[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
My Gothic Art Model Actuelle has a door on the side as well as two doors in front & the top raises also. I find it sounds best if all but the side door are closed so the cabinet acts as a sort of baffle. Ji m Cartwright Im mortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. > [Original Message] > From: DanKj > To: Antique Phonograph List > Date: 06-Nov-2008 5:13:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > > I have both the "tone arm" Actuelle and the direct Actuelle, but some nit-wit seems > to have soaked my "direct" cone with tons of shellac, rendering it so stiff and > heavy that it's almost silent. I might try soaking the whole thing in a big vat of > alcohol, to dissolve the crud. > > I would think that the Actuelles with a louvered opening are a little better on bass > tones, though I have not heard one. > > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > > > > Dear Mr. Wright: > > I have a Pathe Actuelle which use a paper cone drive by a mechanical > > connection to the playback stylus, not as directly as the diffuser you > > mention. > > Very pure sound but definitely mid-rage only, the mass of the linkage > > eliminating higher frequencys & since there is no baffle to the cone, > > the lower frequencys are weakened by the air moved by the back of the cone, > > out of phase with that moved by the front of the cone cancelling it. > > If there had been some way to provide a baffle for the cone, the low > > frequency responce would have been far better. > > > >Very truly > > yours, > > > >Immortal > > Performances > > > > jimcip at earthlink.net > > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Robert Wright > >> To: Antique Phonograph List > >> Date: 03-Nov-2008 5:57:19 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > >> > >> Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), > >> > >> Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the > > possibility > >> that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much > > harder > >> for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do > > find > >> it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had > >> superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, > >> individual labels who issued records cut both ways. > >> > >> Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that > > being > >> a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded > > groove, > >> it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. > >> Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around > > -- > >> true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original > >> prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular > >> playback methodology? > >> > >> Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from > >> time to time. > >> > >> Best to all, > >> Robert > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Thomas Edison" > >> To: > >> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM > >> Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > >> > >> > >> > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple > >> > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the > > Fairchild > >> > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a > >> > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost > >> > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I > >> > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison > >> > blanks, and could record the cylinder
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
I have both the "tone arm" Actuelle and the direct Actuelle, but some nit-wit seems to have soaked my "direct" cone with tons of shellac, rendering it so stiff and heavy that it's almost silent. I might try soaking the whole thing in a big vat of alcohol, to dissolve the crud. I would think that the Actuelles with a louvered opening are a little better on bass tones, though I have not heard one. - Original Message - From: To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > Dear Mr. Wright: > I have a Pathe Actuelle which use a paper cone drive by a mechanical > connection to the playback stylus, not as directly as the diffuser you > mention. > Very pure sound but definitely mid-rage only, the mass of the linkage > eliminating higher frequencys & since there is no baffle to the cone, > the lower frequencys are weakened by the air moved by the back of the cone, > out of phase with that moved by the front of the cone cancelling it. > If there had been some way to provide a baffle for the cone, the low > frequency responce would have been far better. > >Very truly > yours, > >Immortal > Performances > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Robert Wright >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 03-Nov-2008 5:57:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. >> >> Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), >> >> Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the > possibility >> that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much > harder >> for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do > find >> it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had >> superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, >> individual labels who issued records cut both ways. >> >> Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that > being >> a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded > groove, >> it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. >> Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around > -- >> true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original >> prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular >> playback methodology? >> >> Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from >> time to time. >> >> Best to all, >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Thomas Edison" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM >> Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. >> >> >> > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple >> > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the > Fairchild >> > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a >> > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost >> > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I >> > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison >> > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and > highs >> > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not > have >> > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the >> > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to >> > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the > list >> > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections >> > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it >> > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li >> > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record >> > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had > recorded >> > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other >> > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. > Lateral >> > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to > high >> > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most > modern >> > recording lathes do
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
Thanks for the information, again! Ok, how about the HMV Lumiere? I've heard them and thought they sounded fairly marvelous, though certainly midrange-centric... What's the linkage on the back of the diaphragm? How does it translate lateral groove modulation to a diaphragm that sits perpendicular to it? I suspect a 90-degree angle is involved. Anyone? Best as always, Robert - Original Message - From: To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > Dear Mr. Wright: > I have a Pathe Actuelle which use a paper cone drive by a mechanical > connection to the playback stylus, not as directly as the diffuser you > mention. > Very pure sound but definitely mid-rage only, the mass of the linkage > eliminating higher frequencys & since there is no baffle to the cone, > the lower frequencys are weakened by the air moved by the back of the > cone, > out of phase with that moved by the front of the cone cancelling it. > If there had been some way to provide a baffle for the cone, the low > frequency responce would have been far better. > >Very truly > yours, > >Immortal > Performances > > jimcip at earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Robert Wright >> To: Antique Phonograph List >> Date: 03-Nov-2008 5:57:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. >> >> Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), >> >> Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the > possibility >> that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much > harder >> for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do > find >> it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had >> superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, >> individual labels who issued records cut both ways. >> >> Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that > being >> a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded > groove, >> it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. >> Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around > -- >> true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original >> prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular >> playback methodology? >> >> Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from >> time to time. >> >> Best to all, >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Thomas Edison" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM >> Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. >> >> >> > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple >> > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the > Fairchild >> > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a >> > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost >> > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I >> > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison >> > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and > highs >> > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not > have >> > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the >> > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to >> > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the > list >> > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections >> > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it >> > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li >> > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record >> > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had > recorded >> > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other >> > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. > Lateral >> > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to > high >> > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most > modern >> > recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
