The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Recently one of our members asked our opinion for the "best" table model Diamond Disc. What does "best" mean to you? Jerry

Better than the rest.

Always find it amusing when discussions center on which Victor, (pre-orthophonic), sounds the best, or, which Edison sounds best, etc. Within those brands, they all used the same basic reproducer. They all sound about the same. I know there were different horns etc., but still...

As a Phonograph collector (as we all are).....why is there a "best"..??. They are are "best". Isn't that why we collect them... .

yes indeed the reproducers are all the same, but horns can make lots of difference, so I think this is what most people use to differentiate. But it's also lots of fun to do comparison testing with different variations, like:

- same record, same phono, different reproducers
- same record, same reproducer, different phonos
- same record, different competing/similar type phonos
- same record, same phono, different horns

It's especially fun, if you have the luxury of having several available, to comparison test orthophonic reproducers as in the first example above.

Jerry B. wrote:Recently one of our members asked our opinion for the "best" table model Diamond Disc. What does "best" mean to you? Jerry

It depends what you want the machine for. To me, "best" could mean something that *plays* the best. That's one reason to own a machine, to play records. A strong dependable motor, a large horn, a tuned up reproducer. I think a B-19 is a better choice than a B-80 for *playing* records.

If you just want to display a machine, for the sake of rarity, history or visual aesthetics, then it does not necessarily have to play the best.

"Best" for me means best-sounding, and then best condition is secondary to that. My VV 8-12 is the "best" machine I have for electric records, hands down. But I find that with acoustic 78s, my VV 240 is the best, because the VV 8-12 tends to muffle the quiet records. The WMC-33 is my best machine for Diamond Discs, although I use my C-150 more because it's upstairs.

Rarity means nothing to me. I have no interest in an early Berliner, for instance; they sound bad and eat up records. I get the rarity and age, but personally, I have no need of one.

If your using it from the perspective of "Best" Sound production, then there are variations for sure. I love a mechanical machine for the wonder of what it can do. But there is a very wide range from poor to best when it comes to the ability of them to produce listenable music. I know that many collectors base their collection on rarity and quantity and many aren't exactly connoisseurs of sound. So I run into quite a few collectors for whom the machine is the thing, the fact it plays a record seems secondary. On the other hand I have always sought out machines to experience how well they could reproduce the music from the record. With that in mind there are still "Best" of differing types of machines. Some portables have mediocre sound while another may truly surprise you at its abilities. Same for almost all the variations of machines and brands. Over a life time of listening I would have to say of the acoustic machines the Edison with a large horn produces the most detail and range. When you get to the electrical recording era than all bets are off as some can easily overwhelm the edison with sound but not exactly in the realism of tone as heard from a distance. The larger late reproducers of mica seem to also have an advantage to produce a wider sound than previous smaller ones. Its an interesting hobby an trying out a new machine was always a treat to me. The cost of that machine has never meant much for myself, most of my machines were found as fixer uppers but even that has a lot of joy in it when the project is done.

Larry

I think "best" by itself is hard to answer. It always needs some kind of qualifier, like best sound, best looking, best collector value, best reliability, best quality, etc. In that previous thread the author wrote in his second sentence "best for collecting". For me "best" means what I like best, and that can be a combination of some or all of the above, or just something I find interesting or quirky. So I find early not yet perfect machines much more interesting from a historical perspective than the smooth machines of the twenties. I love those machines where they clearly haven't it all figured out yet. A DD A-80 with a belt drive that you have to crank 50 times to play one side, a desktop VV-X with the motor obstructing part of the internal horn, an early front mount where the needle has to move all the mass of the horn, a lyre Puck that starts skating as soon as it is minimally out of level, these are machines that I like "best"

Andreas

Good point, comrade. So much depends upon perspective and one's interests.

In my own case, I'm lucky enough to have enough space and spousal tolerance to allow redundant function in different form factors within the collection. All my machines work correctly, but some really have more of a display role in the collection. So for example I have an early branded-case Gem with its sad little Gem reproducer, and a very nice Triumph E with an oak cygnet...both are "best" at what they are, but only one of them also gets a lot of playing time. Same with the cute little Victor R vs the speartip-equipped Monarch Sr vs the big Credenza (and, of course, the Stalinotrope).

Historically my experience has been there are machine collectors, who collect the machines for their own sake and seldom listen to them other than as a demo, and music collectors, who usually don't want to risk impact on their records by playing them on original equipment. Others of us fall in between.

So if you have no interest in the rare/unique artifact aspect, "best" is a whole different term in the context of listening, for sure.

I asked "Google" and here is the answer:
http://www.oldies.com/product-view/5186 ... oCJinw_wcB