Edison stylus pin problems

[larryh]

Just a thought. If the run offs had been subject to noticeable marking from the start then we wouldn't be complaining today about the stylus leaving the marks on our pristine records.

Larry

It doesn't necessarily follow that the run offs were subject to noticeable marking from the start.

This is where some pretty esoteric historical research is needed. What was the likelihood back in the day that the limit pin would hit the limit loop in the run off? Was that a product of differing rear hinges in differing reproducers (note my comment somewhere above that I have one that has two securing screws while another has three). Also, might not 90 years of aging, adjustments, and replacements have loosened some of these reproducers so that they would shift in the run off in ways not originally intended?

Here's a question for you, Larry. One of my reproducers is one of the Duncan stop ones; it has the hole in the back for the electrode. THAT was one model, if ever there was one, that was MEANT to allow the limit pin to hit the limit loop in the run off as that was necessary for the Duncan stop. Guess what? In the one I have, when it proceeds into the run-off, the limit pin remains centered! Now, see: here's another example of an Edison component NOT acting the way it should. Why? Because we've had 90 years of people making adjustments to these components. So, plenty of DD reproducers are acting today in ways they did not 90 years ago; ones that originally would have allowed "drift" and the Duncan connection no longer do (as is the case with mine)--whereas others that originally did not allow that drift now DO.

I can tell, my friend (and you know I genuinely regard you as such), that you still want to blame the styli. In your household you have a bunch of DD styli you've sent to bed without supper because you assume they've been bad--based on run-off scoring alone. They're crying their little eyes out--sobbing into their pillows. At least send them out to be checked under a microscope.

Ralph, The defective stylus WERE sent to Steven Medved and he sent them after checking for a more detailed look to Ron H. Those diamonds were damaged with chips or fractures. All were new ones. The one old one I sent him while not showing any run off marking none the less was worn which effected the clarity of the sound. Expert replaced the damaged stylus.

On the adjustments to the reproducer it would seem to me that so long as all parts are free an properly installed they should act pretty much as intended. If the pin is not moving in the run off it might be that the rear pivot is not working freely. I have run into the spring material that the weight is attached to the pivot being mildly bent causing the weight to not float properly which might counteract the weights ability to ride to the side. The duncan stop was eliminated fairly early on and after that if one set the shut off to prevent the stylus from entering the label area and to not shut off before the music quits on longer sides you would naturally have a situation where the run off would be used almost to its maximum.

Greigs findings are good as Its been questioned off an on if some records show more run off marking than others. I have too noticed that some will show it more than another. A cutting type mark, (some even will show brown if left running) is not a situation you want to see. I agree that very faint markings may be something you can live with. Still many old recordings in good shape have almost impossible to see light lines, and many have none.

Larry

[pughphonos]

There are a few offshoots of this DD stylus
pin problem thread.

Actually, this thread could very easily expand
out into one which would talk about DD stylus
problems in general.

One thing that has dawned on me is about
how the original diamonds were mounted in the
stylus bar. I read somewhere that somehow
the opening in the bar that holds the diamond
in the bar was shrunk-fit somehow, so that the
diamond ends up being subjected to a compression force of many thousands of pounds.

Has anyone else heard of that?

I am wondering if maybe that has something to
do with why the Edison originals stand up so
much better than the Expert reproductions?

Sorry if this goes too much off-topic.
If it does, I'll start another thread for it.
Basically it all boils down to I am not very
interested in having a DD machine unless I
can find a few good-shape, decent Edison
original DD styli.

Chuck

You know, Chuck, I think it would be great if we let this current thread expand, instead of starting a stylus-specific thread. Here's my reason. One thing I've discovered while trying to figure out my dead zone "scoring" is that there's a tendency for folks on this forum to concentrate on specific issues (the styli, the diaphragms, the physical pressures involved, etc.) and not consider how they all relate together--and how previously unconsidered factors (such as the friction of limit pin on limit loop) can also contribute. By all means, do what you think is right--but that's my recommendation.

