|
Post by dddave on Jun 21, 2012 14:15:12 GMT -5
Larry, I ordered one. Looking forward to checking out the sound. Thanks for all of the work. Dave Jolley
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jun 21, 2012 16:11:48 GMT -5
I tried out Larry's newest diaphragm on a Standard Reproducer as he suggested and I have to say that it has a much more pleasing sound than the original. Of course you have to pick the correct records re date of manufacture as there was a period that the surface noise was greater than the earlier and later discs. I give it 5 thumbs up!!!!
Bill
|
|
|
Post by dddave on Jun 24, 2012 19:37:17 GMT -5
I received Larry's new diaphragm and highly recommend it. It is not as loud as my previous replacement diaphragms but that is not bad. The new design sounds very balanced and has much less blasting on my louder electric discs. It sounds very natural. I've spent several hours comparing it to my Bogantz and Krapes designs and find I prefer Larry's model most of the time. Dave Jolley
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jun 28, 2012 18:41:42 GMT -5
As I started this long ago with ideas as to what might an might not work, and a lot of trial an error in the meantime, I have been thinking this week of why it is that various diaphragms work as they do.
To back up here a bit for those new to reading about this.. My earliest discoveries had a pattern of sounding pretty good at first on some records only to have it proven latter than other things simply sounded either lousy or distorted way too much. At first being happy to have at least some tone from the machine I accepted some of the troubles as being tolerable as long as the overall experience seemed fairly good. Being my own worst critic, that never lasted long an I was seeking farther ways to hear a better overall sound. I still do that.
Having now a number of the latest diaphragm out among some members here as well as on ebay I am anxious to hear from a few more, the early reports are quite favorable. I have come to realize that to coexist with other diaphragm producers you have to rely on the fact that everyone tends to judge sound, particularly of acoustic machines a bit differently. So what one may find fine, I may not, or the other way around.
That got me to thinking about how it is that each different type diaphragm has its adherents and others not so much. In fact I own most of the newer versions and have numerous times tested against them to see how I am progressing. What is interesting is that just as in my early attempts, many of the diaphragms do quite respectably at many kinds of sounds. The problem is however how do you get the kind of sound that produces something close to the records original tones and volumes an does not cause some parts to be exaggerated leading to out of balance and somewhat over vibrant sound. That was often when I ended up. I can recall some of the early post when I heard some very fine sounds from the records only to find that horns or xylophones tended to become so brittle as to sound like they were almost shattering. Same for piano pieces, some loud notes can take on a very harsh sound if the material won't reproduce it correctly.
To me then the basic issue was to find a product that could both be sensitive while remaining solid sounding an not over play parts of the music that were not recorded that way. Granted this is where I tend to loose many people. A flashy sound can be impressive but at what cost to the original sound? A recent try of another product brought out a real surprise. I found a new to me copy of a classical piece with mainly horns. I played my diaphragm and it sounded pretty much as it should with everything blending and in balance and tonally solid. I switched heads to a very good but loud product. To my total surprise that simple record became and echo chamber of sounds, totally unlike the original sound. The issue being to my mind that although the product is self is quite interesting and has some great qualities, it would not hold up over a large range of sounds. Been there done that.
I feel that Waltrip was correct in the statements I have read that if Edison were alive today he would be using foam for his diaphragm as Bob did with good results. I have expanded on that concept with some additions of design of my own and the results so far are very acceptable across the spectrum of sounds. Something my earlier ones could not accomplish.
In hearing then various diaphragms I would say that often most can do some things quite well. What people decide is important beyond that is a bit of individual taste I think.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by disillusionist on Jul 8, 2012 20:15:40 GMT -5
I too have purchased Larry's diaphragm and would like to add my recommendation as well.
Larry has done an excellent job here both in design and execution. His devotion to getting the details correct was evident the moment I received the diaphragm and started looking it over.
As other have mentioned, this is a diaphragm that's meant to be LISTENED to. I used to avoid sitting directly in front of the horn of my C-19 because of the harshness and volume. Now I find myself wanting to pull up a chair directly in front of the machine...and listen just for the sake of enjoying the music. I'm now able to pick out individual instruments where before they would be lost in the blur, and vocals are much more intelligible than they were in the past. I guess the best word to describe the sound of my machine with the new diaphragm installed is "controlled". Everything seems in balance as it should be without any one instrument overpowering the others. It can be genuinely exciting to discover how many nuances of the original performances these old records can preserve, and these machines can reproduce.
