The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Hey guys.

I'm getting ready to start doing recording demibstrations for the public. I have an automatic style recorder (needs restoration), and a later one that looks like a C without a weight. I was hoping if anyone has experience recording if they may know which recorder produces a better quality recording!

Shawn Borri (Edison Phono Works) is probably your go-to guy on this one...

For demonstration I'd more certainly would go for the later one. However, it should have a weight in form of a metal tube that moves inside the shaft.

A well-adjusted earlier automatic style recorder can produce nice and clear recordings but will likely be lower in volume than the later one. On the other hand, the early recorder sounds more "brown waxish". This is partially owed to the fact, that the automatic era recorders should have a glass diaphragm, while the later ones are equipped with mica, thinner than the layered mica diaphragms on reproducers.

You can always tweak the later ones too. I have a second late recorder that I have been using with a glass diaphragm instead of the original thin mica. These recordings are less muffled. But after all, any working late recorder should do just fine for demonstration.

Either style of recorder can be made to talk up
very loudly, clearly, and crisply.

Norman is correct in that usually the tendency of
the older style automatics is toward a lower-volume
level recording. But from my experience, that's not
always necessarily so. An automatic recorder properly
handled can and will cut nice and deep and produce
loud, clear recordings.

The later style recorders which have the .002 inch thick
mica diaphragm mounted directly to the swinging weight
and with the stylus holder glued directly to the mica, those can produce some outstanding recordings when
properly put together and adjusted.

To see this in action please visit my website
http://www.richardslaboratories.com and once there
watch the video titled "Finishing Operations".

In the 2nd half of that video, there are 5 recording tests shown being recorded, then played back on
one of my freshly made blanks.

The 5 recorders used are all of the later style
using the .002" mica. Please check that out
then feel free to contact me off list at
[email protected] to discuss recorders and blanks.

Chuck Richards

It's a shame working recorders are all so dreadfully expensive...

Retro92: Recorders do not really need to be dreadfully
expensive. The way to be able to get a few of them
working and not have to spend a king's ransom to do it
is to buy up some of the typical broken hulks which show
up on ebay regularly.

These non-working recorders usually are missing the
cutting stylus and the stylus holder. Some of them may
or may not have the thin .002 inch mica diaphragm.

These hulks can be purchased at a very reasonable price.

That then provides a starting point. What one needs next
then are some cutters, stylus holders, diaphragms, gaskets, and the proper adhesives to put them together.

The gaskets and the stylus holders can be made
from scratch. The adhesives are beeswax and stratena
glue. Both are available on ebay.

That leaves cutters. Those are available too.
New ones are not cheap. About $50 each.

My point is though, that with a bit of patience,
research, and time, it is possible to slowly build
up a nice collection of perfectly working Edison
cylinder recorders, all for a bit less than a king's
ransom.

Again, anyone who ever wants help or tips about
rebuilding these, please email me off list at
[email protected] and I'll do my best to help.

Results of my rebuilt recorders can be seen
and heard at http://www.richardslaboratories.com
go there then have a look at the "Finishing Operations" video.

Rebuilding recorders is something which must be
done in order to learn how to do it. It can be
a very long and involved process and more than
anything else it takes time and patience. Anyone
who rebuilds these for other people and charges a
nominal fee to do it can never be paid properly for
their time. If someone charged properly for the time
involved, the bill for it would indeed be a very
large king's ransom! This is why I recommend for
anyone wanting to get into Edison cylinder recorders
to be willing to learn how to work on them themselves.

It's a lot of work, but so far it has been very well
worth if for me because if one really takes their time
and makes sure a recorder is adjusted properly, the
results can be very rewarding!

Chuck

Thanks for your reply Chuck, breaking down potential repairs into steps does make the process seem a little more achievable - will keep an eye out for some of those hulks you mention.

Scott

Scott,

Back in 1979 when I first started getting interested
in making recordings on an Edison cylinder machine
there was not much information to be found about
recorders. In the early 1980s I bought my first two
recorders at the Union, Illinois show. Those recorders
were in pieces, but all the parts were there.