Just be prepared for "Stylus Wars" if you expand in that particular direction. Lots of folks have tons of perspectives on DD styli (whether used, NOS, or made by Expert Stylus in the UK)--as show in previous threads. That's all cool, but like I say, we need someone to take a holistic approach--and you might be the one to do it. Would be honored if that discussion continued here, as we're now building a broad discussion of various factors besides styli.

[VintageTechnologies]

Having read all the comments in this thread, I have learned new some things, as we all have. I want to make a few observations and toss in yet another variable that I don't recall being discussed.

Chuck, don't be too leery of jumping into Diamond Disks. I have played them over 45 years and have never been plagued by the problems that some of you are reporting. That, in itself has been an education for me.

There is little question in my mind that Edison pushed the limits of materials durability in the careful compromise between volume and wear. After years of experimentation and development, the DD was not a bad compromise if every component remains optimal. However, Edison certainly exceeded the limits with wax 4M Amberols and Long Play disk records.

The idea of the proliferation of replica styii bothers me because they can't be identified as such by most people. If you can find a reproducer with a good original stylus (and I believe there are still plenty out there) then your problems are practically over. If the original diaphragm isn't cupped or somehow distorted, a new set of gaskets should make it ready for use.

As far as adjustments to the weight are concerned, I loosen the pivot screw just enough that the weight can pivot side-to-side freely, and yes, just loose enough that the limit pin will drift slowly in the blank area of the record near the label. I think it is a good idea to check that the flat spring that couples the floating weight to the reproducer is not bent; the weight should ride level.

As someone pointed out, the stylus shape and dimensions are closely matched to the groove, providing more surface area support to the immense weight (in terms of pounds [or tons!] per square inch) than a ball-tipped stylus riding on a flat run-out area with minimal contact. For that reason, I might expect to see a mark more quickly in the run-out than in the grooves. Any surface residue of dirt, grime, oxidation or finger oils might leave a visible pattern traced out by the diamond.

And now a speculation: we should consider the various forumulations of record surface as refinements were made over the years. The first records were briefly celluloid, then pre-war Condensite, war-time Condensite, and then in the 1920's quieter Condensite formulations were made. How was hardness affected by all of this? Has Condensite retained its original hardness over the span of nearly a century or has it deteriorated? What effects have the environment had on hardness, if any?

On the topic of mounting diamonds in their shanks. I read that early ones were simply soldered in. Later, according to Reed & Welch in "From Tinfoil to Stereo", the diamonds were electro-plated into place by a build-up of nickel deposition.

[Chuck]

Well the more I read here about all of these
DD issues, the more I am concluding for
myself that the Expert reproduction DD styli are duds, they are no good, and must be avoided like the black plague.

I just saw a NOS, NIB DD reproducer being
sold for $100 in Yankee Trader section of
this forum. Who ever picked that one up
has really got something nice!

That is exactly the kind of thing I am
currently looking for, to prepare myself
for having my first DD machine.

I heard a DD machine for the very first time
back in 1980, in an antique shop in downtown
Seattle. I still remember the record title.
It was a tune called "Valencia". The machine
was most likely a C19 or a C250.

So, anyway, I may well hold the all-time
record for the longest period of thinking
about getting a machine, before actually
picking one up!

But, oh man....that weight is heavy!

It's an absolute wonder that it ever was made
to work at all, much less as reliably as
Edison finally made it do, after all the endless experiments which he did with it
to "get it in shape", as he liked to say.

OK, then, I'll get off of my soap box now
and start scouting around for a solid base
to start from, which will be a few NOS
proper Edison DD styli, and perhaps even attached to reproducers which are in good shape. I am thankful that I can benefit by
reading of the horrors of the poor substitute
reproduction DD styli. I am glad that I do
not have to go down that road myself.

There should be a big sign by that fork in
the road. "Road Closed, Bridge Out"

Chuck

[pughphonos]

And now a speculation: we should consider the various forumulations of record surface as refinements were made over the years. The first records were briefly celluloid, then pre-war Condensite, war-time Condensite, and then in the 1920's quieter Condensite formulations were made. How was hardness affected by all of this? Has Condensite retained its original hardness over the span of nearly a century or has it deteriorated? What effects have the environment had on hardness, if any?

