Lots of great info, Randy, though the mark was barely missed on some trivial
points and on one very important point I should like to modify.
The important point first. The vertical/lateral/stereo playback issue won't
be resolved by unplugging one channel in a stereo phono rig. When a stereo
cartridge plays a vertical recording, the needle tries to stay still
laterally and bounce up and down with the groove as Edison intended his
stylii to do, but two things happen: one, the forces of inertia and drag
and skate/anti-skate mean the stylus never actually settles down while
traveling vertically - it's always headed towards one side of the groove or
the other. The other thing that happens is the sound generated by this
condition: the surface/mechanical noise is dead mono (except for ticks and
pops) and the music signal shows up as a mono signal (same sound in both
channels) that's had the positive and negative leads flipped ('out of
phase') on one channel. A vertical/lateral switch simply flips the phase on
one channel so that the music signal jumps back into phase while the mono
surface noise becomes out of phase. If you sum these signals together with
a stereo/mono switch, the noise drops by 20 dB, a remarkable difference in a
medium with a dynamic range of maybe 35dB to begin with, because when two
signals of essentially the same sound are summed into mono with one channel
flipped out of phase before the summing, the signals simply cancel each
other out. Similarly, if you flip the vert/lat switch back to lateral (or
normal) position while the two channels are summed mono, the music will
disappear entirely and the surface noise will be amplified. (This obviously
goes for all vertical recordings played back with a modern stereo cartridge,
so it includes cylinder recordings as well. I forget who, but some company
manufactured a heavy, solid brass insert that has a stereo cartridge mounted
in it and is intended to be mounted in the reproducer orifice of a
standard-type Edison cylinder phono. It worked really well, as I recall.)
I should point out here that Randy's information on vert/lat/mono/stereo is
absolutely correct with regard to not vertical, not lateral, but UNIVERSAL
records manufatured and released by Emerson, World Record, and a few other
companies. These records were cut at a 45 degree angle so they could be
played on lateral machines and vertical machines. Unfortunately, this type
of cut wore out in no time, and only gave half the volume of either lateral
or vertical records played on the right machines anyway, so Patent 639,452
(look for it on the label of any record suspected to be universal-cut) was
mercifully short-lived. My opinion is that it was only intended to skirt
patent and copyright infringements anyway. But yes, these universal-cut
records are exactly as Randy has described -- 100% of the music signal comes
from one channel only when played on modern stereo equipment, and the
correct way to attempt playback would involve shutting the non-music channel
off in one way or another.
The pitch difference between 78rpm and 80rpm, for the record (so to speak),
is minimal at best, and most concert violinists with perfect pitch will not
hear the difference (I happen to be a lifelong professional musician who's
had perfect pitch since before I can remember, and spent lots of years
tuning pianos in my spare time as well). I do get weary of hearing people
claim that 'best' or 'proper' sound can't be obtained at 78rpm from a
Diamond Disc. The governors on most old mechanisms drift more than this,
and what's 'best' or 'proper' anyway? I suppose, from a purely historical
standpoint, the speed sticklers are correct. I'd rather solve the issue of
Caruso's G&T's, recorded at 71 and sometimes 67 rpm! Or inside-start
Path?s, at 90rpm. (Those really need the stylus issue addressed, though.)
Speaking of stylus issues, with regard to proper stylus shape/size, Randy's
dead-on-the-money -- Expert Stylus in England are very expensive, but
considering they're custom-grinding tiny tiny diamonds with beyond
microscopic precision, it's definitely worth the price if one can afford it.
There simply is no one else in the world who can approach the quality and
care of their work. And without the optimal stylus choice,
transcription/restoration engineers end up with 50-80% more noise in their
signals to deal with than they'd have with one of Expert's rocks.
