500/502

[McHeath]

I know it's heresy to say this outloud, but I really don't like the ring of the 302/354 phones.  Jarring is the word.  I've tinkered and adjusted and moved gongs all about, but still they sound harsh to me.  Probably I was imprinted by the 500/554s of my childhood, which to me sound sweet and clear. 

Others mileage may vary.

[HobieSport]

Shear blasphemy, Heath.  I totally agree.  Have you tried muffling the gongs with some electrical tape, tissue paper or something like that?  I love the sweet sound of the 500 gongs in the morning, when turned down low.  I sounds so...civilized.

[McHeath]

Yeah I tried muffling the gongs on the 302 style ringer, but still got no where in making it sound nicer to my ears.  I even replaced the gongs with 500 series gongs for an experiment, and that was a little "better" but in the end it still was not my first choice.  Of course I know that many many others like the 302 ringer sound just fine. 

[HobieSport]

With the months and months of experimenting and testing that Henry Dreyfuss and William Martin, the Bell engineer, put into the 500, it makes me wonder how they finally decided on the sweet sweet sound of the 500 bells.  Now I'm curious what musical notes and harmonies the twin gongs on the 302s and the 500s (and other phones) are tuned to.  Sorry; rainy weekend and too much time on my hands...

[benhutcherson]

It's also worth mentioning that there were 8 different gongs available for the C-type ringers, all of which were tuned to different pitches. There were also A type and B type gongs, with the A type being made of brass and the B type of some other metal(not sure what).

The most common ones are(I think) the 57A and 58A. I've never encountered any others, although I did have an ITT 500 once which had a 58B gong(it has a slightly harsher sound than the fairly mellow brass gongs). My Signal Corp 500 has two 57A gongs-I' m not sure if this is a factory set up or if it was changed somewhere along the way.

Regarding 302 ringers-some had brass gongs and some had steel gongs. To me, the brass gongs have a much more pleasing sound than the steel ones. n

[bingster]

The subsets came in multiple gong sounds, too.  Not only did they have different pitched gongs, but they also could be had with odd coiled rod-type "gongs" like the ones you see in some old chiming clocks. 

I doubt the folks at Dreyfuss had much to do with the design or sound of the ringer.  The internal stuff was most likely the concern of Bell Labs and Western.

[BDM]

The subsets came in multiple gong sounds, too.  Not only did they have different pitched gongs, but they also could be had with odd coiled rod-type "gongs" like the ones you see in some old chiming clocks. 

I doubt the folks at Dreyfuss had much to do with the design or sound of the ringer.  The internal stuff was most likely the concern of Bell Labs and Western.

Bing is exactly right. W.E. had everything to do with the internal design and sound. In fact, one of my books mentions the gong selection and what freqs were chosen as standard. They're generally lower in frequency than the previous types used in 302s and 101A/684 subsets. It was believed the lower freq sound carried better through a large home, and was slightly more pleasing to the ears. Higher freqs aren't as well heard at distance, especially for the hard of hearing (not that anyone cares today). Also, higher freqs can sound more "harsh" or "shocking" to human ears.

I have my Stromberg-Carlson 1243 next to my bed. It uses a frequency which is even higher than those used in 302s. While it's not overly loud (W.E. 302s and 500s have a tendency to be too loud in my opinion), it wakes me from a dead sleep like a fire alarm.