|
Post by saxymojo on Jan 26, 2008 7:35:52 GMT -5
Hi, I have recently purchased two dictaphone machines, X 10 model A and a model B, both machines need a little bit of work, can anyone tell me where I can find information on these machines I would like to get them up and running.
Thanks Marcel
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 26, 2008 8:04:58 GMT -5
Marcel.
Whenyou say dictaphone, do you mean Columbia's machine or are these Ediphones made by the Edison Co.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by saxymojo on Jan 26, 2008 17:50:15 GMT -5
Hi, I believe they were Edison, then they became Dictaphone, this is what I have read about them on the net, maybe he sold the right to the design.
Regards Marcel
|
|
|
Post by maroongem on Jan 26, 2008 21:26:42 GMT -5
Marcel,
Dictaphone has always been the trade name for early machines made by Columbia as far as I know. And the Ediphone was made by Edison, but Dictaphone, like word Victrola, has been used interchangeably with these machines. They are still in business today as Dictaphone Corp.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by lukewarmwater on Jan 26, 2008 21:46:40 GMT -5
Although this is not my field of expertise, I feel pretty certain when I state that Dictaphone and Ediphone were two completely separate entities . . . Ediphone being the corporate descendant of Edison's interests, and Dictaphone, of Columbia. Apropos of dictation cylinders, I was just tonight reading in Howard Hazelcorn's Columbia Phonograph Companion Vol. I (the cylinder Graphophone guide), the essay by George Paul regarding the historical development of 6" cylinders. Paul asserts that although Bell & Tainter's 1886 cardboard/ozocerite 6" x 1-5/8" cylinders with a 160 threads-per-inch pitch predate the 4" 100-tpi standard-sized bore Edison cylinders, the failure of Columbia to exploit the 6" long x 1-5/8 core x standard Edison diameter Type 'E' cardboard/wax cylinder which was developed to replace the ozocerite cylinders hindered the success of the Graphophone vs. the Phonograph, and eventually allowed the disc to overtake the cylinder. The Type 'E' cylinders, were produced before 1895 were offered only as blanks that would fit only the Bell-Tainter style Graphophones. At 100rpm, they had a playing time of 8:45! By not offering them in a factory-recorded format and not introducing any new phonograph to play them, and instead formatting all subsequent cylinders and Graphophones to Edison's standard pitch, bore, and diameter, the cylinder format was thus limited to an approximate two-minute playing time. This limitation was equaled by even the primitive 7" disc, exceeded by the advent of the 10", and completely trumped by the 12". By the time Columbia reconsidered the possibilities of the 6" cylinder in 1905 with the introduction of the Twentieth Century series of cylinders and the BC, BF, BG, BM, and BO Graphophones, the cylinder market was so glutted with the 4" length cylinder format that the impact of the Twentieth Century series upon the market was negligible and the format only lasted two years. By that time, the disc was firmly entrenched and making tremendous headway. The next major innovation in cylinder technology to challenge the playing time of the disc -- the four-minute record -- was not to appear until 1908, the next year Columbia quit the cylinder business to concentrate on the disc business exclusively. The point of all this, is that ironically, even though the 6" cylinder predated the 4" cylinder and the potential playing time was 4x longer, and even though Columbia failed to exploit it successfully at a critical time in the development of the cylinder (twice actually), the 6" format outlived the 4" format by at least 20 years in the form of Dictaphone and Ediphone cylinders (over 30 years if one considers that dictation cylinders were still available in the early 1960's for machines in use, even if the machines were no longer being produced). Luke W.
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Jan 26, 2008 22:02:38 GMT -5
Gosh, did I really say all that? What a wind-bag I've become...! (I'll bet that I dated the 4 minute cylinders to 1908 though.)
And yes, Luke, you and Bill are correct: Columbia produced Dictaphone, and Edison (and later McGraw-Edison) produced the Ediphone. They were always two separate entities.
George Paul
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Jan 26, 2008 22:07:59 GMT -5
Oh - and the correct diameter for Bell-Tainter cylinders is 1 5/16", as stated in the book.
George Paul
|
|
|
Post by lukewarmwater on Jan 26, 2008 22:18:05 GMT -5
George -- Loved that essay! Hope you don't mind my humble interpretation of your ideas. Thanks for the corrections . . . the 1909 date (I'll fix it) was a finger placement typo, but the diameter discrepancy was pure brain fade. I posted without referring back to the book.
So George, how did Edison come to be able to utilize the 6" format for his Business Phonograph? Luke W.
