|
Post by larryh on Apr 30, 2009 23:22:06 GMT -5
Have to share this bit of new information. Having tried the "cardboard" we have derided as not doing very well on its own, I have also found that it has good qualities. Yes it has its flaws in my opinion, and that is partly what started this quest for something a bit better. But after exhausting many types of combinations with shellacked paper as well as the latter vinyl diaphragm I decided to see what might happen if I combined the two products that had some sense of success in many peoples minds. I was fortunate to get a good Waltrip diaphragm from Steven at one point and have long considered giving the material he used for one of his styles a try as combined with a similar cardboard and a few of the other unorthodox things I make mine up from. Well the results on the first try are interesting. It seems to overcome the two issues that the others alone suffer, one too soft and mushy, the other tending to distort alot. Combined I think on a first evening of listing it seems to have a clarity and yet better volume than the waltrip alone. I have for the first time heard opera singers that always caused buzzing and likewise some pop pieces for the first time nearly buzz free. Not perfect still, but noticeably better than with the other. At this stage it is probably not as loud as the vinyl one and has a tad less depth than an original or perhaps the vinyl, which was quite adept at producing fairly wide ranging bright sounds, all be it with some flaws along the way. I haven't given the vinyl and foam combination a try, that might be of interest, but I am pretty sure the buzz is inherent in the material when this combination seems to have over come most of that. Time will tell. If I find that it is indeed superior to the last series I will update this post. This trial was a fluke anyway, it was rainy and dull and I wanted to clean up some things sitting around in the house today. The materials had been sitting for several months so I decided to give it a try, so far I am pretty glad I did.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on May 5, 2009 19:09:52 GMT -5
This latest try is still out preforming anything else in Clarity. It has hot tunes down pat with as close to undistorted sound as I have heard from anything made the last few years anyway. Even some opera singers I had given up on the records are almost without distortion, but not 100%. It still is a lower volume and lacks a width of range that some of my other tries had, but were never able to navigate the music like this one does. It may be a trade off. I know how much everyone loves "loud". Waltrip never went for loud and his things are highly regarded so it must not be every sole that is only looking for that?
I am still on the first one I put together of this type. So its possible that something may yet be possible with it to obtain more volume and sound.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on May 7, 2009 15:32:37 GMT -5
Weird thing these diaphragms. That first try at this new combined idea worked and still works pretty well. But I have tried at least five more combinations of the same basic idea and although I did attain wider sound and tone again, they are plagued with a fuzzy quality in places the other one never shows! I can see now why Waltrip was said to throw away most of the tries he made as unsuccessful. Unless you can absolutely control each piece, glue, and linkage it seems that variation is likely. The irritating thing is the fuzzy sound of course. Getting burnt out again on having the kitchen table full of pieces.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jun 21, 2009 10:50:07 GMT -5
I guess its time to chime in here yet again. The cardboard with foam combination is certainly at times a very fine sound. But still plagued with a buzz in places. I have taken advice that Sean gave about tying just the Silicone for the attachment of the little screw I am using for the link. My results at least on this cardboard version were not as good as when I stayed with my little vinyl cap piece I use to thread the screw into. It gives more tone and volume with it than without in my testing at least. In fairness Sean was using it with the previous vinyl diaphragm so it may be that it works better for him. I also may have had a different kind of silicone that I used, mine seemed to want to stay too flexible, not holding the screw threads firmly in place.
As part of this I am carving out the foam in a similar way that Waltrip shaped his, that is very hit and miss also and I still don't understand how more or less here and there effects the sound. Hopefully I can get it a bit better yet, but that little buzz is still an elusive thing to figure out?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Aug 22, 2009 10:34:31 GMT -5
Still tinkering here with the cardboard and foam combinations. I had a interesting discovery last night I thought I would pass along. I had known that the floss has a tendency to stretch over time and I noticed my best design so far of the diaphragm had the stylus bar hanging down toward the rear too much. So I decided to try a heavy thread that I wove into a cord and attached. Well the sound was pretty lack luster at best. I went back and made yet another version of the "floss" linkage by sort of knotting it all along its length to give it more bulk and hopefully relieve some of the strain on the material. When I played it I was surprised to find that suddenly the good sounding diaphragm had become much louder and rivaled the wider range of tone that some others I had produced had, but suffer from distortion. Now this very clear one also has the added tone and volume I thought it couldn't reach, and only though a change in the linkage. I guess this should have made more sense than it did as a change in needle thickness is what gives standard reproducers more volume and desirable tone, so evidently this heavier linkage of floss can do the same. It got me to produce another version which has the same volume and tone but a nagging fuzzy quality in places, and that is when I have been stuck most of this project!
