The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I have two model M reproducers, both with the spade weight, and I'll be darned if I can get either one to play with as pure and natural sound as any of my model O reproducers.

I rebuild my own reproducers, including the two M's in question here, and have had excellent results for the last 30 plus years with all the models I've rebuilt in obtaining outstanding sound. I'm a real stickler on obtaining the finest sound possible on my phonographs and music boxes and I'm stumped on these so this is why I'm reaching out here.

And if I get into a situation that I simply cannot figure out during a rebuild I confidently rely on Steve Medved's expertise. But for me, half the fun in purchasing a virgin (ie. a factory original, never restored) reproducer is rebuilding and tuning it myself.

I have found that some Edison reproducers need to have the retainer ring (hand tightened, of course) good and tight to produce excellent sound while other Edison reproducers require the retainer ring to be hand tightened good and tight and then loosened just a tiny bit to obtain optimal sound.

Since both of my model M reproducers have the spade weight it's pretty simple to adjust the retainer ring after rebuilding...then play a cylinder...listen carefully for blasting or distortion - especially with loud passages (on an excellent condition cylinder (ie. a band cylinder))...adjust the retainer ring (tighten a little or loosen a little)...play a cylinder...listen...adjust...and so forth until I'm completely pleased with the sound. That is: plenty of volume, clarity, natural sound with no blasting or other distortion.

The 2 minute and 4 minute styli in both are original and in fine condition on both reproducers. The gaskets I used are new and from Ron Sitko. In fact, everything on both of the reproducers is in excellent condition but I'll be danged if I can get either model M to sound as pure, clear and full as my model O reproducers.

If anyone here would care to comment on the sound of their model M reproducer along with ideas on what may be contributing to the slight distortion I'm hearing on the M reproducers versus the model O's I would be most grateful.

I'm playing the exact same cylinder with my model M's as my model O's. The model M and model O reproducers are basically the same design with minor exceptions. So they should sound pretty much the same with all aspects remaining the same.

I wouldn't be as puzzled and confounded as I am if one of the M's sounded excellent but with both being rebuilt, tuned as best I can and still sounding inferior to the model O, I decided to reach out here.

If no feedback here on what I might try then I'll consider sending them off to Steve.

Thanks.

Since you are experienced in successfully rebuilding your own reproducers, and the two exceptions are both Model Ms, I'd suggest either trying the Ms on a different mechanism/horn (Opera, Amberola IA, Amberola IB, Amberola III), or examining the stanchion & horn of your test machine for a hidden obstruction.

George P.

phonogfp wrote:Since you are experienced in successfully rebuilding your own reproducers, and the two exceptions are both Model Ms, I'd suggest either trying the Ms on a different mechanism/horn (Opera, Amberola IA, Amberola IB, Amberola III), or examining the stanchion & horn of your test machine for a hidden obstruction.

George P.

George raises an excellent point. My 1A has issues with the paddle that lifts the reproducer hook because the paddle spring gets jammed. This sometimes leaves the hook in contact with the paddle while a record is playing, and inevitably this causes problems.

Hi Doug,

One theory I have about why your 2 model M reproducers
do not sound quite as nice as a model O, might be
due to both of those Ms having the reduced weight.

To make a fair comparison, and to test this theory,
it would be a telling experiment to try one of those
M reproducers with the full weight intended for it,
instead of the cut-down lighter weight.

Also, you can compare the weight on the model O to
the weights on both of your model Ms.

The reason I have for this theory is that I have done
some testing with various amounts of weight.
The reproducer I did these tests with is a modified
model C reproducer. It currently has a ball stylus
and a trunkated weight which is the same kind used
for the language course cylinders on the Amberola
machines.

That ball-stylus reproducer works ok for playing
rather quiet records, but as soon as there are any
loud sounds, this reproducer cannot track the groove
properly because the weight is light enough that it
starts to vibrate too much from the sounds.

Too much of this vibration of the weight causes
the stylus to mis-track and so what you hear coming
from the reproducer sounds blasty.

This is what I think may be going on with your 2 model
M reproducers. Try one of them using a bit more
weight. Compare weight to the O weight.

