The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I have finally put together the first video comparing LarryH's cylinder diaphragm designs:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3VbaEDiACw[/youtube]

For contrast, I have included a standard rice paper diaphragm from APSCO. One can clearly hear the difference in volume and clarity between that and the new diaphragms.

Ideally, such a test should be done on one of the large Amberolas, or a machine with a Diamond B and a cygnet horn, but having neither of those, the 30 will have to do for now.

I have clips for two more tests, all with good, directly recorded BAs; I can try other selections if wanted.

Enjoy!

Bill

I liked both 2 and 3, 2 being clear and balanced, 3 has a brighter sound but still good, 2 and 3 had good volume for sure, no. 1 was muddy.

I'd need to hear some band, orchestra, and vocal records. The banjo's sound is high-pitched & mostly percussive, making it ideal for acoustic recording but poor for judging sound quality.

Suggestions: BA 1775 - Dream Melody Intermezzo , BA 1885 - Shepherd's Dance , BA 2039 Gold & Silver .... or any post-1910, pre-dubbed Band, Orchestra, Venetian Instrumental Trio/Quartet, etc etc ... An excellent choice might be the medley of 'Country Dances' by Eugene Jaudas, BA 1716 - between the fiddle & the band, it puts a reproducer through the wringer!

Oh, PS: #2 and #3 sound about the same to me, both much clearer than #1 .

Nice job on the comparisons. If one can notice the difference on youTube, it must be even more apparent in person.

I'll vote for #2

IMO: Number 2 and 3 surely have more depth, clarity and volume than number 1. Number 3 has more volume than number 2 but seems to blast a bit during louder passages. My vote is for 2 as is now. However, I would vote for 3 if the blasting could be removed. I like lots of volume, depth and clarity when I listen to my records but that's me.

2 and 3 sound more "open" to me. I was listening on small speakers.

howardpgh wrote:2 and 3 sound more "open" to me. I was listening on small speakers.

To notice anything less than a dramatic difference I think one needs to really compare them in person. There are too many filters that could have an influence otherwise, quality of the recording that's uploaded, youTube filtering, the type of speakers one is listening on. That being said, 2 & 3 are clearly better than 1 in this case though.

In the case of my videos, youTube seems to have a favorable impact, filtering out some of the low end rumble, noise etcetera.

A very interesting test. Since only new diaphragms were tested, I would be curious to hear all 3 compared to what might be considered a good original example.

JerryVan wrote:A very interesting test. Since only new diaphragms were tested, I would be curious to hear all 3 compared to what might be considered a good original example.

Yes: if anyone has a machine with a good original diaphragm, I'd recommend them to contact Larry and make some similar videos.

Bill