The Edison Dance Reproducer

[Valecnik]

I really like this advert for the Dance reproducer.  An orwellian looking contraption to say the least.  I think they are very collectible but the Edisonic is much better and has some of the flaws of the Dance designed out.  Really though,  in most cases, a well rebuilt Standard reproducer is all that you need.   I have the Standard, the Dance and the Edisonic, "New Standard".  99% of the time I prefer using the Standard.

[Neilvanstem]

My dance reproducer to my ears sounds better then my two Edisonic reproducer. 

[Ediphile]

I'm also a fan of the Dance Reproducer.  

My favourites in order of preference are;

1. Dance Reproducer.

2. New Standard/Edisonic.

3. regular (1915 - 1927) reproducer. 

 

[Neilvanstem]

Ediphile we seem to think alike on this subject. 

[tomb]

I did not know the dance reproducer improved the sound that well ..  Tom

[Valecnik]

8 hours ago, tomb said:

I did not know the dance reproducer improved the sound that well ..  Tom

I wouldn't say it sounds better.  I've got of course the Standard and also the Dance and Edisonic.  I'm almost always using the Standard.  The Dance is a pain to use.  There's not much tolerance for the limit pin to move within the limit loop.  A slightly thicker or thinner disc will skip or worse yet cause the limit pin to make contact with the reproducer body, putting a nice gash in your record.  Slightly warped or dished records are impossible.  The Edisonic is a bit more tolerant but the Standard is by far the best in that regard.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Valecnik

[Valecnik]

As long as we're talking Edisonics,  that's a pretty generous offer.  Normally the Edisonic costs $19.50 but if you trade in your Standard reproducer, you get a $12.75 credit so your getting the Edisonic for just $6.75!

[Neilvanstem]

I use the Dance reproducer on the W-19 or as I call it my William and Mary upright and living on a busy street it just amazes me that when my balcony door is open you can hear it across the street. I have seen people looking to see where the 'noise' is coming from. Very pleasant noise to me! ha ha Neil

[MikeSherman]

One thing we need to keep in mind when discussing various Edison reproducers, is that they are all at least 90 years old, and some are close to 110 years old.  Lots happens to them in that time, from the gaskets to the diaphragms, to the diamond and to the stylus bar mechanism.  Air leaks and materials which have hardened over time will greatly influence the sound.  So if one prefers the Dance to the Edisonic, the Edisonic to the Standard, or vice versa, one should be aware that the condition of that specific reproducer is in play – probably even more so than the original design.  

 

Until both reproducers have been to one of the very fine rebuilders (Steve M and Wyatt M come to mind) comparisons are likely to be of limited value.

 

 

[Valecnik]

11 hours ago, MikeSherman said:

One thing we need to keep in mind when discussing various Edison reproducers, is that they are all at least 90 years old, and some are close to 110 years old.  Lots happens to them in that time, from the gaskets to the diaphragms, to the diamond and to the stylus bar mechanism.  Air leaks and materials which have hardened over time will greatly influence the sound.  So if one prefers the Dance to the Edisonic, the Edisonic to the Standard, or vice versa, one should be aware that the condition of that specific reproducer is in play – probably even more so than the original design.  

 

Until both reproducers have been to one of the very fine rebuilders (Steve M and Wyatt M come to mind) comparisons are likely to be of limited value.

 

 

Really good point Mike.  I should have mentioned that my opinions were based on comparing reproducers expertly rebuilt by Steve M.  Even then other additional factors come into play, original versus new diaphragm, pressing date of the record, and acoustic versus electric, of course.  Even among the same variant of reproducer there are noticeable differences.  Two won't sound exactly the same.