Diamond Disc Burnout?

[neophone]

Gents,

I have been reading Larry's thread regarding the above issue on the other board and hesitate to add to it there for certain reasons. So I hope Larry doesn't mind that I quote him here and give a bump over to this board:

LarryH's original post on the subject:

This may not make much sense, just wondered if anyone can relate.

Could it be that the Edison Records are so concentrated and realistic within the range they recorded, that it can wear on the listener faster than more subtle reproduction such as a Brunswick? I found that after playing though a number of dance or other large instrumental pieces that I find the sound almost irritating due to the limited overall tone range. Thats almost a contradiction since the Edisons are so good at making a full and realistic sound. But maybe its that extra dose of sound all within a limited range possible in mechanical acoustic recording that adds to that. I don't seem to get that effect as quickly from say a more subdued Brunswick. Now the Brunswick does play wonderfully, but I do see that the instruments are a lot more real sounding on the Edison.

LarryH's Original Thread:

Edison tonal "range" burn out..

Now I love my Edisons; my H-19 & S-19, however I prefer my VV-X w/ HMV No.4 Sound-Box for all day listening. My VV-X is far louder than either Edison and slightly louder than my Granada as well. There is something in the distinctive surface noise of the DD that I find somewhat intrusive while I can easily tune out the surface noise of most standard laterals on my Victors. Certain instruments and female voices seem to come over very fully and clearly on DD's, however overall I don't find them Superior to laterals. It is very difficult for me to compare my Edisons to someone Else's due to the time lapse (travel) and the different acoustics from one room to another. my "Study" , the room that has become my ad hoc music room as well isn't very large so that might have something to do with it. I think part of the problem is the huge variance in sound from different DD's. There is a volumic variety to Victors as well, but it doesn't seem as vast! (Say that five times fast!!!! ;D) I find myself gravitating to-wards my 'umble X when I want to relax with a stack. Now I must through the proverbial monkey wrench into my position. My BA's blow me away! I find then superior to DD's and as good as most acoustic Victors and some electrics. I my mind I have kept my comparison (or at least tried to) to Victor & Columbia acoustic & early electric records. Bringing Cameo, Broadway, Velvet-Tone, Romeo, Regal (U.S.), Gennett, Silvertone, Grey Gull etc. would open up a whole new discussion.

It's now 4:42 ante meridiem and I can't collect my thoughts anymore, they are rolling around the floor at my feet. ;D So I will leave this here for the time being.

Regards,
J.

[maroongem]

John,

The next time you come up, bring along your DD reproducers and I'll rebuild those puppies for you.
I think you had mentioned to me before that at least one hadn't been done.

Bill

[rocky]

John, BAs are NOT supposed to sound better than DDs!! You will agree once your reproducer is rebuilt. I had a reproducer that was sounding terrible. I found out that the diamond had a flat spot; the stylus was replaced and now it sounds great.

Rocky

[gramophoneshane]

I must say I was a little shocked at John's comment on BA's sounding better than DD's. I have very few DD's that don't sound as good as the BA's (only a couple embossed label records with low volume and lots of surface noise.) Either your reproducer desperately needs an overhaul,(DD reproducer ) or a wombat's crawled up the horn ;D
Admittedly, most DD's will have more surface noise than BA's, but for volume and clarity, most DD's win hands down. Of course too, I play my BA's on a home with 12 panel horn, so I might be in for a shock once my Amberola finally gets here. Then again, undoubtedly your 50 will sound much better than my 30.

[larryh]

I see you moved my topic here.. thats fine, I hate to seem out of the loop but what is a BA.. Brunswick Acoustic? I felt over the years when I played a late Brunswick acoustic that sometimes it seemed to have that certian depth that I used to hear in the edisons I had early on.
Its odd I just got a few records today and the one I actually wanted was an Irish Melody by Sonoras Band. Its really quite good and has a bit more warmth than some.. I think however that who ever on this or the other thread on this topic, Dan maybe that said the edisons are recorded within a close range is about right as to what is wrong.. I can go from one record to the other and the melodies are different, but yet the overall effect is very similar and the range of sound the same. Thats what gets grating after a short time. I don't recall that same feeling with other machines except ones that played with small horns or poorly and became tiresome right away.. I had my great grandfathers Victor 1 which he had written the date of purchase under the turn table, Something in 04 I think, I forget the exact date, but I finally parted with it because I always sought out the richest tonal quality and it just didn't have it.
In the mention of the HMV #4 reproducer, its not as ill fated as the american victor of the same number is it? I also recently bought and sold a portable with that reproducer. Nearly anythng I had sounded better. Well actually anything I had did sound better..

