|
Post by larryh on Dec 12, 2009 20:46:59 GMT -5
I am going to have to admit I have become stuck once again. After a few good tries and being rather confident of the last design, I have spent two weeks off and on trying to get some I am satisfied enough to send several of you. However I am not hearing what I want. Yes I hear some fine sound in 85" of the places, but those other 15% have me stuck. It was Franks recordings of the piano that got me to listening yet again and finding some things I either didn't hear or were not in the first few somehow. I still have one of the best ones in my Edisonic head and use it to compare the newer ones. It does somehow manage to outplay the latter attempts and I am stumped as to why. I have tried variations in the linkage going back to my original wire design instead of the hook eye version with a sort of better effect in some parts, but still that darn noise in the diaphragms I am not pleased with. I hope I can figure it out somewhere along the line, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Dec 12, 2009 21:09:30 GMT -5
Don Quixote, did you ever consider you were tilting at windmills? I have to say I am perfectly satisfied with your type 2 diaphragm in one of my Edisonics.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 12, 2009 21:29:43 GMT -5
Hi Bill,
Well I did go back the past few weeks and put in the type I sent you and frankly I was very happy with it overall. I think what one hears in these is somewhat subjective. From my perspective the newer cardboard/foam model has a wider range and fuller volume. Thus the reason for pursuing it. I will admit that the vinyl one was something that became quite reliable in construction and rarely did I put one together that was unsatisfactory overall. Remember the goal for me is the best sound I can produce with my limitations. I know that most everyone that has the vinyl one is still using it and is pretty satisfied. But it had some flaws as have all my tries and I keep hoping one day to stumble into something that eliminates those. I feel rather foolish when I get into the situation I am in now where I have proclaimed a better product and now I can't replicate it very well. I am pleased that your happy with yours of course.
|
|
|
Post by bostonmike1 on Dec 12, 2009 21:30:26 GMT -5
Great reply Bill--one of my all time favorite books when I read it as a youngster. Larry, remember the law of "diminishing returns".Maybe the perfection you seek cannot be achieved , but if it can my money is on you. Just stop before your sanity slips away or else you will be communicating with all of us from your own private "rubber room".Happy holidays and the best to you and your family. Michael
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 16, 2009 8:15:26 GMT -5
Throughly frustrated I put back in one of my original edison diaphragms. First thing I noticed was the lack of sound in comparison to mine. Then as the piece progressed every place that failed with my diaphragms failed with the edison! This makes deciding what is going on very difficult. Its something I have run into with Edisons over all the years I owned one and one of the reasons I parted with they way back in the 60's. Somehow with Victors or other standard records and reproducers, once you get a diaphragm set right you can pretty well depend on any problems you hear being the fault of the record and I always used that standard for deciding if a record was worth keeping. But with Edison somehow the faults are so obvious it always seems like the diaphragm is causing it. I admit no doubt some of it is from that source, but invariably what I really hear in mine is a more pronounced amplification of the problems that exist on the record and also heard by the original in many cases. I must have gone though 30 variations of construction here just to try and find what is perhaps unfixable? Edison records are also quite deceiving as many will appear pretty good but respond poorly when played. That is really no different that the other brands but somehow more difficult to accept. I do think there are original diaphragms that will do better than what I am hearing at present from mine, but its odd that they fail ( or not) in the much the same way.