On the topic of mounting diamonds in their shanks. I read that early ones were simply soldered in. Later, according to Reed & Welch in "From Tinfoil to Stereo", the diamonds were electro-plated into place by a build-up of nickel deposition.

This is exactly where we should be going in order to advance our knowledge of how DD record wear and scoring occurs in the year 2014. Sure, we still need to address timeless mechanical issues as we have a way to go in cataloging/discussing them all. But we also need to become more historically and process-oriented. As Keith has just pointed out, some of the Edison components changed during the years of production (1912-1929); one of his examples is that the diamonds were apparently mounted by soldering at first but then later were electro-plated. The other is that the record composition changed.

Other components have changed since 1929 due to deterioration and alteration; re. the question of Condensite's change over time.

Remember the Mission Control guy in the movie "Apollo 13" who, when trying to organize the rescue plan for that disabled space capsule, said to his staff "I don't want to hear what it was designed to do. I want to hear what it CAN do." Similar sort of approach here. Let's move beyond the focus on what the Edison DD system was designed to do--and instead consider how its various components actually work after 90 years of alteration and deterioration.

[Chuck]

Taking a very simplistic view, there are
two substances in contact that make the whole
system work. There is condensite, and diamond.

The condensite we can't do much about.
Maybe it has aged, maybe it has changed
its properties, who knows? I'd be willing
to bet that it's pretty stable stuff though
because phenolic compounds do just tend
to be that way. Ever use a hunk of old old
bakelite to make something out of? I've sawed
out pieces and made things from bakelite
stock that's been sitting around since at least as far back as the 1940s, with no
problems at all.

But, whatever the case is with the DD records,
we can't do anything about it. All we can
do is play them.

What we choose to play them with though, that
is something we can take direct action upon.

I say that from what I've heard so far
about any of the reproduction DD styli, they
do not work right. At least not for very long.

There seem to be some folks though, who say
they've never had any problems with the repros. I wonder how many of them really
use them in hard service though?

I mean, if and when I obtain a DD machine,
I want to be able to be free to play it all
day, for days on end, if I feel like it.

The repro styli currently available could not
cut the mustard in that situation, I am
guessing, from the things I have heard.

I would like to hear more about this
general topic, the topic of failed repro
DD styli, in all of the gory details.

It needs to be discussed, because there
are folks out there who act like they do not
know that these styli are junk.

My question is, why is this? If they are
no good, then they are no good, and everybody
should be aware of it.

Chuck

[pughphonos]

I would like to hear more about this
general topic, the topic of failed repro
DD styli, in all of the gory details.

It needs to be discussed, because there
are folks out there who act like they do not
know that these styli are junk.

My question is, why is this? If they are
no good, then they are no good, and everybody
should be aware of it.
Chuck

I agree with you entirely, Chuck (re. the reluctance in some quarters to accept that the modern-made DD styli are junk). In fairness, some believe that the company involved (let's leave it nameless for the moment) has occasionally produced semi-decent products (lasting up to a whole year!) and these buyers are willing to try additional examples--though they are thereby taking upon themselves the burden of product testing that the company itself should be doing. I tend to be crustier: I follow the old adage "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

[Chuck]

Well, the reproduction DD styli are obviously
of inferior quality to those which Edison
made and sold.

A year, tops? You've got to be kidding me.
There's not much excuse for that.

Unless you're the sort of person who
would only play the DD a few times every
once in a great while and simply be glad
that it works, even if only a little bit.
But, is that having it working the way it's
supposed to work? I think not.

They should be doing their long-term testing
and should not have let them out into the
world if that poor result is the best they can do.

Heck, at the 1 year mark, a genuine Edison stylus would not even be slightly broken in yet!

Hooh boy....same outfit that cannot seem
to figure out how to make a genuine Edison
cupped-point recorder cutter either.
They settled for making their recorder cutters
having a flat, chisel-point shape kind of
like supposedly what some of the Columbia
recorders used. I've got one of them
chisel point jobs, and it does not even
hold a candle to what a sharp Edison
cupped point recorder cutter sounds like.

