Hello Robert, Many people judge Edison's recordings with worn or damaged stylus, bad diaphragms, or other reproducers that do not sound their best. The largest weakness I see with Edison phonographs is the unrestored reproducer. I turned the stylus on an H for a friend who thought it was performing fine, he just assumed the cylinders lacked volume and clarity. I rebuild a DD reproducer for other friends who actually enjoyed listening after I replaced the warped diaphragm with a cobbled metal link with a Bogantz. Another friend who thought the Edison muffle ball was not necessary put it back on and was soon using it after his wife started to complain his C-19 was too loud, thanks to the Bogantz diaphragm and a tuning. I myself used to put my ear in the horn when listening, but after one of those new fangled diaphragms hurt my ear I stopped that. The greatest advantage of Victor is the steel needle, you get a fresh stylus with each play. With the Model H and other reproducers that use jewels this does not happen so many people have worn styli. The Edisonic reproducer has a more full sound and sounds different from the standard reproducer. I had one that sounded the same until I installed a Bogantz diaphragm. The previous owner of the Edisonic likely thought the Edisonic sounded the same as the standard. I enjoy the Edison sound and I do not mind when people judge Edison inferior based on a good sounding reproducer. If only we could hear an Opera or A1 that was new and compare it to a new Victor VI with new records then I would happily accept all opinions knowing each phonograph was at its best. I never mind people's opinions, the thing that makes me sad is any phonograph with a poor sounding reproducer. Best regards to all, Steve
> With all due respect, how is vertical cut recording inferior to lateral cut? > > Certainly in the phonograph's first 25 years, Edison's machines sounded > > substantially better than respectively contemporary lateral phonographs. I > > hear more treble extension on direct-recorded 4M amberols than any acoustic > > lateral recordings, as well as more general naturalness. I must > > respectfully disagree that vertical recording can be regarded as inherently > > inferior to lateral recording, generally speaking.> > I should perhaps > mention that I have no allegiance to one method over the > other whatsoever. > Greg B., may I ask your thoughts on this? Any > information about specific > frequency responses, and especially, the physics > involved with both the > recording and playback (and duplication if you care > to get that deep) > processes, would be fascinating and greatly appreciated!> > > Best to all,> > Robert> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <jimcip at earthlink.net>> > <snip>> > Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from > vertical > > cut> > recording)... > > > _______________________________________________> Phono-L mailing list> > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