Yes, Edison did agree to take some weight off of those
model Ms for customers who complained about them
wearing out the black wax 2 minute and 4 minute records
too quickly. However, by taking some weight off,
some of the tracking gets sacrificed.

Dave High, an old friend of mine from way back
had an Amberola 1A machine with an original M reproducer
in it which had the full weight. Everything was
still original in that reproducer, and it sounded superb.

The only way to know for sure whether or not this theory
of mine has any merit, is to try both kinds of M weights
and compare the sound.

Thanks ever so much to both George and Chuck for your helpful input!

What I have tried thusfar to confirm that the issue is with the reproducers and not within the horn of my Amberola 1A is that I plugged each of the M reproducers into one of my Edison Operas and set the dial of each one to the 4 minute setting.

Then I played the same cylinder on the Opera as I had played on the Amberola 1A. The sound was still just about the same...pretty mediocre...lacking the volume and overall nice pure clean sound that I get from the Diamond model A on the Opera or the O reproducer on one of my Edison Triumphs.

So I'm fairly confident that there is no horn obstruction in the Amberola 1A although there MAY be substantial air leaks that I have yet to look for!

Chuck's suggestion that the different weights may be producing the sound difference between the M's and the O's is something I had wondered about but had dismissed due to what I felt was the relatively small difference in weight between the spade and the round weights.

However, I'm now beginning to agree with Chuck's suggestion that the spade weight versus round weight may be a contributor to the sound difference. It seems to make sense in spite of the relatively small weight difference.

There is a definite audible difference between the Diamond Disc Edisonic reproducer with its heavier weight versus the standard Diamond Disc reproducer with its normal weight. But in my mind there is a substantial difference in weights with the Edisonic versus standard.

In my mind, the change from round weight to spade weight was purely for reduced wear on wax cylinders and no audible degradation resulted...but I'm now thinking that with the good also came the bad: less cylinder groove wear but, sadly, also diminished sound.

The O reproducers I have been comparing with the M reproducers do indeed have the heavier round weights.

When I think about the Edisonic weight versus the standard weight for an Edison Diamond Disc reproducer it makes a good deal of sense that the Edisonic weight is reaching more deeply into the recorded groove and extracting more of the original signal that was carved into that groove...perhaps at the cost of increased groove wear.

The Amberola 1A has a fiber horn versus the wood horn of the Opera. So this would likely absorb the sound a bit.

All of this is beginning to make sense and I'm now thinking that I'm trying to obtain audible results that are simply not possible with the spade weight model M reproducer.

And no matter how much I adjust the retaining ring, gaskets and so forth on the model M reproducer I will never achieve the sound I'm seeking relative to the O reproducer.

Enough rambling from me... Thanks again for the input! I will continue to try improving the sound from my M's but now realize its limitations.

It seems to me that there are some variables here that could be affecting your comparison. First of all what machines and horns are you using? An Opera for the M (it will fit but you will only be able to use the four minute side) and a suitable machine equipped with a wood cygnet horn for the O is the only combination of machines I can think of that would give a fair comparison using (relatively) equal equipment. Second, you need 2 reproducers with the same type of weight, either round or trowel shaped to eliminate that variation. I assume that you are using the same cylinder for comparison.
I have several O reproducers in my collection, one of which has a truncated weight. I have not noticed any difference in sound because of the different weights and the truncated one is the one that I use most because of its lighter weight. It would be interesting to do a stylus pressure test between a model H and the various types of M and O reproducers.

I've also multiple O & M reproducers with round & trowel weight had have done quite a bit of comparison. All have been expertly rebuilt.

If optimal sound rated as "10" most of them rate around 9 or 10 with slight variation depending on type of record. But I've heard no difference between M and O. An M is just as likely to sound optimal as is an O. Also I've heard no distinguishable difference between trowel and round weight, even on the loudest records.

Playing loud 4 min blue Amberols, especially electric is done much better with a Diamond B or A.

I guess that does not help you much.

Thank you Jim and Bruce for your input. The cylinder I have been testing my model M and model O reproducers is Edison Blue Amberol "Aunt Dinah's Golden Wedding" which is an early flat ended direct recording.

This particular recording features a nice combination of rather loud speaking as well as band music. And it's in excellent condition.

