Thanks for the description. So is it fair to say you get far more bass and far less treble on the C2 than when the same DD is played with a well restored Edisonic reproducer? Sent from my iPhone -- Peter pjfraser at mac.com On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:41 PM, "Greg Bogantz" <gbogantz1 at charter.net> wrote: > I have a C-2. The pickup is essentially the same horseshoe magnet > pickup design as used in most of the contemporary models sold by > Victor, Brunswick, Atwater-Kent, etc. But Edison included a > "scratch filter" (Edison may have had another name for this, but I > can't remember what they called it) module located under the > turntable motor board which was a resistive-capacitive low-pass > filter. This was ostensibly to filter out the "needle scratch" > noise which was supposedly indigenous to needle-cut records, > according to Edison company blather. Truth be told, it filtered the > noise from Edison DDs more effectively. DDs have inherently lower > signal to noise ratio (are noisier) due to their low modulation > level compared to the typical electrical Victor record of the day. > This made the DDs sound particularly noisy when compared with > laterals played on the C-2, so Edison included the filter which was > not switchable. Consequently, all records played on the C-2 are > somewhat lacking in treble response compared with, say, the superior > sound obtained from the Victor micro-synchronous RE-45 or RE-75 of > 1929 which also used a similar horseshoe pickup without the scratch > filter. The C-2 generally has a tubby, boomy sound which is fairly > common with the early large console radios. Again, the Victor micro- > synchronous radios were a major exception to the rule. Their > advanced speaker design is largely responsible for their superior > sound - good, well-balanced sound over the audio spectrum without > excessive bass boominess while still providing extended bass > response to quite low frequencies. Curiously, this speaker (which is > generally attributed to a Kellogg design) was used by Victor and/or > RCA in only that one model year of 1929. The earlier and later > speakers for many years were audibly inferior to the 1929 model. I > don't know why RCA didn't continue using the better design from 1929 > in their later models. Probably had something to do with patent > royalties on the Kellogg design that RCA didn't want to pay. > > Greg Bogantz > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Fraser" <pjfraser at alamedanet.net > > > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l at oldcrank.org> > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Edison C2 performance > > >> I've been meaning to ask this for some time now...how do the Edison >> electrical reproducers sound, when playing diamond discs? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- Peter >> pjfraser at mac.com >> >> On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:41 PM, "Bruce Mercer" <maxbud12 at wowway.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes to all of the above. A C-2 I purchased some time ago had both >>> the 12"Roth and Martinelli records (among others) in the albums >>> along with a bunch of pop black with gold lettering on the >>> labels. Ha anyone ever seen a 10" classical with a gold label >>> with black lettering? Needle cuts, as far as I remember were >>> sold from mid July to mid October 1929. They were superior >>> sounding records. >>> Bruce >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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