|
Post by larryh on May 11, 2008 19:24:32 GMT -5
Over the weekend I purchased a huge bunch of fairly bad shape records. Some are electrics it turns out which is mostly a first for me. Some only are playable on one side and most are poor condition. But I have heard enough to know that the diaphragm appears to be doing a fairly good job of reproducing it. Of course with worn recordings the cause of sounds is hard to pin down, but in the places where they play pretty well it isn't doing too badly which is something I had heard, but not heard..
|
|
|
Post by larryh on May 13, 2008 18:33:45 GMT -5
I am having to retrench on my decision to retry the louder apex piece on the top. Yes it improves somewhat the volume, but at what cost. That has always been the issue. You have to reach a point at which its loud enough but not so loud that it overdrives the diaphragm. I guess a lot of people are unaware of that when listening because so many want blasting sound. I have so far found mine to be louder than most nearly all the time, that was with the smaller piece. I got a late acoustic record yesterday and played it on the one I had refitted with the louder larger apex. It was so loud that the vocal broke up in places. When I played it with the regular design the sound was a bit softer, but the distortion was minimized.
That brings me to some things I expressed on the other board today.. Thoughts on why a medium volume is most likely the best choice for overall sound. First I understand that Mr. Waltrip was a firm believer that loud needles always caused distortion where a medium one won't. I have of course noticed that also. If I play a perfectly good sounding record on the brunswick with a loud needle it can blast the diaphragm where as a soft or medium needle sounds fine. In other words there is a limit to what a diaphragm can do before it will distort.
I had never seen or heard of it before today, but the Edison Manual for working on the machine warns that if the speed of the turntable is off it can cause distortion of the sound due to the frequencies that too fast a speed can create. So evidently even when new a Edison diaphragm was prone to distort under overbearing conditions.
The orthophonic is another example of recommendations by the maker to not use loud needles most of the time. How many really strident sounding records will sound nearly normal with a soft tone? Obviously even a good design such as that will not handle too much vibration well. Even your fine stereo speakers will distort if the volume by chance is set too high. Otherwise they would play perfectly well. So the correlation between volume and and distortion of a material used for a diaphragm is obviously related.
On the opposite side, a diaphragm that plays very weakly may cover some defects in design that a louder playback would expose. Some of the waltrip ones are very rich, but highly muted. Most likely that accounts for the less noticeable issues with playback of such a product.
I will stick with the most proven of the upper apex pieces I was using. I had a temporary fling with thinking that some things sounded better with the larger one, and indeed they may have, but on the extreme end they then were forced to cause problems. Maybe this next winter I can find a product that works even better, but won't bet on it.
|
|
|
Post by French_Touch_C-19 on May 16, 2008 9:34:15 GMT -5
I wonder how sheet carbon fiber material would sound? It comes in various thicknesses. Luke W. That's funny, I've been experimenting modified Bogantz and others myself, and i've finally arrived to that idea about a carbon fiber membrane. I've ordered a set from DragonPlate (check their website, they provide trial sets with assorted thicknesses) Still haven't received my trial set. But ass soon as I have received it, I will try to make membranes of verious sizes.. with rigid center and damper to be as close as possible to the Ricepaper and cork diaphragm, which to my taste still remains the deepest and most balanced one though a bit less brilliant on treeble. :-) Have you implemented this idea ?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on May 30, 2008 19:29:06 GMT -5
Been a while since I made any comments. I have been fortunate enough to get a number of excellent condition pop Edisons the past few days. Since I have had a few who felt they were getting distortion in the diaphragm over a range of records I was interested to hear for my self the ability of the diaphragm on a good record. Happily they played with nearly no surface noise and I doubt they could have played much if any clearer with a original one. I believe the there are so many things that could produce less than satisfactory results in the edison reproducer, needle and of course the record, that it clouds the ability to know what your really hearing. I had know since the start of this design that when a good record was played it did it extremely well. Often I heard less than satisfactory sound, but it was nearly always due to either a faulty needle I had or records that were worn to some degree. I have played though that large collection of records that I purchased at the Chippendale sale. There were about 130 records. Of those I used my less than perfect needle to test them. I think in the entire bunch only about four were truly clear in reproduction. Lots of wonder full pieces that went into the trash can including some really nice electric pieces, but were so badly damaged that even playing with the least perfect head, they were not useable. If I were trying to critique the sound with these I would have definitely found it lacking. But none of the issues were due to the diaphragm.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 26, 2008 7:44:47 GMT -5
Time flies.. Now its been at least 6 months since I sent out many of the trial diaphragms. I have still been using three of them in various heads I have here. I still find that on a good record they do very well. Yesterday I got a nice Organ record of the Prelude in G by Rachmanioff and it did super.
