The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I know that a C reproducer is O.K. to play my 2 minute Edison gold moulded cylinders. I also have a Columbia Q to play my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders but I am looking for another machine of a larger size, not a key wind, that is suitable to play my 2 minute brown wax plus my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders. Is something like a Columbia AT a good one for this??? I was told that an Edison C reproducer is not good to play either the brown or Columbia wax cylinders, is that correct? Thanks for your suggestions and comments!! dave

obmcclintock wrote:I know that a C reproducer is O.K. to play my 2 minute Edison gold moulded cylinders. I also have a Columbia Q to play my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders but I am looking for another machine of a larger size, not a key wind, that is suitable to play my 2 minute brown wax plus my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders. Is something like a Columbia AT a good one for this??? I was told that an Edison C reproducer is not good to play either the brown or Columbia wax cylinders, is that correct? Thanks for your suggestions and comments!! dave

The Edison C was made to play 2 minute cylinders. You can also play your 4 minute Amberolas with it, but it will not sound as good as the H. The C is fine for your brown wax cylinders.

Amberola wrote: The Edison C was made to play 2 minute cylinders. You can also play your 4 minute Amberolas with it, but it will not sound as good as the H. The C is fine for your brown wax cylinders.

Technically, yes, the stylus of a C will play brown wax cylinders, but I still wouldn't do it. The weight of the C will start wearing out brown wax very quickly!

Anytime I play brown wax, I play them on a Fireside with cygnet horn, equipped with a Model B reproducer that was rebuilt by Steven Medved-- The sound is great and the weight on the records is minimal. The larger horn set-up is great for hearing some of the softer playing records. As mentioned, the heavier weight on the C causes extra wear to the record.

Brad

obmcclintock wrote:I know that a C reproducer is O.K. to play my 2 minute Edison gold moulded cylinders. I also have a Columbia Q to play my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders but I am looking for another machine of a larger size, not a key wind, that is suitable to play my 2 minute brown wax plus my Columbia 2 minute wax cylinders. Is something like a Columbia AT a good one for this??? I was told that an Edison C reproducer is not good to play either the brown or Columbia wax cylinders, is that correct? Thanks for your suggestions and comments!! dave

The AT, with its floating reproducer, would certainly be easier on brown waxes and Columbia waxes; just make sure it has a good stylus.

Bill

Brown wax cylinders should be played with an Automatic or Model-B reproducer with a ball stylus. I play mine on a Edison Standard Model-A with a Blackman Automatic reproducer. Great sound, clear and loud.

Rich Gordon

I play mine on an early Edison suitcase Standard with an Automatic reproducer. It was rebuilt by Steve Medeved. He does fantastic work. The brown wax play loud and clear.
Harvey Kravitz

Thank you all for your helpful information. I appreciate you guys knowing so much about and sharing your information so let me ask a technical question please. Is it just the weight of the c reproducer that is so wearing on the brown or Columbia wax records or is it also the shape of the stylus that can cause harm? I have been looking at purchasing a Columbia AT to solve the problem but is there another medium priced machine whose reproducer is naturally more brown wax/Columbia 2 min wax- friendly? I am one of those weird collectors who really like listening to my cylinders so I am not into having so many machines as much as I am having a few that are very compatible to each type of cylinder that I play. I don't want to destroy their value. Thanks a lot, dave

Dave,

The additional weight of the Model C Reproducer and the shape of the stylus BOTH contribute to wear when playing brown wax cylinders. The main culprit is the shape of the stylus. The "doorknob" rides perpendicularly to the groove, which allows the narrow ellipse to track finer undulations, but also increases the relative weight per-square-inch exerted upon the recording. With a hard moulded record, this isn't much of a worry, but with the softer brown wax, it can be - and the additional weight only exacerbates the problem.

Any of the Columbia machines using a floating reproducer will be relatively gentle on brown wax records. The AT is a good choice as long as the pot metal top casting and/or carriage are serviceable. (There's one on eBay right now that you should avoid!) The B and the Q will also do the job if you don't mind a little motor noise and winding a key for every record. The AA has a motor similar to the B but it's inside the cabinet. The AO is an elegant machine with a 3-spring motor, but you're in the $1000 neighborhood now.

Years ago I used to play brown wax on a BF with no signs of wear. The Lyric reproducers use ball-shaped styli, which is good, but they're spring-loaded for more stylus pressure, which isn't ideal for brown wax. Still, they give good volume and as I said, I never noticed signs of wear. The only reason I stopped playing brown wax on that BF was because I obtained other machines which employed floating reproducers. That said, the B-series Graphophones (as well as the AZ) are excellent machines with no pot metal problems (except for some early AZ top castings), excellent performance, quiet motors, and they're reasonably-priced in today's market.

Ultimately, a good AT would probably be your best choice all around. Good luck!

George P.

George, Thank You Thank You Thank You. I was considering purchasing the one on Ebay but I did notice some cracking in the pot metal as well!!!!???? I had an AT long ago but I can't remember why I sold it. I think that it was because of the pot metal carriage parts that were desintegrating???? Am I just as well off purchasing a B reproducer for my Edison Standard and using that or as you have said, would an in-tact AT be better? Thank you for your time and honesty!!!, Dave