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Aug 25, 2009 18:01:49 GMT -5
Feeling a bit dumb here. Been though this before. Finally in desperation today I moved the diaphragm to a reproducer I had stopped using that had a new needle. One which I had noticed was leaving a faint line on the record run off. When I put the that head on with the new diaphragm it went though places with much less fuzzy quality than I had been hearing with the test head I was using. That head had an original needle but left no lines and to the ear seemed fairly clean sounding. But in testing various ideas with it I kept getting to that point where they all failed to perform as the one in the Edisonic head with also a new needle. (the only out of three I trusted completely). I won't say its perfect, too soon, well its not perfect I am sure, but it is better. A side finding of interest was that in switching the diaphragm I also used the rubber gaskets that previously were in it. The head I installed it in was a chrome one and it was noticeably quieter than what I recalled the other head sounding like. I decided to switch the gaskets and sure enough they were the reason for getting less sound. The one I had been using had the very slim original size gaskets which are harder to come by. The ones in the Chrome head I had purchased from a seller and were noticeably wider. That difference was enough to drop the volume and take some of the punch out of the music. I wonder how many machines are using that more common wider gasket? I would like some others that own both kinds to do a test experiment with there heads and see if similar results might be found?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Aug 28, 2009 8:45:52 GMT -5
Things are settling in with the new design. I had some correspondence with one of the old testers of the previous diaphragm who is still happy with it. It got me to bring out the old one and give it some comparisons. First thing I noticed is how quiet the surfaces are using the vinyl. I don't know what property it has that did that but it is an advantage for sure.
For my test I played a number of things finally using the In a Persian Market by the American Symphony as a comparison since it has a wide range of tones and volumes up front. Parts of it the vinyl did quite well, other places it left me feeling like in comparison to the new one I was listening from the next room at times. The large passages are wider and have more depth than the vinyl. Now I know that it may be that some will not notice those differences? But to me they are important.
I tired a slightly different more straight forward foam piece rather than the carved out method that Waltrip had used and I was trying to simulate. I wanted to see if it truly produced a richer sound or not. So far the results are inconclusive. I have the less carved version in the Edisonic Head and that might influence the sound a bit, will have to switch it around and see if the results stay the same?
I will be looking for a few people who may be interested in trying this new one to give me some feedback other than my own ears. I think that those who have access to an Edisonic head may be a good choice but regular heads are fine too. Just so long as you have some fairly new gaskets and don' t mind switching the diaphragm for the test it should be a simple matter. Remember that all and all the starting goal here was to produce better sound than what is currently available in new diaphragms. Better than and original, well that wasn't the goal, coming close might be nice.
If you think you have a little time and want to experiment, PM me.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Oct 16, 2009 7:58:36 GMT -5
Well so far no takers on my offer to supply a diaphragm for testing to those comfortable with changing out the parts.
I have played the new design all summer now and though it may have an occasional flaw in sound, it really is quite impressive with full rich sound to my ear.
I will be having time soon to try and come up with a few for testing, if anyone out there who follows this wants to try one, please let me know. I need some feedback from listeners.
|
|
|
Post by tarheeltinkerer on Oct 16, 2009 9:20:43 GMT -5
I'm happy to take you up on the offer Larry. I am bidding on a couple DD reproducers on ebay and hope to get one for for tinkering myself (thinking of some kind of electric pickup rigged into a DD reproducer).
