|
Post by larryh on Mar 6, 2008 8:35:45 GMT -5
A small morning observation. I am testing the spray glue as an alternative to the vinyl which replaced the Rubber Cement. The first time I put on a piano record it just sounded a bit weak and less tone than I was accustomed to. I removed the diaphragm to see what I might tell. One thing a small piece of glue had attached it self to the screw where it passes the cork, so I fished it out. Then I took it out all the way and looked at the clearance to the sides of the metal. Seemed a bit tight in a couple places so I snipped a bit off to give more room. Then I put it back together and I noticed the ring seemed to turn a bit farther in than the last time without forcing on it. Put it into play and the piano was closer to what I had expected and the small fuzzy background sound I had heard previously disappeared. So when your assembling these be sure your clearance is good all around, if necessary trim off a tiny bit of edge if it appears to not allow for a bit of movement to center the piece. Then that the ring has screwed down without being held up by the metal band or diaphragm out of shape a bit. The vinyl especially with the rubber cement version that went out first seemed to want to develop a curve after a bit when out of the reproducer. Best bet is tighten it down good and then reverse the pressure till you get good sound with as much depth as possible. Too tight, or to loose can equally be issues with tone and volume and sound. Maybe I will get the last of the test units out today?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 6, 2008 17:23:27 GMT -5
Sadly the spray glue is also a failure on this vinyl. I think I may have something that is like a teflon product and most things just don't want to work. I tried to get the last ones playing today and things just went from bad to worse. The clarity level fell and about the only place it can be caused is the attachment of the cork.. I tried a different linkage thinking since it is so loud that perhaps that was over driving it. Well it is to a degree. And I knew from the start that some things will not react properly with this basic diaphragm material. I went ahead because it offers a lot of good points as well. Lots of very good performances. But once in a while things just don't react properly and that is about the only place it can be. I keep beating up on myself, but still I have to remember this started out to have a better overall sounding diaphragm, not a perfect one. Not many of those around of the new ones it seems. This one came remarkable close, but I never like to hear something that I know isn't right. I put the cork back on with the vinyl cement which I had given up on in hopes it will work well enough to get these last ones out as examples of how far this has come. Probably once that happens and we get a feel for the direction at least that things have gone, I will stop this thread for now and work quietly on something yet better. It is mostly redundant messages of hope and setbacks and even for me that gets a bit tedious. But till we get the first batch heard from I will keep in touch. Those who have the samples are still advised to try them as they are, if they are not sounding well then write me off the board and we will try to work thru getting them going as good as possible for now.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 6, 2008 19:16:33 GMT -5
Something I did learn today. I tried a linkage of a nylon heavy thread as some have used. Compared to the thin dental floss the sound was lackluster an missing much of the detail! Just a point, but I found it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 7, 2008 13:18:11 GMT -5
Still working to get out these last few testing units. Made a few changes, one Dan mentioned that much distortion can be in the linkage. I went ahead and put a drop of the vinyl cement on the loop with the tied portion sort of tucked into the eye. That gives a more solid contact but makes changing to a different length more of a problem, you have to scrape the old glue off first. I wouldn't recommend the glue till a diaphragm is finally working as desired. I again found that the screw can reduce or increase the volume a lot. I had it too weak for a bit and it lost its punch. The hard part is getting it with enough punch without overdriving on the really loudly recorded ones. Some of them are truly too loud as they are. I think I need to accept the limitations this design now has and get on with it. I would say its about a 7 in a 1 to 10 scale as far as handling everything you can throw at it. I still hear records it probably just isn't doing as well as one would wish. Something else I tried which seems to work is that on some diaphragms I had too loud a volume no matter what it seems. I took an ice pick and worked it the tiny hole from the side the screw starts from and enlarged it a bit. That way it doesn't squeeze the screw as tightly and allows for more flexible adjust in volume.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 7, 2008 17:22:14 GMT -5
What a relief, I have a copy out to everyone now but one or two from whom still need addresses. I believe the current design has reached its maximum potential. At least the last couple which were modified a bit from the first set out. They can be updated if wished.
So what did I accomplish, at least in my Humble opinion.
First; I set out to produce sound superior to that currently available. In my mind I have done that.
Second: I have learned a lot, of which at the start I knew nothing. Of course it is still an experiment, but with some idea of how to reach what I want, which is at some point a diaphragm which will play all records with reasonably distortion free quality sound. I think I can now set about trying new things to accomplish that. I admit I need a break after, what, 7 weeks solid work?
On critiquing the diaphragm I would hope that the judgement is meant to see what the overall direction of the work has produced. It is not about a perfect comparison to the original. The defects of the current model will be apparent when heard. I don't dispute that.
