The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Greetings to all.

In some of the books I have read (Gelatt, Gaisberg,etc.) it is written that Berliner's lateral etching offered a better sound than the vertical engraving used by Edison. Can you technically explain why?

Thank you.

MuseoDelDiscodEpoca wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:58 am Greetings to all.

In some of the books I have read (Gelatt, Gaisberg,etc.) it is written that Berliner's lateral etching offered a better sound than the vertical engraving used by Edison. Can you technically explain why?

Thank you.

Doubtless someone will object, but my answer would be, "No, I can't, because it didn't. Quite the contrary, in fact." Gaisberg, of course, was a lateral cut guy; naturally, he'd plump for the system he used. Gelatt? Probably read Gaisberg and just handed on the received wisdom without ever testing things out himself. (Remember, when he was writing, nothing had been built in decades to play vertical cut records.) For my own money, all things being equal, vertical is better.

Now, where did I leave that fire-retardant suit?

[edit] I see this was your first post. Welcome to the forum!

Thank you for your welcome and response. Actually in another book (I think from tin foil to stereo) I read that Edison refused to convert to the disk because he was sure of the superiority of the cylinder. It was more about the shape of the medium, though...And the problem was that of the tangential velocity, which for the cylinder, unlike the disk, was constant throughout its length.

It still remains unclear to me why the vertical cut offers a better sound than the lateral cut.

Thanks again, regards.

The difference is most marked in the acoustic recording era.

when recording a vertical cut the the diaphragm is normally connected directly by a short light holder to the stylus and the low mass allows for much better recording of high frequencies giving almost an extra octave over the response of a lateral cutter which needs to translate the movement of the diaphragm via a certain amount of lever and pivots like a gramophone sound box needle arm and needle holder adding inertia to the system.

The playback of the vertical process however has limits as the bass end tends to cause the playback stylus to leave the surface a problem that the v groove and sound box does not have.

The thought a the time ( 1900 ) was that the vertical cut was uneven in nature as it must take more energy when cutting into the wax than when moving away from it whereas the resistance to movement on the constant depth of a V groove does not have this problem.

These are not the only issues of course, and it is difficult to compare fairly, the duplicated cylinder of 1900 should be played alongside a 7 inch disc on the available machine of the time and then the gold molded cylinder with the 10 inch record of 1902 and so on.

an lateral oscillation removes the bias of gravity

recordmaker wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2023 5:39 pm The difference is most marked in the acoustic recording era.

when recording a vertical cut the the diaphragm is normally connected directly by a short light holder to the stylus and the low mass allows for much better recording of high frequencies giving almost an extra octave over the response of a lateral cutter which needs to translate the movement of the diaphragm via a certain amount of lever and pivots like a gramophone sound box needle arm and needle holder adding inertia to the system.

The playback of the vertical process however has limits as the bass end tends to cause the playback stylus to leave the surface a problem that the v groove and sound box does not have.

The thought a the time ( 1900 ) was that the vertical cut was uneven in nature as it must take more energy when cutting into the wax than when moving away from it whereas the resistance to movement on the constant depth of a V groove does not have this problem.

These are not the only issues of course, and it is difficult to compare fairly, the duplicated cylinder of 1900 should be paled with a 7 inch disc on the available machine of the time and then the gold molded cylinder with the 10 inch record of 1902 and so on.

very interesting... I have a bit clearer ideas, thank you very much

After much reading, and a biased experience, for I only collect standard 78s, but judging by what I've seen in YouTube videos, podcasts, etc... it seems that both systems have advantages and drawbacks. i think the real difference in favour of vertical recording may reside in the fact that the experience in vertical recording was older and larger, and also that Edison recordings were very good, I would say extremely good. Edison engineers were using oil damping and who knows what other gimmicks to achieve almost perfect recordings, when, at the time, the lateral system was still in its infancy.
nevertheless, for instance, thinking about Pathé vertical recordings, they were also better than lateral recordings of its time.
probably both factors apply: the maturity of the vertical system, and certain intrinsic superiority...
About technical asymmetries, both systems do have certain biases.
Maybe the only mixed system that was not tried would be the best: lateral recording on cylinders, Constant groove speed, constant friction forces, the effect of gravity, being constant, can be easily controlled...

Inigo wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:16 am ...nevertheless, for instance, thinking about Pathé vertical recordings, they were also better than lateral recordings of its time.
probably both factors apply: the maturity of the vertical system, and certain intrinsic superiority...

In my experience, much more than Edisons, Pathé records are inconsistent--sometimes they can be pretty weak. On the other hand, very often they sound 'way better than they have any right to, considering that all were dubbed from cylinder masters. They're endlessly fascinating.

I think one point in favor of vertical cut is more lifelike dynamics. With lateral cut, if a singer, say, hit too loud a high note, the cutter excursion could be too great and break thorugh to an adjacent groove, spoiling the record. In a vertical cut sesssion, that same high note would just make a deeper groove; no need for the singer to step back from the recording horn to accommodate the technical limitations of the system. Going back to Pathé discs, some of them develop astonishing, not to say ear-shattering, volume on peaks.

Yes, yes.. and I've also noticed that certain Pathé records sound incredibly good...

I suppose I should qualify what I've written so far: like any technology, vertical cut recording by itself is no guarantee of recording quality, or even of recording quality in excess of that to be had from lateral records. Much depends on the skill with which it was deployed. The best labels--especially Pathé and Edison--achieved terrific results with vertical cut recording, and I'd say their average (especially Edison's) bettered that of the lateral labels. Some of the smaller ones, like Rishell, Rex, and Lyric, didn't begin to match what the big guys were pulling off, any more than the little dime store type lateral labels could consistently match the results achieved by Victor. And all this is not to say that lateral records can't be excellent, either. For example, I've heard Italian Fonotipia records that were recorded as beautifully as anything from the acoustic era, at least anything that's reached my ears. But "lateral recording inherently sounded better than vertical"? No.