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Oct 16, 2009 12:12:22 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. Please check your personal messages for my note.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Oct 21, 2009 17:05:12 GMT -5
I am a totally slow learner.. I have made at least 10 diaphragms trying to get one satisfactory to myself enough to send to tarheel. I tired every thing I could think of with the parts as I have been using. Still that darn elusive distortion not heard in some others I have operating.
Well, you guessed it, darn reproducer has an original needle which is inducing a fuzzy sound in the music, some places worse than others. In desperation I took it out and installed it in a reproducer I had a new needle in.. Clarity as I had expected it should be. I knew better, but that old needle seemed to preform pretty good to my ear most of the time, but not good enough for careful listening to details. A lot of things will go by if I am listening at a distance and working around the house so I guess it fooled me once again.
All I can say is if you have an original needle still and your hearing a lot of records that seem faulty, it may more than likely be your needle needs replacing. Of course I know too well that many records are also bad, and I have enough of those to fill an number of boxes as well. I think that is what kept me going so long testing in that I kept thinking maybe it was the record, even though I knew a different reproducer was playing it better. I just kept blaming it on the design and making a new one, only to get the same results.. Pretty stupid isn't it!
|
|
|
Post by tarheeltinkerer on Oct 30, 2009 16:52:23 GMT -5
Here are two vids of Larry's diaphragm in action: "O! Dem Golden Slippers," Dalhart, 52174-R "Covered Wagon Days," 51273-L Take note that I am using a Kodak EasyShare DX7630, in short, a digital camera that can take videos. This is part of the problem with the poor audio, not the diaphragm.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 1, 2009 11:56:39 GMT -5
Frank,
Thanks for putting up the videos of the Edison playing using my diaphragm. It is the first visual post of it I believe. You have done a great job. Still as usual trying to strive for improvements but there might be a limit to my abilities on that end. It has proven to play many things with improved tone and presence than the competitors, if there is such a thing, since I really haven't aggressively sold any yet. Being a perfectionist on the sound end has its disadvantages as I can always find some things about a design I don't like. But for those who's machines are somewhat lifeless at this point, I would find my work to be a great improvement at this point. Perhaps we will get a few other takers here in my tinkering experiment?
Larry
|
|
|
Post by tarheeltinkerer on Nov 1, 2009 12:11:32 GMT -5
Larry,
I have two areas I think might be worth exploring. First, the center cork portion of Edison's diaphragms is not flat, but has a slight dome to it. Making a styrofoam center with a slight concave to it might be worth pursuing. Perhaps trying neoprene instead of foam is an idea as well. The concave dome of cork/foam would mimic Edison's original, but also in a way mimic a speaker cone. It's worth tinkering with if you have the time and desire.
Secondly, have you tinkered with gasket thickness any? Maroongem repaired a broken linkage on my LC-38 reproducer, using a thicker bottom gasket. The end result, in both of our opinions, was a much louder reproducer, but yet still clear.
I'm always up to experiment should you get the urge.
Cheers, Frank
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 1, 2009 13:45:33 GMT -5
Frank,
Boy, I have tried every way of shaping that center foam in this instance and cork in the other. Yours in fact started out as one that was shaped with the taper to the center as Edison used. I have many other versions where the center is either cone shaped with a recessed center area like Waltrip used, and a some with a raised center cone and then tapered away from that. With yours I was trying to get a smoother over all response with less tendency to distort on really high frequency. I found that the center of yours worked about as well as most and in the simple shape it is. But I agree, I felt originally that the more ridged or sort of orthophonic series of shaped central area provided the best sound. When one works just right it can be somewhat wider yet in tone. But the carving by hand of that foam or any other item can be tedious and more often than not doesn't work. So I started looking at simpler rather than more elaborate designs in hopes of easier duplication of the end result. I have a couple more people to get some test units made from over the next few weeks, but when I get back into days when the leaves and outside work quit calling, I can devote more time to the project and get you a different configuration and see what you think. I am not at all opposed to trying new ideas. I just have to run the gamut of ways to get a certain set of materials to work before I move on again. In fact this set of materials when just right is the best so far, so I haven't been real motivated to change yet. I do want to try the microfiber or what ever it is that John suggest from time to time. Maybe this winter I will try to buy some.
Larry
|
|