It's been said before that no replacement diaphragm can equal the sound of an original Edison. In my opinion, the True Tone has actually surpassed it! Obviously, there's no way of knowing if a brand new original sounded better. But, I feel this is a definite improvement over the sound of the aged diaphragms I've listened to. Of course, listening to music is a subjective, and personal experience, and I'm sure there will be some that disagree with my assessment, and that's ok. But, I think anyone looking for a replacement diaphragm owes it to themselves to give this one a try.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 11, 2012 14:56:29 GMT -5
A reminder wish I didn't have to make.. I am on my second set of new stylus for three heads. One of them in a testing head I noticed that when I held a record up under a lamp it seemed to have an extra lot of "fluff" looking material on the surface. At first I thought that it was just that the newer stylus was running out some dirt that the last ones hadn't. Not. It was eating my records. I tried it in the run off and at once could see it leaving a fairly nasty line.
I will grant you I play mine a lot, a whole lot in both testing and my own listening. Worse older records can have some pretty hard to spot defects that may cause a stylus to be damaged. To me somewhat quicker than I would think it should but I am told that diamonds easily shatter under the pressure exerted on them.. I get so involved with "hearing" what they are doing that I somewhat overlooked what they were doing on the surface. It wasn't till yesterday I took two different stylus with two types of diaphragms and was checking parts of a record to see how they each sounded that I started to realize that the surface was getting greyer in the places one of them was set down.. that is when I ran the rear run off test and found it to be damaging the record.
Two things here, one if the light is not good on the turntable you almost won't see that anything is going on. The other is I am going to have to force my self to have a few disposable disc of pieces in fine shape that I can run the stylus on before I start a days testing. A small chip or record blemish or scratch evidently can cause quick disaster for the new stylus and old as well. But I will say that the originals I was using would not leave any noticeable mark on the record where every new on has eventually done so.. both the ones I got a few months ago are leaving a light or worse set of lines that you can see after the machine has made a few rounds. For me a new stylus is almost imperative as I can't determine where the issues are without them. I am just resigned to the fact that a defect is going to slip by me and so I need to start that program of checking my stylus before playing my best records.
Please keep this in mind and be very cautious about the condition of the record and stylus as it can be very disheartening to see a favorite record being chewed up when viewed under a strong lamp.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 11, 2012 20:42:51 GMT -5
A follow up to the previous post.. And a worse problem. I made a test of two stylus, one brand new and not used till today with two good records, the other one I have had a few months. Both were allowed to run about a half inch into very shiny records that were basically of no interest other than testing. Both the brand new one and the one I had a few months drastically changed the look of the grooves after two or three passes of the stylus. They became a dulled and grayish tone, you can see right where the stylus was lifted off the records. Its shiny and black. This should not be happening. Its not exactly a new problem, if you have read my post I swore off new stylus after a similar issue with four others. But in order to have good clear test I gave in and purchase more. At first I thought it was all my fault, even though for the most part nothing much had happened to the stylus I could recall. But seeing the brand new one do it is not a good sign.
My only option I see is to attempt to find original stylus in good shape, which is not an easy task. You could waste a lot of money trying to do that too. But I don't know what the answer is. These records have lasted for nearly 100 years often in very nice unmarked shape. An old stylus will still run on it cleanly unless damaged in some way. A new one may cause a less clear result which is why I got rid of the three I was using, but now I sort of wish I had them back.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 15, 2012 20:14:54 GMT -5
This whole stylus problem has me somewhat depressed. I even considered just once again giving up on Edison since steel needles I can control. But when I played my fine Brunswick that sits near the Chippendale I knew that as nice as it is the sound is not anywhere near as realistic over a wide range of sounds as the Edison, so I am hopelessly stuck. I have heard from a few who have had problems, I have heard from some who had none thankfully. One of our early diaphragm buyers offered me a new stylus he got some years ago that runs without notice on the record and was barely used. I will get that somewhat against my better judgement but I just have to have something that lets me know how each diaphragm is doing for sure. The old diamond I have while not showing any obvious damage is just leaving me uneasy about the sound, not nearly so clear as the new stylus.. If only they weren't giving me problems..
