|
Post by larryh on Dec 24, 2009 17:51:49 GMT -5
Heres and odd finding for you! I have been doing pretty well at this and frankly astounded at some of the sound especially in the lower ranges I am finding in both late and some fine early classical selections. When I first found the one I liked best a few days ago I put in into my Edisonic head to replace my previous favorite with slight different design. When I have been going back to it to check with the ones I am working on after it it seemed a bit shallow to me and really for an Edsionic head not as loud as I expected. So today after sitting though some incredible pieces, the last of which was a late Stradella overture which is a late acoustic. I found that the diaphragm wasn't quite able to handle the vibrations without distortion. So I thought, "well the edisonics used a heavier diaphragm so maybe it will track better".. I switched the piece to the edisonic. Sure enough, the volume dropped a bit, and the bass was also modified enough that I could tell it. That is something I did not expect! It did track almost perfectly, better than the regular head. But I keep wondering why the standard head would sound richer and louder than the edisonic with the same diaphragm.. If it had happened once I wouldn't think much of it, but now its happened twice and something about that is just Odd. I know that Bogantz says the Edisonic isn't louder.. I argued that point, but after these two very sensitive diaphragms tracked better, but had reduced responses I do wonder?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jan 18, 2010 16:59:24 GMT -5
I was back in my ready to call it quits mode after sending out three of the new version with limited results. After farther study I realized that although the over all sound quality was good, the tendency to cause some rather loud distortion from the diaphragm under volume extremes was something I had overlooked more than I should have.
So it was back to testing. This time I finally parted with the floss linkage. I found a cotton woven piece something similar in size to the original. Of course I don't have any way to make the fancy connections the original used, but did figure out how to loop and glue it and bind it to hopefully make it stay in place. The results while less exciting, are much more in line with what the records most likely should sound like. We have discussed before the fact that people liked the first ones loud, but that has caused issues from the start. It seems now in hind site that the linkage with the looped floss just wasn't dampening enough to produce a more even sound. Yes it could do wonders at times, but I was always unhappy with the extreme volumes that some times came from the machine, and the problems were usually in those parts. Frank pointed out that his coronet record wouldn't play well with the new one so I tested one I had, it nearly blew me out of the room on the loud parts. I was pretty sure that was not the way edison intended it. Now I may have the opposite effect. Due to the tendency to overdrive I have been trying to adjust it though the amount of foam that is removed from the baffle part. That works to a degree but still had its limitations. So far the objectionable clattering on loud piano cords and that cornet are about silent. Vocals are more in line with home listening and not extreme in places as they had been.
I am going to study it and listen some farther with it. Trying to lessen the amount of foam used going back perhaps to the size around that I used at first. It may free up the tones some an give a better effect, but haven't tried it yet.
I am glad that frank got me to realize that I had gained a lot, but also had still unexceptable concessions in the sound in places. Hopefully I can remedy those down to the a minimum.
Its still odd how things go. The original diaphragm I installed a week ago does great at fairly silent piano playing on good records. But on some classical things, it breaks all up where the one I am working with barely flinches. So its hard to understand some of what really goes on. I have always had that problem with Edison.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jan 20, 2010 20:12:11 GMT -5
The linkage as it turns out isn't dependent on a thicker cord, its also working with a thiner sewing thread for buttons.
What is happening that gives me some pause though is that I tried and tried to get a third diaphragm I had here to exhibit the same quiet sound when the lid is up under piano and other loud passages. Two of the heads, both with new needles are working well with the new design. The third I worked off an on all day changing the screw eye, and links and yet it persist in creating that noticeable noise from the diaphragm. Finally I put it in the head that was working well, and naturally it worked just like I would have hoped in that head.. So where is the noise being created? It has an original needle and I have been suspicious of it as a source of problems before even though its not showing any record wear. When I reinstalled it in the original head again the same effects became apparent.. Maybe its some where else in the reproducer body, like the stylus bar, but it seems tight. This is one reason sending them out is somewhat a matter of chance as the reproducer on the other end may or may not be operating as one would hope? Has anyone run into this issue ?
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jan 22, 2010 15:32:21 GMT -5
To be certain of the source of the buzzing noise in one reproducer I made a switch of three different diaphragms, all of which played without the sound in a known clear reproducer.
In every case the same problem exist with the offending reproducer and did not in the other.
I am going to eventually try switching the stylus bar pin just to see if that might be the cause, if not then it almost has to be a worn needle even if it doesn't appear bad from its visual tracking on the record.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Mar 4, 2010 8:21:41 GMT -5
Purposely off the tread for a while. I have had to rethink some things and make a new turn once again, all in the search to improve the performance of what I have done so far.
The last diaphragm was a bit disappointing on several levels. I was disappointed that of the three people I spent time making one for, only one ever even tried it! That is to be a bit expected from my past attempts at sharing my idea and getting responses. The person that did found flaws which in all honesty it did have but I due to my testing method had overlooked or plain missed. You wouldn't think that would be the case, but since in my mind improved sound also comes usually with some trade off of clarity at some point. Remember my starting point was the dissatisfaction with other new products, which all have rather obvious flaws in sound.
So when I heard the previous design as opposed to the vinyl one which proceeded it, I heard at once a richer and more full tone. In fairness the vinyl one too showed defects in sound in loud or harsh type passages but people seemed to be willing to accept that for the improved tone it produced. I too fall in that category, if something gave what I perceive to be a better total sound I have a tendency to dismiss the parts that have issues unless they are really offensive. In testing with original diaphragms from edison, I have so far always had ones that tended to fail in some place also. In fact usually worse that what I hear from mine in many cases. I also play my machines with the lid down. That makes enough difference in subtle noises from the diaphragm that most are covered by the sound from the horn. When people started comparing it with the lid up, the portion of music that showed flaws became more obvious than what I had been hearing. I didn't like that either, so I started doing more testing with the lid up. But if I am just listening for the sake of the music, I close the lid to eliminate most distractions, if any are there.
All this led me to go back to the thought process once again. This time its led to a study and attempt to somewhat improve one of the designs as produced by Bob Waltrip. I haven't said much about it since most other announcements have been premature it would seem. This may be as well.
What I hear now is somewhat different, and some may not like it as well in some way. I too had become fairly used to a diaphragm that produced rather loud sound with pronounced instruments. I had however grown leery that it was somewhat exaggerated compared to what the records actually sounded like. It also helped to produce some of the more noticeable issues in distortion. When you magnify everything then the flaws are done the same. The Waltrip design I always found somewhat lacking in punch and variation. By adding my hook eye and vinyl cap, reduced in size to the approximate shape of Bobs foam model I think I now have something which, once heard for a while, grows on you and offers a more blended, but balanced sound with richer low end and a smoother sound. The extreme louds are gone, which personally I like, but I know that many here think everything that is louder is better. It really isn't.
I have several that do well now. One I am about to send to a long time tester here for his thoughts. I know I will get a fair opinion from him to compare it to the previous ones which he has used all of, and currently uses both my older types in his machines. After I find out more from someone else as to what I am hearing, I will let you know how it has gone. I intend also to produce one for Frank in the near future as he was the driver for me to change course because I needed too.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on May 21, 2010 11:04:07 GMT -5
Mostly listening and not much talking on my end. I have a number of versions of the foam diaphragm installed in different heads. Most are still doing reasonably well. I finished my cabinet on the William and Mary Console and brought it in to listen though. I must admit it has a tad different effect from what I expected, something about the sound coming at me from that sitting level is different, can't exactly pin it down.
What I am finding though is that for a change it has an original diaphragm that for me at least plays pretty well. In fact I have taken to using it to compare what I hear. One thing I noticed right off was that it is able to play more smoothly though passages than any of mine. It also has a sort of solid quality about it that is nice. What I can't really know is how much of the slightly restrained effect it has is how it sounded or from age? In truth I like the originals slightly better low end and the clarity, but I miss the more pronounced and lively sound mine has. I don't know if I can ever correct it to the point it has the exact type sound as the original. I highly doubt it. The other strange thing which has often come up with myself or others is that there are places the original makes obvious distortions that mine can play though without. But less than mine produce it overall.
Its been an interesting experiment. I find myself still wondering how to improve on what I have done. Each has its advantages it seems. If I am playing the S19 which projects the sound toward the kitchen and other rooms, the original at a distance is weaker and has less excitement, but up close it seems better to me. So I guess each has something to like and dislike?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 9, 2011 20:59:49 GMT -5
Some observations come to mind what with some revived interest in diaphragms representing higher quality sound. These comments all pertain to what I personally have heard in my own works and are made to encourage those who may be inclined to experiment with new ideas.
