The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Does anyone have any opinions which is better? Edisonic or Orthophonic? I want to avoid any heated arguments. I have not heard a live Edisonic or large Orthophonic before.

More than likely the Orthophonic would display a larger sound and depth due to the horn size. The Edisonic uses a very small horn in reality which to my ear does not develop the range that a 250 horn machine would. Part of the reason it might have seemed larger is the fact that it was designed when electrical sound was being used for the first time. That natural improvement in record sound may have obscured the smaller horn to some degree.

As to which type of reproduction is best. That may be a preference depending on the listener.. I owned a very fine orthophonic credenza for about 40 years. It could be very impressive especially on popular or smaller classical groups. I don't think the Edisonic would come near the sound it produced. However in my testing of lots of various records I discovered one day while listening to my C-19 and the orthophonic from a distance, the Edison sounded like the actual instruments were being played and in comparison the credenza sounded rather distant or shallow when heard from the same location. As I say, that may be an opinion that someone else will not find, but it is how I heard it.

As a collector I would say that you might consider eventually having both types of machines. That way you can enjoy the range of music recorded for each and hear for your self which suits your ear.

Larry

The Orthophonic Credenza has a larger horn and can produce deeper bass and more volume. Either machine does a remarkable job of non-electric playback.

You might also find this of interest:

Orthophonic vs. Edisonic - A Comparison -- http://www.shellac.org/wams/wpete08.html

It could be argued that the Edisonic horn is inherently air-tight, since it's basically a pivoting one-piece unit, while the Orthophonic horn relies on sealants in the joints, etc. Still, I agree that (a carefully restored) Orthophonic Credenza pumps out substantially more bass--based on what I've listened to--and unlike the Edisonic's horn, the Orthophonic tone chamber is not only longer, but exponential in design.

It would be interesting to hear a side by side comparison--to test the horns--playing the same record, and using the same Orthophonic sound box on both the Credenza and Edisonic. In the case of the Edisonic, the sound box would have to be attached to a tapered style after-market addaptor-tonearm.

Joe

This is like putting the usual two chickens in the arena and placing your bets. Some folks never get tired of seeing it--me included.

Many of you know I'm a big Edisonic fan. I have my Schubert Edisonic sitting right next to my orthophonic Victrola 8-4. They have definitely different sound configurations--so it depends on what you prefer. The Edisonic has a mellower sound with less likelihood of distortion. The VV 8-4 is sharper and brighter; one gets more detail and greater volume. I play both equally; I've grown very fond of the Edisonic sound. But considered overall, there's no denying that the orthophonic Victrolas top the Edisonics easily.

The next chicken fight we should stage would be between the Edisonics and the Edison Chippendales. I know Larry H. is itching to have that one; he's been feeding his animal (Chippendale side) fortified corn and has sharpened its nails. But my Edisonic bird will fight smart.

Ralph

P.S. Hope the PETA people don't object to the imagery involved here.

And now, as of just last month and about 15 years after I wrote that comparison piece for Gus, I finally do have an Edisonic standing right next to a Credenza. I will cobble up a lateral adaptor to accept an ortho reproducer and do some a/b tests, and post the results on YouTube. Prediction: credenza will be dominant on the low end, but Edisonic may have a bit more highs because of the metal horn being more reflective than wood on the high end. (Maybe I need to also roll in an 8-9?)

But I think the real test would be to play an electrical diamond disc on both machines. I think there's more music on them thick records from the light bulb guy. But there's no real way to use an Edisonic reproducer on a credenza. I have a couple of vertical adaptors and will play around in that direction, but no promises as to results.

P.S. Re-reading that thing, after all these years, was fun. I think it dates to late in the last century, an eternity in internet years! Poor Bob Waltrip has passed away now - he's down in hell, getting hammered nightly with Bix - but his reproducers sing on.

Peter, my fellow Edisonic devotee. Way to spend the morning of the 4th: on the TMF. At least we're not in the back yard, putting our digits at risk while practicing tonight's neighborhood fireworks.

We await the results of your comparison. As you yourself state, though, the comparison is limited by the fact that one can't get an Edisonic reproducer on a Victrola without difficult modifications; and all the lateral adapters (to place on Edison DD machines) I have ever found have been really disappointing.

You've made quite a claim for the electric Edison discs. As soon as their butlers awake some of our top orthophonic guys on this forum, you'll no doubt hear from them.

Peter,

Very interesting report, I had never seen that myself. I think in the long run we do agree that the sound produced by edison, wether on a edisonic horn or 250 model produces a realism of tone that the victor does not. Especially as you have mentioned at a farther listening distance.. I had my two machines in a smallish but vibrant living room with an open arched dining room between it an the kitchen. When hearing the music from that distance I was most impressed that the edison sounded much more real and a lot less "canned" than the orthophonic credenza . I am not sure what the factors would be that create the effects that the credenza when heard up close obviously have a larger sound but somehow it looses it when heard at the distance. I just wish Edison had produced the latter machine with a improved larger horn rather than reverting to a horn even smaller than the london. One can only surmise how much more would have been captured by doing so.

Larry

I have a Credenza and an Edisonic Schubert in the same room. Under the right conditions, both sound wonderful. I think the Victor does have more bass. But if it's LOUD you're looking for, the Pathé Diffusor in my "avatar" photo has everything else in my experience beat.

Incidentally, there's one more issue to consider: Edisonic with the standard diamond disc reproducer, or with the Edisonic one? I'm not sure but that the former actually sounds better, albeit with lower overall output.

And just to mess with our heads even further, I have an Edisonic reproducer with an aluminum diaphragm, made up by that selfsame merry prankster Bob Waltrip. It sounds extraordinarily good.