a home where victor sometimes recommended listening to it from the next room if the volume was too much for your ears. But edison generally seemed to work best in a more intimate setting. So to recreate that in the hall they needed more volume and if a enhanced reproducer gave them that I think it was perfectly fair.

Frows book "The Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph" states that the dance reproducer was said to be 2 ½ times more out put than the standard reproducer. The ad on page 73 for the Edisonic Reproducer states that it has "Close up Quality" and greatly increased volume." I tend to agree with Edison on this one.

Larry

[JohnM]

Not to change the subject at hand, but with all this recent diaphragm activity, it may be interesting to conduct a 'Tone-Test' of the various diaphragms available currently at Union 2012. Contestants wouldn't have to be present to participate, just send a reproducer loaded with their diaphragm to whomever would organize the event. Blind test with same record/s, with audience making comments and voting em' out like 'American Idol'.

[gregbogantz]

Sonny (Jeff) is correct in his statement that excess weight on the DD reproducer does not increase loudness. And his description of the mechanics of the situation is also correct. But there also must be sufficient weight (mass) as explained below.

There are two aspects of the function of the weight as used on vertical phonograph reproducers. (This statement is also true of lateral and even of modern phono pickups.) One is the mass and the other is the downward force produced by the weight. Ideally, the weight should be of sufficient MASS that the weight itself does not vibrate with the modulation coming from the record groove. In this case, the entire motion of the stylus tip is levered thru the stationary fulcrum at the stylus bar pin and transferred to the diaphragm thru the link. When the mass of the weight is sufficient for this condition to exist, increasing the mass of the weight has no effect on the loudness. The standard weight used on the conventional Edison DD reproducers is just massive enough to work reasonably well with most of the early Edison recordings and their typical recording level (magnitude of undulations in the grooves). Playing these records with an Edisonic and its heavier weight will produce no increased volume. As Jeff has discovered with his measurements. Which also indicates that there is very little mistracking going on as well. Mistracking occurs when the stylus tip is not in constant contact with the groove.

But the increased recording level used in the later Edison recordings, expecially the electrical ones poses a different challenge to the reproducer. With increased modulation at the stylus tip, it is possible for the stylus tip to be "tossed" up in the air for an instant during which time it is not in contact with the groove. This is called MISTRACKING. It is caused by there being insufficient downward force (bias) on the stylus tip, or there being too much mass in the moving system of the stylus and diaphragm assembly, or the diaphragm having too little compliance (being too stiff). Note that this condition can also exist when playing lower level records if the diaphragm is too stiff or if the moving diaphragm system is too massive. In addition to the stylus tip NOT faithfully following the groove (since it is not in constant contact with it), the peak to peak (P-P) transitions in position of the stylus tip are less than they should be if there was no mistracking. This is what happens when playing records with higher modulation levels than the mechanical system of the reproducer can handle. The primary audible result of mistracking is distortion and blasting, but since the P-P stylus transitions are not as great as they should be, there can also be a noticeable loss in overall loudness. So it is possible that playing electrical DDs with an Edisonic and its greater weight MAY sound a bit louder than when using the earlier reproducer, but there is actually much less distortion due to mistracking from the greater weight that is responsible for the difference in sound.

Edison's advertising claim that the Edisonic is "two and half times louder" than the standard reproducer is complete nonsense. Those of you who have heard the two reproducers, properly restored, playing the same record can attest that this perception just does not exist.

The other extreme of the Edison situation is represented by the Columbia Lyric cylinder reproducer that uses the spring to provide downward bias on the stylus rather than using a weight. With too little mass at the stylus bar fulcrum, the fulcrum itself vibrates somewhat and does not transfer the full magnitude of stylus tip modulation to the diaphragm. This situation results in less loudness, but it also has a significant effect on the frequency response of the reproducer. Note that in this case, the stylus may be faithfully following the groove (no mistracking) but the transfer efficiency is reduced by the unwanted motion of the fulcrum. Increasing the spring tension supplying bias will have NO effect on the loudness in this case. The mechanical system that is thus undesirably vibrating has one or more resonances which affect how large the fulcrum vibrations are depending on what frequencies are being reproduced. When the fulcrum vibrates at high amplitude due to that being a system resonance, less of that frequency will be transmitted to the diaphragm. Other frequencies may excite other resonances which result in a peak in amplitude being transmitted to the diaphragm due to the system being poorly damped, largely due to insufficient mass. This will result in blasting. Listeners to the Columbia Lyric reproducer have often commented on its poor sound quality. This is why. The mass added to the fulcrum by using a weight as Edison did is the superior design which increases efficiency while damping the resonances and producing a more uniform response.

[scullylathe]

Back to the subject of the diaphragms, I got mine back and it does sound crisper, cleaner and with a more 'sparkling' high end than the old diaphragm. Great work guys.

[New Owner]

I don't know how well this would work in reality, but how would a speaker cone work for a diaphragm? Since speaker cones are much better for creating sound waves and are much more flexible (and less fragile) than mica, and can handle higher/lower frequencies easier, wouldn't they be better for a diaphragm. It shouldn't be too hard to find some old junk computer/clock radio speakers that have cones that are the right size.