Not in my experience. Take the springs off the reproducer and the ringing goes away. Contrary to the Edison propaganda, these springs don't do anything useful. Yes, you can damp the ringing by coating the springs in RTV or slipping a rubber sleeve over them, but you get better performance by just taking them off altogether. Note that Edison himself must have given up on the interior diaphragm spring of the Dance design because he eliminated it when he went to the later Edisonic design. These extra springs add additional peaks to the frequency response corresponding to their own resonance and their modifications to the diaphragm resonance. Neither of which is desirable.
Greg Bogantz ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >I think the "ringing" of the Edisonic Reproducer is due to the vibration of > the weight, acting like a bell, being transmitted to the stylus bar & thus > to the diaphragm by the spring, not by vibrations generated by the spring > itself. > > Jim Cartwright > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Greg Bogantz <gbogantz1 at charter.net> >> To: Antique Phonograph List <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >> Date: 5/8/2008 2:47:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >> >> Ron L is correct. But both of these springs were bad ideas to begin >> with. They were a lame attempt to account for the escessive bias placed > on >> the diaphragm by the extra weight which causes the diaphragm to be > stressed >> (and strained) downward even more by the tension in the stylus bar link. >> The extra weight used in the Dance and Edisonic models was required to >> reduce mistracking and distortion when playing highly modulated records, >> particularly the later electrics. It DOES NOT make the reproducer play >> "louder", contrary to the bilge in the Edison blurbs to that effect. The >> loudness can only be controlled by changing the mechanical "gain" of the >> stylus bar which is the ratio of the stylus tip distance to the bar pivot >> relative to the distance from the bar pivot to the link. This ratio is > the >> same for ALL Edison DD stylus bars, hence they all play at the same >> loudness. You can confirm this to yourself by using the different models > of >> reproducer to play very soft recordings which do not tax the reproducers > - >> they will all sound the same loudness. The fact that they may sound >> different when playing loud recordings is due to the differences in >> mistracking and distortion that they exhibit on those records. >> >> This biasing of the diaphragm is indigenous to the tracking of > vertical >> modulation and is one of the several problems with that technology. > (This >> problem does not exist with lateral reproduction.) Having a permanent > bias >> or bend in one direction while playing a record causes the diaphragm to >> exhibit assymmetric nonlinear behavior (due to it nonlinear elasticity) >> which is yet another contributor to the generation of even orders (2nd, > 4th, >> 6th, etc.) of harmonic distortion. Edison tried to reduce this bias (or >> permanent bending offset under playing tension) of the diaphragm with the >> addition of these springs into his later models of DD reproducers. There > is >> a lot of bloviation about the purpose of the springs in his patent >> disclosure for the Dance reproducer, but compensation for the bias was > their >> intended purpose. It didn't work. Mostly because he didn't account for > the >> added spring constants these springs introduced into the diaphragm > resonance >> which changes and/or adds to the mechanical resonances of the system. In >> particular, he didn't damp the springs sufficiently or at all. The >> diaphragm spring was designed with some damping in it, but it was >> ineffective. The stylus bar spring has no damping that I can find. >> Consequently, you can hear this spring "ring" when you play records. If > you >> pay attention, you can hear a ringing noise behind the music which is > this >> spring boinging or oscillating. Bad idea. My advice is to just remove > both >> of these springs. The reproducer will sound cleaner and clearer with > fewer >> resonances and extraneous noises. >> >> Greg Bogantz >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron L" <lherault at bu.edu> >> To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> >> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >> >> >> >I believe one has two springs and the other has only one. I think the >> > Edisonic has the spring only on the needle bar and the Dance has one on >> > the >> > diaphragm as well, hence the bolt-on neck. >> > >> > Ron L >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org > [mailto:phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org] >> > On >> > Behalf Of Peter Fraser >> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:46 PM >> > To: Antique List Phonograph >> > Subject: [Phono-L] edisonic vs. dance? >> > >> > can anyone expound on the differences between the Edison Dance >> > reproducer and its successor, the Edisonic? As near as i can tell, >> > it's just the bolt-on neck...but does the little spring have different >> > characteristics? is there anything else? do they sound appreciably >> > different when equally restored? >> > >> > thanks for anything you can offer... >> > >> > -- peter >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
