The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I have always wondered which one of the machines did Edison favor the most? The Amberola or Edison Diamond Disc?

I have seen photos of him leaning over the Diamond Disc machine.

Who knows for sure? It's my opinion that because of his undying support of cylinder records and machines, that he always favored them.

After all the company was still advertising and selling them into the late twenties, long after the technology was abandoned by other competitors.

Fran

I agree with Fran. The cylinder continued to be used later with office machines.

Interesting question. I think Edison's attitudes on disc vs. cylinder changed over time. I've read that he initially was favorable to cylinder as there's no loss of fidelity across the length of a directly-recorded cylinder; whereas there is on a disc as the grooves approach the center.

But there's no denying the fact that in 1914 he decided to abandon direct-recording sessions for the cylinders and instead only directly record on Diamond Discs; thereafter the cylinders were dubbed from the discs. I've read somewhere (can't remember the citation) where after 1914 Edison annotated some document with the statement "Not good for disc; good enough for cylinder"; that is, he elected not to produce for market a particular recording via disc, but rather dub the disc master onto a cylinder. Some people take that to mean that by 1914 he clearly was on the disc bandwagon and the cylinder operation was kept going just so as not to tick off long-time customers who had his older machines.

For myself, I think the directly-recorded cylinders were better than the Diamond Discs. My Triumph cylinder player is now working well and I spend most of my time listening to cylinders these days.

I have an Opera cylinder machine and a Beethoven Edisonic machine and have an excellent collection of Diamond Discs made from 1925 to 1929. I prefer the Diamond Discs to the Blue Amberols not only because the music is better in the late 20s as compared to the 'teens, but because the sound of a good Diamond Disc from the late 20s easily beats the sound of a cylinder. I know there are those who might disagree, but they might have the earlier or just worn DDs.

I couldn't point to specific sources without doing a bit of research, but my abiding impression based on past reading is that Edison came to disc recording rather late and begrudgingly because the market place required it, not because he wanted to, and that cylinder technology was always first in his heart. In general he seems to have suffered from "not invented here" syndrome--late to discs, late to electric recording, late to adopt to changing public tastes in music, etc.

Clay

FloridaClay wrote:I couldn't point to specific sources without doing a bit of research, but my abiding impression based on past reading is that Edison came to disc recording rather late and begrudgingly because the market place required it, not because he wanted to, and that cylinder technology was always first in his heart. In general he seems to have suffered from "not invented here" syndrome--late to discs, late to electric recording, late to adopt to public tastes in music, etc.

Clay

No doubt. I think you hit the nail right on the head, Clay.

Fran

FloridaClay wrote:I couldn't point to specific sources without doing a bit of research, but my abiding impression based on past reading is that Edison came to disc recording rather late and begrudgingly because the market place required it, not because he wanted to, and that cylinder technology was always first in his heart. In general he seems to have suffered from "not invented here" syndrome--late to discs, late to electric recording, late to adopt to changing public tastes in music, etc.

Clay

But Edisons original patents DID include disc recording and playback, but hill and dale technique, just as he developed later. The material that made the disc possible was the invention of "condensite".

Phototone wrote:

FloridaClay wrote:I couldn't point to specific sources without doing a bit of research, but my abiding impression based on past reading is that Edison came to disc recording rather late and begrudgingly because the market place required it, not because he wanted to, and that cylinder technology was always first in his heart. In general he seems to have suffered from "not invented here" syndrome--late to discs, late to electric recording, late to adopt to changing public tastes in music, etc.

Clay

But Edisons original patents DID include disc recording and playback, but hill and dale technique, just as he developed later. The material that made the disc possible was the invention of "condensite".

Unfortunately, his patent for the earliest disc version of phonograph was not upheld in the US.

It's my understanding that it was applied for in Europe, and this prevented him from developing the disc technology here, until he was able to develop the Diamond Disc machine and records much, much later.

Fran

There is an excellent discussion of Edison's early experimentation with a disc phonograph in Frow's The Edison Disc Phonographs and the Diamond Disc. Chapter 1 is devoted to that topic.

Edison's attention was diverted to other things and the early work on the phonograph was set aside for several years until 1887. Frow reports that "[t]here seems little doubt that when he returned to the phonograph in 1887 . . . Edison's mind was now set on a cylinder machine."

Apparently, the early disc phonograph work was just a passing fancy until years later.

Clay