This is also a lesson which I knew and has always bothered me that once a diaphragm leaves you have no idea what the conditions will be like when installed. I have no doubt that someone with a diamond from an original machine will possibly hear exactly what I now hear, its not close to the sound when the stylus are reading the grooves properly. But what do you do? Some may think its fuzzy sounding when its not, but the reproducer is doing the best it can with less than ideal circumstances.. So I am forced to use a new one and be extremely cautious about what records it plays and test it frequently to see how its doing in the run off. Any sign of lines and its though. I will still attempt to find a few originals that do sound clear, but not sure how easy that might be an way to expensive to keep trying more.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 21, 2012 19:34:13 GMT -5
I have received the older "new stylus" from one of our members and it does not reveal wear to the grooves like the others by any stretch. It will show a very light tracking on the run off but not enough to be of a bother. At least I am now able to hear what is going on. Although as I have found with this True Tone version it is rare that something is actually off by much.. some tweaking mostly of volume levels or a bit of adjustment to the material amount to obtain the best sound.
I have currently run out of the material I use to produce them and only have a couple on hand.. I have not listed any on ebay since the stylus issues came to the fore. I will probably put up one again soon.. I am getting good responses for the most part to those that went out. I should have more to work on in a few days. Wish it weren't so darn hot and I so stubborn as to not have air... Makes it a bit difficult to be enthused about anything. By far the worst of it was my not noticing the damage on my best testing records till it was too late, so now I am having to allow for some sounds that I know it otherwise would not be showing.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Aug 10, 2012 5:13:39 GMT -5
Dear Larry,
I've been reading all the positive feedback both here and on the Talking Machine Forum and I too would love to try one of your diaphragms. I've tried looking on Ebay for your "shop" but couldn't find it; although I must say I do tend to loose the will to live quite quickly when searching through pages and pages of dross on that web site. Could you please advise how I can get one of your diaphragms and how much it would cost to send it to the UK? Many thanks
Tim W-W
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Aug 10, 2012 7:17:21 GMT -5
The complete title of the listing should bring it up..
Edison Disc Phonograph "True Tone" replacement diaphragm.
I will P.M. you however as I do not have my sales set to overseas so bidding is probably not possible unless I add your ID to an unblocked list.. Which I will do.. Look for the PM on this site..
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Aug 25, 2012 19:11:34 GMT -5
Update on how the True Tone is being received. So far 17 people are owners now of the diaphragms. Four of those have now purchased a second one and two own three. That would seem to indicate that acceptance is running pretty high.. No one has wished to return theirs at this point. A couple have had mixed feelings as to which that they own they like the better, but find good qualities in each. That is somewhat where I expect it to stay..
I am finding that construction is pretty much close in results across the board which is a good thing after years of having a design seem good only to never be able to recreate it easily.
I attempted to add a photo of the diaphragm here but the site said it is twice a big as it takes, not understanding computers I guess I am stumped. I have a photo of it on the listing as well as on the Talking Machine Forum several pages or more back by now.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Oct 12, 2012 5:25:22 GMT -5
I bought one from Larry about four weeks ago and have given it a through play-throught with a variety of reproducers on my J-19 (Jacobean). The first thing to note is that it doesn't look anything like a usual reproducer. In fact, it looks very much like a lemon variety of a children's sweet we have here in the UK called a Flying Saucer but it fits snugly into the reproducer and you are ready to go within minutes. The initial hearing was a revelation, the bass felt it had real weight to it and the instruments both as an accompaniment to singers or on an orchestral record, were clearly defined whereas with previous diaphragms the detail was lost in a sort of mush. To give an example, Jaques Urlus singing The Forging Song from Siegfried on 83040 dating from 1916 - ignoring Urlus' pedestrian performance you can hear with astonishing clarity the descending figures in the trombones and tubas and at the same time the rising figures in the violins, clarinets and flutes. It makes one sit up and really "listen" closely to the record and shows up in detail Urlus' lack-luster performance. I don't have too many jazz or dance records but again with Larry's diaphragm the piano and banjo can actually be heard separately in the Louisiana Five records whereas previously it was difficult to distinguish between the two. Due partly I suspect to Karl Berger's heavy handed banjo strumming. Where I did not notice such a dramatic improvement in sound quality was at the top end of the spectrum. The high voices and instruments did not seem to jump out at you as the lower and middle registers did but this has the advantage of reducing some of the surface noise. I will readily admit that this may be due to my aging hearing. Larry did suggest to me that perhaps I try a different stylus, which I did, (one from Expert Pickups) and that has had a marginal effect giving slightly greater balance to the recordings. All in all, I am mightily impressed with Larry's diaphragm and will certainly use it when demonstrating to sceptical friends the amazing quality of Edison discs. I would recommend anyone who has an Edison disc machine to try one of these diaphragms and see if it makes a difference on their machines.
