Edison vs Victor

[Chrisingramci]

I'm curious: Was one  manufacturer considered more "prestigious" back in the day? I know many claim the acoustic Edison discs sounded superior, but when the machines were new, was one brand generally thought of as higher quality? Was one considered a Cadillac and the other, say, a Duesenberg? Thanks!

[Django]

It was probably more of a Beta vs VHS kind of thing.  Victor and lateral cut records offered more variety, but Edison had the diamond stylus.  
 

I listen to my Diamond Discs on my Brunswick.  They sound great, but most of my favorite recordings are lateral, and I am not an Edison fan, so I’m with Nipper.

[phonogfp]

The question supposes a generalized impression among "everyone."  In the U.S., Victor's advertising was everywhere - touting the exclusive contracts of the rock superstars of their day: opera singers.  Among the hoi polloi, I suspect that Victor and "Victrola" were the gold standard  - despite Edison's disc technology and high prices.

 

The VHS vs. Beta is a good analogy, where Beta (Edison) may have been superior, but VHS (Victor) was everywhere and copied by hundreds of other brands.  Besides, most people like dogs...!

 

George P.

[Valecnik]

VHS versus Beta is a good analogy indeed. 

 

Victor wins with a very good but still inferior product.  A directly recorded Blue Amberol will also almost always sound much better than a laterally recorded disc.  The directly recorded Edison Operatic cylinders are espeically amazing.    The same goes for Edison discs.  Even after Victor went to electric recording, the acoustic Edison recording were equal in my opinion.

 

I did a side by side comparison of  Edison Disc and Victor recordings of "The US Field Artillery March", both 10 inch discs, both recorded in 1917, both in near mint condition. I listened to the Edison recording on an A-250 with Standard Reproducer and the Victor on a Victor III with a Victrola no. 4 reproducer.  Both machines were in the same room, a few feet apart.  The Edison disc is much better, not to mention having enough space on the side to add a full additional 1+ minute stanza.  It's hard to compare sound quality by video but you can judge for yourself by listening to both of them at the link below.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Valecnik

[Inigo]

How is it possible that the Edison sounds so far superior to the Victor, Edison had much more open, clear and bright sound...

Edited August 27, 2023 by Inigo
Correction

[MikeSherman]

Despite the Edison Diamond Disc’s uncanny ability to “recreate” the sound of an original performance, several factors were behind their struggle in the disc business.

 

1.  Timing.  Edison was late to the disc game.  By 1912-13, Victor and Columbia had hit their stride, and many homes already had their phonographs and a collection of lateral records.  Edison had bet on the cylinder format for a bit too long and his belated entry into the disc business, while welcomed by many, came into a market that was already quickly maturing.

 

2.  Price.  Edison’s machines and discs were expensive.  While both Victor and Columbia had serviceable (though simple) machines on the market at $15, Edison’s cheapest entry was $60.  Keep in mind that in 2023 dollars that would equate to a difference between a $450 item and one for $1,800 today.  Think flat screen TVs today.

 

Additionally Edison’s records were more expensive, with Edison’s cheapest at $1.00 vs. Columbia’s at 60¢ and Victor’s at 75¢.  Again, doesn’t sound like much today, but multiply those numbers by about 30.

 

3.  Record quality.  The interruption of the supply of phenol during WWI, as well as the modification of the disc manufacturing process Edison implemented in 1916 resulted in several years (1916-1919) of extremely noisy discs.  This occurred right during a peak in record sales, and almost certainly left buyers of Edison discs during this period extremely disappointed.  While the early Edison records (1912-1915) were superb, as were the later ones (after about 1922 or so) the middle ones were spotty at best, and discs from 1917 or so are virtually unlistenable due to surface noise, even when in near mint condition.

 

4.  Recorded content.  It is widely known that Edison appointed himself music director and served as judge and jury in the selection of their repertoire.  Edison was born in 1847, and his musical tastes were firmly rooted in the style of the 1860s and 1870s.  He also harbored strong opinions on both singers and instrumentalists, and ruthlessly  inflicted those opinions on the recording staff.  It was not until the middle and late 1920s that some progress was made in recording and releasing “hotter” material when Thomas Edison turned some of the work over to younger people.  Oh, and did I mention he was mostly deaf?

