The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

JohnM wrote:Well, since we never sold "reproducer(s)" and all of our diaphragms are serially numbered and we have a record of who purchased each one of them and the only Robert we sold one to is a huge fan of the one he has, I must assume that your post is more garbage aimed at discrediting our project. Perhaps you would like to describe one of our diaphragms in your reply to this so I might prove you are full of excrement. Our diaphragms are sonically superior to anything yet produced. Jeff and I had difficulties getting that project off the ground due to some personal issues Jeff had. I have regrouped and resumed the project and intend to produce diaphragms again in the near future. I stand by my claims.

John,

Perhaps you should have chosen to start a new thread that announced your pending Million Dollar Diaphragm. I personally think there is room for several versions of a diaphragm and one need not be so threatened as to attempt to demean another for personal benefit. I have your diaphragm and while it has some excellent points it also has its drawbacks.. Mine is the same. Not everyone will agree on which method is the more appropriate, its really up to the Listener and that is precisely why its named as it is.. I welcome a perfected Million Dollar diaphragm, there is plenty of room for more.

Larry

Since others were mentioning that they were tinkering or had tinkered with diaphragms in the thread, I felt it would be okay to throw my hat in the ring, too, short of making a formal announcement on YOUR thread, which I never would have done except for being forced to do so by the troll (who, by the way, didn't even join the board until March of this year, when the MDD's wre introduced in Fall of 2011). I think we are probably experiencing multiple- personality disorder on this board as existed on the old OTVMMB.. Sure there is room for more than one diaphragm, Larry. Couldn't agree more. My goal is to produce the best sounding diaphragm. That's all. I'll depart your thread, now.

Back to the original subject of this thread. Here's a letter I wrote to Larry after I'd listened to a few using his newest creation:

*****

last night I decided to take the time to install the new diaphragm you sent me. It went it smoothly, and the pre-installed link was greatly appreciated. This new diaphragm is one good piece of engineering, my friend. It sounds like there's a slight RIAA curve built into it so it's not quite so boxy as others with which I've experimented. Definition between instruments is light and airy, quite the best I've heard so far.

I have three standard-weight DD reproducers at my disposal here: one with an original Edison diaphragm and new gaskets, one metal diaphragm (approximately like a VivaTonal, used in post-WWII-era European portables), and your new one (a direct replacement for the last experimental one you sent me some years ago). Here's the first three records I used to compare them on my trusty London upright:

50001: "Below the Mason-Dixon Line" by Arthur Collins, with frosted label and no dimples.
This one is one of the loudest and clearest early discs I have, and with the right reproducer can drive a listener across the room from sheer volume. The original sounded good and full, and quite loud. The metal one sounded louder yet with better definition and was a bit more shrill than the original. Your new one took the boxy sound away, with the backup violins sounding perfectly natural, and Arthur's voice blew my hair back. Didn't finish listening since it was late and I might draw a complaint from otherwise very reasonable neighbors.

80408: "Second Mazurka" by Andre Benoist, with plain dual-shield label.
This has been a favorite of mine for the 40 years I've had it. The surface noise is a steady hiss typical of pre-"New Process" pressings, and this attribute can make or break a modern replacement diaphragm. The original Edison diaphragm was mellow on this side and didn't bring out the hiss so much. The metal one had better fidelity with the piano, but there was more hiss as well. Yours did bring out the hiss but not as sharply as the metal one interestingly enough. The piano sounded very natural, with more of the nuances coming through.

80683: "Perpetuum Mobile in G" by Mischa Violin, with paper label.
Another personal favorite for a long time, probably about 30 years. The final minute has about four places where the reproducer will "bark" if it's not set up right (my definition of "bark": that sudden crescendo that will make the needle sound like it's trying to jump out of the groove). The original diaphragm played this disc just fine. The metal one was noticeably less boxy than the original with the nuances of the violin sounding clearer. Yours actually made the piano in the background more noticeable, with the violin sound being very light. The bits near the end where the needle might "bark" were a breeze; no problem at all. The noise on these paper label discs tends to ride in the midrange, which is comparatively suppressed in your design, so while there was surface noise it was much less obvious.

I will be listening to many more over the coming weeks. Rebuilding Edison reproducers tends to bring out the curator in me, giving me an excuse to listen to the music again.

Thanks again for going through all of the effort to design this one; it has borne very good fruit indeed.

Diaphragms aside, the problem I'm running in to is that there seems to be no one making good quality DD styluses. Jeff replaced mine with one of Wyndham's from Expert and after only a few months of occasional playing, it cracked and started damaging my records. I had an old one that I thought was still good but it started marring the discs as well. Jeff told me that several people he installed the new diaphragm for got a new stylus as well and this wasn't an isolated incident. It seems the styluses coming from Expert aren't as good as they used to be, but no one else seems to be making them. Not sure what the solution to this is but for now, no diamond discs for me...