Tim W-W
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Oct 29, 2012 8:22:05 GMT -5
Two updates here.. Things have gone well with the disc True Tone Diaphragm.. My biggest issue still is the stylus issues which managed to damage many of my records to the point that a good determination of the sound is very frustrating at times. Plus the fact that Edison records vary so widely as well, one may be quite dull and the next a full and rich sound.. Not the diaphragm but the record. I also have been having some difficulties with the material varying somewhat from one batch to the next and it appears that some slight differences in manufacture will effect the sound quickly.. This is the reason I spend so much time in listening to what the diaphragms sound like rather than just making them and shipping them off. This morning I am on my third set of material searching for the one that is the best of the sound producers. I mention the records and stylus because as I have long said they make most of the difference. I have a good stylus from Dave which is working out. I have a good original type diamond being mounted by Steven which should come any day which will make life much easier than changing out every time I want a comparison sound. But still even after all this time the records can just fool you into thinking something is wrong and then you put on the record that really has rich and wide sound that is still clear and your amazed at the difference. The odd thing was that several of the records I tried to test this morning were among the ones I got that were "New old Stock".. I have found many of them to be noisy and for some reason prone to fuzzy sound.. I have a suspicion that the storage conditions may have effected some of them even if they hadn't been played. When I put on the last record I just played the sound was so much different it was gratifying..
I point this out partly because as I say in the literature I put out with each diaphragm now, that the True Tone can only reproduce what it is playing and if the stylus or the record is worn in any way you will not get optimal effect. Recently I had a buyer who wrote and said that he loved the sound but his stylus was making things sound slightly distorted though out. I have an original stylus here I tired to use for comparisons as well an was taken back by just how poorly the record sounded when I used that stylus where it had been very clear. Of course as well is the issue of records and I too am often fooled by a record that appears very nice in normal light but in looking carefully with good light the grooves are not up to par. I fear that very often the records give a poor impression.
On another note.. I will shortly be doing some experimental work on a True Tone for Cylinder Edison players.. With help from a major rebuilder in need of a suitable diaphragm for his work I am going to work out the process for providing a diaphragm that will give superior sound to what is currently available. I had made an experimental one I sent for testing as I own no cylinder machines. Something that makes work very difficult since so much of my work involves listening. Fortunately the production of a smaller but nearly identical type product produced good results without my hearing it from the reports I have received. Perhaps I can come up with a machine that I can afford that will play well so I can determine small changes for my self at some point. I can't say when these may be available, I just know that of the buyers of the disc product often a request is mentioned for the smaller diaphragms for cylinders. Hopefully in the not to distant future I can answer that I do have a product that I would recommend.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 21, 2012 10:03:15 GMT -5
Always trying and learning on my end.. I have been producing the diaphragms for a prominent rebuilder and still have them listed for ebay some of the time.
I am writing today to reaffirm something I hadn't used much in checking my records for damage.. Steven M had told me some time back the best way is to shine a flashlight on the record at an angle to check for the worn, whitish or worse brown grooves. In testing some diaphragms for shipment I kept hearing a slight noisy fuzzy sound on high parts.. Under a lamp I normally keep on the phonograph it looked reasonably well, but when I got the flash light and shined it on the surface it was instantly noticeably the wear the record had received over the years even though at a normal room lighting you would think it was just fine.. Now I won't say that some noise from the diaphragm won't happen, in fact all the knowledgeable Edison fans or restorers I know have agreed that your going to get some sounds from the diaphragm and that having the lid down is a plus. Still these whitish grooves tend to produce a similar issue only more wide spread in the sounds.. I suggest that everyone use the flashlight test to see what they are really hearing. On the cylinder diaphragms, I have made a total of 5 and two of them were used by my restorer friend.. He reports better bass and overall sound quality than he previously has been able to achieve. Yet due to the tiny size I have not produced them in any quantity for sale yet and need to still find a suitable connector for the linkage to eliminate the tedious and troublesome wire links I fashioned for the test parts. I am also somewhat if not a lot confined by the fact that I don't own a cylinder machine. Although I was told I hit a bulls-eye with my first attempt which I took to mean it was pretty much a success without any testing. Basically its a miniature of the larger disc machine part so I assumed it would work in a similar way which evidently it does. Still I would like to hear it.
Larry
|
|