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:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 20 May 2009 19:04:40 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > If memory serves, the smaller 1930s diameter was
> > required to clear the jukebox mechanisms. 

From: David Breneman <[log in to unmask]>
> The only major prewar mechanism for which the record
> diameter was a major consideration was AMI's which
> used a gripper-arm to transfer the record from the
> magazine to the turntable (this record changer was
> intoduced in 1927 and this same type of transfer
> arm is still used on Rowe/AMI's CD jukeboxes to this
> day). The transfer arm will clear a nominal 10-1/4"
> in its fully open position,


C'mon David, you know better than that.  WHAT 10-1/4-INCH
DISCS???????????????????????????????????

The first point I made in this thread was to debunk Steve Barr's
contention that Columbia/OKeh pressings from the late 20s were
10-1/4-inches.  THEY WEREN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They were
10.00000000000000-inches.  Victors and most other 78s were 9-7/8-inches
going way back to at least the era of Victor double-sided records.  They
were called 10-inches but they were not.  Get out a ruler and check for
yourself.  There were some 10-1/2 inch Pathes and Phonotipias (I don't
have any handy to check whether those are really exactly 10-1/2 inches,
so I might be guilty of that generalization in this case) but those were
not what Steve Barr was talking about.  The discussion began with the
red label Columbia jazz reissues of late 20s early 30s Columbia/OKehs,
with Steve saying they could not have been master pressings, yet many
were.  

Let's bury this misconception once and for all.  Most 10-inch records
are under 10-inches, and the "oversize" Columbias were actually
10-inches, NOT 10-1/4-inches.  Actually, in the late gold band era into
the early flag label time in the 20s, some Columbia pressings had a deep
groove near the edge of the label.  I have several of them right here,
and these happen to be 9-7/8-inches, and are records that also came out
on ungrooved pressings that were 10.0-inches, and BOTH types had enough
lead-in area.  I have a late-20s HMV and an acoustical Perfect that are
9-13/16-inches, and acoustical Clarion and Meteor (Lyric-looking
pressing) that are 10.0-inches.  I have a single-sided Victor with a
1904 rear-label and a square-cut edge which is 9-15/16-inches.  I don't
have any black and silver Columbias of that era immediately at hand, but
none of the records I have measured this week were above 10.0-inches.

I did mention that Edison Diamond Discs seem to be randomly at a wide
range.  The first one I came across tonight to measure turns out to be
9-5/8-inches!!!  And as for Steve Smolian's mentioning that early Deccas
were oversized, I don't have any sundials here at hand to check, but I
do have a blue label pressing of 3334 from Album 135 that has evidence
that there might have been an optical illusion at work.  It is a Jimmy
Dorsey compilation, and one side is matrix DLA-423A with the florid
script matrix numbering, while the other side is 63689A with plain
lettering.  The pressing is 9-7/8-inches, but the lead-in area of the
earlier matrix is a wide 5/16-inch, while the other side is a more
normal 7/32-inch, 3/32-inch less.  The grooved area is 9-1/4-inches on
the earlier master and almost 9-1/2-inches on the other.  If early
Deccas were larger than 9-7/8-inches, the lead in area on early masters
like DLA-423A would look even HUGER.

A long discussion, but once again, it is mainly to convince everyone
that "oversized" Columbia pressings were NOT 10-1/4-inches.

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  


> but of course the design
assumes enough clearance for the record magazine to
freely move back and forth through the gap of the open
arm. The other major manufacturers, Seeburg, Wurlitzer
and Rock-Ola, all used horizontally moving record
trays to move the record over a rising turntable
in their prewar record changers, and in those the
center hole was a more immediate limiting factor
than the outside diameter.



 

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