I'm one of those audiophooles you describe, Randy, with a turntable rig
upwards of $18k so far. (No offense taken, believe me, I too wonder what
the hell's wrong with me.) I also do restoration semi-pro for record labels
here in Nashville. VTA is certainly a concern for phono enthusiasts, as the
soundstage and tonal balance can be severely (negatively) affected by mere
degrees of misalignment. (Side note - I too thought dead-parallel to the
record was the right VTA setting, but it turns out that the angle should be
[I think] 22 degrees down towards the pivot, so sayeth the set-up manual of
RingMat and no less than Mikey Fremer himself. This gets the stylus rake
closest to the angle of the original cuttting stylus.) However, this
affects the stereo soundstage, which Ed DD's don't have, and it mostly
affects frequencies above 5kHz, which DD's have very very very little of in
rare instances. So proper VTA adjustment will make little or no difference
in actual practice of playing Diamond Disks.
With regard to EQ, Randy's right again -- collectors are indeed better off
without the dreaded RIAA EQ. Fortunately, this amounts to about 20dB of
bass boost starting around 150Hz with a slope of about 12dB/octave. If you
have a 'Bass' knob on your stereo, turn that sucker all the way down.
Unless you like it up. No real rules in casual playback, you know -- we're
not doing transfers for Smithsonian here!
Lastly, Randy, you mention 'mechanical EQ'... Very interesting concept; I
don't know why I've never considered that placing a blanket over a hi-fi
speaker certainly counts as EQ'ing it. So much for audiophooles who intend
to stick with an unmodified signal, 'flat as possible' approach! However, I
believe the EQ differences that came from similar designs of varying brands
of phonographs was nothing more than happenstance. I don't believe for a
second that Victor cabinetmakers offered any opinions about which wood
sounded the best for the horns, etc. This is not to say these elements make
no difference, quite the contrary. But I believe any efforts spent on
playback's finer sonic characteristics were incorporated into
reproducer/diaphragm design, as well they should've been, that element
having the severest effect. My point here is that if one honestly believes
Columbia (or anyone else) set up their recording horns and phono reproducers
to serve any sonic aspect other than sheer maximum volume without blasting,
then one gives these companies entirely too much credit. (The
inconsistencies from one Columbia record to the next bear this out.) The
idea that an internal-horn Victor sounds any better/worse/different than the
same size/material Columbia internal-horn was left to the advertising
departments to fabricate -- and we all know those ads were full of more crap
than a used colostomy bag. (Sorry if that's too graphic.)
If anyone has any deeper questions about this stuff, please feel free to
email me off-list. I love discussing/researching this stuff, and I've only
scratched the surface here, as you can well imagine.
Stay Warm,
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison phono question
>
> In a message dated 12/5/2004 1:40:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> I have found that Edison DD's play well with a modern stereo using the 78
> speed, they do not sound the same as on a DD phono, but play remarkably
well
> and are not damaged.
>
>
>
> It is interesting that you should mention this Steve, because I have been
> researching possible methods of playing Diamond Disks electrically. I love
my
> machines, but I am also an audiophile, (idiofool?) and the standard
Diamond
> Disk tracking force of approximately 150 grams makes me cringe. The Shure
> V-15MR in my modern, Rega turntable tracks at one (1) gram. Edison proudly
claimed
> that Diamond Disks would "last for 1,000 plays." This is probably true,
and
> was an incredible feat for that time, but as my disks approach their
> centennials, it doesn't sound so incredible. I want someone else to enjoy
my records
> when I am deaf and/or dead.
>
> Diamond Disk playback on modern gear presents special challenges. First,
> they are not 78's, (no asides about the very last electrics, please). They
need
> to be played back at 80 RPM. Several companies market modified turntables
that
> will run at speeds to accommodate early Berliners, acoustic Victors,
> Orthophonic Victors, Columbias, Pathes, Edisons, and other disks, as well
as those
> huge transcription records used to record radio shows back in the day.
Some
> units will spin records at speeds from 16 RPM, to as high as 90 RPM.
>
> Diamond disks present another unique problem when one tries to play them
on
> modified, modern turntables. A shellac 78 is not much, if any thicker
than an
> LP, especially 180 gram, audiophile pressings. Diamond Disks are a LOT
> thicker, enough to present VTA (Vertical Tracking Angle) problems. A tone
arm
> should always be parallel to a record it is trying to track. To accomplish
this
> now, a turntable requires a tone arm with adjustable height. This narrows
the
> choices further, and ups the price. Most modern turntables that have been
set
> up to play 78's are fairly modest in cost, compared to what well-heeled,
LP
> collectors often pay for their rigs. It is possible to spend $10,000 for
a
> modern, "high-end" turntable, and $4,000 for a cartridge to play LP's.
Few 78
> collectors are interested in that kind of gear. However, a few of the
modified
> units are available with this feature.
>
> Several companies make cartridges that will play 78's. Most high-quality
> cartridges designed for LP playback are too fragile to take the beatings
78's
> dish out, but Shure, Stanton, and Grado all offer cartridges designed to
play
> 78's, and supply 2.7 mil styli to play postwar, shellac 78's. Edison
Diamond
> Disks need a different diameter stylus. Expert Stylus, in England, makes
> styli for several modern cartridges that are the recommended 3.5 mil
diameter. In
> fact, they make sets of styli with 5 different diameters, so one can find
> which stylus works best with any given record.
>
> Now, we have a stylus that is the right size, in a rugged cartridge,
mounted
> in a tone arm that is the correct height, on a turntable that is spinning
at
> the proper speed. Life is good, right? Not just yet. Most 78's are
> lateral-cut records. Diamond disks are vertical-cut records. One channel
is going to
> be mostly noise, if we try to play these records on a stereo. Some
turntables
> offer a Vertical/Lateral switch as options to resolve this problem. If a
> turntable does not, then one must use a Y adaptor on the correct channel,
and
> feed the leads to the correct input jacks. The lead from the unwanted
channel
> can be plugged (grounded) into an unused jack. If it is left dangling,
hum will
> likely result.
>
> There is one last problem to be resolved, and it is perhaps the least
> understood of all. Most of us have seen older electric phonographs with
settings
> that say, "RIAA", "LP", or "78." These are equalization curves. The ideas
behind
> them are too involved to discuss here, but let it suffice to say that
> collectors of pre-WWII records do not want any of these settings. We need
what is
> called a "flat" setting, a setting that adds no boost to one frequency
range
> over another. It is almost impossible to find a preamp that is powerful
> enough to boost the signal from a phono cartridge enough to drive a
line-level
> input on a stereo, or computer, without running into unneeded and
unwanted RIAA
> equalization. The few units around that attempt to circumvent this
problem
> use complicated, convoluted circuitry in attempts to fool phono inputs
into
> thinking they are performing their tasks correctly. I have found one
preamp that
> amplifies phono cartridge outputs enough to drive line-level inputs,
without
> using any equalization. It is intended for people who are burning their
> cherished LP's onto CD's. The equalization issues are dealt with by
whatever
> software the users employ to prepare their LP's for transfer to LP.
>
> Even this does not solve all problems. The equalization our records and
> machines used was mechanical. Edisons could not even be played properly on
other
> makers' machines. Victor records were designed to sound best on Victor
> machines. Columbias were supposed to sound best on Columbia machines, etc.
The
> records and machines were designed to compliment each other. One can use a
> graphic equalizer, which is really a sophisticated tone control, in a tape
loop,
> and tweak the sound to your taste.
>
> Playback of our beloved disks using modern gear is possible, and the
results
> can be very good. You just have to do your homework. Don't let the sound
of
> most CDs made from old recordings deter you. The engineers who process
those
> recordings mean well, but they don't know, in most cases, what the records
> they are working on sound like when they are played back on properly
> functioning, original equipment. We do know what they should sound like,
and we can do
> at least as good a job as those folks have. Modern playback systems are
> certainly easier on our records, and they will help us preserve our
beloved disks
> for future generations to enjoy.
>
> Randy Minor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phono-L mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> Phono-L Archive
> http://www.oldcrank.org/pipermail/phono-l/
>
