From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
I am now back from a place where I could only read the Stanford digest of the
David Seubert wrote
> James, George Dick et al.
> Thanks for your help here. Every company is different, but I'm always
> skeptical that I'm misinterpreting the data if I find too many
> alternate takes (except Edison). Above about 10% in a given run of 78s
> like Emerson where I don't know the system used for designating takes,
> I usually question if what I think are take numbers are stamper
> numbers or something.
> I've never really relied on aural comparison (though it is obvious in
> some cases, see:..................
----- I shall comment later on Mike Biel's introduction of aural memory
> My method is usually to lay the edge of a piece of paper across the
> center hole of the disc and mark the beginning and end of the grooves.
> Then I lay this paper on the other disc and see if they match. Even if
> one take is only a few seconds shorter or longer it will be obviously
> different as even a couple of grooves difference is noticable.
----- David, this is a very good if quite egotistical method. You know very
well that what you want to generate is metadata, and refusing to provide it,
but only using it for your interpretation of facts is simply not done! The
thing to do is to put a ruler across the center of the center hole, take the
start of recording (where you see the groove start (or stop, for that matter)
at the outside edge as zero, then read the end of the innermost groove both
the first and the second time you see it, and finally the outside groove
again, on the other side of the record. This way you have 3 numbers (because
you know that the first is zero) that are uniquely related to this pressing.
Your precision need not be more than slightly less than a quarter millimeter
(corresponding to a groove pitch of 100 to the inch), which means: read
vertically off the ruler. Half-millimeter divisions are quite common on cm
and mm rulers.
Today's rant: "Oh, it takes time", I hear you say. Well, bad luck! This is
what modern archiving is about. Making useful data. The alternative is
decreed to be much worse: store the originals.
> I'm sure George's method works too, but the paper and pencil method is
> very quick and we are essentially measuring the same thing in
> different ways.
----- yes, indeed, as per above.