Edison Automatic Recorder on a Standard Model B phonograph

[nixdorf]

Hey everyone,

just recently obtained a later Model B phonograph that also came with an early "Automatic Recorder" attachment, which had been used - to my knowledge - with earlier machines that had slightly different mounting.

Unfortunately, this Automatic Recorder was received defective, as it contained no gaskets, no diaphragm nor the thin linkage between it and the stylus, and the stylus was snapped from one end.

I was able to loosen the sapphire tip in its mount, rotate it the other end and fix it in place, so that the tip was nice and "cylindric" (in comparison with the tip of a stylus on a "C" Reproducer, where looks more like a doorknob).

But when it came to the diaphragm and link, that was just guesswork and improvization as I do not own a working recorder. I made an aluminum "beer-a-phragm" from a beer can cut into a small circle, with a paper staple soldered in the center to act as the link. I've cut it to a length where both the cutting arm was able to move within around 25 degrees, and the recorder "counterweight" could move freely on gravity, in between the bounds of the bottom set-screw. In this arrangement however, I've turned the recorder into a reproducer - it did not emboss a groove onto a blank cylinder, but it was able to play records.

I have also tried reducing the length of the link between the diaphragm and the stylus arm to a point where the arm was now much lower, and fixed in position, which also caused the counterweight of the recorder to become fixed (I do not think that was the way it had been supposed to work), with undesirable results: the stylus started cutting a groove into the cylinder, and the diaphragm "flexed" around each half a revolution, bouncing the cutter stylus and, besides a groove, it also created visible circular "pitting" holes into the wax cylinder. Needless to say, this arrangement didn't record anything and it brought the mandrel to a standstill after a few spins. Too much force perhaps.

So the first question is... am I doing this right, or do I really need some kind of a rigid diaphragm (unlike a reproducer)? Or, better yet, do these Automatic Recorders work with the later phonographs that use a single mounting screw on top? Of course I have rotated mine a bit so that the "RECORDER" arm is slanted upward, in order for the stylus to be parallel to the cylinder.

Perhaps it didn't help that the "linkage" between the diaphragm and the stylus arm was soldered into the diaphragm, and it should have been fed through a small hole like in a reproducer?

Thanks

[lucius1958]

All in all, your best bet is to get a later style recorder, and sell the Automatic to someone with the means to do a proper restoration on it.

The later recorders are not too hard to find, although they are often missing the stylus: I have heard of some folks offering replacement styli, but you'd have to check. Perhaps if you contacted Wyatt Markus, he might be able to find you a good recorder in partial trade for the Automatic. I don't know how he is with recorders, but he's a perfect whiz with reproducers... I hope this is of some slight help.

BillS

[lucius1958]

To expand: the Automatic recorder was a delicate instrument, and deserves to be rebuilt as original.

The diaphragm was originally of thin French glass, with the link glued on: manuals of the period suggest exchanging different thicknesses, depending on the type of recording one wished to make. Aluminum from a beer can is probably not the best choice: mica might work, but that is doubtful.

Also, the butt end of the old sapphire is not going to work well: it was not polished to a sharp enough edge to make a good cut. Sapphires were offered in either a 'flat' end, or a 'cupped' end: the cupped end is generally better. I have read of using a glass rod of the right diameter to replace a missing sapphire; but glass will not last as long as sapphire.

Again: you would do best to trade the Automatic for a good, later style recorder.

BillS