[rocky]

BA is Blue Amberol.

[neophone]

Larry,

Interesting you should put it that way, "I can go from one record to the other and the melodies are different, but yet the overall effect is very similar and the range of sound the same.", I think you've hit the nail right on the head there! That is it I think.

BA is, as Rocky says a Blue Amberol cylinder. I am very much taken with my new "toy" ;D I am very impressed with the Amberola 50.

Larry, you mention Brunswick acoustics, they are fantastic records. They have have a wonderful sound, as good as, if not better than some early electrics from other makers. I sometimes spend an afternoon listening to only Brunnies. Now I'm sure you and I are on very different levels listening-wise (You're far more sophisticated than I!), as I said earlier, my primary machine is my 'umble VV-X with narrow Taper-Tube and a small horn, not optimally designed, yet she does it for me. ;D. I have two HMV No. 4's Larry, both all brass so I don't have to deal with the pot metal problems of the VTMCo. No. 4. ( 'would like a Victor No. 4 to compare someday, however I doubt I'd be able to discern any difference. ) I have read in a few places that there are some who consider the No. 4 a failure. I believe I read that according to one study the Exhibition had better range. Without any science to back me I whole-heartedly disagree! I dislike the Exhibition. I find the No. 2 more than adequate, yet the No. 4 reigns supreme in my house. I use the No. 4 even on my VV-50 when I want to play early electrics on it. I have noticed that it doesn't handle late twenties Brunswicks very well, they are in general very loud I think.

I have gone on a bit haven't I!?!

Regards,
J.

[maroongem]

I hate to throw a stick in the spokes, but I have to disagree that BAs can't sound better than DDs.
I have several pieces on both formats, and the BA versions are much clearer and brighter. Bear in mind that the DDs though are of the incised type and we know how "iffy" they can sound even when they appear brand new.
The later BAs dubbed from the paper labeled DDs can and do sound less in quality in many instances.
His best sound on the BA format was the earlier direct recordings done up till Feb 1915, the last number being 2516.
The first of these will have a flat top and if not deleted from the catalogue can have a domed top as well.

Bill

[gramophoneshane]

Yeh Bill!! Keep those numbers coming ;D I've been jotting down these little tid-bits into my BA books.

John,
I don't know about the victors, but I think the HMV no.4 was a great soundbox. With new gaskets, they can handle just about anything. I even play rock n roll records with mine -but only the doops. The no.4 does alot less damage to the records than the 5a. I've never really taken to the no.2 for some reason. I love the exhibition for early single siders though.

BTW Bill- I guess BA's probably do sound as good as a DD on an opera! ;D

[larryh]

J.

I am glad your enjoying your hobby so, that is what is is all about.. I spent much of my life enjoying these things and always had a respect for the possiblities that these machines could put forth. Early on when I was barely a teen ager my Uncle who watched me trying to coax the sound box to play better used to say, "thats just the way those old things sound". Well I hate to say, but he was wrong. Amazing sound is possible when all goes right.
You are actually on to something with the #4 design. I never liked the exhibition and didn't really care for the #2 once I discovered the brunswick ultona. As in my Telefunken portable, the #4 uses a much larger diaphragm which creates more tone and a richer sound from the machines than possible with that smaller mica. I unfortunately concure with those who poo poo the sound of the victor #4. It had so much less tone than the telefunken that you wouldn't know you were listening to the same records.. I know your saying you are not as atuned to the sound quality as you might be, but I would hardly suggest that you try to find a machine that has the largest possible horn of the type you have. My experience with small horn machines has allways left me wanting, and the sound irriatating in comparsion to a larger one. Just not enough developement of the sound waves to get rid of a lot of the hardness the little horns produce. To me the wooden horn Brunswick Ultona machines are probalbly the finest sound possible on acoustic machines. Many down play them and say that Victor was a superior company, but from my life time of observations I have to say the quality of the motors, quite ness of operation and smoothness of winding, not to mention the sound is greatly underlooked by many collectors. I have owned many victors and most wouldn't hold a candle to the quiteness of operation of the brunswick over time. I am not very up on cylinder machines as most I had much contact with were poor in sound and steadyness of the motor or roundness of the cylinder, what ever causes the agravating wow to the records. I did hear one at a major collectors home that did indeed impress me, but I personally never owned one.

