[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Dear Mr. Wright: I wasn't trying to start an argument but my thoughts on the subject of lateral vs. vertical cut recording are briefly. Over all, lateral-cut recording is superior to vertical-cut because of two main factors: 1. With lateral-cut, the vibration of the stylus is controlled from both directions during playback - with vertical-cut the bottom of the groove can push the stylus up leaving only the displacement elasticity of the reproducing diaphragm to push it back down. This becomes more of a problem with louder volume increased frequency responce.Acoustic lateral-cut 78s can have a far greater dynamic range than vertical-cut diamond discs to say nothing of cylinders. Nearly all the electrically recorded diamond discs I've heard are inferior to their Western Electric electrical counterpoints, Victor Columbia, in terms of frequency dynamic range and lack of audible distortion, to my ears at least. 2. The amount of wax removed in recording a waveform is constant in lateral-cut recording whereas with vertical-cut more wax is removed in engraving a downward motion of the cutting stylus, creating a deeper groove, and less when the stylus rises, creating a shallower groove, bringing about an uneven resistance to the cutting stylus in each half of the waveform. I admit that the high frequency responce of Edison vertical-cut cylinders diamond discs is often superior to many contemporary lateral-cut discs but this is due to Edison's limiting the mass of the recording diaphragm and cutting stylus assembly, not to the vertical-cut method itself. This limiting of vibratory mass could have, with proper design, been applied to the lateral-cut method, increasing its high frequency responce. Would still like to know how to get the best possible sound reproduction from all my antique machines whether lateral or vertical. Very truly yours, Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. [Original Message] From: Robert Wright esroberto at hotmail.com To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Date: 01-Nov-2008 5:46:12 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) 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
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Jim, I just talked with my friend who designed the Ediphonic and he said I could post some pictures of the horn and the complete machine. I'll try to get that done here shortly. I think I convinced him to join Phono-L, so you might see him contributing to our discussions here later. Regarding the use of a round link fastener on my diaphragms: I've tried several ways to make these, but the issue always comes down to keeping the moving mass as low as possible. The little piece of wire that I use is the simplest means of attaching the link and it sounds no different from the disc-shaped means that I tried. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: jim...@earthlink.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Dear Mr. Bogantz: Your friend's experimental exponential Amberola horn sounds fascinating - wish I could hear it. I tried playing diamond discs through one of my Orthophonic Credenzas using the Bruswick Ultona arm and soundbox this was quite an improvement over the diamond disc machines - am sure it would have been much better if it had been possible to use an Edison reproducer. Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical cut recording), both cylinder disc, is that they, unlike their lateral-cut competitors' acoustic machines, did not employ tone arms that by their very existance elogated the narrower portion of the tone passage, more closely approximating exponetial shape. One would have thought that mathmatician Theodore Edison would have exponentially elongated the narrow portion of the horn in the Edisonic. Wish your friend would market an aftermarket exponetial horn for both Amberola Diamond Disc phonographs.Let me know if he does. I bought one of your diamond disc diaphragms several years ago thought it might be improved by having the link attached to the diaphragm by a round something against the diaphragm rather than the little straight bar.Have you by any chance incorporated this improvement? Am always interested in obtaining the best sound quality from my vintage machines. All good wishes... Very truly yours, Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances 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: 28-Oct-2008 5:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Dear Mr. Bogantz: Thanks for the info on your diaphragm. I've talked with local antique phonograph repairman Jeff Cecil about his building an exponential horn to fit in my Edisonic's case but he is too busy to take this on and I lack the skills necessary. Perhaps fiberglass might be used?I'd love to see the pictures of your friends creation. All good wishes... Very truly yours, 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: 02-Nov-2008 8:23:24 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Jim, I just talked with my friend who designed the Ediphonic and he said I could post some pictures of the horn and the complete machine. I'll try to get that done here shortly. I think I convinced him to join Phono-L, so you might see him contributing to our discussions here later. Regarding the use of a round link fastener on my diaphragms: I've tried several ways to make these, but the issue always comes down to keeping the moving mass as low as possible. The little piece of wire that I use is the simplest means of attaching the link and it sounds no different from the disc-shaped means that I tried. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: jimcip at earthlink.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Dear Mr. Bogantz: Your friend's experimental exponential Amberola horn sounds fascinating - wish I could hear it. I tried playing diamond discs through one of my Orthophonic Credenzas using the Bruswick Ultona arm and soundbox this was quite an improvement over the diamond disc machines - am sure it would have been much better if it had been possible to use an Edison reproducer. Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical cut recording), both cylinder disc, is that they, unlike their lateral-cut competitors' acoustic machines, did not employ tone arms that by their very existance elogated the narrower portion of the tone passage, more closely approximating exponetial shape. One would have thought that mathmatician Theodore Edison would have exponentially elongated the narrow portion of the horn in the Edisonic. Wish your friend would market an aftermarket exponetial horn for both Amberola Diamond Disc phonographs.Let me know if he does. I bought one of your diamond disc diaphragms several years ago thought it might be improved by having the link attached to the diaphragm by a round something against the diaphragm rather than the little straight bar.Have you by any chance incorporated this improvement? Am always interested in obtaining the best sound quality from my vintage machines. All good wishes... Very truly yours, Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances 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: 28-Oct-2008 5:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Dear Mr. Bogantz: Your friend's experimental exponential Amberola horn sounds fascinating - wish I could hear it. I tried playing diamond discs through one of my Orthophonic Credenzas using the Bruswick Ultona arm and soundbox this was quite an improvement over the diamond disc machines - am sure it would have been much better if it had been possible to use an Edison reproducer. Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical cut recording), both cylinder disc, is that they, unlike their lateral-cut competitors' acoustic machines, did not employ tone arms that by their very existance elogated the narrower portion of the tone passage, more closely approximating exponetial shape. One would have thought that mathmatician Theodore Edison would have exponentially elongated the narrow portion of the horn in the Edisonic. Wish your friend would market an aftermarket exponetial horn for both Amberola Diamond Disc phonographs.Let me know if he does. I bought one of your diamond disc diaphragms several years ago thought it might be improved by having the link attached to the diaphragm by a round something against the diaphragm rather than the little straight bar.Have you by any chance incorporated this improvement? Am always interested in obtaining the best sound quality from my vintage machines. All good wishes... Very truly yours, Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances 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: 28-Oct-2008 5:48:38 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
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: jim...@earthlink.net snip Obviously the great weakness of Edison phonographs (aside from vertical cut recording)...
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
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
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Why would the Lyre grille model sound better than other Amberola I-A phonographs? Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. [Original Message] From: George Glastris glastris at comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Date: 28-Oct-2008 8:24:47 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for blue amberols)? Thanks, Bruce Bruce Johnson
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
I mean the Lyre grill looks better, not sounds better. - Original Message - From: jim...@earthlink.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Why would the Lyre grille model sound better than other Amberola I-A phonographs? Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. [Original Message] From: George Glastris glastris at comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Date: 28-Oct-2008 8:24:47 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
For best sound, remove grill, any of them. George Glastris wrote: I mean the Lyre grill looks better, not sounds better. - Original Message - From: jimcip at earthlink.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Why would the Lyre grille model sound better than other Amberola I-A phonographs? Jim Cartwright Immortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. [Original Message] From: George Glastris glastris at comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Date: 28-Oct-2008 8:24:47 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
That lever is for when the mechanism is being taken out of the cabinet. It's really not meant to be used for operating the machine, just for moving the machine. - Original Message - From: Albert cen...@comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) I also have a A-1, and I play it often, (first rococo grill) but I never could figure out why they put the extra shut off lever on the front left of the bedplate. The lever to lower the reproducer turns the machine on and when you lift it the machine shuts off, so why the extra shut off? kind of redundant, and I never have used it. Also If you are going to play wax amberols I think the model L tracks them better than the M. Al. - Original Message - From: George Glastris glastris at comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for blue amberols)? Thanks, Bruce Bruce Johnson Pod Valem II, 870 252 43 Pruhonice Czech Republic Tel: (CZ) + 420 602 362 473 Tel: (US) + 1 612 605 5242 From: phono-l-request at oldcrank.org phono-l-requ...@oldcrank.org To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:00:05 PM Subject: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 288 Send Phono-L mailing list submissions to phono-l at oldcrank.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://oldcrank.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/phono-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to phono-l-request at oldcrank.org You can reach the person managing the list at phono-l-owner at oldcrank.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Phono-L digest... If you reply, please change your subject line and don't include this entire digest in your message.Today's Topics: 1. Re: Loss To Phono Collector Community (Zonophone2006 at aol.com) 2. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Michael F. Khanchalian) 3. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) 4. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) 5. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Rich) 6. Re: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 287 (RROCRREC at aol.com) 7. Dave Boruff (Mark Dawson) 8. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) 9. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-p...@yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for blue amberols)? Thanks, Bruce Bruce Johnson Pod Valem II, 870 252 43 Pruhonice Czech Republic Tel: (CZ) + 420 602 362 473 Tel: (US) + 1 612 605 5242 From: phono-l-request at oldcrank.org phono-l-request at oldcrank.org To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:00:05 PM Subject: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 288 Send Phono-L mailing list submissions to phono-l at oldcrank.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://oldcrank.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/phono-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to phono-l-request at oldcrank.org You can reach the person managing the list at phono-l-owner at oldcrank.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Phono-L digest... If you reply, please change your subject line and don't include this entire digest in your message.Today's Topics: 1. Re: Loss To Phono Collector Community (Zonophone2006 at aol.com) 2. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Michael F. Khanchalian) 3. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) 4. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) 5. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Rich) 6. Re: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 287 (RROCRREC at aol.com) 7. Dave Boruff (Mark Dawson) 8. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Steven Medved) 9. Re: Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogan...@charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for blue amberols)? Thanks, Bruce Bruce Johnson Pod Valem II, 870 252 43 Pruhonice Czech Republic Tel: (CZ) + 420 602 362 473 Tel: (US) + 1 612 605 5242 From: phono-l-request at oldcrank.org phono-l-request at oldcrank.org To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:00:05 PM Subject: Phono-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 288 Send Phono-L mailing list submissions to phono-l at oldcrank.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://oldcrank.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/phono-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to phono-l-request at oldcrank.org You can reach the person managing the list at phono-l-owner at oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
I also have a A-1, and I play it often, (first rococo grill) but I never could figure out why they put the extra shut off lever on the front left of the bedplate. The lever to lower the reproducer turns the machine on and when you lift it the machine shuts off, so why the extra shut off? kind of redundant, and I never have used it. Also If you are going to play wax amberols I think the model L tracks them better than the M. Al. - Original Message - From: George Glastris glast...@comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight-cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg, I'd be interested to know more about why an Amberola 1A would not sound equally as good as the 1B for 4 min wax or blue amberols assuming the correct reproducer is used, (the M for 4 min wax and the diamond A for blue amberols)? Thanks, Bruce Bruce Johnson
[Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz)
On my Amberola 1A, the extra lever provides a more positive shut off. If I just use the upper lever, I sometimes get a little bit of slippage. On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Albert wrote: I also have a A-1, and I play it often, (first rococo grill) but I never could figure out why they put the extra shut off lever on the front left of the bedplate. The lever to lower the reproducer turns the machine on and when you lift it the machine shuts off, so why the extra shut off? kind of redundant, and I never have used it. Also If you are going to play wax amberols I think the model L tracks them better than the M. Al. - Original Message - From: George Glastris glastris at comcast.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Greg is correct on his points about the IA. I've had mine for almost 20 years and it has followed me around England, then to Boston with a couple moves in town, then to Chicago with a couple of moves. Of the 50 or so machines I own or have owned,(not to mention the 1,000s I've handled professionally) it is by far my favourite. If I could only keep one it would be the one. Yes, wax Amberols may sound better on a III and Blue Amberols better on an Opera, but only the IA plays all three as well as non-Edison celluloids. And you get storage for your 100 fave cylinders. And given a choice, the Lyre grille is the best. Long live the Amberola IA!!! Best to all, George - Original Message - From: Greg Bogantz gbogantz1 at charter.net To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research: Amberolas 1A and 1B (Greg Bogantz) Bruce, the only reason that I discount the 1A from being the best cylinder player is because of its inferior motor. The straight- cut spur gears of the 1A are decidedly noisier than the Opera motor of the 1B and the III. When I first got my 1A, it sounded like and electric drill whenever I ran it. The noise comes mostly from the high speed governor gears, and the only fix for it is to replace these gears with nearly perfect new ones. Try to find those anywhere! I got lucky and swapped a fellow collector some items for a set of nearly new gears which quieted my 1A down to the point where it is enjoyable, but still not as quiet as my 1B. The other big problem with the 1A is that it doesn't have the mechanical flutter filter and flywheel that Edison added to some of his later motors such as the Opera, Amberola V, and all the late amberolas. The lack of a sufficient flywheel coupled with the belt drive of the 1A virtually ensures that you'll get flutter and wow that is just an essential aspect of this design. Acoustically, the 1A is the same as the 1B, but the motor spoils the total experience a little. However, since the 1A motor is no worse than any found on any other 2 minute cylinder machine, the superior horn of the 1A makes it the best overall 2 minute machine in my estimation. AND it has the added benefit that you can play 2 minute celluloid records with the Diamond A reproducer which is truly the best 2 minute experience that you can get in a commercially made machine. I like my 1A just fine, but I prefer to hear 4 minute celluloids on my 1B or my III. I don't include the Opera among the very best sounding machines because I haven't heard ANY commercially made outside horns on cylinder machines that are the sonic equal to the horns in the Amberola 1s and III. I mentioned on the OTV board that I have a mechanical engineer friend who decided to make his own large genuine cygnet shaped exponential outside horn. He has fitted it to an Amberola 50 motor which he has put into a custom tabletop cabinet. The horn is suspended over the carriage by a clever, original design double crane pantographic system that works much better than any original design. He calls his machine the Ediphonic and has even put an Edison-style logo on it with that name. The reproducer is a modified Diamond B which has a custom diaphragm in it similar to the ones that I make. The entire project is very well-done, tidy, and authentic looking. I can tell you with first-ear assurance that this is the BEST sounding acoustic 4 minute cylinder player I have EVER heard. The exponential horn works wonderfully well with the Diamond B, and the results from playing the early directly recorded BA records (not the dubs) is some of the best sounding acoustic reproduction you will ever hear. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: valecnik57-purc at yahoo.com To: phono-l at oldcrank.org Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Research
