|
Post by larryh on Nov 1, 2009 14:02:26 GMT -5
A follow up on thoughts about materials. Often I see something I think might work and when I give it a real test the results while perhaps producing sound of some acceptable level will not have the excitement of fullness of the original.
So after combining these materials which even though simple, were deemed to have good properties by several rather well intentioned tinkers around our groups, I found that with the addition of my version of the sound amplifier and link could produce sounds better than what either standing alone had accomplished. That doesn't rule out other test products, I am just explaining the whys of the material that is currently being used.
I did try some other things for the core that on looking appeared to have possibilities but in real life just didn't pan out. Its always the sound quality with me, if it won't improve it I move on.
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 12, 2009 14:56:21 GMT -5
As usual I am somewhat puzzled again.. My only recipient of the new style mentioned some issues with piano records and another type. I checked some with my records and found that indeed I could hear a sort of clipping noise above really quick high notes at volume. Then I checked it against several other similar records, nothing in those to be heard. But in playing farther I find that indeed the diaphragm can cause a kind of clacking noise in some places, but by no means on all piano records. So today I got out my original diaphragms for a test against the same places. Well the first impression was that mine actually had better overall tone and volume, but in those places where mine failed the original did so in a much more muted fashion. If you listen carefully you can hear a much quieter version of the effect, but not as metallic as mine in those places. I have looked for the source of that issue for what, two years now almost off and on? The odd thing is however I went on to play some dance band pieces and others with the original. Well it may be one that is in poorer shape, because my diaphragm had more presence and volume but oddly the original then distorted badly in places mine doesn't.. so it leaves you shaking your head. I get discouraged when something makes a sound I don't want, but sometimes forget the overall effect is still much better than the items I started out to try and improve on. And Yes I have also checked against those, and they have all the inherent noises I am trying hard to avoid, but without the tone and punch mine has. So I still will keep tinkering this winter, who knows maybe someday I will find a perfect way to do it, but it looks unlikely. Not sure that precludes the fact that probably for many the sound I have achieved would be welcome?
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 22, 2009 13:37:21 GMT -5
I know from the numbers on the thread that some of you are out there and reading at least some of what is said..
I need some "feedback here". I am wondering what your experiences are with original diaphragms as to distortions heard or noises emitting from the reproducer in play. I ask that because though out this process I run into places where the original ones I have will produce distortions on piano pieces and vocals and some buzzing as well in pop things. Sometimes my creations do worse, sometimes they show less of it.
I put together the latest design with the first cap piece i used from the "bumper' type vinyl material, it being the largest I had used. It did seem to produce a yet clearer and stronger sound, but here and there the lingering associated buzzes or noises immited from the reproducer. On comparisons to original ones in some cases again, mine does better or worse depending. I recall from my earliest experiences with Edisons in the early 60's that often the thing that bugged me was the same kind of problems I am having today. So noises or blasting isn't a new problem and I believe it exist either in the new or old diaphragms..
Do any of your have flawless sounding originals?
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Nov 23, 2009 17:38:45 GMT -5
Larry,
I think most of us just enjoy listening to our older phonos and, if there is nothing that really stands out like dried out gaskets, etc., we are content with the music that is produced. I have used one of your older style diaphragms in one of my Edisonics and have found it very enjoyable to listen to.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 23, 2009 17:52:43 GMT -5
Thanks Bill,
I knew you were one of those who was reasonably satisfied with my efforts.
I heard from another who somewhat confirmed that the original diaphragm could fail at some points as well. I think I get hung up on the fact that I hear every defect for the most part. I guess its the curse of the search for perfection. But hey that isn't really where I started this journey, but its come fairly far and as close to perfect as possible is a goal. I want people to hear the most possible sound as clearly as I can make it. That is one reason why feedback from forum users is so valuable, it gives me a reasonable feel for how satisfactory things are to others.
Its kind of like a friend of mine says about life, you may want it to be a 10, but in real life happiness comes more at being happy with a 7.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by timland on Nov 23, 2009 20:37:58 GMT -5
Larry, When you asked me to test your latest diaphragm, I was a little skeptical initially. Only because the earlier version (year & 1/2 ago) sounded so good. I really didn't think it could be better but you managed to do it. The latest has more power and clarity without overdriving. Unfortunately, I don't think the videos I made were able to pick up the difference. If you stand 10 ft directly in front of the horn, the improvements were very obvoius. Yes, there are a few distoritions on loud notes, but I think it's a combination of problems on the record itself and limitations of the technology.
