Thanks for the description. So is it fair to say you get far more bass and far less treble on the C2 than when the same DD is played with a well restored Edisonic reproducer?
Sent from my iPhone -- Peter [email protected] On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:41 PM, "Greg Bogantz" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a C-2. The pickup is essentially the same horseshoe magnet > pickup design as used in most of the contemporary models sold by > Victor, Brunswick, Atwater-Kent, etc. But Edison included a > "scratch filter" (Edison may have had another name for this, but I > can't remember what they called it) module located under the > turntable motor board which was a resistive-capacitive low-pass > filter. This was ostensibly to filter out the "needle scratch" > noise which was supposedly indigenous to needle-cut records, > according to Edison company blather. Truth be told, it filtered the > noise from Edison DDs more effectively. DDs have inherently lower > signal to noise ratio (are noisier) due to their low modulation > level compared to the typical electrical Victor record of the day. > This made the DDs sound particularly noisy when compared with > laterals played on the C-2, so Edison included the filter which was > not switchable. Consequently, all records played on the C-2 are > somewhat lacking in treble response compared with, say, the superior > sound obtained from the Victor micro-synchronous RE-45 or RE-75 of > 1929 which also used a similar horseshoe pickup without the scratch > filter. The C-2 generally has a tubby, boomy sound which is fairly > common with the early large console radios. Again, the Victor micro- > synchronous radios were a major exception to the rule. Their > advanced speaker design is largely responsible for their superior > sound - good, well-balanced sound over the audio spectrum without > excessive bass boominess while still providing extended bass > response to quite low frequencies. Curiously, this speaker (which is > generally attributed to a Kellogg design) was used by Victor and/or > RCA in only that one model year of 1929. The earlier and later > speakers for many years were audibly inferior to the 1929 model. I > don't know why RCA didn't continue using the better design from 1929 > in their later models. Probably had something to do with patent > royalties on the Kellogg design that RCA didn't want to pay. > > Greg Bogantz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Fraser" <[email protected] > > > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison C2 performance > > >> I've been meaning to ask this for some time now...how do the Edison >> electrical reproducers sound, when playing diamond discs? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- Peter >> [email protected] >> >> On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:41 PM, "Bruce Mercer" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes to all of the above. A C-2 I purchased some time ago had both >>> the 12"Roth and Martinelli records (among others) in the albums >>> along with a bunch of pop black with gold lettering on the >>> labels. Ha anyone ever seen a 10" classical with a gold label >>> with black lettering? Needle cuts, as far as I remember were >>> sold from mid July to mid October 1929. They were superior >>> sounding records. >>> Bruce >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Phono-L mailing list >>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org From [email protected] Fri Mar 21 17:50:19 2008 From: [email protected] (Matthew Bullis) Date: Fri Mar 21 18:11:49 2008 Subject: [Phono-L] To George, who has phonograph needles. Message-ID: <001601c88bb6$b730da40$6900a...@matthew> Hello, I remember someone named George writing me letting me know he has phonograph needles, but I lost the e-mail, and am running out of needles. These are the straight needles which you secure with a pressure screw. If you'll please write me again, I'll promptly reply so as not to lose track again. Thanks a lot. Matthew