Yes, I have commented on my Thread on the Edison Group that I have now owned 7 new stylus, two were damaging records from the first play an the rest fairly soon after.. Yet I need a good stylus to determine for sure the quality of sound that is produced. I was offered and older Expert stylus which was said to be in good shape, it has so far been alright but time will tell. The past three I purchased since spring, one was bad from the start and the other two failed in months.. I got mine thru Steven M who also had a number of people in the same boat your in.. He is trying to get Expert to replace them from what I understand.. We had the the poor ones magnified with a computer and they all showed those flaws and chips that cause the problems.. Not a good sign.. My past contacts with Expert only resulted in them insisting how perfect they were and endless mentions of satisfied customers.. I too am hoping a new source for diamonds can be found.. As you mention a set of reproducers with no good stylus doesn't need a diaphragm.. I encourage anyone who has the new stylus to constantly check the records under a bright lamp to be sure no damage is showing. It usually seems to start with some fluff on the surface I had a tendency to pass off as dirt. Not dirt it turned out.

Larry

Glad to find out about the quality of the needles coming out of Expert. I was going to have a new stylus put in a C-2 reproducer, as the old one is starting to show signs of trouble, but I think I'll wait until we hear some more positive news about this.

I bought one from Larry about four weeks ago and have given it a through play-throught with a variety of reproducers on my J-19 (Jacobean). The first thing to note is that it doesn't look anything like a usual reproducer. In fact, it looks very much like a lemon variety of a children's sweet we have here in the UK called a Flying Saucer but it fits snugly into the reproducer and you are ready to go within minutes.
The initial hearing was a revelation, the bass felt it had real weight to it and the instruments both as an accompaniment to singers or on an orchestral record, were clearly defined whereas with previous diaphragms the detail was lost in a sort of mush. To give an example, Jaques Urlus singing The Forging Song from Siegfried on 83040 dating from 1916 - ignoring Urlus' pedestrian performance you can hear with astonishing clarity the descending figures in the trombones and tubas and at the same time the rising figures in the violins, clarinets and flutes. It makes one sit up and really "listen" closely to the record and shows up in detail Urlus' lack-luster performance.
I don't have too many jazz or dance records but again with Larry's diaphragm the piano and banjo can actually be heard separately in the Louisiana Five records whereas previously it was difficult to distinguish between the two. Due partly I suspect to Karl Berger's heavy handed banjo strumming.
Where I did not notice such a dramatic improvement in sound quality was at the top end of the spectrum. The high voices and instruments did not seem to jump out at you as the lower and middle registers did but this has the advantage of reducing some of the surface noise. I will readily admit that this may be due to my aging hearing. Larry did suggest to me that perhaps I try a different stylus, which I did, (one from Expert Pickups) and that has had a marginal effect giving slightly greater balance to the recordings.
All in all, I am mightily impressed with Larry's diaphragm and will certainly use it when demonstrating to sceptical friends the amazing quality of Edison discs. I would recommend anyone who has an Edison disc machine to try one of these diaphragms and see if it makes a difference on their machines.

Tim W-W

I agree with scullylathe that there is an urgent need for new Edison Diamond Stylus. If T.A. Edison could manufacture them 90 years ago in West Orange New Jersey, and with all of todays new hi-tech improvements,,,,,, well, you all get my drift here??

Agree, Briankeith. That's why I won't sell any of my DD reproducers. They all have good original styli and I don't play DDs on my C-19 that often anyway. I am also hoarding 3 NOS stylus/bar assemblies which I bought from Wyatts several years back so I should be set for life.
I have quite a good setup to play them electrically and I am usually content with that. I use a vintage Lenco variable speed turntable. The cartridge is a Shure M44 with a custom stylus which runs through a vertical/lateral switch and preamp into a 12 band equalizer and into my amp. This setup gives pretty good results. Although it is pretty difficult to reproduce the DD player sound accurately this method sounds good, is convenient and I don't have any worries about record damage.

Jim

I have to pipe in about my purchase too! Barring my stylus problems (with which Larry is very familiar), I have been able to compare Larry's diaphragm to the cardboard ones you find on eBay. Larry's had far more depth and realism compared to the other diaphragm. Along with that, the surface noise was dropped to a very reasonable level. The disc the truely blew me away was "Monastary Bells Watlz" (I don't have it on hand to check the number), a late acoustic piano solo. I had to sit down. It was like the piano was in the room. I am very pleased with this diaphragm and echo all the recomendations mentioned.

Nicholas W.