[neophone]

Larry,

I do plan on owning a Brunswick machine someday. I too have heard many good things about them. In fact I have a spare two format Ultona tone arm standing by. I had planned on passing it on to anyone who needed it, but the potmetal is so sound and a little voice told me to hold on to it!

Someday I'll have a Credenza or similar large horn machine, but for the time being I make due with the VV-X, Granada & a few others. I would love a Consolette someday as they, or at least one I know of sound fantastic! ;D...

One of the reasons I initially stayed away from cylinders is the WOW you mention along with the boggling myriad or reproducers and cylinder types, GAD! Eventually I decided to just dip my toes in with an Amberola. I do have a few "serious" pieces; singers w minimal accompaniment and a violin piece that are, shall we say less than optimal , but for popular pieces and crash bang classics I love it! I am hooked! ;D

What if anything, other than metals used is the difference between an HMV & VTMCo. No. 4? I am now even more interested in comparing the two. Shane I made a concerted, pardon the pun, effort to "adjust" to listening to my early records with the Exhibition, I noticed an increase in treble that wasn't always complimentary as well as a heavy increase is transmission of the surface noise. I must state here that I have only one good rebuilt version of each of the three VTMCo./HMV Sound-Boxes we're talking about here, so my opinions may well be based on faulty rebuilds (at least in the case of the Exhibition).

Bill keep sticking that stick in the spokes ;D One of the pluses of BA's over DD's is, I think, more consistent material and hence, more consistent playback quality. Shane, is the HMV 5a one of the portable Sound-Boxes? That reminds me, I haven't really mentioned my opinions of the VTMCo. Orthophonic because I have a so-so example which might well fall apart if I attempted to open it up. I have heard an amazing all original brass Orthophonic that blew me away.

One more thing lads, Larry you mentioned in you latest reply to the sister thread of this one on the other board that you found many Red Seals strident or shrill, I believe is the word you used. What sort of needles have you used for listening to your RS's? I have found that fibre needles are superior for listening to clean Victor Red Seal Orthophonics and Columbia Masterworks Viva-Tonals from the mid twenties on up to the later thirties. There is an amazing mellow warmth imparted by the bamboo, that may not be to everyone's liking, I suppose some might find it somewhat muddy, but I prefer them, I feel is gives balance and fullness to many symphonic recordings. Not being a fan of Grand Opera as a rule, I can't attest to the impact on much voice recording other than McCormack. I even use them on some acoustic Red Seals. For most popular music I usually use medium or soft tone needles, I save the loud for special occasions and special discs.

I do hope at least some of this makes sense. ;D

Regards,
J.

[gramophoneshane]

John,
The 5a was what they used on the re-entrant range. They replaced the no.5 after the first couple months. The 5b is exactly the same as a 5a, but has a different "pattern" on the diaphram. The 5b was used on the 102 portables.
I agree with Larry, that the Brunswicks are very under-rated by collectors too. As you know, I think they sound great- although mines a late brunswick, and doesn't have the ultona soundbox. I've yet to have the pleasure of hearing one of those in action! The motors are quiet, quality motors...

