The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

As to original diaphragms. Over quite a few years I had a number of edisons with the existing original diaphragms still in place. And as I worked to come up with something at least better than what I had found so far in newer ones, I still tired a number of supposedly good originals. I know they are out there most likely. But I found that none of the ones I have ever heard played clearly without "that breaking up" sound" on some portions of the music.

When it comes to pricing of the diaphragms, it wasn't about money, it was about sound. I wanted others whom like my self wish to hear the records playing as well as possible without excessive distortions or poor range. So for me its more about helping edison owners hear more from their records. In fact if I were to consider all the tires at creating them and the ones that I have to pitch for one reason or the other, plus the time to test them before shipping, then I would say I am probably getting about nothing for the effort. My main goal is to have someone enjoy the sound.. Is it perfect, I wouldn't say that, but it does give a pretty close run for the sound edison had with his.

I will be curious to see how close it comes to the Waltrip versions.

Larry

VintageTechnologies wrote:Larry, in the interest of documenting the longevity of your diaphragms, perhaps you should mark them with a serial number and keep a log of them. Sometime in the future, that data might prove useful.

I have done exactly that. I have a log with the date sold, and whom to and the version of the diaphragms. The oldest of the final version goes back a little over two years.

Larry

larryh wrote: I will be curious to see how close it comes to the Waltrip versions.

Larry

Larry, your diaphragm in a standard reproducer is noticeabley better than the Waltrip I have in side by side comparison, same record, same machine. The Edisonic with Waltrip I have sound's VERY, much more strident but of course you can't compare that to a standard reproducer. The Edisonic has a sticker on t he wait that says "Waltrip 93 OK" but I think that was put on there by the seller I got it from at Union who could have done that some years after the original diaphragm restoration.

A very good friend of mine has three waltripped reproducers that he god done in the 90's, a Diamond A, Diamond C and a standard Diamond Disc. He loves them and I have listened carefully to each of them over the years, even replace a defective stylus on one of them.

But personally, I cannot really say, that I appreciate the Waltrip ones very much. Yes, they do have more clarity than the muffled original rice paper diaphragms, but they all have a strongly elevated mid-range - almost a squeakiness. First, this can sound really stunning, especially with acoustic recordings, but it does become somewhat annoying after some time and feels unbalanced to my ears.

I'd still really like to know how the diaphragm top looks alike and what rests on it. But Waltrip glued his diaphragms directly into the reproducer's body, thus making disassembling impossible without cutting and possibly destroying it.

From what I have heard Waltrip make quite a few variations on his diaphragms.. The one I have is pretty much flat on the bottom, away from the horn, while the top has a raised portion where the cap would have been on an original, an on that he has a large bead of glue. On the part facing the weight he had cut a circular pattern into the foam leaving a about a dime size portion of the flat bottom in the center.

When I worked on mine I listened to his and was surprised at how many things it missed or sort of washed out of the various secondary instruments. It was though one of his more quiet versions I was told.

Larry

I didn't know he glued them in there. That makes little sense to me.

I have a Waltrip diaphragm that he sent me about twenty ..or more...years ago. I have had it in an out of various reproducers. It's not bad, but I was never particularly impressed with it, to be honest. It sounds quite nice and certainly better than a dried out and deformed original diaphragm but it's not as good as the best originals that I've fiddled with in order to soften the dried shellac. I have been told that his diaphragms themselves varied in quality. Some sound superb and other are just acceptable. I think I have one of the latter.

JRT

Very interesting information about the glue glob on top! I suspected something like this but all the reproducers I could inspect don't have a top shaft.

The three I know are all flat towards the weight and do end exactly with the top body. It's most easy to see it at the Diamond Disc reproducer. It appears to me that Waltrip used heavy epoxy to put it in and I'd just like to know if he kept the retainer ring above or discarded it.

Gluing the diaphragm into the reproducer makes sense in a way, that he could use a slightly larger diaphragm surface than with a ring. But as always, I am not very fond of irreversible tuning measures.

There was actually another Waltrip mod, an Exhibition with a glass diaphragm that was later broken. There were quite some surprises when I started to disassemble it for repair: The rock-hard white gasket turned out to be a dummy made from a white cable. Behind that, the even this diaphragm was glued into the front part of the Exhibition reproducer - this time with translucent silicone glue!
He even applied a thin layer of silicone to seal both reproducer parts together. It wasn't quite easy to get it open at all. I had to take a sharp knife to get rid of all that nasty silicone and the remaining glass parts. Then I installed a new glass diaphragm and used the nicely soft gaskets from Ron Sitko and it is still playing nicely. Although I never was compare it, I am sure the Waltrip version must have been once again on the shrill side with less depth.