The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

What do you think is better, the Edison Diamond Disc or the Edison Blue Amberol? I'm talking DIRECT RECORDINGS of the 1912-1914 period, NOT the dubbed post-1914 cylinders.

This morning, after working out the last of the flutter issues on my Edison Triumph model D cylinder player (with Diamond B reproducer and 11-panel signet horn), I decided to run a test. By this point I have MANY Diamond Discs (552 by last count) and hundreds of Blue Amberols--with a predominance of 1912-1914 direct recordings among the Blue Amberols.

My Edison Diamond Disc phonograph is an S-19 that I have upgraded with a double spring motor plus an Edisonic reproducer.

The records I decided to compare are separate recordings of "The Belle of New York March" by the New York Military Band. Recorded first for Blue Amberol (no. 1638) in October 1912 and then for Diamond Disc (no. 50085) in August 1913. The performances are paced and arranged so similarly that one can practically syncronize them by playing both recordings simultaneously.

My conclusion? I was surprised, but there was no denying the result. The Blue Amberol sounded much fuller and warmer. Now, maybe it was just the conditions underying those particular recording sessions; maybe the S-19 internal horn can't complete with the cygnet external horn (but I certainly thought that the Edisonic reproducer would more than hold its own against the Diamond B reproducer).

In future I will run more "comparisons," but wanted to get the ball rolling. Ronald Dethlefson in his "Edison Blue Amberols Recordings 1912-1914" has on page 191 a list titled "Companion Diamond Discs for Blue Amberols," meaning those discs and cylinders that were "companions" as they contained separate recordings of the same material by the same performers (again, NOT to be confused with the post-1914 identical performances on both formats after the cylinders were merely DUBBED from the discs).

Ralph

I do think the differences you notice are because of the "dead" studio used to record the diamond discs. I think there is more reflected studio presence in the live Blue Amberols. My reference cylinder machines are a Amberola 75 & model B home with ten panel cygnet and diamond B. Disc machines C200 & C250.

Great to have you on board, Damfino59! Nice machines you list there.

I had not heard of the different recording studios for cylinders vs. discs. That certainly would account for the different effects. I like the nicely-packaged, intimate sound of the early Diamond Discs--but those directly-recorded cylinders do pack a whallop and do seem to be better products! I just listened again to "Silver Bell" (BA 1524) and "Marching Through Georgia" (BA 1888) now that my Triumph is performing so beautifully--and the detail and warmth of those records is amazing; the studio "detail" is there.

Ralph

I've long felt that direct recorded Blue Amberols played with a Diamond B reproducer are vastly superior in sound quality to virtually any other acoustic recording process. And, when played electrically which I have done experimentally a few times, their surfaces are unbelievably quiet. Truly amazing for a 100 year old process.

Jim

I can also say (pretty certainly) the best, clearest acoustic recordings I've heard are some electrically transferred direct recorded BA's. Save for that I've heard more low end 'bass' on certain 1920's acoustic discs.

I envy our American friends ability to make these comparisons.

BA's are readily available in the UK, but good DD's with quiet surfaces are much harder to find. Wartime import restrictions meant that they did not go on general sale here until 1920, by which time the lateral cut disc already dominated the market.

As a result I have never acquired a DD machine, but I greatly enjoy my BA's and my Amberola 50.

The really dedicated UK Edison collectors take holidays to the USA which double as buying trips, and I have heard that their hand luggage is a sight to behold.

Much as I enjoy my cylinders, the discs of all types are musically superior, if only for their steadier speed. I hope the 'new' Amberola V (coming tomorrow, fingers crossed) should assist with that, but the warpage factor will remain.

Let me change my opinion a bit: On the V, unwarped cylinders are at least as good as the Diamond Discs of the same era. I've been digging out BAs from all over the house & enjoying them more than ever. Even bell solos, piano, and violin records are super-steady - except "Variations on Old Folks at Home" by Andre Benoist - I have 3 copies & all are warped enough cause motion sickness.

The Edison discs are generally superiour in my opinion, (a good pressing contemporary with it's directly recorded cylinger counterpart). The directly recorded cylinders can be really excellent though and there are many examples of excellent cylinder recordings where the nearest comparable disc counterpart is just not as well done, by a different group or not available at all.

I base my conclusion on lot's of listening, comparing Edison Standard reproducer for diamond discs on a laboratory model and sitting next to it a Triumph with large carriage, music master horn or 11 panel using Diamond B and O reproducers and a 1B with diamond A reproducer.

Modern equipment has it's place too, especially with electrically recorded Diamond Discs but I use/enjoy all of the above, with lids either up, or off entirely

I think the disks are generally superior to the BA cylinders except for one thing: surface noise. The surace noise masks some of that superiority. Very few disks will sound as quite as a clean cylinder. Given the same song, the BA cylinder will often be more pleasant to hear, and the words in a song more readily understood. As good as the BA's are, a minty 2M wax cylinder has practically no noise at all.