Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?

[Eric Jacobs <ericj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that accurate catalog descriptions of media type are most definitely
a preservation issue.  You want to be able to easily identify candidate
at-risk recordings for preservation from the catalog entry.

>From a disc point of view, knowing that the disc is instantaneous cut, the
laminate and substrate type, and possibly who the manufacturer of the disc
is, would go a long way.

The minimum description might be:

lacquer (or aluminum)
instant cut (as David Seubert suggested earlier)

Optional, helpful, but not required:

<laminate if known or applicable>
<substrate if known or applicable>
<brand of disc if known>

Certainly worthy of an ARSC education effort.  Minimally a document, but
often times seeing, touching, and smelling the real thing is the best way
to learn.

Also, handling, cleaning and storage of instantaneous cut discs would be
valuable since they are quite different and far more fragile/sensitive
than other disc formats.

Eric Jacobs
The Audio Archive
tel: 408.221.2128
fax: 408.549.9867
mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:50 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs
lacquer?


It's necessary they be described accurately enough within the catalog system
to be sure they are reproduced with the proper equipment.   It seems to me
that this is one of the major functions of the catalog.  It's a preservation
issue.

Boy, not only did our ancestors walk funny (see silent films for the proper
ancient gait) but they sound weird on those old graphatropes.

We are all encountering a generation that cannot tell us over the phone if
what they have are 78s, LPs or 45s.  Why, LPs are the larger ones, of
course.

Is this something the ARSC education committee sould be looking into?

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?


> Steven Smolian wrote:
>
>> I strongly also endorse lacquer.  It's accurate and easy.  Mike Biel has
>> been adamant about this for years, and he's correct.
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>
> Which is still not going to stop the general public from calling them
> "acetates", any more than they'll stop referring to "Blue Wax Columbias",
> matrix numbers "in the wax" etc.
>
> dl
>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Prentice, Will" <Will.Prentice@xxxxx>
>> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:49 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs
>> lacquer?
>>
>> Surely it has to be "lacquer" - very few contained any acetate. Have
>> there been any instantaneous CUT discs (i.e. not embossed metal discs)
>> which didn't have a lacquer surface layer? Just curious.
>>
>> Will
>>
>> ...................................................
>> Will Prentice
>> Technical Services
>> British Library Sound Archive          Tel: +44 (0)20-7412-7443
>> 96 Euston Road                         Fax: +44 (0)20-7412-7416
>> London NW1 2DB                         http://www.bl.uk
>> UK                     http://cadensa.bl.uk (online
>> catalogue)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Jacobs
>> Sent: 18 January 2006 18:48
>> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] proper cataloging terminology: acetate vs lacquer?
>>
>> I recently heard a discussion among catalogers on whether to describe an
>> item as an "acetate" or a "lacquer".  Said item would be an
>> instantaneous
>> recording cut into nitrocellulose on an aluminum, glass or other
>> substrate.
>>
>> So which is the more appropriate term for cataloging - acetate or
>> lacquer?
>>
>> Eric Jacobs
>> The Audio Archive
>> tel: 408.221.2128
>> fax: 408.549.9867
>> mailto:EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> *****
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 1/18/2006
>