You can normally tell the wax amberol wax 2 minute as they are cracked, chipped, or broken. The ones I have seen have the mold line at the bottom like the wax amberol records. As far as I know the mold line was removed from the regular wax two minute records, the wax amberol wax was too brittle for this. Any idea appreciated.
I have seen some under 10,000 that were popular ones made late and there is not consistency, Edison seemed to use what he had when making the wax amberol wax two minute records. When they are in excellent condition they sound great, when they get worn the surface noise is high. Some of the highest numbers I have and the regular wax. Edison continued to make and sell the 2 minute record until the fire, although no new titles were made after Sept 1912. > Wax amberols are 4 minute records and were made of a "wax" formulation, > the same material that was used for the last of the 2 minute wax records > made during the same period (popular catalog numbers generally over 10,000). > This material has accumulated a lot of interior stress over the decades, and > these records (both 2 and 4 minute versions) are notorious for exploding > with very little provocation. They are known to blow up just sitting on the > shelf. So they are already delicate, but you should never play one on an > amberola player using a diamond amberola reproducer. The tracking force is > much higher than when using a sapphire 4-minute reproducer such as a model > H, K, L, M, N, O, or S. So far as I know, all the wax amberol records were > directly recorded - not dubbed. In fact, a number of these recordings were > re-released as blue amberols. Some of the discographies identify these > records. You can find that info in the BA books by Ron Dethlefson. > > Greg Bogantz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Wright" <[email protected]> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:01 PM > Subject: [Phono-L] [SPAM] Edison Amberol question > > > > Hi group, quick question: I just bought what I assume is an early Edison > > Amberol cylinder (two, actually, but my question is about only one of > > them), a 4-minute black-colored cylinder in an original box that is > > printed with mostly green and some gold ink (including the matching box > > lid), Thomas Chalmers' reading of "Even Bravest Heart" by Gounod, #127. > > > > What I need to know is what this cylinder is made of. It appears, for all > > intents and purposes, to by made purely of black wax. No cylindrical > > former is apparent, cardboard, plaster, or otherwise, and no end rings > > either. It has a most immediate sound, with minimal surface noise (though > > only a bit more than a late Blue Amberol) and almost no boxy 'horn' effect > > on the vocal; one of the purest sounding documents I've ever owned, just > > utterly transporting (in spite of the rather stentorian performance). > > > > I also bought a similar cylinder from the same collection, #372, "White > > Wing" by Manuel Romain. This one sounds like most cylinders sound to > > me -- a copy of a copy. Where the Chalmers cylinder sounds like an > > original master cylinder (and it sounds like it was taken from the horn > > directly in front of Chalmers at the time, he's very loud compared to the > > orchestra), this Romain one has plenty of boxy 'horn' effect, like an > > acoustic recording of an acoustic recording. Do we know for certain at > > which point Edison stopped recording with multiple phonographs per > > performance and started making multiple copies of a single master > > cylinder? The audio performance truly is remarkably degraded on the > > latter. > > > > But most importantly, my Amberola 30 stylus has a small amount of black > > dust on it after playing the Chalmers cylinder. Is it indeed black wax? > > Should I consider it a cylinder that has a finite number of plays left on > > it? > > > > > > Thanks as always, > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Phono-L mailing list > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org From [email protected] Wed Mar 25 17:48:24 2009 From: [email protected] ([email protected]) Date: Wed Mar 25 17:48:35 2009 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [Phono-L] Edison Amberol question// Message-ID: <[email protected]> In a message dated 3/25/2009 6:44:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: What would such a machine be, by the way? -------------- Hi It's the reproducer, not the machine itself. So anything with a 4-min. sapphire stylus would be fine. Stay away from diamond stli and heavy weights. Allen _www.phonobooks.com_ (http://www.phonobooks.com) **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From [email protected] Wed Mar 25 17:50:29 2009 From: [email protected] (Steven Medved) Date: Wed Mar 25 17:50:34 2009 Subject: [Phono-L] [SPAM] Edison Amberol question In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References: <1388204791-1237221918-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2044381...@bxe1220.bisx.prod.on.blackberry><[email protected]><243449253-1237226057-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-4698861...@bxe1295.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <cd0f12adaa984fffb1a503766b5ed...@archimedes> <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >From what I have seen playing a wax amberol on a 30 ruins the record. I >sounds good with little surface noise, but after one play the deterioration is >tremendous. I read even with the correct reproducer the wear was enough to >deteriorate opera cylinders so it changed the high notes due to the wear. To reduce the wear Edison took the model O and the round weight N and made a trowel out of the weight. The early trowel weight N is not to be confused with the later N-56 that came out in 1913 for use on the Amberola V and other model(s). The early H and K have swivel shoulders, which I believe was for this reason. The first H had solid non moving shoulders and Edison machined a stylus bar so that it swiveled in non moving shoulders. Steve > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:01:00 -0500 > Subject: [Phono-L] [SPAM] Edison Amberol question > > Hi group, quick question: I just bought what I assume is an early Edison > Amberol cylinder (two, actually, but my question is about only one of them), > a 4-minute black-colored cylinder in an original box that is printed with > mostly green and some gold ink (including the matching box lid), Thomas > Chalmers' reading of "Even Bravest Heart" by Gounod, #127. > > What I need to know is what this cylinder is made of. It appears, for all > intents and purposes, to by made purely of black wax. No cylindrical former > is apparent, cardboard, plaster, or otherwise, and no end rings either. It > has a most immediate sound, with minimal surface noise (though only a bit > more than a late Blue Amberol) and almost no boxy 'horn' effect on the > vocal; one of the purest sounding documents I've ever owned, just utterly > transporting (in spite of the rather stentorian performance). > > I also bought a similar cylinder from the same collection, #372, "White > Wing" by Manuel Romain. This one sounds like most cylinders sound to me -- > a copy of a copy. Where the Chalmers cylinder sounds like an original > master cylinder (and it sounds like it was taken from the horn directly in > front of Chalmers at the time, he's very loud compared to the orchestra), > this Romain one has plenty of boxy 'horn' effect, like an acoustic recording > of an acoustic recording. Do we know for certain at which point Edison > stopped recording with multiple phonographs per performance and started > making multiple copies of a single master cylinder? The audio performance > truly is remarkably degraded on the latter. > > But most importantly, my Amberola 30 stylus has a small amount of black dust > on it after playing the Chalmers cylinder. Is it indeed black wax? Should > I consider it a cylinder that has a finite number of plays left on it? > > > Thanks as always, > Robert > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org From [email protected] Thu Mar 26 08:50:47 2009 From: [email protected] ([email protected]) Date: Thu Mar 26 08:56:06 2009 Subject: [Phono-L] Wanted - 10-50 Record Boxes Message-ID: <[email protected]> I recently purchased a Victrola 10-50 and it is missing the record boxes. If anyone has some or knows of any for sale please contact me off line at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002) From [email protected] Thu Mar 26 23:30:49 2009 From: [email protected] (Robert Wright) Date: Thu Mar 26 23:31:06 2009 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [Phono-L] Edison Amberol question References: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> I wonder how different each master sounded from a session where a bank of machines were recording a given performance simultaneously. Judging from the Chalmers cylinder I've mentioned, it was from the horn directly in front of Chalmers' face (great presence, very little ambiance), while the Romain cylinder sounds like the horn farthest from the singer (very little directness, much horn resonance and ambient information). Is there any way to tell this sort of thing, other than by ear? Best, Robert