So...this is all making perfect sense to me
at this point. Same outfit, ya know?

Oh, but here I go again, expecting things
to work properly and be made properly.
Got myself in big, big trouble over one of those a while back..... Big Trouble.

So, what is left to do concerning DD styli?
I can't think of any other idea than
finding some NOS dealer stock and obtaining
a few of them.

Chuck

[pughphonos]

As we try to identify and discuss the various elements involved in accelerated Edison Diamond Disc wear, these are the areas I can recollect at the moment: stylus damage; stylus bar/pin stiffness or wobble; diaphragm compliance (including improper linkage length); limit pin/loop abrasion; unusual pressure points (including improper stylus rake); and record surface composition.

Ultimately, this is a subjective area. Some of us will be willing to accept a fairly pronounced amount of record wear as they consider it normal; whereas others will not accept the slightest bit of scoring in the run-off area. Some will do a finger test: wiping the stylus with a finger tip and seeing if residue has been left behind--and if not, rest content with the set-up.

One area that has perhaps been under-discussed is the DD record composition and how it is holding up after nearly a century. I found the following statement on the website of the National Library of Canada, Music Division. It's taken from an article they have posted titled "The Preservation of Recorded Sound Materials," authored by Gilles St-Laurent. Mr. St-Laurent, as you will see, believes that the DDs are quite stable and he has made no mention of surface degradation issues.

Before I cut-and-paste his statement, I have been wondering how easy it would be for us to get Kurt Nauck to offer us his thoughts on the issue of DD surface degradation. He has handled tens of thousands of DDs over the years for sale; he has seen them in all conditions; he has talked to many, many collectors. Does HE believe that the DD surfaces are stable, OR is he seeing that, after 90+ years, surfaces are now cutting more readily than they would say 20 years ago?

Now, on to Mr. St-Laurent:

++++++++++++++++++++

The Edison Diamond disc has the distinction of having been made of the first completely synthetic plastic, a material called phenol (phenol was also used in the manufacture of Bakelite). The Edison diamond disc is a laminated disc made up of a thick core and a thin varnish layers covering each of its sides.

The ¼" core, which is also known as a powder blank, was manufactured by compressing the following ingredients in the following proportions: (see reference 7)

Wood flour 58%
Modified ethyl alcohol (AKA ethynol) 26%
Phenol formaldehyde (AKA Bakelite) 15%
Lampblack (the pigment) 1%

The varnish, named "Edison condensite varnish" was made-up of...
Modified ethyl alcohol 55%
Phenol formaldehyde (63% phenol + 37% formaldehyde) 38%
Other, including "Shino", used to promote a gloss finish 7%

The varnish would be applied to the blank by a brush as the blank rotated slowly. Four applications or coats were given each blank face with a drying period between. After the last coat the varnished blank would be placed in a steam-heated oven. This completed the drying and also effected a partial reaction of the varnish ingredients.

Prior to pressing, the blanks would be heated before applying pressure to soften. After the pressure was applied the heat was left on to complete the curing or reaction of the varnish. Then the moulds were cooled and the pressure released.

Prolonged contact with moisture or severe changes in humidity may cause damage to the surface through moisture absorption. In general Phenol is very stable and presents no serious degradation problems, neither is it prone to attack by bacteria, fungi or insects although, occasionally, under humid conditions moulds may grow and cause some surface attack on a nutrient filler such as wood or cotton, or be supported by a nutrient contaminant on the surface.

[FloridaClay]

I find my Diamond Discs to be pretty stable. I do have some that show some signs of delamination at the edges. They were that way when I bought them (I don't buy them if the delamination is significant enough to hamper playing). I attribute this to thir having been stored in damp conditions at some point in their past, inasmuch as it is my understanding that the cores will swell when exposed to moisture primarily due to the wood flour content. (I always use denatured alcohol, never water, when cleaning them.)

Overall they seem much less fragile than shellac records.

Of course surface noise can be fairly severe with some discs made during the wartime chemical shortage era when formulas had to be compromised. The late Diamond Discs, especially those recorded electrically, are by and large excellent.

Clay