The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Happy Holidays all,

I have been still trudging along in my post over on the Edison Site about my attempts to find out how to get more sound out of a new diaphragm. Actually things have progressed markedly the past six months with a sort of break though last week.. It brought me to the point of good volume and wide sound with a surprising amount of bass. Mind you these are professional looking beauties, just roughly crafted tries, but they are made for sound rather than looks..

A bit of background on my point here. I have an Edisonic head I use and usually juggle what I feel is the best of the diaphragms over to it. I did that recently when I came up with a bit of a cure for some very persistent issues with a buzz in the sound. I took from my standard head what I felt was a nice sounding one and placed it in the Edisonic. I then set about working on some more to see if I could accomplish the approximate same effect. As I was trying various new ones I put on the Edisonic for comparison. It somehow sounded a bit shallower and more treble than I recalled but I figured the newer one just had a bit more bass. Something I wanted. Today I came up with one that had some pretty incredible bass response but on a really late classical piece it proceeded to over vibrate towards the end. Knowing that the Edisonic was for that very purpose I switched the diaphragm to it. To my surprise I got a similar finding.. the volume actually seemed lessened to a degree and the sound was not as low as previously heard in the standard head! Thats twice now that I got something like that to happen.

I recall the discussion here recently about the Edisonic if was indeed louder or not and at the time I contended (and it still seems like) it should be louder and was. But after this Bogantz may have had a point that it doesn't increase the volume, just stabilizes the stylus perhaps? Just something to think about?

I believe you are right about the spring loading of the stylus coupled with the heavier floating weight being an attempt to stabilize the stylus tracking on the louder and lower vibrations in the electrically recorded Edison discs. I have one of these, but it's a basket case I picked up cheap in
Lawton, Okla. about 15 years ago. I hope to get it restored one of these days---the stylus seems OK, but the diaphragm, gaskets and flat spring supporting the weight need replacement.
So far, with good gaskets, the standard Edison reproducer works fairly well with the electrical discs I have [certainly not a definitive conclusion].

Well, I just got done rebuilding my first Edisonic and Standard reproducers. I was able to salvage the original diaphragms and replaced the gaskets in both. The Edisonic had paper and cork gaskets and the Standard had paper and a black rubber gaskets. The rubber just desintegrated as I took it out. To make a long story short, I followed some of the suggestions that I read on these boards. That being to tighen the ring until I could no longer gently blow air through the reproducer, them tighten 20 degrees beyond that.

The Edisonic knocked my socks off. It was very loud and had a clear base. I tried it on an electric recording, one of my late 51000s and an early etched label.
The Standard was much improved, however, I thought it was still too tight on the treble, so I loosened up the ring back the 20-25 degrees, an achieved an optimal sound. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on this by far, but I've always have had supersonic hearing. Everybody is different and have different likes. But I am trying to figure why someone would prefer the Standard reproducer over the Edisonic on most any recording. The only advantage I can see, and it makes total sense, is if one has a small room to which their phonograph is in. I am very happy with both performances, but the wider range on the base from the Edisonic give a much warmer sound. I've also read the post on the loudness debate. Call me crazy, but it sound louder to me. Maybe its just the wider range, but as my kids say, "it's beast"!

P.S. If anyone can give me a tip on an easy way to reattach the eye on the thread on the hook of the stylus, I'm all ears. My kids were cracking up looking at me with a flashlight strapped to my head lying on my back with a sewing stich puller trying to reattach that loop. I got it, but it took quite a while.

Generally I agree that the Edisonic seems to be louder and normally clearer in sound. I just found that in the diaphragm that I was working on didn't seem to perform much different, except in tracking than the standard head. There is one factor here though and that is that those diaphragms I have been working on are rather loud, perhaps too loud, thus boosting the sound so that the difference in the two heads is not as obvious. I know when I was using an edison diaphragm I did feel that as you the edisonic was noticeably louder.

As to to getting the little metal ring over the stylus bar hook, I tend to take a very small, (tiny), type screw driver and with the reproducer on its back, I pry that stylus hook open a little farther than one finds it. That way the eye is able to go over the hook a bit easier. Some links have a noticeably smaller ring on the end than another, don't know why. Those can be hard to reattach and takes quite a bit of fiddling to get them to go over the stylus hook. I use a toothpick to maneuver the link up near the stylus hook and then I try to press it though the hook and then I take my little screw driver and sort of nudge it downward till it slips into place. Its not easy either way. I do this also with the reproducer upside down on a towel on the table. One thing about creating new diaphragms using loops instead of that ring is the ease with which you can switch them in and out for testing or repairs.

larryh,

Thanks for the tip on reconnecting the eye. I have read your posts on building a better diaphragm. I appreciate your desire for quality. If you ever think you are "there" with a design, I would love to try one out, just to see if I'm missing something. I think I am going to look for another standard reproducer just to play around with.

Thanks again,
Chris