You get the best protection using a credit card through paypal. > > You do get buyer protection for up to $200 if you use Paypal.? :)> > From [email protected] Sat Feb 9 08:48:55 2008 From: [email protected] (Steven Medved) Date: Sat Feb 9 09:58:57 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns In-Reply-To: <003b01c86aab$aaaf34a0$6400a...@hpa1514n> References: <000601c86819$e97a0be0$0200a...@office><[email protected]><[email protected]><003d01c86849$a75cd780$6400a...@hpa1514n><[email protected]> <002701c86868$be365b60$6400a...@hpa1514n> <[email protected]> <003b01c86aab$aaaf34a0$6400a...@hpa1514n> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Hi Greg, Could you use a threaded needle bar and have the needle thread in? Steve > From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] > Victor versus Columbia big guns> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:38:11 -0500> > Hi > Steve,> > I have built several of them. Each is a slightly different > experimental > version on the basic theme. The best one is very good, but it > is still "not > ready for prime time". It remains pretty user-unfriendly, > particularly in > that I haven't figgered out yet how to make the needle > change easy to do. > The common needle chuck arrangement that is found on > nearly all > commercially-made reproducers is a lot of the problem with them. > They are > easy to use but they contribute too much moving mass to the > system. I'm > still thinkin about how to design a needle mount that is low > mass and also > easy to use. Just as in every other area of acoustic > reproducer design, > this one presents diametrically opposing requirements. > Figgering out the > best compromise is where the challenge is. And the > head-scratching.> > Greg Bogantz> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Steven Medved" <[email protected]>> To: "Antique Phonograph List" > <[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:27 PM> Subject: RE: > [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns> > > Hi Greg and list,> > You > said:> > My design has a MUCH lower moving mass and quite a lot higher > compliance > than any other reproducer that was sold to the public.> > Does > this mean you are building them?> > > Steve_______________________________________________> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > _______________________________________________> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org From [email protected] Sat Feb 9 09:53:10 2008 From: [email protected] (Robert Plavzic) Date: Sat Feb 9 10:01:14 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Edison coin-slot on Ebay In-Reply-To: <000801c86acb$59bb6da0$6101a...@wilenzick> References: <20080208230457.hnuf17353.aarprv04.charter....@your4dacd0ea75> <000801c86acb$59bb6da0$6101a...@wilenzick> Message-ID: <[email protected]> It also appeared briefly at the end of 07 in a listing out of London, England! So it gets around. On Feb 9, 2008 4:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't find this item number. Has it been pulled? > Ray > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken and Brenda Brekke" <[email protected]> > To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:04 PM > Subject: [Phono-L] Edison coin-slot on Ebay > > > > Please check out this Ebay item. The number is 120220178131. Wasn't > this > > listed from a seller in Arizona last Fall? The seller is new, it is a > > private listing, the text is the same, and the pictures are all the same > > as > > when it was previously listed. Sounds like another scam listing to me. > > Beware!!!! Ken B. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Phono-L mailing list > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > From [email protected] Sat Feb 9 09:05:47 2008 From: [email protected] (Jon Noring) Date: Sat Feb 9 12:07:21 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] Victor versus Columbia big guns In-Reply-To: <00f801c86afb$78dd8c60$0301a...@daddell> References: <006501c86ac9$61d48eb0$6400a...@hpa1514n> <00f801c86afb$78dd8c60$0301a...@daddell> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Walt wrote: > BUT, Greg made some other points along the way that must be considered and I > will try to harness a few of them here for focus' sake. This means that the > other not-so-short answer to the question would be, no, decreasing the mass > of an acoustic soundbox will not necessarily result in a decrease of lateral > inertia. How so? Theoretically, if the reduction in mass is compensated for > by way of compliance, and if the tone arm pivot friction (not the tone arm > weight) is not a factor (which I believe it would probably be in actuality, > and even more so as the soundbox is made lighter and lighter) then the > needle movement of the soundbox would not suffer from decreased mass. It's a > neat theory. If I understand the discussion correctly (and I may not!) a decrease in mass of the reproducer to reduce the vertical force on the record can be compensated for by increasing the mass of the tone arm (rather than the friction of its rotational movement). Since the issue deals with lateral movement and vibration and not vertical, shouldn't this work? About the tungsten needle issue, Greg, when you take the tungsten wire and snip it to lengths, do you finish the tips to have a particular shape/radius? Also, I've always been intrigued by modern materials for needles not available in the 1920's. For example, some titanium alloys are intriguing for their strength/hardness and *might* confer other advantages such as reduction in contact friction. Also, carbon fiber, even Kevlar, for use as a needle is intriguing. There is also tipping a steel or tungsten needle with another modern material. All in all, I think modern materials offer a lot of possibilities to substantially reduce shellac record wear while maintaining great sound reproduction in Orthophonic-like playback of shellac discs. > I would love to hear the "audible mistracking" you mention because I am > inclined to think that what you are hearing is something that phonograph > makers during the acoustic Victrola days knew would be a problem, and they > therefore engineered the mass of soundbox/gooseneck combinations to stay > away from it altogether. That 135 to 140 gram figure representing soundbox > weight is somewhat of a magic number. We tend to not think of tone arm > "skating" in regard to an early acoustic machine. But, as the tracking force > is decreased then the issue of skating (among others) arises. Food for > thought: As the motor drives the turntable it rotates and develops momentum. > When the stylus is in the groove of a record, the momentum will tend to pull > the soundbox in the direction of the spindle. On a modern stereo skating > problems are pretty easy to hear and compensate for. But once the magic > number of 140 is lowered on an acoustic machine, things start to happen. > This is why I would have fully anticipated hearing some kind of audible > mistracking before I ever left the drawing board. But the mistracking also > opens the door for groove damage. Yes, very interesting. Of course, one can compensate for skating by applying an anti-skating force, but now we are moving away from simply a reproducer change on an original phonograph. (Hmmm, calibrated friction of the horn pivot, or whatever that is called, may be sufficient. Walt mentioned this.) > p.s. I think you will find more than a dozen "of us". We are they who are > called "nerds" at MIT <wink>. An interesting side discussion is if we were to start with a clean slate, and were told to design an acoustic/mechanical playback system without need to be compatible at all with what's been done before, but may apply modern technology (except no electricity or electronics for playback; the recorded media though could be produced by any modern process and technologies, such as lasers), how would the design look? Would it converge to the designs of the early 20th century? Or would it be radically different? Obviously other requirements are needed to be able to converge to some final design... (I've been toying with the idea of a "mechanical tape" system as an example of something very radically different that as far as I know has not been commercially used for serious acoustic audio playback. The wave form would be "cut out" along the length of the tape so the edge of the tape would not be straight but follow the wave form -- I even see this approach being used for modern playback using lasers as a replacement for "vinyl" -- we can get stereo by cutting the waveform on both edges of the tape. Of course, the tape itself could be a totally different material and even different thickness, probably thicker, from magnetic tape... There are certainly variations on this general theme, and maybe someone here will think of the "killer" variation I haven't thought of yet.) Jon Noring