[larryh]

J. and others,

You know I am not familar with the #4 HMV soundbox and really don't know how it sounds. If its up to other similar sized european designs then it should be good. I have noticed other collectors reference it as being one of there favorite portables. I only know that the couple of Victor 4's I owned lived up to the reputation of being lackluster.. For instance, I went back and forth with quite a number of records between my telefunken and the victor 2-60. The 2-60 had about half the sound and it was dull and lifeless.. It possibly could have to do with something in the case design too perhaps? I don't care how well you rebuild an exhbition your not going to get very full sound, the reproducer is just too small. Now were way off topic here, but one of the finest soundiing small machines I ever owned was a Silvertone portable table model. It was perfectly clear and solid sounding. Hard to place though and I got tired of it sitting on the floor and like most machines I have owned, sold it.
As to the victor acoustics, naturally as time went on they developed finer sounding classical records. Many of the late ones are quite good, as referenced to the Rachmanioff concerto set, or many of the European imports of concertos and such. If victor could have had the presence of sound that Edison has it would have been a perfect system.
The early electrical symphonic pieces can have many very pleasing tonal parts as mentioned. I guess I am really saying that even in modern recordings, some parts of symphonies that lend to the high string parts can be a bit harsh. Something that is exasperated by the early recording and playback. Columbia somehow remained more listenable to me in those passages and warmer overall.
I never owned a Consolette but had neighbors that owened one once. I did think that for such a small package that it had surprising sound. It seems like in the electrical recording era that the size of the horn, while still important for overall total depth and tone, was probably less noticeable to the average customer due to the volume and increased range of the new electrical records. Even the portables can do a fair job at a distance, although I think that the acoustical portables with the large reproducers come closer to mimicing the larger floor machines.

[neophone]

Larry,

I do not think there is much if any difference between the HMV & VTMCo. No. 4's. here are my no.4's:





The former is the one I use daily.

Does the 2-60 have the standard Victor type Taper, with the "flip-up U-tube"? (I may be confusing it with the 2-30). I do believe the horn design in portables of nearly all brands is somewhat hit or miss. The problem may well have been, as you say with the case (horn) rather than the Sound-Box. To continue with the digressions When we are talking about playing serious music, I don't think the portable is the way to go with the possible exception of the HMV 102, at least according to Adam & Carsten.

Larry I am intrigued now, you haven't commented on my mention of fibre needles. I'd love to know your opinion of them.

Now I'm getting a little scared here in the deep end of the "Phonographic Pool" I think I better paddle back to the shallow end. Hit Of The Week anyone?

Regards,
J.

[larryh]

J.

I am like everyone else, I forget or pass over things sometimes. Your question about the fiber needles was one of those.. Actually I owned a number of them and several cutters for a long time. But for some reason, not backed by any recent testing, I think I found that the tips seemed to wear quickly and the records were looseing clearness towards the end of a side. Similar things happen with an ocassional steel needle also. From what I recall though they had a warm sound and reduced scratch. I find that a soft or medium tone if you can find them are very good at the same thing without as much lose of clarity. I would say if your enjoying them then by all means enjoy them, they certianly won't hurt anything.
Along those lines I have a farm journal book on ideas around the home from the teens. One of the tips in it is to use the thorns from locust trees for needles, simliar in quality to the fiber ones. I have those trees here in my wooded area and on ocassion I did go out and select a few smaller ones to try. the results really werent bad, maybe not quite up to the fiber needle though,
You may have seen my post on the repair section of the other group about finally getting a third test reproducer to compare directly the old diaphragms against the new. I am pretty sure from my exposures so far which way that is going to go, but haven't had the time as yet to start trying it. At least it appears that the needle in the reproducer is good. What I need to have someone knowledgeable with apple computers is to explain in simple terms how a recording can be added to these phonograph groups. I would like to do some direct comparison recordings at some point.. I am about as up to date as how to record to a cassette. Need a new mike also.. Last time I recorded the brunswick I noticed a buzz which is definetly not in the brunswick reproducer, must be the mike going faulty.
I find nothing a bit odd about discussing the quality listening techniques of early recordings. I admit that it eludes many. I have found that by the inability by many to hear the issues around clearness of sound in various diaphragms.. Anything louder than what you had seems to be the main citeria for impovement. Well then maybe your blessed if you don't notice the distortions because your happier with your machines that way.