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