Is mica any good for electrically recorded records?

[@tiga4180]

My experience is that a good mica soundbox delivers the best results from acoustic records, whereas soundboxes carefully designed with electric recordings in mind (like HMV 5A & HMV 5B Orthophonic), take some of the atmosphere or presence from acoustic recordings. HMV machines employing the No.4 seem to perform well with both forms of recording, but struggle a bit with louder electrical recordings. I think the secret of the No.4 is its slightly outsize diaphragm & narrow tone arm. My Dulcetto cabinet model has a larger mica diaphragm with narrow tone arm & again, it performs well with both acoustic & electric records, provided they're not excessively loud. Don't think loud records would harm a mica diaphragm, believe the record is more likely to suffer (long term) due to poor compliance. HMV 'Orthophonic' soundboxes are super compliant & I'd feel safe playing 1950's rock on one! As for glass, it was always the gold standard for acoustic recording & believe such diaphragms are available for soundboxes. The main issue would be their fragility. I once accidentally broke a glass diaphragm that was in an Edison 2 minute phonograph. Sadly, before I got to hear what it sounded like 😞

[@Timothycan]

I suppose the main thing to consider, when playing the louder and later electrically recorded records, is how much pliability there is with the needle. Two things would affect that, I think. One is the type of mounting of the needle holder where it hinges, and the other is the pliability of the actual diaphragm. Some needle holders seem to be supported by leather pads, whilst others have little pivots, with adjusting screws so they can be adjusted to move freely but have no 'play', or looseness. The leather pad ones look less flexible, and mica diaphragms also look less flexible than the aluminium ones. So probably it is best to use one that has pivots and an aluminium diaphragm for the later type of records. Also, a thin (soft tone) needle would have more 'give' than a thick (loud tone) one. So probably the best choice would be aluminium diaphragm with pivoted needle holder and a soft tone needle. But in my experience, even careful playing on an acoustic gramophone will damage 1950s 78s, impairing the higher pitch tones, as the needle isn't pliable enough to follow the grooves at high frequencies.

[@stereogramfan]

About Caruso, I've heard La Donna e Mobile with the early remastering on YT. The later mica soundboxes (HMV No.4, early EMG etc) are, in my opinion, better than other similar mica diaphragm soundboxes (HMV Exhibition etc) for electrically recorded records. As you say, technology improved over time!

[@mrrgstuff]

Yes indeed, the later mica ones were better, not least because they had bigger diaphragms. In my own tests, mica proved very hard to beat, but I can understand the attraction of corrugated aluminium as you can keep tweaking the design, and once happy, easy mass produce identical ones. They sound as good, if not better than mica too! Thanks 😀 👍

[@amirsyazli1621]

In my opinion, the HMV 5B soundbox is the superior choice, cuz it’s more louder, build like a tank so it last longer and I think it can play electrically recorded records. I mean like I spend $300 just on that soundbox to install to my gramophone, it is painful to spend that amount of money but at least my records are safer and more better sounding. If you wondering why, Singapore hardly have any machines made in Singapore so they are more rare here. Always that’s all and it’s now my exam period so yeah, anyways thanks for posting!

[@Kevin-yi8fd]

Hello again i think it depends on the record it self if the electric record was recorded before WW2 there fine for mica sound boxes but after they don't sound so good for later 78rpm records especially after WW2 of course it's only my opinion thank you again for a very interesting video. 😂

[@mrrgstuff]

Thanks 😀 👍. Glad you enjoyed the video 😀

[@mrrgstuff]

Yes, the 5B is a good choice, and I have played all sorts of records with mine. It can suffer from more surface noise though as it is better at reproducing the higher frequencies than earlier soundboxes. Thanks 😀 👍

[@tarstarkusz]

3:30 I'm pretty sure wax masters are still used today, even with the low volume production. Using glass in a reproducer is a terrible idea, especially if it is not the special corning flexible glass (willow glass). It would be quiet and very tinny and fragile. I would assume it would have to be predrilled too. Though I haven't done it, I would think the later reproducers meant for electrically recorded records would sound fine with an acoustically recorded record and should make the record sound as good as it is capable of sounding without resorting to a modern record player, particularly if you have a new old stock record that hasn't been played a bunch of times. Do you happen to know when the first motorized gramophone was? There is no reason for this to be after 1925 as electric motors were around before that. Winding the thing would be the most aggravating part, not the acoustic reproduction. It's kind of weird because there were electric reproducers sold to replace the acoustic reproducer for wind up gramophones you might already own (some of the more fancy cabinets were 500-1000 Dollars in 1920s). I think a company called Burlington made a 1000 Dollar machine that could play Pathe, RCA and Edison records. But it was a big hand made beautiful cabinet that took up most of the price.

[@tarstarkusz]

The thing is, electrically recorded records generally have a much better frequency response than a mica reproducer is capable of reproducing. The mica reproducers are good for maybe 4-5khz. Plus they aren't very compliant. The later non-mica ( victor Orthophonic for example) acoustic reproducers are capable of about 10khz of frequency response as are the recordings. The extra compliance is easier on the record and produces better sound. I think by 1928 pretty much all records were electrically recorded. It was definitely a big improvement and big enough to drive all the acoustic companies to go full electric. Plus, it wasn't that difficult. All of the processes were exactly the same once you made the recording. It's not like they had to replace all of their equipment.

[@jhonwask]

What about a very tightly stretched piece of slicone, or a drum skin? How would they sound? Have you ever tried anything like that? And, do you sell your made from scratch soundboxes? I need two Orthophonics.

[@mrrgstuff]

@jhonwask I've not tried those materials, though I have tried a variety of other ones: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqKknX2MpbNmkK8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/l37ViWuqo5Knj6s Thin plastic from food containers works surprisingly well also. I haven't actually sold any of my soundboxes yet, though it is something I intend to get around to. I have built a few prototypes, this one being the last: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2jUf4WdaKeGa9E I don't think any perform as well as a properly serviced orthophonic, though they are quite 'passable'. I intend to do a batch of them once I finalise the design. Thanks 😀 👍

[@DK640OBrianYT]

Have you ever considered using the 1½" or 2" membrane cut from a modern speaker ? I wonder how it will perform.

[@mrrgstuff]

It's a interesting idea. I have tried various materials like in these videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqKknX2MpbNmkK8si=y7LfrVvUs3zrovQW kzbin.info/www/bejne/l37ViWuqo5Knj6ssi=58R1E7qjXObSezRh Because the needle bar connects to the diaphragm at a small point, the diaphragm has to be very rigid so it all moves and pushes the most air. Thanks 😀 👍

[@cindytan9516]

Can you do a video on repairing your 1910 Apollo gramophone sound box

[@cindytan9516]

Pls

[@joaomarcelobadu]

Does the aluminium soundbox plays acoustic records louder than the mica ones? Does it sound different in anyway?

[@mrrgstuff]

It's a good question and I'm not sure. All soundboxes seem to sound a bit different, so it's difficult to tell if aluminium sounds different from mica overall. Thanks 😀 👍

[@juslitor]

in my opinion, HMv no 4 even with soft needles is way too loud with the 50´s stuff.