Hi Ron and all ~ Using a Kent adapter or similar device, yes, much easier, and the reverse of my supposition. It seems to me that a test done in both directions would be more informative than one or the other in isolation. Steve Medved just brought this fascinating YouTube video to my attention, to be shared as part of this discussion, attributed to Carsten Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQw4K80QtM It's an interesting video and certainly the methods represent out-of-the-box, if not pseudo-scientific thinking: The Edison side of a salvaged Brunswick Ultona reproducer housing (with the full needle bar, similar to the Edison needle bar, etc.), other side (lateral side) eliminated and blocked off (ostensibly sealed against air leaks), and a short connecting tube to mate it to Victor 10-50 (!), to take advantage of the folded exponential horn. The modified Brunswick housing is equipped with a Victor Orthophonic Duralumin diaphragm (in hill-and-dale mode), and the presenter adds silent editorial comments as superimposed text, allowing the sound he recorded with a small condenser mic to let us hear the result. Very hard, even with larger speakers to get a sense of the real value of the experiment, which expect is due to the limitations of his recording method.
Other limiting factors, or at least factors that make this somewhat less than an apples to apples test, is that the Brunswick system, or in this case the Brunswick parts adapted to the Victor arm) doesn't quite replicate the Edison Diamond Disc machine's tracking compliance in at least two ways: (a) I suspect that the compliance of the stylus to the groove would be adversely affected by the tracking force necessarily including the mass of the modified apparatus plus a portion of the Victor's tone arm (rather than as in the Edison system of it being limited to the tracking weight distributed more uniformly around the stylus), and (b) the necessity in this setup of the groove having to propel the entire equipment across as the record plays rather than the "floating" arrangement of the automatic tracking Edison DD system. I think these factors might combine to make for a more rigid, and quite possibly less responsive arrangement of groove, stylus and transferred acoustic energy to the horn. I think it's a fascinating choice to use the paper-thin Victor Duralumin diaphragm. The presenter tells us that mica will also work, but one can imagine it would narrow the dynamic range. However the mounting of the diaphragm as can be seen might possibly be hampered by an oversized retaining insulator, which also looks rather thick and one or both of these could impede the response. Another aspect that was bothering me a little was that the turntable dips and rises as it spins around (bent platter, as the spindle remains relatively true). This would have the effect of alternately adding and subtracting from whatever norm in the diaphragm's loading that the presenter was able to achieve with this modified arrangement of parts. The up and down, added to the more rigid load of also having to move the entire mass of reproducer and tone arm (add another intermediate joint in the Victor arm to the equation for the vertical accommodation of the uneven platter, and whatever differences in compliance and greater side-wall groove contact might be present, and for me it starts to be an interesting but not very accurate measure of how an Edison record, played as engineered, would sound through one of the large Orthophonic horns. I also have to wonder about the "plumbing" between the tone arm and the horn, and if this might also be a factor? Steve, Greg, others, are there other things I may be missing here? In the short term this video remains a fascinating study of one approach to answering the question about Edison DD through Orthophonic horn and you certainly have to credit the presenter with taking the time to investigate and document his findings. It would be interesting to take a purer approach, using a true DD reproducer, tracking as designed, and airtight, low-loss connection to the top of a Credenza or similarly large Orthophonic horn. Perhaps measure the difference in response with ears as well as spectrum analyzer... Andrew Baron Santa Fe On Mar 16, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Ron L'Herault wrote: > Doing the comparison the other way around is easier, an orhtophonic record > on an Edison DD with a good lateral adaptor and Orthophonic reproducer. > > Ron L > > -----Original Message----- > From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew Baron > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:37 PM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Orthophonic vs. Electric? > > When comparing the Edison DD to a Victor Orthophonic, it's best to think of > them in terms of their complete systems rather than the horn of one vs. the > horn of the other. Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to connect the > output of an Edison DD reproducer on an Edison DD phonograph playing one of > the better DD records, to the input of a Victor Credenza horn? It wouldn't > necessarily be a marriage made in heaven (I assume it would be quite a > mismatch of impedances, or the acoustic analog thereof), but it would be > interesting to observe. > > The systems that each company independently employed (Edison DD; Victor > Orthophonic) obviously have no physical resemblance whatsoever, neither horn > nor reproducer nor tone arm, and yet sonically the Edison was way ahead of > the pack until the Orthophonic machines came out. There's just no comparison > when comparing an especially good Edison DD record (with quiet surface) > played on an upscale Edison DD machine, with ANY of the contemporary > competitors for sheer naturalness of tone and overtones that the DD system > was capable of. > > The DD machines had superior sound in 1913, by far, than anything else until > a dozen years later when the Orthophonic came out. And even then, the right > record on a good DD machine will give an Orthophonic Credenza a run for its > money, even records made acoustically in the early 'teens compared to > electric recordings in the mid '20s. Though the right record on a Credenza > will often edge out the Edison, it's can be a close race in some cases, and > a little like the Volvo Amazon outrunning the Ferrari in the celebrated > YouTube video. Edison had a truly souped-up acoustic system developed by > the end of 1912, that in real life would be unfair to compare to the > electric system of 1925, and yet, the Edison system can hold its own in this > chronologically and technologically skewed contest. > > Andrew Baron > Santa Fe > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
