LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2009

ARSCLIST May 2009

Subject:

Re: Record Diameter (was: playback curves for some 78s)

From:

indmills <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 19 May 2009 19:44:53 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (115 lines)

Hi
My First post (With more than one topic)
Steven your guess is wrong Your first is not quite right either They simply 
used different dies at some stage most likely later after the "rush" However 
it is possible that they just simply ground them back to size but after a 
new pressing plate was made to allow for the smaller diameter disc you can 
tell by looking at them edge on Today since the cost of a set of dies for 
the 10" Vinyl (the demand not been so great) some people press them on a 12" 
die but cut the acetates for a 10" therefore the pressing plates for a 12" 
pressing but with only tracks for a 10" Once they are pressed they trim them 
back to the 10" size required ( about $2000 per side for a 12" die set) One 
can do that with the vinyl but not with the "shellac" type of record since 
the fillers used quite often included ground down slate as well as other 
items as gypsum
Since it was a stop gap measure they where rarely done by a mechanised setup 
it was done by the hands of an operator, therefore the variation in size as 
Mike pointed out
I am not so sure about the cantering issue mentioned being of different size 
It was normal practice to solder the centres up with a threaded spigot at 
the rear of the master so the plates did not get "wet" This was punched out 
at the cantering stage prior to forming the stampers so any size centre hole 
could be punched
On another point The lead in grooves where always cut after the area where 
the dies come together to seal when on the presses They have to take about 
100 tonne of pressure Sure there are quite a few records out there that they 
start right at the edge But it was not, and it is not common practice as the 
plates are at the weakest point right at that point It is called "cut 
weakness" It was a troublesome problem with plates splitting right at the 
point where the cut was at the seal face of the dies
On another point inner and outer grooves where commonly recut on the mothers 
prior to a pressing plate or a stamper being produced, Ollard and Bennet in 
the 20's and 30's talk about it in more than one publication at the time It 
seems that this was done by hand, at least in Europe, Juke boxes need to be 
triggered to the off position at the end of play, quite a critical 
requirement, something that a reproducer, record player, that was attended 
by a person did not require one as such.
Of course that was until cutting lathes where modified to take care of the 
correct lock groove which required it to be right inside very close to the 
label The modification necessitated a cam as well as some gears to be 
replaced something that was not off the self since most of the lathes where 
inside jobs Quite often these lathes had no ability to do a lock groove The 
lead in groove was done by speeding up the machine, the same at the locked 
groove end It was a bit of hit and miss affair which can often be seen in 
older records Therefore recutting by hand on the mothers prior to a stampers 
being made It is not as hard as it sounds a little template and a scriber 
was all that was required It was also observed at the time that the original 
groove was soldered up first than recut on the mothers There is a mention 
where they also re-cut them on the stampers, they where made from copper 
backed with another copper plate which was soldered on so as to provide 
strength It is not such a hard task

C. Moss
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Diameter (was: playback curves for some 78s)


> If memory serves, the smaller 1930s diameter was required to clear the 
> jukebox mechanisms.  I've heard that Decca, gunning for the jukebox 
> market, had made its first release in the slightly larger size and had to 
> redo it. I don't know if they used different presses or adjusted the plate 
> area appropriately- my guess is the latter.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:05 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Record Diameter (was: playback curves for some 78s)
>
>
> I sent this out last night under a different subject title but didn't
> see it get posted or even get a duplicate posting rejection, so I am
> trying again with some added information.  Maybe my joke in last night's
> revision of the subject line was blocked?
>
> From: "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reissues of original Columbia or Okeh records from the 1925-3? era
>> are VERY commonly dubs...since the originals were 10.25" discs and
>> the stampers don't fit onto modern-day 10" records...! Steven C. Barr
>
> Get out a ruler and some records, Steve. You (and most others here) are
> in for a big surprise. Those "oversize" Columbia pressings are the ones
> that are 10-inches. Most other "10-inch" records are 9 7/8-inches.
> Many Columbia/ARC pressings from the 30s are 9 15/16-inches, and
> eventually got down to 9 7/8-inches. Yes it is true that the Columbia
> and Columbia-OKeh pressings are larger than later records, but the are
> not and never have been 10.25" . And many or most of the early George
> Avakian produced Columbia re-issue sets were master pressings, at least
> the earlier copies were.  New stampers were always produced from the
> metal positives (mothers) because the center mounting hole sizes were
> different in from the late 30s on, so the outer diameter of the original
> metal part is not of consequence.  What IS of consequence, of course, is
> the diameter of the outermost grooving, and that is what Steve was
> really talking about.  I think that there occasionally were problems --
> even in newly recorded items that had to be issued in a dubbed fashion
> if the cutting engineer goofed when setting the outer cutting diameter
> on the lathe -- but thre was enough lead-in space on most 1920s
> Columbias and OKehs to allow them to be reissued on the slightly smaller
> pressings from the later 30s.
>
> Also, when those in the metric world call those records 25 cm, they are
> the ones who are correct.
>
> One other point, Edison Diamond Disc diameters can vary a great deal.
> I've never checked to see if the outer grooving diameter on these also
> vary, but the size the discs are ground down to after "printing" can be
> seemingly random.
>
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager