|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 13, 2012 11:57:26 GMT -5
Hey Folks, I've gotten to that point where I've been collecting cylinders long enough (since 2004) and have upgraded to a phonograph (an Edison Triumph model D with multiple reproducers) that I feel I can finally weigh on on the wax Amberol issue. Initially I hated them for the obvious reason: they are so incredibly brittle! I then went through a phase of unloading as many of them as I could. But recently I have begun collecting them again for these reasons: 1) Plastic cylinders (such as Edison Blue Amberols) are not perfect; their cores are often uneven, and the plastic often has uneven shrinkage over the course of 90-100 years. Durable, sure, but often much "wobble" and other reasons for uneven pitch. 2) Wax Amberols, on the other hand, hold their form well and, unless damaged, play back remarkably evenly. 3) The artists and performance to be found on wax Amberols are often quite fun! The best of 1908-1912. Now, some of you out there might be saying "You love them so much, you can have mine!" Well, make me a proposal.  All best -- Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Aug 13, 2012 16:59:56 GMT -5
I agree that for playback and sound quality, the 4M "Damnberols" are unsurpassed in many ways to the later dubbed BAs if they are undamaged. Their fragility though makes them an unlikely choice for regular play.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 13, 2012 22:41:07 GMT -5
Bill, I agree about the wearing-out possibility with wax Amberols. That's why I have stocked up on plenty of plastic Blue Amberols, specializing in the "direct records" of 1912-14 but also having plenty of the dubbed "Damberols." STILL, I would argue that an Edison audiophile should not be afraid of wax Amberols. For preservation purposes they should not be the only thing you play, but on the other hand you are depriving yourself of fidelity that is not far off 90% of the direct record Blue Amberols, PLUS they almost always play more evenly.
FYI, I think the BEST cylinders are good-condition 2-minute Edison waxes, but those can be annoying in that they are so brief and have to be repeated or changed off so quickly. Wax Amberols
give you fidelity, steady pitch, AND four minutes.
Non-Edison plastic cylinders are a mixed bag. Indestructible/Columbias are shallow-sounding, with shallow grooves that invite skipping. U.S. Everlastings are richer but have tons of surface noise.
Looking at the big picture, wax Amberols should be a part of every audiophile's diet--the "meat" to be consumed in lesser amounts compared to the main diet of Blue Amberols--with the other brands and waxes filling in the rest of the plate.
Just my two cents.
Rallph
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Aug 14, 2012 3:56:06 GMT -5
Like many people, I suppose, that when my cylinder collection grew, I got rid of most of my wax Amberols and concentrated on four minute indestructible. In recent years though I have found myself starting to collect wax Amberols again despite all their short-comings.
The recording quality was quite astonishing for the period and if one is lucky enough to find a record in good condition, the finish can be like glass with almost no surface noise at all.
Many of the popular songs in the British catalogue were never transferred to Blue Amberols but, as they contain topical references, they now form a fascinating historical record of how the working and lower middle classes perceived their rulers and the social conventions of the day.
The Grand Opera and Concert issues could compete in terms of recording and artistic quality with anything in the disc catalogues but many of the best recordings by people like Slezak, Constantino, Sarah Bernhardt and Lucrezia Bori were not transferred to Blue Amberols and exist only in their wax format.
As has been said by others here, the Wax Amberol's heart-breaking propensity to shatter at will and the rapidity of wear, precludes their use on an every-day basis but I for one would not want to be with out my small collection of them.
Tim W-W
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 14, 2012 16:34:44 GMT -5
Well put, Tim. I have collected Edison classical materials on Blue Amberol and Diamond Disc, but thanks for the reminder that the wax Amberols do a nice job with classical as well.
Nice testimony as to the fidelity of the best wax Amberols. Your story is very similar to mine; after losing several of these records to breakage I was afraid of them for a long while, but I'm sure the various academic digital preservation operations (I think of the one in California in particular) have recorded most if not all of them. Nothing lasts forever. Better that these records end up in the hands of careful, experienced hobbyists who will treat them kindly and use them sparingly than that they knock around in dealers' bins.
I recently spent lots of $ getting my Edison Triumph model D thoroughly repaired and cleaned (with an O reproducer for the waxes and a Diamond B for the plastics). Therefore I can no longer blame the machine if the cylinders sound poorly: I now know which cylinders are good quality and those which are not. As much as I love Blue Amberols, the out-of-round issues affect almost all of them to some degree (from barely noticeable to barely playable)--whereas wax Amberols are perfectly formed for the mandrel and provide a very nice playback.
Finally, it's my understanding that the term "Damberols" originated in Britain after the debut of the dubbed Blue Amerols and doesn't refer to the wax Amberols. I'd be happy to be corrected on that, but stand by the statement for the time being.
All best --
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Aug 16, 2012 4:17:53 GMT -5
It is also my understanding that the term "Damberol" originated in the UK and refers to the dubbed Blue Amberols rather than wax Amberols.
Once the war-time prohibition on importing non-essential goods into the UK was lifted in June 1919, Blue Amberols then became available in quantity to collectors in Britain for the first time since mid-1916. This would also have been the first time enthusiasts in Britain would have heard the dubbed cylinders and were these received with "serious disappointment".
Debate raged within the ranks of the then newly formed City of London Phonograph Society, other regional phonograph societies and within the pages of "The Sound Wave" as to the poor quality of the new records and whether or not they were dubbed. There was general disbelief within the UK cylinder fraternity that the Edison company would stoop to dubbing but once this had been confirmed, letters of complaint were sent to America but to no avail.
As far as I can tell, it was around about the end of 1919 that the term "Damberol" was first used; being, of course, a contraction of the words "dubbed Amberol" and also a pun on the (mild)expletive "Damned", humourously expressing frustration with the inferior quality of the new issues.
Tim W-W
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 16, 2012 22:59:40 GMT -5
Very interesting, Tim! It hadn't dawned on me why the British were so slow to condemn the dubbed Amberols (until ca. 1920)--it all had to do with the wartime interruption of "non-essential supplies."
One of the things that makes Edison collecting so interesting is that there is such a wide variance in the products (whether phonographs or records). As I often tell people, Edison has the distinction of making both the best--and the worst--phonographic products of his era. The Damberols are truly sorry affairs, compared with the quality of other records of the time. I collect and listen to them from the 1920s largely for the novelty effect--to hear hot music coming out of an external horn machine.
By the way, I lived in Britain in the winter of 1977-78 (as an "Occasional Student" at the University of York. Probably the most special time of my life.
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 16, 2012 23:32:37 GMT -5
Oh, one more comment on why the British were disappointed in the "Damberols" of 1919-20. Not only were they essentially hearing the "Damberols" for the first time, they were also hearing (in my opinion) some of the worst dubbing that was done in the entire history of the Damberols. The immediate post-war U.S. music heavily represented a very loud, clanging, New Orleans-style of "squawking" jazz. It is tolerable when listened to via Diamond Discs, but when transferred to Blue Amberol it is very harsh. This is no criticism of the music--but it was just the kind of blasting music that did not dub well at all. By 1922 or thereabouts the music toned down a bit; became more sophisticated; and there was no doubt some improvements made by the Edison people in decreasing the "blast" effect in the transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Aug 17, 2012 17:36:50 GMT -5
Interesting that the word "Damnberol" was originally credited to BAs in the U.K. and not the accursed 4M Amberol Records. It has been a term always jokingly accredited to the green boxed 4M Amberol over here.
For celluloid cylinders, I have an affinity for the U.S. Everlasting made by the Cleveland Phonograph Co. They have funky cores that on occasion will not fit on a mandrel properly and can't be reamed with a typical sandpaper type reamer. But with a steel fluted reamer can be adjusted nicely to fit correctly. They were short lived (1910-1913) due to litigation by Edison but don't seem to have the shrinkage issue like the Albany/Columbia Indestructible Records.
I have a few favorite 4M Amberols that I play on occasion and fortunately they haven't self destructed in the cases on upon my fingers when withdrawing them from their boxes. I live in New England and temps vary with the 4 seasons and I think that may have an effect on the material used.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 17, 2012 20:24:56 GMT -5
Bill, I like the U.S. Everlastings as well. They were generally well-recorded and have a nice volume. Their composition seems a bit softer than you'll find on the other plastic cylinders; when you find them in degraded condition they play with a curious rumble--almost as if the surface has broken out in miniature bumps.
They're harder to find than the Edisons and Indestructibles, butstill worth investing in.
Ralph
P.S., living in Illinois we too have our four seasons. The first wax Amberol to break on me occurred on a day when I walked home with it under my coat from a local antique phonograph dealer; it was around zero Fahrenheit outside. When I got home I put it on my cylinder player, played it through once--and then when I went to pull it off the mandrel it shattered with a sound just like an ice cube being dropped in a glass filled with room-temperature soda. I spent hours trying to glue it back together before I realize that that was futile. It was that mishap that put me off wax Amberols for around seven years--before their audio quality won me back.
|
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Aug 18, 2012 16:04:32 GMT -5
Ralph,
The process of bonding the thin sheet of celluloid to that waxy core was pretty amazing for that time. When they peel, you can see the perfect straight edge on both sides. But on a good cylinder, it's hard to see that seam that was bonded together.
I haven't been able to find any info on how these were actually made or what the core actually comprised of.
I know that they were bought out by Albany in 1913-14 and the entire catalog as well. Albany continued to release them until 1922, but with their metal and cardboard cores until the factory burned down.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Aug 20, 2012 5:42:54 GMT -5
Ralph,
A further reason, I think, that Damberols were so poorly received in the UK was their actual content. The sentimental ballads so beloved by the Edison company were considered, by 1919, to be woefully old fashioned. The Great War had a traumatising effect on British society with some towns and villages losing almost all their menfolk of military age and what people wanted to listen to was jolly up-beat music that was modern and looked forward to the future.
The Manchester Edison Society somehow had got hold of six Royal Purple records in May 1919 and whilst I don't know what the records were but, if you ignore the Bonci's which were re-issued direct recordings, then it is likely that Arthur Middleton, Frieda Hemple and Christine Miller would have featured and these records were almost guaranteed not to appeal to the British taste. This is not to decry the quality of the singers, I like Arthur Middleton and Frieda Hemple but it is the music Edison made them sing that is the problem.
As a final thought, whatever we may think about the recorded quality of dubbing discs to cylinders, it did at least keep the cylinder format alive for a further fourteen years when, financially and economically, Edison should have abandoned the cylinder after the factory fire in December 1914.
By the way Ralph, I'm glad you enjoyed your time in York. It is a beautiful city (still) and I am pleased to be able to get myself about once a month.
All the best
Tim W-W
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 20, 2012 19:54:27 GMT -5
Tim, it's great to gain your specific information on which records apparently provoked the "Damberol" designation for the dubbed Blue Amberols. I never would have guessed they were the Royal Purples as they were among the quieter recordings--but as you point out, quiet and sedate content was not wanted in some quarters in 1919 by a group of folks who were too eager for the 1920s to begin! I'd still bet, though, that the loud Damberols (of jazz groups) displeased others--but for reasons of blast/distortion.
It's a legitimate argument to make that the dubbed cylinders at least kept the format alive until 1929. I certainly have high respect for your knowledge, Tim, but can't help but wonder if Edison could have kept away from dubbing until around 1921 as I've read that he actually sold more cylinders in the 1919-21 period than in the 1912-1914 period. (I admit, though, that Edison could not have foreseen that in late 1914 when he opted for dubbing. I just wish he had gone back to the direct recording of cylinders in 1919 at the time of the post-war boom and maybe he could have prevented the crash in their sales that occurred in 1921).
By the way, seconds ago I was outbid and did not win a lot of 22 wax Amberols on e-bay; I went up to $104.00 but someone put in $137.00 at the last second. Either a collector or a dealer who is sure of recouping that money. Though personally disappointed, it shows that these cylinders are gaining traction in the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerian on Aug 21, 2012 4:58:52 GMT -5
We seem to have strayed somewhat from the original topic of trying to defend wax amberols but I do agree with you, that had the Edison company in 1919/20 reintroduced "live" recordings of cylinders then the crash, when it came, may not have been so disastrous.
My own view is that by the early 1920's the Edison company has lost interest in cylinders and it was only through deference to Edison himself that their manufacture continued at all. Cylinders were to be relegated almost to a sideline and manufactured as cheaply as possible, whilst the company concentrated on what it saw as its main business, that of disc manufacture.
Like with so many things to do with the Edison company all we can do is shake our heads sadly and say "if only......"
Sorry you missed out on your Amberols but it is quite interesting that the market for them does still seem to be quite buoyant despite their short comings. Here in the UK they tend to go for about £3-£5 each when bought individually, we don't often see bulk sales of cylinders, except in auction houses due, I suppose to their relative scarcity.
All the best and happy collecting
Tim W-W
|
|
|
|
Post by pughphonos on Aug 21, 2012 20:37:36 GMT -5
In a nod to Tim, and in demonstration of my love of wax Amberols, I've finally gotten myself a proper avatar. ; )
Does anyone have any recording dates for the Special Amberols? I'm assuming they were released starting in 1908 as that is when the combination attachments were first made available for the conversion of 2-minute machines to 4-minute--and the Specials came with the conversion kits. I just bought Special B (in Blue Amberol form) and would like a recording date for it and the other Specials (if possible).
|
|
