The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Don,

The Edison machines used a mechanical connection between the spindle speed and the leadscrew to keep the needle in the groove. A change from two minute to four minute required a gear shift.

In your machine, you could add an "electrical" connection also so that when a user set the spindle speed, the leadscrew speed was derived from the speed, rather than an independent control.

A two minute to four-minute switch would be needed and if you wanted, a "fine" leadscrew speed adjustment could be added for very minor changes.

Marc

Marc Hildebrant wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:28 am Don,

The Edison machines used a mechanical connection between the spindle speed and the leadscrew to keep the needle in the groove. A change from two minute to four minute required a gear shift.

In your machine, you could add an "electrical" connection also so that when a user set the spindle speed, the leadscrew speed was derived from the speed, rather than an independent control.

A two minute to four-minute switch would be needed and if you wanted, a "fine" leadscrew speed adjustment could be added for very minor changes.

Marc

That would be an ideal setup, but it would require a significant amount of electronics (over what the machine already has) and would require some expensive pieces of hardware. The motors would need to have integrated feedback sensors, those sensors would need to feed into a PLC (programmable logic controller) and the PLC would need motor controllers with their own I/O interfaces.... not to mention that someone would then need to write the code to make the whole thing work. Just sitting here calculating a quick guess of the cost of such an upgrade would be at least $1,000 per machine (in components) and an additional month or two of R&D.

The machine I built is dirt simple and very rugged. For a home user who may at some point decide to repair or upgrade it themselves (or with the help of a techie), the machine as it is will be very easy to tinker with. All components used are stand-alone and one could easily swap them out or upgrade whatever they like, as they like. Having said the above, you're much more talented on the electronics side than I am, and I welcome any input you have on a potential way to integrate the mandrel speed with the feedscrew for 2M and 4M playback (this would make a nice potential "upgrade").

Thank you.

Would it make sense to move this discussion to the "machine" section?

Marc

OK folks, here's a pic of the latest. The control panel has been cleaned-up and is laser etched aluminum-over-acrylic. The motor housing is custom (though I photoshopped the color for this picture of it). I've also made many custom parts for the tonearm, so that it works properly for cylinders and looks clean. A video will be coming this weekend.

Feedback is always welcome!

My favorite thing about this is it looks as though it was built in the U.S.A. in the 1950s, back when they built stuff like tanks and built it to last. This looks like it took an absolutely incredible amount of work and planning, I'm sure none of us will ever grasp the time and effort that went into this. I think what you have here is the gold standard. Great work!

Looks like the motor has flipped from the left side of the machine to the right, where it was in the earlier photos, meaning the cylinder now slips onto the mandrel from the left, not the typical right. How comes?

drh wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:32 am Looks like the motor has flipped from the left side of the machine to the right, where it was in the earlier photos, meaning the cylinder now slips onto the mandrel from the left, not the typical right. How comes?

Yes, you are correct (excellent observation!). After building the initial machine, I sent pics and videos to several experts in the field of playback of early recordings... their feedback was that the initial configuration would potentially damage the stylus/cantilever if/when it hit a pit or crack in a cylinder. It turns out that's why CPS1 and Endpoint both have the mandrel facing in the same orientation as my more recent picture.

And it was a *ton* of work to move all the mechanical parts to the other side

Dischoard wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 12:15 am My favorite thing about this is it looks as though it was built in the U.S.A. in the 1950s, back when they built stuff like tanks and built it to last. This looks like it took an absolutely incredible amount of work and planning, I'm sure none of us will ever grasp the time and effort that went into this. I think what you have here is the gold standard. Great work!

Thank you!! The machine weighs ~30 pounds, that's a whole lot of metal!!!

Here's one more pic, with the prototype black deck swapped for a proper finished birch one. This one also shows it with an unfinished Concert mandrel, a standard and salon mandrel are on the back of it.

Hi,

Looks like it is coming along, Don. Appears to be very solid.

If I can ask, how does your machine "compare" with the Chamoux machine in France (Archeophone) or the Levin model in California?
i.e. price vs features?

Best
Allen

AllenKoe wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:20 pm Hi,

Looks like it is coming along, Don. Appears to be very solid.

If I can ask, how does your machine "compare" with the Chamoux machine in France (Archeophone) or the Levin model in California?
i.e. price vs features?

Best
Allen

Hi Allen,
Thank you. I know little about the Archeophone, and have not seen one in person. The two machines that I'm more familiar with are John Levin's CPS1 and Nick Bergh's Endpoint, it's worth saying that I've mentioned this project to both John and Nick and both have been very kind in sharing some of their experiences with building their machines. John has been especially helpful, and we've talked about my ideas over the course the past few years (while collaborating on unrelated projects). I'm very grateful for both of their insights and encouragement to build a "home" machine.

The main difference between my machine and the three above is the target-market; the three above are built for institutional archives, mine is built for a home user. This is one of the main reasons I chose the name "Wilson Home", apart from the obvious use of the Edison model's name, it's also intended to imply that this is a less-expensive machine intended for the home user. CPS1 and Endpoint are mechanical and electronic works of art; they're surely made via CNC'd metal parts, custom-built electronics, highly-specialized motors and are all seamlessly controlled by well integrated software. The results are machines that work amazingly well, but are priced accordingly; ~$20,000 (and up). While the Archeophone is much less (~$12,000), I don't know enough about its design and operation to comment on it.

My machine is made using almost entirely (high-quality) off-the-shelf components, allowing for a much lower price; starting at $1,900, it is BY FAR the most affordable of all of these machines. The core machine is a superb little metalworking lathe (though it required several modifications), the motors are simple DC gear motors and the controllers are also off-the-shelf components. Their are several custom parts on my machine, most of which are either cast (such as the thick rubber isolators for the motors) and several 3D printed parts (such as the motor housing and several trim pieces). The machine is 100% manual, with the feed screw and mandrel motors being completely independent from each other; while this gives the flexibility to play cylinders with any combination of mandrel speeds and groove pitch, it's up to the operator to set the speeds for each (with much forgiveness given by the use of a typical record players tonearm & gimbal).

The Wilson Home surely has wow/flutter which is greater than CPS1 and Endpoint, and it lacks some of their minor but "nice to have" items, such as presets for mandrel and feed screw rates, limit switches to stop the machine at a certain point and a simple button to return the carriage/tonearm to the home position. I do however have features that they do not have; since the machine is modular and made from simpler components, it's easy to tweak or upgrade, allowing the owner to do something such as add a microscope, upgrade the tonearm, etc.... My use of 3D printing has also enabled the creation of any mandrel size, which I believe could be a "game changer" for the playback of more obscure cylinders (such as Madam Hendron doll cylinders, for example).... BUT, while creating a mandrel is a relatively easy task, the 3D printed parts are not accurate enough for this method alone; all mandrels must then have a steel-insert for the core and then to be trued on a machinists lathe (which is still a lot of work).
*Just as a side-note, I requested quotes from three machine shops for mandrels to be made via CNC from aluminum; two shops charged >$1,000 (each) and the third was not able to make them within my specs; this should give some idea as to why the machines currently on the market are as expensive as they are.