Re: [ARSCLIST] Record Diameter (was: playback curves for some 78s)

[Michael Biel <mbiel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If memory serves, the smaller 1930s diameter was
> > required to clear the jukebox mechanisms. 

From: David Breneman <david_breneman@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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  mbiel@xxxxxxxxx  


> 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.