The O reproducers are being played using a Triumph with wood Cygnet horn and the M reproducers are being played on the 4 minute setting on one of my Edison Operas (with mahogany horn).

The O reproducers are definitely producing better sound to my ears.

Perhaps it's due to the slightly heavier round weight versus trowel (I called it spade) weight.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that the O reproducer's output throat is directly above the diaphragm thus providing unrestricted sound into the Cygnet horn. Whereas the M reproducer output throat is angled relative to the diaphragm thereby impeding (somewhat) some of the sound produced by the diaphragm.

In any case, I will continue to fiddle around with my model M reproducers until I get as much pure, clean sound as I can from them and finally let go of this effort.

My objective was to try to get my Amberola 1A using the M reproducer to sound as nice as my Triumph with the O reproducer but it looks like it's not going to be possible.

I do realize that the M reproducer was really designed for play of the 4 minute wax Amberols and 2 minute wax cylinders but I'm a hopeless perfectionist and often reaching for something that's sometimes not possible.

In this case, I have to accept the sound limitations of the model M reproducer with the trowel weight.

SUCCESS!!!!

With a little help from my friends...

I finally figured out what the problem was with my Edison model M reproducer and I will likely make the same change to my other Edison model M reproducer.

I’m now VERY pleased with the sound and I wanted to share my story with others who may be interested in improving the sound from their M reproducers (and likely O reproducers).

I’m extremely picky about the sound from my phonographs and I always strive for perfection.

After listening to helpful suggestions from Steve Medved and others I decided several weeks ago to send a text message to my good friend, Wyatt Markus.

Wyatt has provided some very useful and innovative suggestions to my phonograph issues in the past and I figured why not ask him as well for his thoughts on the lousy sound I was experiencing with my M reproducer.

Wyatt immediately informed me that he was pretty confident that he knew EXACTLY what the issue was with my Edison model M reproducer and the likely culprit for the inferior sound I was experiencing with it.

I had first explained that I had replaced the reproducer gaskets correctly and that no matter what adjustment I made with tightening / loosening the threaded reproducer retainer ring, the sound was muddy and distorted especially on louder passages on any excellent condition cylinder.

I also informed him that the reproducer was completely original other than my replacing the gaskets. And, again, I knew that I replaced the gaskets correctly.

Wyatt informed me that this was a well known issue with the Edison model M reproducer and, presuming the styli are in excellent condition which I knew that mine were (and are), the lousy sound is likely due to the stylus bar pin allowing too much “play” in the stylus bar and that a larger gauge steel pin would surely vastly improve the lousy sound I was hearing.

The original Edison stylus bar pin appeared (to me) to be about .024 so I found a section of .025 steel wire in a local hardware store and installed it.

The sound improved very slightly but not enough for me to be completely satisfied.

So today I made a trip to visit another good friend, Ron Sitko, to purchase some phonograph parts I needed. Ron was really busy getting ready for the Union show trip but, as always, he selflessly made some time to help me.

I mentioned my problem with the model M reproducer sound and he said, “Oh, what you need is a .026 tool steel pin for that stylus bar...I may have a piece here somewhere. By the way, .027 is not available and .028 will not fit...”.

Ron was able to find a small section of .026 tool steel wire for me and I happily purchased it. He gently suggested that I NOT cut it (for length) with wire cutters but instead to hold the wire section with 2 pairs of pliers for the proper length and quickly snap it.

I arrived back home and couldn’t wait to replace my mediocre .025 pin with Ron’s .026 tool steel pin in my Edison model M reproducer...

When I was all set, I installed the reproducer on one of my Amberola 1A phonographs, wound it up, mounted Billy Murray's “Sweetheart Let’s Go A-Walking” early flat ended direct recording Blue Amberol cylinder and patiently waited with head and ears in front of the Amberola 1A for the sound....

AMAZING!!!!!!!

Clear, crisp, beautiful sound! Even on the louder passages!

Who would’ve thunk it???

A silly little stylus bar pin making that much of a difference in sound...

Doug

Congratulations for figuring the problem out. It's amazing how one one thousand of an inch can make such a difference.

Rich Gordon