Tim Land
|
|
|
Post by bostonmike1 on Nov 25, 2009 19:19:57 GMT -5
Larry----I read your statement on another board that you appreciate the fact Matt has allowed you to use this space to explore and share your experiment concerning reproducers. I suppose my question should be "why would he not?"Although I am neither authorized nor qualified to speak for Matt Brown, in my estimation I feel quite confidant that he appreciates, as do myself and others on this board, your efforts and willingness to expose your victories as well as failures with us all in your endevor. As a "mechanical scientist" myself, I truly understand and can commisserate with you the frustration at times when the initial goal is not achieved but I admire the passion you have to presevere to get there one day---and you will. Happy Thanksgiving and keep us all apprised . I for one look forward to it daily. Michael
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Nov 25, 2009 20:34:49 GMT -5
Mike,
I appreciate your reading my post. Yes it sometimes seems like I am out here in the space alone, but I know people do follow what is being said. I enjoy trying to recreate something that will come closer to the originals sound when they were new, as many do not any longer. The frustrations of it all sometimes force me to give it up for a while, but usually I get the mood to once again put some things together and see what happens.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by bostonmike1 on Nov 25, 2009 21:35:23 GMT -5
Mike, I appreciate your reading my post. Yes it sometimes seems like I am out here in the space alone, but I know people do follow what is being said. I enjoy trying to recreate something that will come closer to the originals sound when they were new, as many do not any longer. The frustrations of it all sometimes force me to give it up for a while, but usually I get the mood to once again put some things together and see what happens. Never give up my friend---NEVER GIVE UP. You are on a path you believe in --- and for what I can do-I support you and and applaud your pending success. Michael Larry
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 4, 2009 13:24:23 GMT -5
Still playing from time to time. I know I have promised several of your some versions of my diaphragm soon. I as usual find my self being unsatisfied with my work. The one saving grace of it all is in hearing again the series of diaphragms, both mine as well as others and comparing the sound. As much as I tend to find fault in my own, I do find it refreshing to compare my own tries with the latter ones as well as some of the current new ones.
Yesterday I made a "waltrip" type all foam model with a few twist to use some of my ideas as well. I must admit that it has some good features. It will play a piano or other pieces with sharp high notes showing less harsh ends to the sound. Of course the trade off is that the overall sound is a bit more subdued. Not a bad thing until you compare it to the best one I made recently and find that it provides more punch and detail. For my own listening in a small room I might actually find it appealing not to be overwhelmed by the sound. Where I think the waltrip design is a hair better is in bass response. So I continue to blend ideas in hopes of something even better. I think I will put up some photos of the main more successful ones in the thread I started over on the talking machine site. That way you can see some of the development of ideas. I am still hoping that a few of you may have some designs of your own to share.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by tarheeltinkerer on Dec 4, 2009 22:07:59 GMT -5
Hi Larry,
I'd love to see photos of your Waltrip. Have you considered using a woven linkage like the original Edisons? I'm curious is this would change the sound between being too subdued and too bright.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Dec 4, 2009 23:33:04 GMT -5
Or, to take it further, can you re-create what Edison used? It seemed to work fairly well for him.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by bostonmike1 on Dec 5, 2009 0:03:31 GMT -5
Bill , good point----and I will get back to you on the other matter I wrote to you about. Time is not on my side at this very moment. Michael
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 5, 2009 13:32:05 GMT -5
Gentleman,
So far I have not discovered anything that will transmit the sound to the diaphragms as well as what I am using, even though it tends to have issues at times. I tired early on weaving cotton heavy duty thread in to a link, but the sound was much reduced and lackluster where as the floss brought out the sound well. I know somewhere there is something that will work well, but so far I haven't figured out what it was. I bought some expensive fishing line after some of the floss links had a tendency to either untie them selves or stretch too much, but it was difficult to tie and the sound was still not quite right.
Some day!
|
|
|
Post by larryh on Dec 5, 2009 23:27:58 GMT -5
While I am thankful for Frank for putting up the U tube videos its apparent that the diaphragm he has is not acting well on piano pieces. My best one similar to his is almost absent distortion, but is too loud. I am pretty sure that is some of the issue as I have wondered off and on. Too many collectors want "Loud" and it comes at a cost. Shrill sound and distortions made worse. Not that I have any perfected ones, I don't. But I have some that came close. I too get caught up in putting on a record and hearing the music come out with more force and think that means its better.
In reading the Dance Reproducer literature in the Frow book I am starting to see something I hadn't really caught previously. That is that it mentions that the dance reproducer will play most of the louder dance pieces without distortion compared obviously to the standard heads. But oddly it then goes on to say the the Dance will play "most" of the earlier records well. What does that mean? I think these problems of balancing everything is really hard now and then. My Waltrip type plays piano petty finely and more mellow. But it fails badly at loud pop things that mine seems to do pretty good?
Larry
|
|