|
|
|
Post by timland on Dec 16, 2009 12:36:39 GMT -5
Larry, Have you considered making one out of rice paper and shellac just like the originals?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 16, 2009 15:52:06 GMT -5
Hi Tim,
Way back I tired to shellack layers of some artist type thin papers, but didn't have rice paper. The ability to have things adhere tightly and in a thin sheet I believe took some fancy pressure equipment which I don't have. After the shellacked thin cardboard versions I originally sent you I ended up at the point of the vinyl try which in hind site did pretty well. I really need to keep exploring avenues of materials in hopes of finding something. One of these days I am going to try the carbon fiber, or what ever it is that has been suggested here by people off and on. I just don't get around to getting it. Somehow I keep thinking I am going to hit on the answer to why most of these last ones don't live up to way the first couple worked. There has to be a reason? Thats where I am still stuck at the moment. I know I promised you another as well as several others, but once I got to the point of judging some faults I was hearing as being unacceptable I got discouraged even tough I am still trying. That where the comments ended up here about the same problems showing with the original which makes me ever more confused. I used to always feel that if one type of music played very well then it should represent the ability of the diaphragm overall on that kind of pieces. But when I hear some of the same kind that don't respond as well I get lost as to the cause, or the records.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 18, 2009 7:14:43 GMT -5
I was going to attempt to get some reasonably well playing versions out of the cardboard/foam diaphragms and then quit for a while as I am hitting a seemingly brick wall. ( an still am to some degree). But last night I made a test that was rather interesting. After three or four different diaphragms all of which had issues on louder pieces I wondered what would happen if they were placed into the Edisonic head which I have been using my "best" one in. That was somewhat revealing although the actual meaning is a bit elusive. At any rate, when the offending diaphragm was placed in the Edisonic head, the problem was greatly reduced. It brings to mind again that statement in Frows book about Edison designing the Dance or Edisonic partly to handle the volumes of the records made latter. I am no scientist but it seems that the issue may be that these newer ones are rather loud. When I played an original yesterday it was markedly quiet in comparison and lacked much of the punch I get. So perhaps the issue is that the older style lighter weights aren't able to track the vibrations after a certain point, or maybe that is why they seem more pronounced. I also recall that Edison mentions in the Repair Mans Handbook that if a machine isn't running quite the right speed it can effect the reproducer by over taxing the diaphragm causing problems. And still guessing here, maybe that is why edisons with the "floating" stylus are more apt to odd effects than a set stylus like a victor?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 20, 2009 23:03:04 GMT -5
Never hurts to have a bit of good news for a change.. Oddly I had made every kind of change I could think of but somehow overlooked the small round vinyl piece I was using for a cap to hold the screw for the linkage. Today I cut one down by about half its original size an to my surprise it cut back considerably on the issues I was hearing. I can still find some, but I would say its cut them by half at least and maybe more. Thats pretty encouraging for a change. Best part was when I removed the larger ones from existing tries they worked better. All the times I have remade the same basic parts thinking it was the issue when this other piece was a major contributor to the problem! Now I hope in short order to be able to get out the few promised versions of the new design pretty quickly. Does seem like I keep raising the bar though.
At first I thought I would be wise to revert to sending out the vinyl one as I had some material to make them from yet, and they had proven pretty popular as well as easy to make once I understood what it needed. But when I try to play them against this one they have let me down with too much noise and a more shallow sound, although rather loud. Its probably got a place for some kinds of music, but when the new one works right, its better without a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 22, 2009 10:00:49 GMT -5
Finally a couple days of complete satisfaction in what I have been attempting here for so long. I was able to produce four very good sounding diaphragms yesterday and one last night that I have placed in my Edisonic which did have my best one so far in it.
If you have followed much of this very long saga, you know I am pretty picky about what I hear. Well, I have to say that I have never been so happy with the results as now!!!!!!
I have sat inthralled listening to various kinds of music. The tonal quality and clarity are I think as much as I could hope for. I was even able to play though some pretty tough opera type records with very minor issues, so much less as to almost not count compared to where they were in the other versions. I hope the few I have sent out will have the same effect but each is different and I did stumble on to finding that while everything else was doing beautifully for the most part, an organ recording created some break up on high notes. I was able to work that out of mine here, and it may be a fluke with it, or it may be I needed a bit more work on all of them. Funny I didn't test organ pieces which I usually do, but considering how it was responding to pop and piano and vocals I just took for granted the organ would fall in place, it didn't. But I have it corrected in my version here, hopefully the ones that went out won't display that fault?
So for a change I can feel pretty satisfied with how its all going. I can think of a couple improvements I need to make, like that darn floss linkage which can stretch over time or come undone, even with multiple knots to try and prevent it. I put a drop of duco cement on the knots on the ones that went out hoping to prevent their eventual coming undone. The one good factor in them is that if necessary your able to change it yourself with a bit of trial and error at getting the length you need. But a permanent replacement would be nice. I just haven't found anything that transmits the sound to the diaphragm as well.
Is it perfect. No. Is it really good, Yes. that is probably the the most I can hope for. I think it will play rings around other new models and many originals. That was the goal.