 

5.  Advertising.  Victor and Columbia both outspent Edison on advertising, and Victor in particular focused on their gallery of opera artists to lend class and prestige to the ownership of their products.  Edison focused largely on his tone tests, and the fidelity of his reproductions.  While certainly theoretically superior, the tone test advertising coincided with a period of very noisy records as noted above, and obviously failed to resonate with the public.

 

6.  Incompatibility.  As noted above, the VHS vs Beta analogy is a good one.  Edison’s records could only be played on Edison machines, unless a special vertical reproducer was used.  Fitting those onto a Victor or Columbia machine was not really feasible, and most adaptions were made to Brunswick, Pathé, or other off-brands.  Likewise, people’s lateral discs could only be heard on an Edison machine with a special adaptor and at the price of Edison phonographs, it made little sense to own one for that purpose. Buyers of Edison disc machines essentially had to start from scratch with their record collections, and it took a number of years for Edison’s selection of discs to even begin to remotely approach that of Victor’s or Columbia’s.

 

All this said, I have several Edison disc phonographs in my collection, and listening to an early 1913 or 1914 record on the A-250 is absolutely an aural treat.  Very little “listener fatigue” and solo instruments have a fidelity which is pretty amazing... even today.

[Tinfoilphono]

Great comments, Mike. Spot on. There's a lot of nuance to consider -- it's not a simple topic.

[Valecnik]

6 hours ago, MikeSherman said:

 

 

....  I have several Edison disc phonographs in my collection, and listening to an early 1913 or 1914 record on the A-250 is absolutely an aural treat.  Very little “listener fatigue” and solo instruments have a fidelity which is pretty amazing... even today.

 You sum up the challenges very well Mike.  In retrospect, faceing all those  headwinds almost makes the  venture seem doomed from the beginning.

 

I don't think there are many of us Mike but I also have serveral Edison disc phonos in my collection!  I also totallly agree that listtening to a 1913 or 1914, or 20-29 record is an absolutely aural treat.

[Inigo]

Very interesting analyses, thanks. I'm not an Edison owner, but I can appreciate what you say; even in YT videos, the aural clarity and sound openness is noticeable, and remarkable. Again the old story of how a technically superior product is tumbled down by commercial reasons, revealing how important the commercial aspects are for a product to succeed in the big markets. With all, Edison discs seem to have had a relative success and wide distribution, despite all these drawbacks. 

[marcapra]

I'm lucky enough to own a binder with all the issues of The Phonograph Monthly in it for the year of 1928.  Talk about Edison being out of step, almost all the ads are for radios and radio phonographs!  Whereas in every monthly, Edison is advertising his new Edisonic hand crank phonographs, the Schubert and the Beethoven!  But that's why I love the Edison product!  

[Chrisingramci]

Thanks, Mike, for the fascinating information. The question is clearly not answered simply, but you've certainly provided a most helpful analysis.

[MikeSherman]

You're welcome Chrisingramci.  I hope I did not convey that the Edison phonographs and records were inferior or poor products.  They also possessed several attributes that enabled them to do fairly well, despite the factors I mentioned earlier. 

 

For one, their permanent diamond stylus eliminated both the need to buy, and to change needles constantly.  Record wear was significantly reduced, and if it has been properly stored, an Edison disc today will sound much like it did 110 years ago.    That is not to say they were immune from harm.  Excessive moisture, dirt, and rough handling certainly took their toll.  The reproducer and arm were driven (propelled) by the motor, not the record groove, further reducing wear.

 

Edison engineers recorded in a “dead” studio, with minimal reverberation.  This insured that the acoustics of the recording studio were not transmitted into your listening room.  While this made certain ensemble instrumental recordings sound a trifle flat, it did wonders for solo instruments and voices, many of which sound like they are “in the room” with you today.  This effect was dramatized in the many “tone tests” held throughout the country during the middle and late 1910s.

 

The Edison name still resonated with a good number of people.  His firm was known for quality products and despite their cost, the Edison phonograph was generally regarded as a well-built, solid machine.

