A 'True Tone' Comparison

[Lucius1958]

So: the other day I received a sample of Larry's experimental 2-ply version of his 'True Tone' diaphragm, to test out on the C-250.

In order to do a side-by-side comparison, I fitted the new diaphragm into the reproducer from my A-80: it's a typical Standard type from 1915, with a replacement stylus. I left the single-ply TT as I had installed it in the C-250 reproducer, with its good original stylus.

The first test is of #50170-L, "Grande Valse de Concert - The Whirlwind", from 1913.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zxjN7fSlc[/youtube]

The second test is #51738-R, "Valencia", by Jack Stillman's Orchestra and Charles Harrison, from 1926.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zZfSPNsLPs[/youtube]

I hope that those with sharper ears than mine will be able to critique this, despite the limitations of YT audio.

In order to rule out differences based on the styli, or any other variations in the reproducers, I plan on making another couple of tests with the diaphragms switched.......

What do you think?

Bill

[Major_Dundee]

Ok, Larry is also making me a True Tone for my Dance Reproducer and has already made me one for my standard reproducer. In this test, which is in my humble opinion and my taste alone, reproducer #1 wins hands down. I like my music more on the mid and treble side. The first example has much more clarity on the high end and when I close my eyes, I can picture the band playing in the recording studio. #2 gives more balance, but to my ears, it is at the expense of toning down the upper clarity to bring out the middle and lower range. At the end of the day, it's all about taste and for me it's #1. Thanks for the tests!

[FellowCollector]

To my ears, in the top video, Diaphragm #1 sounds better and it produces less surface noise. Diaphragm #2 seems to produce a bit more surface noise but still sounds fine. In the bottom video, the difference in sound from the diaphragms is not nearly as pronounced as in the top video. Thank you for the interesting comparison.

Doug

[larryh]

Reading the couple of replies I see that most people tend to like the higher end sound of the #1.. I agreed when I heard this set of test that on the recordings the sound of the original design seemed brighter and more airy in effect. I like that as well.

Its really hard to replicate what each person may or may not find appealing. And room acoustics plays a huge part in the end results.. As I have told Bill and Chris my house has a very reverberant living room with wood floors and not very big. In that setting the #2 produces a full tone which is richer sounding that the majority of #1 versions. Yet when I take it next door to my moms home which has larger rooms with higher ceilings and one S 19 that is in the basement the effects can be very different.. The J 19 I recently got to replace the smaller S 19 in the dining room area seemed to condense the sound in comparison with the same records and reproducer on my William and Mary Console. In fact I took over the William Tell Overture to play to show off how great it sounded with the #2 adding to its fullness and extra bass notes. But I was surprised when it didn't come out the same.. I have found and mentioned from time to time that the consoles seem to be better suited for listening seated as the horn is below ear level and the upward sweep of the top of the horns tends to work in its favor moving the sounds full effect to the listener. You can try an experiment with a upright 250 horn model where the horns are at or above ear level when seated. In most locations when you stand up the fullness of musical effects increases noticeably.. This is the effect you will get seated near a console.. That difference often is enough to make a large impression at least to my ears of the sound your hearing.

So perhaps the #2 is something I will enjoy playing for some of the time and maybe its ability to project the sound on a larger area is not a great as the #1.. That occurred to me yesterday when walking in the basement and while the #2 version I was playing sounded very nice an accented things the #1 doesn't as much, I did have a feeling that the projected sound was not as great using the thicker more bulky #2.

I thinks its going to all boil down to taste of the listeners. What I am most interested in is what happens when the #2 is installed in an Edisonic or Dance reproducer. Most of my previous designs of one quality or another were able to be used in the Edisonic head I had with good results. The time I tested my True Tone in the Edisonic head I found it too be way too loud. Later I discovered I had yet another failed new stylus which wasn't helping the quality of that test any. My curiosity is whether the heavier weight reproducers may enhance the wider ranges and still produce enough volume to create a good effect. ( I still don't have a new stylus for the edisonic head that is dependable so I am not able to check it out my self.).

thanks to Bill for the great and artistic job he has done in putting up these videos. My hat is off to anyone who can do that with such ease.

Larry

[Norfolkguy]

Both sound awesome. but I'd have to go with #1, it just sounds a bit brighter.

[Lucius1958]

Parts 3 and 4 of the comparisons are now up, and all have been collected into a playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zxjN7f ... re=mh_lolz

Bill

[larryh]

Bill,

I loved the fourth selection. I must admit I was unsure at times which was which.. you did another terrific job with your comparisons. The sound is great and the splicing is something I could never accomplish. Sunny is a favorite of mine for sure. I had not heard this record on edison till now..

Larry

[Major_Dundee]

Well, here is an update,

I asked Larry if he could design a True Tone for my Dance reproducer which had a destroyed original diaphragm (don't ask...lol). I knew my chances of finding one of these on eBay would be slim to none. After some correspondence and sending Larry the original diaphragm button with the hook, Larry's True Tone Dance version arrived in the mail yesterday. I was able to hook the upper spring after a couple of tries.

My test was a side by side comparison with my Edisonic reproducer with an original diaphragm (I have 2). My expectation was to "salvage" this reproducer. I must tell you that this reproducer is FANTASTIC! I like to listen to a lot of early Jazz and Fox Trots and what it offers in my little world is balance of individual instruments and clarity of the trumpets. I love my Edisonic reproducer, but it has a tendency to over play the trumpets to where they are waaaaay too strident. Anyway, if I can find the time, I will try to put together a comparison video for collectors on this forum. Some of you may not hear a difference, but for others like myself, there is definitely more clarity without the expense of the trumpets or clarinets. At the end of the day, it may be the answer to anyone's Dance or Edisonic that may need a replacement diaphragm. Thanks Larry!

Chris