Print

Print


I think we're all forgetting what underlies many of the issues that we now 
see as problems.

As the cost of shipping kept escalating, the weight of the record package 
was reduced.   The European take on this was to fabricate a thinner jacket, 
ours a thinner record.   What I call the RCA taco was the belimic restult of 
too much thinning down.

The other factor in making lighter weight records was the record club, which 
accounted for a large proportion of the LP market.  At one time, I believe I 
read but can't find the referece, it was one side or the other of 40%.

It has always been my feeling that the average quality of playback equipment 
by those buying through the clubs was somewhat below that of the store 
purchaser.  The ability of the changers and cheaper players to track bass 
and inside grooves resulted in that most expensive of overhead items, 
returns.  My empirical observation leads me to believe that identifiably 
record club pressings have less bass than records sold through the stores, 
though this is not true for Reader's Digest issues, for example.  Try the 
early commercial relase of "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" with it's club 
counterpart.  Eventually, the K-Mart type small all-in-one York, Lloyd, 
etc., units, were also having problems with inner grooves and bass.

And, of course, EMI took a more active role in their American outfit- 
Captiol, Angel, etc., and got their revenge for the American Revolution by 
milking the U.S. market with terrible pressings at normal retail prices 
while a far superior product was available in the U.K.

And I could go on...

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Kane" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-static question


> Loricraft produce a machine that works via the same principles although 
> it's
> more "manual" than the Monks and doesn't include the push-button chemical
> delivery that the Monks does. Of course, it's also 1/4th the price. I've 
> had
> one for about 3 years and it's working fine although I doubt I tax it
> heavily (probably cleaned 2-3,000 records on it). I also have a VPI 16.5.
> The VPI gets great results at the price but the Loricraft and Monks 
> cleaning
> method simply gets more junk out of the groove.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Lennick
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-static question
>
> "Richard L. Hess" wrote:
>
>> At 11:34 PM 2/11/2006, Peter Hirsch wrote:
>> >I'm sure this is all Basic 101 audio and I should be ashamed of
>> >myself for not just going out and empirically solving this question
>> >by plunking down my $75 for a Zerostat, but isn't plundering other's
>> >knowledge and experiences what listservs are for?
>>
>> I don't do discs professionally. I do tapes. But, I enjoy discs and
>> I've had a Zerostat for 30 years and it still works. However, if I
>> want the best transfer I can get, I tend to play records wet. I know
>> that's not the best thing, but I haven't invested in a big cleaner
>> and I like the sound of a wet record, usually.
>
> Glub........
>
> May I throw in a small testimonial for a big cleaner? As soon as the Monks
> family is building the machines again (and they will be), invest in one of
> their machines. You will not regret it. Cleaning any disc on the Monks 
> takes
> about 3 minutes and makes an unbelievable difference. This is even more
> necessary now that styli need a lighter tracking force (the old Shure 
> SS78E
> could take a ton of weight and two plays would clean a ton of gunk out of
> the
> grooves..I used to use a Dominican Republic half dollar as a weight on the
> head
> shell for the worst cases). Mine cost more than my first two cars, back in
> 1999, and it's still performing beautifully. (The cars were purchased in
> 1968
> and 1971, just to put things in perspective.)
>
> dl
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/2006
>
>