Over the past year and a half or so since the last postings I have mostly used the foam versions that were the last to be worked with. They were good but not perfect, something perhaps I will never attain? Recently I had begun to apply some new techniques in construction to the design. I found a different way to attach the screw eye I still hang onto as the way to connect the linkage. I do it for several reasons, mostly that in case I or someone else has to replace the link due to damage or it coming apart, or the wrong length it can with a bit of trial and error be replaced by the owner.
With that change and some variations in how I form the shapes of the foam the sound is better than previously and distortion on piano which was noticeably with the past one is greatly reduced if not eliminated. The loud passages of the pipe organ records played with a realism and only a hint at the stress that those passages used to cause.
So all pluses so far.
The observations which in many ways have said before but need to be said more concisely again are these:
Volume is a major goal of nearly all those who create diaphragms. I have had puny sounding ones and some that frankly are way over the top in volume. Partly the blame here is a clamor among machine owners for ever louder sound. Problem is that only the most careful listening can determine when the maximum levels are reached. Pushing the volume farther results in harsh tones that are very disagreeable to the ear and do not represent the true sound the records represent.
Why is this happening. I have found that edison had good reason to include the baffle effect of the cork to the thin diaphragm. It reduced greatly the tendency to cause instruments to sound shallow or produce a ringing tone instead of a solid sound of the instrument. Piano and horns are very prone to that problem When a diaphragm is too loud and does not compensate for ability of the sound to vibrate too freely you get loud notes that sound piercing an not like solid tones of a piano or horn. Band and other horn records take on a somewhat cold sound. This is one of the most difficult of issues to solve it seems. Simple changes can make huge differences. What sounds like a real breakthrough can be a disappointment on a different type record. Worse yet some records seem to suffer from a built in tendency, most likely from the recording session, that mimics the same conditions. After all the recording studio was working in a reverse attempting to record from a diaphragm without it causing that very sound in the recording it self. Perhaps placement or an overly loud recording attempt may be the cause.
I tend to think that part of the reason edisons were somewhat softer than others was this very fact Once a point is reached they loose the proper sound of the music. While some parts are almost always enhanced sounding by the volume on the other end you begin to get loud tones not realistic of the instruments.
Edison records have an amazing amount of sound within the grooves, more than I would have ever thought. Even what some considered a poor period, that of the black labels can if the right stamping is playing and the surface has not suffered too badly over the years. With a sensitive diaphragm some quite amazing sound can be heard particularly in some of the classical selections and early jazz pieces as well. A diaphragm that strives to obtain the optimum of tone and volume with in the records limits is a wonderful thing. Designers will do well to respect and determine when the sound has passed that point.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Apr 6, 2012 8:20:47 GMT -5
I know I am posting mostly to my self, but still its a blog of sorts that keeps me centered on where I have come in this quest.
Since last reports I have reached even better overall sound. Several of the recent styles have been put to use by others with good overall results.
My biggest struggle has been hearing those pesky noises from the diaphragm as it plays. Various tries of eliminating it have mostly been to naught. Its seemed that most changes I made only resulted in lessening of the overall effects of the sound while the noises seemed to persist. My thought has been that its either in the record or its my designs and usually I decide mostly the later unless the record is truly worn in appearance.
Yesterday after some frustrating changes in my design I finally put in an original diaphragm that I had sort of forgotten that someone had sent me. At that moment compared to mine the original sounded very good. Not at all what I wanted to hear. I knew that at a point a few weeks ago I had been pretty content with my results and were mostly set on perfecting making more like it. Somehow the changes i had added were not helping when compared to that original. Late last night I returned to the design that had proven it self to be rather good. This morning it was ready to play.
When I played a record with it and heard a defect I switched to the head with the original in it. Exactly the same things were heard. Only this time my sound actually was superior to the original in places that they were not yesterday. It convinced me that 95% of what I am trying to eliminate is built into the record and is not coming out. I know from hearing many on You Tube that feedback from an open lid nearly always exist. Mine is no different. I normally play my machines closed for that reason and doing so reduces the noises considerably but if your a careful listener you can still pick them out.
These test were all done with either pop groups or classical pieces of symphonic and solo instrumental types. The serious vocals can still tend to "blast" to some degree but not nearly as bad as they were. I haven't made that direct check of the two heads on those records and need to do so. However if the sound on most records is working very well I think I will be satisfied for now.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Apr 11, 2012 12:46:09 GMT -5
I have been meaning to add some findings which are rather interesting to me and perhaps will ring true with some of you as well. Let me say that part of the sound that these machines make is due to Location Location Location.....