Dear Mr. Wright: I have a Pathe Actuelle which use a paper cone drive by a mechanical connection to the playback stylus, not as directly as the diffuser you mention. Very pure sound but definitely mid-rage only, the mass of the linkage eliminating higher frequencys & since there is no baffle to the cone, the lower frequencys are weakened by the air moved by the back of the cone, out of phase with that moved by the front of the cone cancelling it. If there had been some way to provide a baffle for the cone, the low frequency responce would have been far better. Very truly yours, Immortal Performances jimcip at earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. > [Original Message] > From: Robert Wright > To: Antique Phonograph List > Date: 03-Nov-2008 5:57:19 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > > Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), > > Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the possibility > that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much harder > for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do find > it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had > superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, > individual labels who issued records cut both ways. > > Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that being > a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded groove, > it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. > Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around -- > true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original > prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular > playback methodology? > > Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from > time to time. > > Best to all, > Robert > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Edison" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM > Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > > > > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple > > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild > > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a > > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost > > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I > > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison > > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs > > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have > > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the > > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to > > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list > > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections > > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it > > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li > > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record > > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded > > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other > > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral > > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high > > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern > > recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that > > recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, > > with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. > > _ > > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns !20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > > ___ > > Phono-L mailing list > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
One of the factors left out of this is the fact that recording an acetate disc is a whale of a lot different than recording in a wax cake, as the record companies did. I have a Presto K8 recorder, which does (did) a decent job on recording on acetate discs, but I knew enough to not expect this cutter to give me a recording that compares to a factory cut on a wax cake. Like on the Failchild head, one would have needed to push the Presto head to distruction to get wider response. When you recordeed with this equipmant, you had no right to demand or expect factory quality recordings. Should we be surprised that there was better HF response when the cut was on a wax blank? From what I extract from this, the wax cylinders, cut with an electrical head had better frequency response. Now, try cutting the same material on acetate coated aluminum cylinders, and see what comes out of it. In fact, just for laughs, try cutting the same program on an acetate coated cylinder (I've never heard of such a thing), with lateral modulation, and see what you'll get. Throughout history, apples never compare well to oranges. > [Original Message] > From: Thomas Edison > To: > Date: 11/3/2008 9:20:40 PM > Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. > _ > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns !20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
The problem with the Pathe Diffusor as well as with the Pathe Actuelle is the absence of proper baffling around the reproducer cone or "diaphragm". The benefits of the fairly direct connection of the stylus to the diaphragm are unfortunately swamped by the poor bass response of both of these systems. The Actuelle also suffers from the extraordinarily long linkage from stylus to reproducer cone. This also causes a rolloff of the treble frequencies due to the high moving mass of this stylus bar connection. Putting a baffle (to keep the front sound emissions from cancelling with those from the back) around the Diffusor diaphragm or Actuelle cone would greatly enhance the bass performance, but it would make the phono quite large and ungainly. This is part of the theory of horn reproduction - the emission from one side of the diaphragm is GREATLY enhanced with respect to the emission from the other side and there is little opportunity for cancellation. And with typical cone loudspeaker reproduction, a baffle (the cabinet or box) helps keep the back emission separate from the front to reduce cancellations. Greg Bogantz - Original Message - From: "Robert Wright" To: "Antique Phonograph List" Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the possibility that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much harder for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do find it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, individual labels who issued records cut both ways. Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that being a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded groove, it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around -- true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular playback methodology? Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from time to time. Best to all, Robert - Original Message - From: "Thomas Edison" To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern > recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that > recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, > with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. > _ > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
Jim, Greg, Steve, and Thomas :-), Thanks very much for all the insight. I hadn't considered the possibility that vertical was inferior, but vertical companies worked that much harder for better sound; I assumed all other things were probably even. I do find it strange that so many vertical recordings by so many companies had superior sound to so many laterals, including as pointed out below, individual labels who issued records cut both ways. Anyone have any impressions of the Path? Diffusor? I would think that being a large diaphragm with a jewel tip sitting directly on the recorded groove, it would be the most direct playback mechanism of any that have existed. Right? No pivot point to worry about, just the simplest physics around -- true analog, as it were, the only example of it since Edison's original prototype, yes? Has anyone thought to try improving upon that particular playback methodology? Thanks again, all. I'm storing these in a special folder to revisit from time to time. Best to all, Robert - Original Message - From: "Thomas Edison" To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: [Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical. > Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple > response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild > lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a > dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost > highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I > used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison > blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs > sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have > to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the > head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to > record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list > have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections > with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it > comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as li > fts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record > deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded > on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other > frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral > records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high > the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern > recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that > recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, > with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. > _ > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > ___ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >
[Phono-L] Lateral Vs Vertical.
Hello everyone. Thinking of the L and V issue, I have a very simple response from cutting records. I had recorded Laquers with the Fairchild lathe , in order to record high frequencies, I had to boost them to a dangerous level almost burning the coil up. When you record you boost highs and limit the lows, and the opposite when you play them back. I used the same head to record hill and dale cylinder records on Edison blanks, and could record the cylinders almost flat, and the lows and highs sounded very similar to the original recording, and the highs did not have to be boosted to the dangerous levels of the lateral disc of which the head was designed to cut, so it certainly seems that it is harder to record highs on lateral recordings than vertical. Some of you on the list have some of these electrically recorded cylinders in your collections with modern music on them, you can state the same I am sure. When it comes to bass however, vertical records are much harder as lifts occur, but you can increase the ambient wax temperature and record deeper grooves, and record more bass The lowest bass note I had recorded on cylinders was 16 cps, however this was a test tone, with no other frequencies added, it was very difficult to do but can be done. Lateral records record bass with relative ease, however if the volume is to high the grooves run into eachother and must be spaced apart more. (Most modern recording lathes do this automatically.) If you listen to companies that recorded lateral and vertical records you can hear much clearer records, with vertical recordings time and time again. Pathe', Gennette ect. _ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008