 

Finally, the sound produced by a good Edison record and machine was audibly superior to anything else on the market, and those listeners with critical ears and who could appreciate the difference were willing to sacrifice listening to some of Victor’s great opera stars in favor of the overall fidelity of Edison’s offering.

 

So I hope this balances somewhat my earlier post.  In a nutshell, Edison was a brilliant inventor, mediocre businessman and lousy A&R guy.

Edited September 5, 2023 by MikeSherman

[RodPickett]

Edison must have been absent the day the Georgia Melodians recorded “Red Hot Mama” (DD51394, BA4919) with lyrics such as:

 

“so hot she’d make a bald-headed man part his hair in the middle”

 

 

[audiophile102]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:28 PM, MikeSherman said:

Despite the Edison Diamond Disc’s uncanny ability to “recreate” the sound of an original performance, several factors were behind their struggle in the disc business.

 

1.  Timing.  Edison was late to the disc game.  By 1912-13, Victor and Columbia had hit their stride, and many homes already had their phonographs and a collection of lateral records.  Edison had bet on the cylinder format for a bit too long and his belated entry into the disc business, while welcomed by many, came into a market that was already quickly maturing.

 

2.  Price.  Edison’s machines and discs were expensive.  While both Victor and Columbia had serviceable (though simple) machines on the market at $15, Edison’s cheapest entry was $60.  Keep in mind that in 2023 dollars that would equate to a difference between a $450 item and one for $1,800 today.  Think flat screen TVs today.

 

Additionally Edison’s records were more expensive, with Edison’s cheapest at $1.00 vs. Columbia’s at 60¢ and Victor’s at 75¢.  Again, doesn’t sound like much today, but multiply those numbers by about 30.

 

3.  Record quality.  The interruption of the supply of phenol during WWI, as well as the modification of the disc manufacturing process Edison implemented in 1916 resulted in several years (1916-1919) of extremely noisy discs.  This occurred right during a peak in record sales, and almost certainly left buyers of Edison discs during this period extremely disappointed.  While the early Edison records (1912-1915) were superb, as were the later ones (after about 1922 or so) the middle ones were spotty at best, and discs from 1917 or so are virtually unlistenable due to surface noise, even when in near mint condition.

 

4.  Recorded content.  It is widely known that Edison appointed himself music director and served as judge and jury in the selection of their repertoire.  Edison was born in 1847, and his musical tastes were firmly rooted in the style of the 1860s and 1870s.  He also harbored strong opinions on both singers and instrumentalists, and ruthlessly  inflicted those opinions on the recording staff.  It was not until the middle and late 1920s that some progress was made in recording and releasing “hotter” material when Thomas Edison turned some of the work over to younger people.  Oh, and did I mention he was mostly deaf?

 

5.  Advertising.  Victor and Columbia both outspent Edison on advertising, and Victor in particular focused on their gallery of opera artists to lend class and prestige to the ownership of their products.  Edison focused largely on his tone tests, and the fidelity of his reproductions.  While certainly theoretically superior, the tone test advertising coincided with a period of very noisy records as noted above, and obviously failed to resonate with the public.

 

6.  Incompatibility.  As noted above, the VHS vs Beta analogy is a good one.  Edison’s records could only be played on Edison machines, unless a special vertical reproducer was used.  Fitting those onto a Victor or Columbia machine was not really feasible, and most adaptions were made to Brunswick, Pathé, or other off-brands.  Likewise, people’s lateral discs could only be heard on an Edison machine with a special adaptor and at the price of Edison phonographs, it made little sense to own one for that purpose. Buyers of Edison disc machines essentially had to start from scratch with their record collections, and it took a number of years for Edison’s selection of discs to even begin to remotely approach that of Victor’s or Columbia’s.

 

All this said, I have several Edison disc phonographs in my collection, and listening to an early 1913 or 1914 record on the A-250 is absolutely an aural treat.  Very little “listener fatigue” and solo instruments have a fidelity which is pretty amazing... even today.

Thanks Mike.  I intend to print a copy of this and keep it with my A250,  I wish that more jazz bands had recorded on Edison.  The Golden Gate Orchestra sound the best on diamond disk.