Print

Print


A large industrial building or barn, if you want easy access to everything. Better be at ground 
level, too. I can tell you that about 1000 records takes up, in total, about 10 feet across and 
about 7 feet high, and that's a collection that doesn't have a lot of box sets. 1000 opera records 
probably takes up 30-50% more space. I'm about to just give in and crank open the wallet for custom 
shelving so I can put all my LPs together on one wall. It would make access and organization 
simpler.

Does anyone know someone who makes those heavy-duty plywood "cubbyhole" record shelves like used to 
be common in record stores?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who HAS vinyl................. to sell?


> Exactly how much space is required to house 300k records?
>
> joe salerno
>
>
> On 6/7/2012 11:50 AM, James Roth wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Has anyone/everyone seen this article in the LA Times?
>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2012/04/murray-gershenzs-300000-plus-record-collection-is-no-bestseller.html
>> He's got 300,000 records/cylinders, etc. for sale. He's only asking 1,500,000.
>>
>> Whew!  Does anyone have that kind of moolah or space?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ben Roth
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Steven Smolian
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:11 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
>>
>> This implies that lacquers were in use before Pailey acquired what became Columbia Records in 
>> 1938.  It has been my impression that the change-over occurred early in his tenure and that the 
>> new studios at 799 7th Ave were equiped specifically for this purpose. Is there more deail on 
>> this?
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Dennis Rooney
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:33 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> Almost invariably, , and always after 1940, is the answer to your first question. EMI Columbia 
>> continued to master on beeswax until the introduction of magnetic tape.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Steve Smolian<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Dennis at al,
>>>
>>> Does this imply that all US Columbia 78s after they began using
>>> lacquers were dubs?
>>>
>>> Was this process used in Europe as well and, if so, any idea when?
>>>
>>> Steve Smolian
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Rooney
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
>>>
>>> That was likely the case for the BSO recordings made after the
>>> Petrillo Ban, i.e. 1944-1950.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Karl Miller
>>> <[log in to unmask]>**
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Dennis Rooney<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Columbia first employed lacquer discs (referred to as
>>>>> "instantotiles") in lieu of beeswax in 1936. Victor seems to have
>>>>> used them as of 1940 although not consistently.
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, I was told (by someone who should know) that the early
>>>> Victor LP transfers of things like the Boston Symphony were made from
>>>> the lacquers. Hence, the sound quality on those first transfers
>>>> (subject to the quality of the vinyl) could be somewhat better than
>>>> subsequent transfers made from either the 78 pressings or metal
>>>> masters.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know more about this?
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dennis D. Rooney
>>> 303 W. 66th Street, 9HE
>>> New York, NY 10023
>>> 212.874.9626
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis D. Rooney
>> 303 W. 66th Street, 9HE
>> New York, NY 10023
>> 212.874.9626
>>
>
> -- 
> Joe Salerno
>