I am hoping that some of those who have had them in use will send us a follow up report as to how they are finding the sound of theirs after extended use? Several have never responded at all, maybe some of them now have had the time to try it?
I have not pursued trying to sell them in any major way.. A few to collectors that wished to try them. I for one thing want to eventually come up with a more professional looking link than the floss which I think some balk at.. However the units are all working with the floss at no loss and maybe a gain in sound from what my testing has shown..Still to advertise them I might need something else. Then too that vinyl product has remained elusive and I have not gone totally out to find it. I have a test of a shellac and paper model again that actually has come quite close to the vinyl. If it would be able to eventually be improved to the point of sounding as the vinyl I would like that design better in thickness and original look. It is however much more labor intensive to make which many more steps necessary.
I also have a Amberola in repairs with Steven. Hopefully this winter I can work on a diaphragm for it as well. I understand there is a need for a replacement with better sound there as well.
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jul 26, 2008 18:15:15 GMT -5
Larry,
I have I believe your latest diaphragm in one of my Edisonics. It has been there for several months now and has performed quite well.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 26, 2008 21:51:01 GMT -5
Bill,
Good to hear from you.
As you probably knew when I was working on them I had no electric edison records so all my testing was acoustic.. I found out however after I sent them out that some were using them with usually good results on the electric ones as well. Now that I have a few electrics I can say that on a clear record I get clear results, if the record is worn a bit I get fuzzy results.. No different really than the acoustics.. I always rather trusted the fact that if some records played crystal clear then when I heard ones that weren't it usually ended up being the record at fault. Not that some distortion isn't going to occur, but overall results seem pretty good.
Francois is soon to be testing it out and making some sound recordings from it. I am most anxious to see what happens as his recording methods are nearly flawless it seems.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 30, 2008 18:25:07 GMT -5
I hope that the people that have received these diaphragms are occasionally referencing this site? I just noticed that after having the reproducer in constant use for about six months that the linkage I was forming from floss is evidently slowly stretching. The needle stylus is sloping downward as in too long. I noticed it when a record sounded odd that I didn't think should. I knew that was a weak point but had seen others using it an continued as it was simple and easy for someone to replace at home..
So I would be watching to see what the level is of your stylus bar if your using one of my test diaphragms. Should it be showing stretching to the linkage a new one can pretty easily be made by taking a piece of thin cardboard and cutting it to just fit snug in the existing linkage. Then carefully remove a tiny sliver of the cardboard and fashion a new "thin" floss linkage using a square knot that is resistant to slipping and then another for good measure. I then rotate the cut portion down to the screw eye. One thing I started to do latter was to wrap the linkage around the eye once instead of leaving it an open loop. It has a better contact with the loop that way. Also if its a tiny bit off you can try taking a tooth pick or thin wire with a "L" shaped tip and twist the linkage around a few times which seems to give good sound results and shortens the linkage a hair also..
I will try and come up with a more permanent and satisfactory linkage this fall when I have time.. I know that the famous Waltrip I have uses a simple loop like mine only its a double loop and I think someone said it was made of silk or rayon heavy thread. Any ideas for a workable new link would be appreciated..