Not having an understanding of the proper "period"
adhesives then, I put those two recorders back together
using contact cement and superglue. Those do work, but
they are not easily reversible for adjustments as the
beeswax and the stratena glue are.

Both of those recorders still work great.

The book "The Compleat Talking Machine" outlines the
general method for making the folded sheetmetal
recorder stylus holders from scratch. The method shown
in that book works, although it is not very refined.

Using that general method, then fine-tuning it quite
a bit myself, I've been able to faithfully reproduce
a few brand new folded copper sheet stylus holders
for the later Edison recorders that work every bit as
good as an original. It takes nearly all day to make
one. I've also had great results using thin aluminum
sheet cut from the side of a coke can.

The copper sheet is easier to work with, it is way
more forgiving than the brittle aluminum. The copper can
be folded, unfolded, adjusted, bent and re-bent many
times, where as the already work-hardened aluminum
snaps in two after a few go-arounds.

Some of my rebuilt recorders have the
home-made copper holders and some have the holders made from the soda-can aluminum.

Really, in my opinion when someone asks about Edison
cylinder recorders they need to get ready to start
at ground zero. Ground zero is the basic Edison
recorder hulk which is the top with the hinge, the
swinging weight, and the sliding tube which has the
little ball and socket joint which keeps it air tight.

That assembly is much like a defective automotive
starter, returned as a "core" and traded in for
a discount when a rebuilt one is purchased.
The recorder hulk is the "core" to start from.

Once you have a few of those, then you find
diaphragms, make some gaskets, make a few stylus holders,
get a few cutters, get the beeswax and the stratena
and an alcohol lamp. Then make a few of the small
beeswax working tools you'll need, out of thin sheet
metal.

It takes a bit of work. Historically it always has
taken an amount of work. Just read the old accounts
of maintaining and adjusting recorders for cylinder
machines. They always mention changing diaphragms
and they mention the stratena glue.

I hope this helps some.

Chuck

I agree with Chuck both recorders can do good work. I like the early recorders, however a well adjusted original late recorder does very well, and is louder, but as Chuck said, not always. The early recorders work best when the ambient air temperature is 85-100, however with these it is best to have a set of glass diaphragms form 5-8 one thousandths thick, for different recording situations. Mica can be used too in these but some experimentation is needed, for the sound you want. The glass diaphragms can be had on ebay,from a forum member be sure to state what sizes you want, thin are for violins, soft voices, and other low output instruments.

Shawn that's very good of you to point out that the ambient temperature is so important to making decent cylinder recordings!

Yes, temperatures up over 80 degrees are by far the best.

Upstairs in the old house where I do all of my testing
in summers the temperature often is in the high 80s
to mid 90s, and even into the 100's on rare occasions.

High 90s and into the 100s is a bit too warm.
Once it gets up there in that range then care must
be taken to not overmodulate the recording, because
the carved pits become too deep and hence too wide
and they start interfering with the ones in the
previous groove. The result is "echo-around", and when
that happens it's a sure sign the cutter is cutting too
deeply.

When that happens, the trouble can usually be solved
by just backing off slightly on the loudness of the
sounds you are sending down into the recording horn.

High 80s to mid 90s though, those are nearly
perfect temperatures for making nice loud, crisp,
very distinct sounding cylinder recordings.

I will never forget the last time I took my machine
and blanks out for a live recording session. It was
summer 2010 at Decatur, Illinois and the concert was
hosted by the Illinois 33rd Regiment civil war
reenactment marching band. The concert was originally
scheduled to be performed outside. It was a glorious
90+ degree summer day! Ideal for recording cylinders.

Well, guess what? At the last minute due to a few
storm clouds in the sky, it was decided to move the
whole works inside of a small auditorium. That building
was air-conditioned down to about 69 degrees,
(barely 70, if that...). I remember the feeling of
deep disappointment as I was carrying all of my
recording equipment into that cold, cold place.

The band concert was recorded, somewhat successfully.
But that low, low temperature is right at the very
lowest possible end of the acceptable range for
recording cylinders. The recordings came out so-so.

Ahh, what could have been,...and never was...

By the way, it never stormed that day either.

Chuck