As I have some time here I will make up some to send to those who have been kind enough to report from time to time on the vinyl ones that they still have in use. I am pretty sure they will be able to hear the difference as well. I am still open to a few more of you readers who may be interested, I don't think this will disappoint. And at the moment you can't beat the "no" price. It just may take a while to get something out, I always listen to be sure of what a item does on many kinds of records before turning it out. Thats why I am still puzzled at how I ended up sending out ones that preformed so poorly as franks on that confrey record.. I think this will do better. But in hind site if it hadn't been for that I wouldn't be hearing what I am now either.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Dec 22, 2009 18:36:16 GMT -5
Larry,
What did you change to get a better sound in regards to your earlier efforts?
Bill
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 22, 2009 19:15:53 GMT -5
Bill,
While the vinyl one has many aspects such as pretty fair clarity, it always had the problem of a noticeable distortion under quick changes of sound in both vocals, piano and dance things. Plus though I agree its impressive compared to some other things, it lacked a warmth that original diaphragms had. It also was thicker by far than the originals which some believed helped lead to the issues I described.
When I finally gave up on it and decided to attempt a new try, it occurred to me that both the plain old cardboard versions several people created had a degree of ability to play some things in a reasonable way. But never had the depth or presence the records have, and all had their share of distortion. The other major player and well known diaphragm creator was Waltrip who used foam materials to make his most popular one. It too was good but with limitations. So the idea came on me one day to try to make a combination of the two types of material along with my unique way of transmitting the sound to the material, thus the new idea took hold. I knew right away that the prospects were good when I heard it play faults and all. Now when I put in the vinyl model for a comparison it sounds more shallow due to the lack of lower response I would guess. It had less overall noticeable flaws from the start, but I never could get them down to where they are now.
As my story goes I struggled today and for some reason the ones I tried to make just seemed to balk at coming up to what I wanted. Part of it is every time I get something better, eventually I start to pick it apart and expect even more. But at least now I know what I can do and with some work I think I will get it easier to recreate. Unless a person had a way to make all parts exactly the same every time you end up with slight variations in sound, but that is part of the fun of hearing a new one.
If I have good luck at producing a number of them soon I will send you one to try in your Edisonic head for your own comparison. But I do know that we don't all hear the music or the machines the same way, and that makes comparisons a bit in the ear of the owner.
|
|
|
Post by bostonmike1 on Dec 22, 2009 23:29:14 GMT -5
Larry- Most of the time (o.k. always) I never have a clue "what the hell you are talking about"---but it is my pleasure to see someone with your passion and continued effort to follow a goal. I have read all of your posts and the suggestions submitted which just reinforces how much I do not know in this area. I will never achieve your level of expertise, but you are teacing this dummy day by day. Congratulations on your progress and success!!Michael
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 22, 2009 23:52:34 GMT -5
Hey Mike,
Thanks for at least letting me know someone is alive out there.. In a nut shell I am saying it sounds better than anything I have done to date!
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 23, 2009 9:13:11 GMT -5
I am back to some old findings. The diaphragm I was testing yesterday was very loud, well too loud. I tired shaving off some of the foam and it made some difference, but not much. Finally It occurred to me that in the early vinyl versions were very sensitive to how far the screw eye was turned in. The farther in the louder they got. Too loud also at times. So after a few tries at redoing the way the floss linkage was connected I turned the screw back out a few turns. Sure enough the volume was noticeably lower, maybe too low. I tinkered till I got it about mid way and am testing to see how it drives the sound now. What I am finding is both good and bad. The volume is probably more where it belongs. Although I am hearing some slight distortions I don't believe I was noticing before, it may have been the volume covering them up? And the big question is this. Now that the volume overall level is lower, some of that added expression seems lacking. My guess is that its like turning on a record and thinking it sounds too low, so you crank up the volume setting only to find it blasting the speakers when it gets louder. Yes your going to hear little things from the lower passages you don't normally hear that way because you have it extra amplified. But the record won't handle the loud parts without breaking up and over driving the sound.
So as I have found before, some compromise is necessary to get a overall balance. Figuring out how to achieve that is something thats evidently trial and error.
|
|