|
|
|
Post by French_Touch_C-19 on Jul 31, 2008 1:54:52 GMT -5
Hello everyone, Here are, at last, the soundfiles of the comparative testings I ran on Larry's diaphragm and an Original Edison diaphragm, both mounted on an Edison Standard Reproducer with new Diamond Bar & Stylus & Axis I had fine tuned. On both reproducers, the clamping ring pressure was also finetuned so as to obtain as balanced and powerful as possible a sound. Here are the files : DD-51664 L - Don't Wait Too Long - Golden Gate Orchestra-Std-LarryH www.box.net/shared/do4y8t2g4cDD-51664 L - Don't Wait Too Long - Golden Gate Orchestra-Std-OriginalEdison www.box.net/shared/ng3e2preokDD-51664 R - Smile A Little Bit - Tennesse Happy Boys-Std-LarryH www.box.net/shared/p5b3n8rokkDD-51664 R - Smile A Little Bit - Tennesse Happy Boys-Std-OriginalEdison www.box.net/shared/xgw7mbscowDD-51157 R - Snake Hips (A Jungle Jazz)- The Jazz-O-Harmonists-StdLarryH www.box.net/shared/mqj7tlmo0gDD-51157 R - Snake Hips (A Jungle Jazz)- The Jazz-O-Harmonists-Std-OriginalEdison www.box.net/shared/s55pe7aossDD-80472 L - The Elephant And The Fly (Picolo & Bason)-Std-LarryH www.box.net/shared/ze4e1hxc08DD-80472 L - The Elephant And The Fly (Picolo & Bason)-Std-OriginalEdison www.box.net/shared/iww5q22gwgDD-82300 R - Figlio Del Sol, Mio Dolce Amor (L Africana, Meyerbeer) - Soprano Claudia Muzio-Std-LarryH www.box.net/shared/69pv5ghkwwDD-82300 R - Figlio Del Sol, Mio Dolce Amor (L Africana, Meyerbeer) - Soprano Claudia Muzio-Std-OriginalEdison www.box.net/shared/hgx9rtl44gEnjoy and feel free to leave your opinion
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jul 31, 2008 6:27:24 GMT -5
Francois,
Your recordings are most professional and I am enjoying going back and forth between mine and your best original.. I must say there is very little difference that comes though in the recordings. I envy your ability to do such fine work..
Larry
|
|
|
Post by varanid on Nov 20, 2008 19:19:20 GMT -5
What about useing the VERY thin material of a snare side drum head of a snare drum...very thin strong and responsive!!!!
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 17, 2008 11:52:23 GMT -5
That suggestion is interesting. I will have to look into that. Now that its winter I have some time to play again. My impression after having them made for nearly a year now is that the high end is somewhat fuzzy on some of them. I have tried one other vinyl substance and found it lacking as well in upper end clearness. I need to look around some more for ideas to try.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 10, 2009 14:40:11 GMT -5
Hi all,
Been quite some time since I last posted here. Just thought I would update and give some thoughts on where this project is at the moment.
I returned to the vinyl I had left to try a couple new things to see if any improvement could be obtained. One thing I was looking for was less distortion on the high end, especially in vocals and loud pop pieces. As to the latter, the pop pieces are crisper and cleaner than before, so that much is a positive.
I had previously tried sanding down the outer edges to get the vinyl closer to the thickness of the original. That didn't work due to the material being quite tough. While browsing at local farm supply store I found some drill bits that worked as files and grinders. I selected a couple that seemed to fit the purpose and gave them a try. With a bit of work and careful grinding I can whittle away some of the material to get a slightly raised center instead of flat. I have tried various sizes of central cork. I will say that the overall volume has been improved with generally increased detail on many records. But even though the clarity is better than the previous method it still will display distortion where a really good old one will have much less noticeable issues.
What has happened is that the combinations of materials seems to have increased the treble somewhat, sometimes too much. Finding a balance of tone and volume with limited distortion is still very difficult. Frankly I don't understand the total cause of the "buzz' that can occur. It seems unrelated to the degree which the ring is tightened. I have tried everything I can so far think of and still the buzz persist in places. Even so what is apparent is that the sound is generally better than most old diaphragms, in fact often way better. But it really points out most likely how well the originals sounded when new. I tried today to install all the old diaphragms I had in order to have a second original working for the Chippendale machine. In comparison to the new one I created none had the overall punch in sound, so I still left mine in. Hopefully some day I will hit the right combination of things that will produce everything I have at present with no distortion, but so far it remains elusive.
|
|
|
Post by matty on Mar 16, 2009 4:41:05 GMT -5
Hi Larry, This is probably a crazy idea, but have you ever tried turtle shell for a diaphragm? I was walking along the beach today & found a big sheet of it, and rubbing my finger over the edge gives off a sound very much like an Edison diaphragm. It seems to be an even thichness in from the edges, and you'd easily get 2 diaphragms from the piece I found. I might give it a go sometime in the future & see how it goes. I'll just have to work out the best way to make it completely flat first.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 16, 2009 6:45:48 GMT -5
Shane,
Well who knows, that is a rather novel idea but until you give it a try you won't know what happens. I wouldn't try for 100% flat as we know the orignal isn't that either. I have a feeling that cutting it without splitting or cracking may be a problem?
Larry
|
|