Amberolas and such

[ImperialGuardsman]

Hey there everyone!

This is my first post (though I have been a viewer for some time now). I have three questions:
1: Would it be worht it to wait for an Amberola 50 over a 30?
2: Are there speacial diaphragms (such as the "million dollar" or "true tone") availiable for these?
3: Whish sounds better, a diamoind disc machine or an Amberola? (feel free to compare the reproducers too)
I have a couple of Victors, a Columbia, and a Silvertone and want an Edison or two. My main problem is that there are very few Diamond disc machines availiable (that can be shipped at least)
Thanks.

[Andersun]

1. Only difference between the Amberola 30 and 50 is size and wood choices. Amberola 50 is larger (H 15 ⅜, W 15 L 19 ¾) and comes in mahogany or oak. Amberola 30 (H 12 ¾, W 12 ½, L 16) only comes in oak. They share the same mechanism and I can't tell any differences in sound.
2. I don't believe their are any special diaphragms for the Diamond C reproducer which they both shared.
3. My opinion is that the Diamond Disc sounds better.

[phonogfp]

The Amberola 50 does have 2 mainsprings, while the 30 has 1. Other than that and cabinet size, they're pretty much the same machine. Both play Blue Amberols quite well when properly adjusted.

I'm not aware of any special diaphragms for the Diamond C, unless they're the same size as the Disc Phonograph diaphragms.

I agree with Andersun about the Disc Phonographs sounding better. After 1915, the Blue Amberol cylinders were dubbed from Edison Disc Records. Although Disc surfaces could be quite noisy during the 1915-1918 period, overall the fidelity of the Edison Disc Records is outstanding.

George P.

[ImperialGuardsman]

I was under the impression that the 50 had a larger horn. Is this not the case?

[phonogfp]

I was under the impression that the 50 had a larger horn. Is this not the case?

Frow cites an 8 ¼" x 6 ½" horn for the 30, and a 10" x 8" horn for the 50. In a side-by side comparison, using the same reproducer and record, perhaps someone could tell the difference. I've never detected a noticeable playing difference between the two models.

George P.

[Valecnik]

I believe Greg Botantz makes a very good diaphragm for a diamond C, I assume the one he makes for the diamond B would work. If the original diaphragm is okay though, leave it, imho.

[Jerry B.]

Both the Amberola 30 and 50 have fine qualities. If everything is equal in terms of condition, originality, and price, I would take the 50. But I would rather have a very nice 30 than a so so 50. Jerry Blais

[Valecnik]

Both the Amberola 30 and 50 have fine qualities. If everything is equal in terms of condition, originality, and price, I would take the 50. But I would rather have a very nice 30 than a so so 50. Jerry Blais

Hmmm... all else being equal I'd opt for the 50 due to the double spring, additional weight which makes for slightly easier winding. I think the larger horn also is an added benefit but as others have noted, not a huge difference.

[FloridaClay]

I'd wait for a 50 in nice condition. They do have a few pluses, as already mentioned, and I expect the difference in price would not be much, if anything. They are by no means rare, so should not be that hard to find. I expect you'd see several at most of the good size phonograph shows.

Clay

[epigramophone]

I have a 30 and a friend who lives locally has a 75, which is effectively a 50 with cylinder storage. There is little difference in sound quality, but the 75 has more volume.

The 30, 50 and 75 are the only Amberolas which turn up fairly frequently in the UK. The earlier and more expensive Amberolas are rare over here and the last models, the 60 and 80, are practically unheard of.