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 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
>> >
>> > 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 mailing list
>> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phono-L mailing list
> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
