Why is the Diamond Disk machine under appreciated in the US?

[alang]

t Want to play your Victor discs on an Edison machine? Sure, no problem! Here's an adapter that barely works and wears out your records faster than a standard lateral machine![/i]
quote]


Is this point accurate for all adapters or just some? I have a kent adapter with an HMV no.4 reproducer and I imagined that the amount of wear wouled be about the same. I understand that there would be tracking error (as there always is) But I figured that the moving horn would help reduce that a bit.

Thanks,
Nicholas

I have several adapters of which some are most likely harder on records than others. My favorite "The Perfection Flexi-Tone" has 2 ball bearing joints and therefore should be easier on record grooves than even regular tonearms. The needle just follows the groove while the feedscrew moves the heavy horn with it, but the connection between the two is not rigid, so I can't see how that would create much wear at all.

Andreas

[1926CredenzaOwner]

Is this point accurate for all adapters or just some? I have a kent adapter with an HMV no.4 reproducer and I imagined that the amount of wear wouled be about the same. I understand that there would be tracking error (as there always is) But I figured that the moving horn would help reduce that a bit.

I really have no idea. Like I said, I've never owned one. We Victor guys just have to pick on the Edison guys every now and then!

In all fairness, the Edison machines I've heard in person are excellent sounding machines. Surface noise, yes... but very life-like sound.

[Valecnik]

Oh that Edison stuff! Boring machines, discs may be difficult to find and expensive on eBAY. Well they should be. Acoustically recorded Edison discs in good condition sound much better than their contemporary competition. Edison didn't have a monopoly on boring design and sappy recordings either imho. Look at, listen to some of those early 20's Victors, Columbia's etcetera.

Here's just one example of an Edison machine playing an Edison recording. Neither are boring or unattractive imho!

Cheers!
[youtubehd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lryp0rOtjsQ[/youtubehd][/quote]

[pughphonos]

I was going to stay out of this as it has all the potential of resurrecting the Edison vs. Victor dynamic that I've seen demonstrated on this forum on many occasions. Just wanted to say that I understand some of the dynamic: I own a Victor orthophonic (1926 Granada) and I love that baby. For vibrancy it can't be beat. But I also own Edison machines and (at last count) 561 Diamond Discs and I have to throw in with the Edison people re. the tired old "Oh, the Edison stuff is just so lame" theme. Just isn't true. Sure, there are clunkers in the early 1920s Edison catalogs, but in the Victor catalogs as well. But so many other Edison records of the early 1920s are masterfully recorded and showcase real talent. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"

My short-term solution: let the Victor and Edison partisans on here team up and beat up on the U.S. Pathé products. If you want to talk about underwhelming phonographs of the early 1920s that continue to underperform in today's market, look no further than the U.S.-built Pathé "Actuelle" (a paper cone phonograph). I have one of those too.

Juuuuuuuuuuuuust kidding, VintageTechnologies et. al.

[Valecnik]

I was going to stay out of this as it has all the potential of resurrecting the Edison vs. Victor dynamic that I've seen demonstrated on this forum on many occasions. Just wanted to say that I understand some of the dynamic: I own a Victor orthophonic (1926 Granada) and I love that baby. For vibrancy it can't be beat. But I also own Edison machines and (at last count) 561 Diamond Discs and I have to throw in with the Edison people re. the tired old "Oh, the Edison stuff is just so lame" theme. Just isn't true. Sure, there are clunkers in the early 1920s Edison catalogs, but in the Victor catalogs as well. But so many other Edison records of the early 1920s are masterlly recorded and showcase real talent. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"

My short-term solution: let the Victor and Edison partisans on here team up and beat up on the Pathé guys. If you want to talk about underwhelming phonographs of the early 1920s that continue to underperform in today's market, look no further than the U.S.-built Pathé "Actuelle" (a paper cone phonograph). I have one of those too.

Okay, agreed, I like your idea of teaming up and piling on the "American Pathé guys". Those typical American 20's machines are dime store variety, nothing special. However the American Actuelle's are another matter as are the amazingly exquisite European Pathephones starting from about 1906, heads and shoulders above their European HMV competitors of the time.

[FloridaClay]

Here's just one example of an Edison machine playing an Edison recording. Neither are boring or unattractive imho

Great DD. Will have to see if I can find a copy.

Clay

[VintageTechnologies]

Juuuuuuuuuuuuust kidding, VintageTechnologies et. al.

Okay, I saw that! The American Pathé machines are relative junk compared to the European machines, but they made interesting records on both sides of the ocean. Sound quality is extremely variable. Great fun though.

[52089]

(And if anyone's looking for a cheap C-200, LU-37, S-19, C-19, or H-19, I can help! )

And there's another good point. I think one reason for relative lack of interest is the sheer interchangeability of most of the models, especially the common ones. On the Victor side, there are outside horn machines vs. inside horn machines, acoustic vs. Orthophonic, wood horn vs. metal horn, etc. As much as I love my Diamond Disc machine(s), I have to say that basically, they're all the same animal in many ways.

I'll grant you, a B-80 is no match for a C-250/C-19, but frankly, IMHO, if you have a decent machine like a C-150 or H-19, there's no "need" for an LU, LC, or really even a 250 series. If your reproducer is rebuilt and our stylus is good, the larger horn isn't going to buy you all that much.

That's not to say that the less common machines like the Edisonics or the Long Plays aren't desirable and interesting, but then we get back to the expense and scarcity of "decent" records for them, which is a post for another day...

[1926CredenzaOwner]

Edison didn't have a monopoly on boring design and sappy recordings either imho.

Tell me about it. Just listen to this horrible Victor recording:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syZLNdP4V7M[/youtube]



Seriously though, there are some Edison sides I prefer to their Victor counterparts. I really do like the Golden Gate's "Charleston" more than Whiteman's version.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ranv3UdSvVo[/youtube]

When it comes to hating the Pathé collectors, I'm sorry... but the Actuelle is one of the coolest machines I've ever seen. Those, and the HMV 460 Lumiere. You guys are going to have to take them down without me, I'm afraid. (I'm not much of a fighter anyway.)

[pughphonos]

You know, Credenza1926, I agree about the Pathé Actuelles (paper cone phonos) being COOL. Reason why I got sucked into buying one is that U.S. Pathé had the imagination and audacity to try something really, really different. Just doesn't really complete with horn phonographs audio-wise. Versatile, yes; best sound? No.

We're all friends. It's great to have a little bit of fun with each other; for many newcomers here it's great to enter into these discussions, even though on some topics there's apparently been quite a bit of repetition over the years.

One of the wonderful things about the antique phonograph brands is that they all had UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS. Victor, Columbia, Brunswkic, Edison, Pathé etc. all had strengths that the others didn't--and even U.S. Pathé had and HAS its defenders.