For a long time it has surprised me when at times I have a diaphragm that sounds so loud I have to close the mute ball fairly far only to find that when its taken next door to another chippendale in a large area its not anywhere nearly as loud. Also the same reproducer moved to a S-19 in a fairly large dining room with large open columns and a partial enclosure at the edges sounds rather nice but becomes much richer when you barely walk toward the machine and past the small barrier the defining columns and walls make. Much of the excitement and fullness of tone is reduced by that slight offset to the areas.
Judging from this I realize that my living room which is on very responsive wood floors with a decent sized area rug in the center and rather modest size brings out the tones and volumes much better than a machine will in a different setting. In other words every location is going to effect the total sound picture. One might be missing a great deal of the beauty of sound produced by their machines simply by having it sit in a location not conducive of the best possible effects in sound. Being an air moved sound system the way in which sound is transmitted both off the walls and floors can make a huge difference in the results as will any offsets between what other wise would be considered normal large room openings as a dining room living room division that is basically open in view.
At times I have been puzzled by sending a person a example of the work that blast me out of the room and their complaint was it wasn't loud enough. Much of that now make sense to me.
To overcome the large area one can compensate by sitting or standing which often is even more advantageous to the sound directly to the front of the machines by 10 feet or so. Thus being exposed to the most direct and fullest sound its capable of.
I will admit that if one is not a critical listener of music you may totally miss the points. But if your a fan of all the ranges of music from popular to classics then obtaining the most and riches sounds from these machines is quite rewarding.
I have been advised by several critical listeners that are somewhat well known that probably the point of diminishing returns is near an that the sound I am now getting is probably satisfactory to most. I plan to still search for farther improvements but I too am reasonably satisfied with what I have by now achieved.
I hope in the near future to finally find how to record the records via my camera and download some to You Tube so that those who have followed these many notes can actually hear for them selves. At least to the limits of the recording device. Larry
|
|
AZ
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by AZ on Apr 14, 2012 18:08:29 GMT -5
Yes, the acoustics of the room have an impact. I guess that's why people like to sing in the shower. ;D
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Apr 21, 2012 18:59:44 GMT -5
One would think I would learn. I have gone over a situation like this before and still it crept up on me.
My work is reaching the point where I am quite satisfied with it. Yet I had these areas of sound I just wasn't quite happy with. My test head to my William an Mary console was an original with no obvious issues of stylus wear on the records and I had also added a second that did present problems eventually. Most of the new stylus I had purchased had failed to not show lines in the records after some time and I had been determined not to purchase any more of them. However needing a second head to match my machine I sent off the bad weight an had a new diamond stylus put on it. At the same point I had made a few tiny tweaks to the diaphragm always looking for a better result. When I got the stylus a few days ago I put in on with the last diaphragm. At once I could detect a cleaner sound with a slight range improvement. That continued true as I tested various records. Finally I got out a few late acoustic classics that had till now seemed to play with excessive vibration which I was never sure if it was the record or the diaphragm. Well now I know, it was the Stylus! As I said, I had pulled this before discovering that what I was testing with was in it self a bit faulty. The sound is quite fine to my liking. I will quickly have the other stylus also replaced as it too gave the same result when I moved the weight between the two heads.
I only bring this up because so many new people seem to find their way here as well as some veterans. When it came to standard needle phonographs I was the first one to "change" the needle every side or two at the most. But the diamond permanent stylus lulls me into thinking that as long as its running cleanly on the surface all is well. NOT! It also tends to make any results of a diaphragm iffy when the condition of the stylus is unknown. Generally mine sounded good and looked fine in play, but enough wear had occurred to effect the total sound picture.
As much as I hate to spend the money on stylus which may need to be replaced more frequently than the originals by far the serious listener will certainly want to know the condition of their stylus otherwise its impossible to really know what your hearing and a good stylus can mean a lot to the excitement and total sound picture.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Apr 22, 2012 10:50:26 GMT -5
I had to pass this along.
This morning for the first time ever I heard opera recordings of powerful singers and duets play as they were recorded. I have long sought that goal but thought it perhaps impossible. But today I did. I am sure the new stylus on top of the recent changes have made it possible. I am just crossing my fingers that it can be repeated. If so I will for the first time ever have created something that works the full range of records as they were heard originally.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by sonnyphono on May 16, 2012 17:11:41 GMT -5
I just wanted to post an update regarding my experience with Larry's diaphragm development as of late. I have followed this thread often and several months ago Larry sent me one of his variations for my thoughts on it's sound. I was impressed but in discussing it with him, we agreed it wasn't perfected and didn't produce the sound he has been striving for all these years.