Looking forward to seeing some feedback here about them.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 7, 2008 17:28:45 GMT -5
Oh as a follow up to that business of glueing the link to the screw eye. It did play clearly overall, but the distortions I had heard in places of some records were not effected. I think that it works pretty much the same without the glue and is much simpler to change the link length if it isn't glued in place.
One thing about the link to those who will be receiving them. I try to position the knot in the floss at the connection point on the diaphragm rather than having it up towards the stylus hook. The easiest way to do that is to position it where you want it then squeeze the floss together to form a sort of stiff upward thread. Usually you can maneuver that with a tooth pick from the top and push it into the opening where the stylus bar is then fish it up to the hook. Pretty easy when you do it thousands of times..
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 10, 2008 10:13:40 GMT -5
I wasn't expecting to be reporting any new results this quickly, but boy do I feel like a fool.. I have this record of Nita Gitana sung by Henri Scott. It was a great sounding voice but constantly wanted to blast on certain loud passages. To make a long story short. I was doing some comparisons of styles of cork the diaphragm and switching back and forth between the reproducers. What I found was that the passages that I had taken to be an issue with my dipahragm design in total, turned out to play thought just about perfect in the reproducers with the new needle. Since the old one I had been testing with didn't show any signs of record wear I kept figuring it was ok. But this shows the importance of a good needle. Pretty stupid on my part because that was one of the reasons for getting the new needles was to be sure no issues were steming from them. I haven't tried any other pieces yet, but my guess is that I will get even better results which makes me think I am closer to where I want to go than I thought.
This is using the new smaller head on the screw eye as well as modified cork piece. It appears to add more richness to the sound than the first ones I put out. I can change that easily either though having them returned or sending the new pieces to correct it. That will only work however if the existing cork isn't permanently been glued in place.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 10, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -5
Only tested out a few more records of the Dance variety but the evidence seems to be a clearer performance than I even had previously heard.
|
|
AZ
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by AZ on Mar 10, 2008 23:26:01 GMT -5
I received one of Larry's test diaphragms on Saturday. It plays very well, better than the cardboard reproduction that had been previously installed. Unfortunately, I don't have an original Edison diaphragm to compare it to. But I think Larry is on the right track.
A smaller eye screw might help. I think it may be possible to obtain them from a fishing tackle store that sells supplies for making your own fishing lures.
|
|
Schmaltz
New Member
"Shut your eyes and see" (James Joyce)
Posts: 14
|
Post by Schmaltz on Mar 12, 2008 11:49:28 GMT -5
I made another test, this time comparing Larry's new prototype with the Bogantz diaphragm that I've had and played frequently since I purchased it some months ago. Before I get into that, I'd like to reiterate that this is simply a fact-finding mission. This is not about which diaphragm is better: when the sonic qualities are at this level, it's a matter of personal preference as to which one is better or worse than the other. Rather, it is an attempt at finding out exactly what it might be sonically that makes each one unique relative to the other. Unlike an earlier attempt I made in this thread regarding sonic comparison, I used the same needle in each reproducer in this test. The weight and needle assembly was transplanted from the reproducer body with the Bogantz diaphragm across to the one that held Larry's latest prototype. Both of these diaphragms use floss links, looped gently through the stylus bar hook, so removal and installation of the weight and bar assembly was quick and easy. The needle is one of the newer ones from the UK. Both records were paper-label pressings of dance bands. The first was the Broadway Dance Orchestra playing "Lovable Eyes" (50989) from 1921, and the second was Don Voorhees and the Earl Carrol's Novelties Orchestra from late 1926 performing "Never Without You" (51963). Both recordings were bright and vivid to start with and had good (though not perfect) surfaces. The graphs were compiled from 15-second samples from each record, each of the diaphragms playing the exact same part of the record, with the computer recording the output from the exact same spot in front of the horn. The graphs for the first record, the Bogantz results being above this paragraph and Larry's is below: These two graphs show that both of these diaphragms performed with remarkable similarity. The chief difference lies in the frequency range between 1KHz and 3KHz. The Bogantz response curve lies flatter across this spectrum, whereas Larry's has narrowly better response in the lower part of this band (1K to 1.5K) then gradually fading down a few dB toward 3KHz. This would tend to suggest that Larry's has a warmer sound whereas the Bogantz one is brighter. The second sound sample from the Voorhees disc is shown below, first with the Bogantz diaphragm in place: The Bogantz seems to ride fairly strongly across the 1K to 3K band with a few peaks and valleys (any acoustically-driven diaphragm will have natural resonances). Note, though, that the sample tops out at -14dB. Here's the graph for Larry's diaphragm playing the same passage: Larry's crests at 0dB between 700Hz and 1.5kHz, similar to its strong showing in this area on the previous record. The gradual decline in dB from there is somewhat deceptive, since the area around 3KHz is around -20dB, a similar level as the Bogantz had at that frequency range. Lastly, below are four short MP3 clips - these are the samples from which the graphs were compiled. Most folks will only hear subtle differences between these two diaphragms if anything. This cannot be anything like experiencing the playing of either record "in person" - it would be a poor substitute for that - but the samples are presented for those who are curious as to what specific sounds were represented by the graphs. "Lovable Eyes," with the Bogantz: www.raeproductions.com/music/mp3/50989-BO.mp3"Lovable Eyes" with Larry's: www.raeproductions.com/music/mp3/50989-LA.mp3"Never Without You," played with the Bogantz: www.raeproductions.com/music/mp3/51963-BO.mp3the same record played using Larry's: www.raeproductions.com/music/mp3/51963-LA.mp3As you can hear, both of them are good. Those who prefer higher-end frequency response will probably gravitate toward the Bogantz. Larry's, on the other hand, has a good warm quality that many will like while retaining good treble response at the same time. Personally, I like 'em both, but Larry's is staying on the machine for a while longer.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 12, 2008 19:14:14 GMT -5
Some feed back filtering in.. Must be fairly positive as I am having a few request for the diaphragm already. Thats great, it must be making some people happy.
