True Tone Diaphragm, a "Listeners Diaphragm".

[pughphonos]

Your message, Larry, shows us all that, regardless of how hard the work is in making the two-ply, you are committed and encouraged enough to continue. Those of us who want these diaphragms will do our best to be patient.

I have some random thoughts on the "purist" vs. "non-purist" dynamic. I have no problem (as many of you know) with using some updated "replaceable" elements that might have been used had the basic machinery continued. That is, had Edison acoustical Diamond Discs machines continued into the 1930s then there would almost certainly have been improvements in the diaphragms. Consider this also: if one was a purist back in the late 1920s, then one should not have played any of the acoustical DDs on the 1927-1929 Edisonics as the acousticals were "meant" for the pre-1927 machines. Yet, of course, people DID play their acoustical laterals and acoustical DDs on the Orthophonics and the Edisonics. Why should we today freeze ourselves into rigid notions of technological purity that were not practiced "back in the day?" Technology is progressive and the various improvements leap-frog over each other. Larry has taken just ONE progressive step--one wholly dependent on and complimentary to the rest of the phonograph--and thankfully that step is a most excellent one.

I bet a few odd/freak original Edison diaphragms of the 1920s sounded as good as Larry's do. If so, I want THAT experience--and not the run-of-the-mill "old timey" sound produced by 90 year-old diaphragms that were not meant to last that long. You will never find me with the crowd that says "Wow, that sounds horrible: therefore I must now be having the genuine 'old-timey' experience from 1920." Those people sin against the past much more deeply than I ever would.

Ralph

[larryh]

This weekend I made a rail visit to Pughphonos, (Ralph). This is the first time I have actually heard my diaphragm in a new location live. Ralph was gracious and we spent the afternoon with his nice collection of records and phonographs. I had sent him two versions of the True Tone.. one was the standard version and the other a version of the Two Ply I use now.

We spent a lot of time listening to a number of other diaphragms I had made up. His Schubert Edison was the phonograph we tested with. It was a somewhat of a learning curve. The Two Ply is somewhat a work in process and as with anything hand crafted can vary in overall effects. The version he had installed was one in which the center depression was somewhat wide. The newer ones I had been testing at home have a smaller central core. I had arrived at that by finding that it reduced slightly the remaining occasional distortion that they can produce on very loud horns or some very loud operatic male vocals. However it tends to lean a bit to a brighter sound.

After much listening we tried to arrive at what the differences might be in sound and why.. The Schubert uses a smaller horn than I anticipated it having. The extra depth of the wider Two Ply True Tone was noticeably better sounding with that horn style. What I hear at home on my Chippendale or William and Mary console is very fine also with the wider center style. But when I use the smaller center on the larger opening horn here then the sound is noticeably closer to the one Ralph is using. Its my feeling that the larger horn is able to pull out of the sound a wider range so that it sort of compensates for the extra depth of the other style on a narrower opening horn.

I hadn't actually tried it for some time but after the visit this morning I played a record with the smaller center diaphragm on the Chippendale and then moved it to the S 19 which is still a bit larger than the Schubert in horn size opening. The overall sound fell noticeably on records that were recorded before Edison began boosting the volume of his latter acoustic records. However my copy of Hoodo Man was less noticeable in the drop of overall sound on the S 19 since it was quite loudly recorded. I could still tell that the larger horn was pulling more from the record on the Chippendale.

Ralph and I pretty much came to the conclusion that for his machine the advantage of the wider center diaphragm way over rode any improvement in slight distortion. The interesting thing now is to realize variations in styles and how they may or may not be effected by the horn design.

I appreciated the opportunity to see his collection and hear the Schubert. He also has the long play attachment and we enjoyed a number of selections which played well. Something I had not heard that worked decently.

After another four hours on the train home I must say I slept well that night..