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Jan 26, 2008 23:09:37 GMT -5
Luke, I tried to post earlier but I guess it went to cyberspace somewhere... Anyway, I'm gratified that you enjoyed the essay and I certainly don't mind your interpretation - which was quite accurate except for the two minor points. Gosh, I presented that essay at the 1998 ARSC Annual Conference, and here we are nearly 10 years later talking about it on this board... Of course, had it not been reprinted in Howard's book, the essay would have surely achieved the obscurity it deserves - - I'm probably the only one who cares much about that topic!
Regarding Edison's use of the 6" cylinder format, it was no problem because cylinder length is not a patentable feature. Think of all the smaller manufacturers (Lambert, Indestructible, US Everlasting, etc.) that used the 4" length with impunity...same deal in reverse. Edison and Columbia brought suit on the basis of recording technique, or tapered bore (in the Lambert case), not cylinder length. If you have a copy of the old V.K.Chew book, "Talking Machines," check page 74 and you'll see an illustration of the "Longest Playing Phone" which employed a 16" long cylinder!
Regards, George Paul
|
|
|
Post by saxymojo on Jan 27, 2008 3:09:22 GMT -5
Hi Thanks for the reply's. I didn't set out to buy these machines they were part of the collection I recently bought, they seem to be in good condition and came with about eight new cylinders, I am now interested in getting them going. These are some pictures of them, I also have the stands that they mount onto and a lot of cylinder boxes, head set (missing one ear cup) and a set of air pedals which I assume is for the listening machine for stop start. I am missing the cord to plug them in, I was led to believe that they would also run on 240 volts, I am just about to open them up and have a look. Regards Marcel
|
|
|
Post by lukewarmwater on Jan 27, 2008 8:51:55 GMT -5
Marcel -- One is the boss's machine (with the speaking tube), the other is the secretary's machine (transcriber). Now you need to find a shaver to complete the set and make them usable again. Those are easy to find. I remember when we were teenagers, Paul Baker and I were always trying to invent electrically driven recorders and stuff. We were shaving a brown wax blank on a Dictaphone shaver (these spin the cylinder at a very high speed) . . . I suppose the blank had a hairline in it and it came apart and a large fragment hit me so hard in the forehead that I saw stars. Lesson #1 -- Close the lid when shaving! The 6" dictation cylinders have a mesh embedded in them to hold them together when shaving, but I still never took chances after that!
George -- You've infected me with caring about that topic, so now there are two of us. We need to have a beer together sometime. Interesting that cylinder length wasn't patentable . . . I suppose diameter wasn't either(?) since Edison chose not to patent the Concert cylinders which at the time were a 'trade secret' he was using in his recording studio. I've always been under the impression that he didn't patent that format so as not to alert the competition to his methods, but was it patentable then at all?
Yes, I have the Chew book with the 'Longest Playing Phone' (aka, the 'Horsiest Name Phone'). LOL
Luke W.
|
|
|
Post by phonogfp on Jan 27, 2008 9:30:33 GMT -5
Luke, Right - the diameter of a cylinder was likewise not a patentable feature. Edison sought to protect the DUPLICATING process which employed 5" masters, so under the circumstances, secrecy was the best option. Now that you're a fellow mourner of the neglected 6" format, it's time for you to read the essay on Adolf Melzer...! It's actually an interesting story, and Melzer's original Graphophone is shown in "Discovering Antique Phonographs." Regards, George Paul
|
|
|
Post by lukewarmwater on Jan 27, 2008 10:01:58 GMT -5
Oh yeah . . . I have that book and am familiar with Melzer's fascinating story. Evansville is just down-river from me a couple of hours. I antique there when I'm making the regional rounds but haven't located any Melzera (yet!) The second Graphophone Macdonald sent them hasn't been located! Yet!!!
Just did a little 'Melzer' Googling and found Adolph listed in the 1859 Louisville City Directory. He was a soap maker on East Main Street between Cabel and Webster here in my hometown apparently before he drifted down river to Evansville. Wonder if he lived here at the same time that Thos. Edison did in the late 1860's? My business is two blocks south of East Main on East Liberty! Cabel and Webster no longer go all the way through to Main, but I drive home on that very block every day. I don't know what side of the street Melzer was on, but ironically the Crazy Daisy Antique Mall is right there on the south side today. It is also interesting to note that being a soap maker, Melzer required a supply of animal fat . . . his Louisville address is in a neighborhood called Butchertown . . . the location of the old Louisville stockyards. Edison lived in Butchertown, too, a few blocks West on Washington Street. Luke W.
|
|