Well, he sent an email to me recently stating that he reached a design that he is satisfied with and for a perfectionist like Larry, that was saying something. He graciously sent me one of his latest designs to test for myself and after doing so, felt I should post my thoughts on how it sounds on this thread he started so long ago.
I listened to many discs of many genres from operatic/classical to upbeat dance tunes. I also tested it on a few electric discs which can tax even a good original diaphragm. At this point, I have absolutely no complaints or issues with the sound reproduction whatsoever and am not sure his diaphragm can be improved any further at this point. He has ended up with a fantastic diaphragm!
As for the sound...the first thing I noticed was the range of tones from lows to highs. It has a huge range and is very consistent throughout so all tones come off at the volumes they should. The horns or high pitched sections aren't piercing, but instead match the volume/output of the low tones as they should. This creates an even and full sound that is believable, if that makes sense. So many times the tuba can't be heard as loud as it should be or is too faint, while a coronet or other horn can make you wince as it can be too loud and strident. Larry's diaphragm doesn't have any of that as the tonal range is very well balanced and even throughout.
Secondly, there was not one time during all of the discs I played where I heard an unwanted buzz or overdrive noise so often heard with other diaphragms. It handled taxing organ pieces as well as the high volume electric discs without sounding strained or distorting at any part of the selections. That is a tough thing to find in any diaphragm, original or new.
Last, I noticed that because of the things I mentioned above, by the time I was on my 5th or 6th disc, I realized I was enjoying the music more than I was testing it. After playing a few selections with a rich, full sound and without any unwanted sound issues, I realized I wasn't listening for imperfections and was confident in the diaphragms performance Because of this, I was enjoying the music more than I usually do while testing other variations I have made or those made by others I have tested in the past. You should enjoy listening to Diamond Discs, or any record for that matter, and I can say that I do enjoy listening to discs with his diaphragm.
All in all, Larry has ended up with a great diaphragm with a very full, clear and realistic sound at this point. I am happy he has reached this point as he has put in countless hours trying to achieve the result that he has now and all his hard work has paid off. Good work, Larry!
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jun 14, 2012 9:38:42 GMT -5
For those who follow this thread you may know that I had put up a notice to sell a few diaphragms and then it was removed. I did this to reconsider what I was attempting to offer and to do so clearly.
As was stated in the previous post (now deleted), Steven Medved has given me a recommendation and helped to name my diaphragm the True Tone Diaphragm, designed for Edison Diamond Disc Records. He had also termed it the "Listeners" diaphragm.
The reasoning for it is as follows. My latest attempt and best by far is very closely mimicking the original in tone and effect. Now this is not going to be something sought by everyone. I am not creating a item that is beyond the range of the original in tone or volumes. Doing so often has and does lead to compromised sound of some selections and improper balance of instruments. I went thought all this many times, often when thinking I had hit a really great idea only to find that it failed in other places due to the way it projected the sounds. Often the horns are very shallow and ear piercing beyond what an occasional record will do due to the recordings. My goal is to produce a sound that is very much near what the owner would have enjoyed when the machines were new. That means that many lower ranges of sound will be subtle, and that the loudest parts will be loud, but not usually blasting. This is all done with a minimum of distortion which so far as I can detect all diaphragms have a tendency to do at some point.
If your a person that values the tonal balance, and depth that a acoustic record can muster then this may be a choice you would wish to make. If your a listener that enjoys the symphonic and vocal things, this is a diaphragm you will most likely find satisfying. If your main goal is to have a machine playing as loudly as possible no matter the overall ability to have correct sound, then its not something to suit you. I don't mean this in anyway as demeaning but many people collect machines, want them to play and don't notice the things that make the small differences in sound quality. If you do then I may have something worth hearing.
The True Tone diaphragm is made by hand, sanded and shaped for the proper sound and then after assembly of the other parts is played and listened to too be sure that it is worthy of hearing. This all takes much more effort an time than I am asking by far. These will be available as I have time to create them and work them into other things I have to do. I want people who have them to enjoy them and if they do not suit you may return in in good condition and I will refund any purchase price.
The price with shipping is $23.00 should anyone find it of interest to try. You can PM me on this group to inquire about it.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Jun 21, 2012 10:59:48 GMT -5
I have put up a version of it on Ebay with a buy it now and will do so off and on if the demand is shown. Its listed under Edison disc Phonograph True Tone" replacement Diaphragm.
Larry
|
|