Now as to the next process. This diaphragm with the second stage of cork is richer sounding. I just played the American Fantasy by Victor Herbert, the first time I have tried it with the vinyl one. Wow is played though those difficult overlapping instruments towards the end with total clarity. Those first ones with the shellac paper were just jumbling those parts. What I am finding though is how much difference can be made with a bit more or less cork in the right places. I put on the Faust Waltz and with a diaphragm I had just assembled I was impressed with the amount of heavy bass I was getting. When I tired my sort of Master one I had installed in one of the reproducers the bass was lessened but the instruments were brighter and a bit more distinct. Frankly I don't know for sure which is right. I almost think the instruments fall a bit farther into relationship with each other on the brassier one. But I realize the argument that edisons are too dull and limited in range.. I will have to talk with some people and do some more research to determine where its best. It may very well be a bit subjective as people hear things a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by timland on Mar 13, 2008 15:01:25 GMT -5
I just completed testing of Larrys latest diaphragm (plastic with 2 pieces or cork) and I was impressed with the results. It was installed in a original W-250 reproducer with a recently replaced stylus. I have an original style diaphram in very good unwarped condition that I'm using to compare with Larry's. Overall all I'd say the main improvement was clarity. It removed some distortion which allows more of the background to come through. Some improvement in volume, frequency response was even which was an improvement to an earlier version I tested that lost a slight amount of bass. It performed equally well on all records that I tested. 52505 Mia Bella Rosa (electrical) B.A. Rolfa and his Orchestra 50984 Idola - Fox Trot Natzy's Orchestra 50987 Parade of the Wooded Soldiers - Vincent Lopez 80142 Artist's Life Waltz - Style M-2 V++ condition
Tim
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 15, 2008 10:14:15 GMT -5
At this point I have probably made 15 or more of the last design. Most have not yet reached there destinations. But what has been interesting is that the goal to get something that was manageable to produce with similar results seems to have been accomplished. Nearly every one when checked out has preformed well without adjustment. I had one today the knot in the link managed to come apart while playing. (something that happens once in a while it seems). I would have to say I feel I have reached a pretty successful point here as all the reactions have been favorable to my goals. I have had several ask if I could also produce a diaphragm for the Amberola. Well its an interesting idea. I am pretty sure I could do it. However I don't have any cylinders nor a machine to test on. So I am unable to work on that idea at the moment. I wonder if anyone within driving distance of Southern Illinois might have a machine and some records that are sort of extra that they might want to loan for the purpose of working on that project? It would come as a surprise, but who knows. If nothing else you would get hopefully a decent diaphragm out of the effort, which from what I am hearing is similar to the DD situation when a product purchased leaves lots to be desired at the moment. Any body out there able to do that let me know.
|
|
Schmaltz
New Member
"Shut your eyes and see" (James Joyce)
Posts: 14
|
Post by Schmaltz on Mar 16, 2008 14:01:18 GMT -5
I have an Amberola diaphragm here, just kicking around (part of a bunch of original diaphragms I got through eBay a while ago), and it does resemble a scale-model version of a DD diaphragm. Judging from that, considering that you'd be scaling the same materials down to the right size, I think your research and development for the one applies to the other. I've never had an Amerol machine, largely because I've never heard a good one, but this could change that.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gilmore on Mar 16, 2008 18:23:02 GMT -5
If you did it that way, you would get a diaphragm that vibrated like the head of a drum resulting in some very interesting and unwanted resonance issues. I would go for a stiff center with highly flexible edges to get the diaphragm to move in a plane like a piston.
The easiest way to construct that type of diaphragm would be to use a much thinner diaphragm and then adjust the characteristics by making the stiffening disc in the center larger or smaller and go from there.
Dan
|
|