Larry

[phonogfp]

I hadn't actually tried it for some time but after the visit this morning I played a record with the smaller center diaphragm on the Chippendale and then moved it to the S 19 which is still a bit larger than the Schubert in horn size opening.
Larry

This statement surprised me, as I had noticed that the horn opening in a Schubert was taller than other Edison horns - - even the 250 size. And of course it is longer than any other Edison Disc Phonograph horn (excepting the Beethoven). Off I scurried with a tape measure, and here are the results:

Schubert: 15" wide x 13" tall

S-19: 15.5" wide x 10" tall

C-250: 17.25" wide x 12" tall

Oddly, the Schubert has the narrowest horn opening of the three, but also the tallest horn opening; approaching a circular shape.

According to your observations, the increase in one dimension doesn't balance the loss in the other. Interesting...

George P.

[larryh]

Yes the both of us were rather surprised that Edison had used a somewhat smaller opening horn for the latter designs. I had always been under the impression that it had the largest horn for some reason? It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that concept?

Larry

[pughphonos]

It was indeed a pleasure and honor to host Larry this past Saturday--and also a great benefit as he switched out various diaphragms so that we could compare. Who says doctors don't pay house visits anymore? As I've stated many times, he is doing cutting-edge work and it is good that he is not losing his enthusiasm in the face of all the issues he is simultaneously considering/testing.

I've decided that my Schubert Edisonic is my final DD machine and I'll keep her. Larry has a fine ear and he could very well be right in saying that the C-250 sounds better. I had a C-250 in 2006-2011, but decided to let her go as she was too much of a space-eater. The Schubert is a scarcer machine, plus she does have that long neck leading into the horn which might contribute something different to the audio output than the pre-1927 machines do. Plus, it's a nice contrast having the Schubert sit next to my orthophonic VV 8-4, as both machines date from the same time period and the Edisonics were designed to compete with the orthophonics.

I will add that the machine I had between the C-250 and the Schubert was an S-19 (in 2011-2013). I know the Schubert beats the pants off the S-19...but how it compares with the C-250 (aka C-19) my memory cannot stretch far enough to say. George P., how do the two machines compare according to your ear? There is no right and wrong here when machines are roughly comparable; it might be a matter of taste.

My Long Play mechanism and reproducer are working fine, as Larry attests. Finding the best diaphragm for that is a continuing challenge, but at least I know I have a good stylus there and my LPs are not being damaged.

Ralph

[phonogfp]

I know the Schubert beats the pants off the S-19...but how it compares with the C-250 (aka C-19) my memory cannot stretch far enough to say. George P., how do the two machines compare according to your ear? There is no right and wrong here when machines are roughly comparable; it might be a matter of taste.

Ralph

As you state, there are so many variables at work here regarding individual reproducers that it's difficult to give an objective opinion. I've never played my Schubert with anything other than the Edisonic reproducer, so clearly I need to use the same reproducer (I'll try a standard and an Edisonic) in both machines and see if there's a significant difference.

George P.

[Valecnik]

I know the Schubert beats the pants off the S-19...but how it compares with the C-250 (aka C-19) my memory cannot stretch far enough to say. George P., how do the two machines compare according to your ear? There is no right and wrong here when machines are roughly comparable; it might be a matter of taste.

Ralph

As you state, there are so many variables at work here regarding individual reproducers that it's difficult to give an objective opinion. I've never played my Schubert with anything other than the Edisonic reproducer, so clearly I need to use the same reproducer (I'll try a standard and an Edisonic) in both machines and see if there's a significant difference.

George P.

I agree on how difficult it is to judge which is best. In addition to the size of the horn, The size of the horn compartment and the open area of the grill have an impact. Of course to compare two machines, you'd need to have them in the same room side by side.

[larryh]

George,

I think the suggested comparison is between the sound of the Schubert and a Edison using a 250 horn. At least that is how I read it..

Larry

[phonojim]

What is the difference between the Schubert and C19 horns? Is the Schubert any longer, different shape or ??.

Jim

[pughphonos]

Hi Jim,
See George P.'s measurements, around six posts above. Check out the following on-line article for some great photos of a Schubert Edisonic, including its horn. The most notable difference in the Edisonic horn (vs. its predecessors) is that it has a longer neck leading to the bed plate.

http://edisoneffect.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... -disc.html

Ralph