Well, to further diversify the opinions here, and potentially confuse things even more (unintentionally); I own a nice A 100 that came with a very late, and very nice, perfect sounding gun-metal reproducer in which the combination blew away my Chippendale C 250 (with a period appropriate reproducer).
I was really impressed and wondered why this supposedly "inferior" sounding low-budget machine outperformed what was arguably the best sounding DD machine produced, so I tried this particular reproducer in another Chippendale (a
very late C 19) that I bought after the A 100, and similarly, the sound was splendid; the volume was great.
Recently I bought an Edisonic Schubert with no reproducer; I played it with a gold plated Edisonic reproducer that I had with one of my Chippendales, and it sounded beautiful, albeit much louder than the "Regular" reproducers I own (I've come to understand that the term "Regular" reproducer was used by the Edison company to differentiate the pre-Edisonic reproducers from the "New Standard" - or "Edisonic" - reproducers after their introduction to the public as an upgrade for their personal machines in May 1927).
I also own another Schubert with it's original reproducer, and it sounds pretty much the same as the gold one used with the first Schubert.
In short, I've used that "Regular" gun-metal reproducer on every DD Phono I own, and it always comes through with flying colors.
I also have a relatively early, and completely original, nickel plated reproducer with the "flange" mounted stylus bar. In comparison, it has a very noticeably
diminished volume, and - to my ears - a sort of "muffled" tone signature.
My thought is that the later gun-metal "Regular" reproducers may generally sound better than their predecessors, and in my own personal experience, also better than the "New Standard" reproducers.
Another point that needs consideration: assuming the very last "Regular" ones were still being produced in some fashion in late 1929, the latest "Regular" reproducers can be up to 17 years
younger than the earliest produced DD reproducers, and unquestionably this should influence their sound. I'm sure there was quite a lot of improvement in the manufacturing and production techniques used for the later ones.
The moral of the story? I believe that any of the four different sized horns - "100", "150", "250", and "Edisonic" (I'm excluding the A/B 60 & A/B 80 models, because I know little about them personally) -
can sound very nice, dependant completely on the reproducer
in my humble opinion.
And even then, after finding the perfect combination for you personally, the records will be the "wild-card".
Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of them all, especially when compared to my Victrola XVI.
It's good to understand that the volume output and tone quality of all Diamond Disc Phonographs is a function of
both the reproducer and the horn. Generally speaking, the larger the horn, the louder the volume, but the reproducers were in a seemingly constant state of research and improvement, so a very early reproducer on an Edisonic might not sound the best, or it could sound as good and loud as a Chippendale - or a William and Mary, for that matter.
And then, there is the topic of reportedly different weight loads used on the different reproducer iterations along with their development, dependant on their production time period.
I equate this whole thing to my modern audio systems, in that sound reproduction is only as good as "the weakest link in the chain". A great amplifier is only going to sound as good as the speakers, or as good as the stylus and cartridge combination on one's turntable...
...or those nasty mP3 files that most people don't seem to find as crappy sounding as I do.
I would be remiss if I also didn't bring up the reality of a poorly functioning mechanism, too. If the Phonograph doesn't function properly; the motor is noisy, for instance, that will also have a detrimental effect on the sound. My C 250 has an upgraded "shock-proof" 3-weight governor of the type used for the Edisonics and LP Phonographs, but because all of my other machines function perfectly, I hear NO discernible difference between them due to motor noise.
I have never heard a "Dance" reproducer, on any machine, and look forward to trying one out on all of mine to see how it fits into the "chain".
Just my $.02, you know; I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm always interested to hear of other's experiences.
Best,
Fran
