No. There is an old saying.... "The proof is in the pudding". I believe that records are fully metric in origin simply based on the people who were involved with their conception and the outcome before me. I posses no record (and neither does anyone else, including you) that has a diameter equal to the name given. I agree that records is an area that imperial names as used as a description but the use is incorrect. Just because some people have "accepted" the imperial names for the size does not mean they are right in doing so. Didn't the majority of people once believe the world was flat? They were proved wrong. I believe that the majority of metric supporters will celebrate when metrication is complete everywhere. Learning that scientists and engineers designed products in metric before it was popular to do so is a reason to celebrate. It shows they went against the grain to do what was right and best. We need these heroes from the past to motivate us to move forward against what appears to be insurmountable odds. Why continue to oppose us when you can be a valuable asset in helping us in completing the change? Jerry
________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 9:03:51 PM Subject: [USMA:44415] RE: Records I'm surprised (again) that you cannot take on board an area where imperial is used. Pro-metric people have even explained to you that you are wrong regarding this and most of your 'findings' from google. Concentrate on the weight factor of vinyl records - the fact that they are expressed in grammes. That's an inroad into a mainly imperial 'subject' where audiophiles have accepted the use of metric as 'default'. Isn't that something to celebrate? ________________________________ Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:52:07 -0700 From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com Subject: Re: [USMA:44359] RE: Records To: barkatf...@hotmail.com; usma@colostate.edu Oh yes, the old shrinkage factor. Obviously if the record size was intended to be 12 inches, it would start out larger and then end up 12 inches after shrinkage, yet no matter how many records are produced they all end up 302 mm in the US and 300 mm elsewhere. I still don't understand how my 45s and 78s managed to shrink to an exact 175 mm and 250 mm. Maybe you can explain it. It sort of proves that the metric size were what was intended and the inch size was an approximation to satisfy English speakers. And yes, I mention Germany because that is where the first disc records were invented by Emile Berliner and they were metric. That is also why they measure the mass in grams. When was the last time you measured a record to verify the size? My bet is never, because then you would learn the truth and have to admit it. Jerry ________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:56:32 PM Subject: [USMA:44359] RE: Records I know someone who works in the production of vinyl records. Besides the fact that 12" (10" and 7") were around since the UK/US even knew of metric they are still imperial based today. What you (JPS) don't realise (although in reality you prob do) is the shrinkage after the first 14" inches are pressed. If it helps high quality records are usually expressed in grammes (eg 130 gramme vinyl). You may see a difference here - I purposefully point out metric usage in vinyl record production whereas our returning poster cannot debate the idea that records can possibly be anything but metric and searches google for a rare mention of metric. From Germany. As it happens I'm an audiophile and analog is my big hobby - I wonder if anyone out there shares my passion and has a Linn Sondek LP12 deck? :-D ________________________________ Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 06:53:56 -0700 From: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com Subject: [USMA:44328] RE: Records To: usma@colostate.edu CC: usma@colostate.edu Brian, My point is that the records never were the dimensions stated in inches. Go measure them, just don't look at them. The 7 and 10 inch records were originally designed with metric dimensions in mind as 175 and 250 mm and those dimensions continued on even when the name was changed. The LPs made by American companies are 302 mm (not 305 mm) and the ones by foreign companies are a true 300 mm. Even if it was conceived in inches it wasn't 12 (305 mm). It goes to show you that those who claim to know inches don't really recognize them when they are wrong and refuse to measure them for fear of having to admit the truth that they are not an imperial conceived product. I believe they would fall into the category of hidden metric. The so-called 3.5 inch floppy disk fell into the same category. It was a true metric product of 90 x 94 x 3.3 mm. Jerry ________________________________ From: "br...@bjwhite.net" <br...@bjwhite.net> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:22:18 AM Subject: [USMA:44321] RE: Records Interesting. In my opinion this is one of those situations where the inch term can still be used even if the US was totally metric. Nothing wrong with calling an album a 12 inch. (Technically the 33 is a 33 1/2 rpm album....) Speaking of that, the Ice-T song "I'm your pusher" had a little dialogue in which a supposed drug user is asking Ict-T for some drugs and Ice-T responds, "I can hook you up with a twelve inch." I do agree with you Jerry that mostly in the US we say 45s and LPs vs the size. However, there are many instances (usually corner cases) where inches were used. I remember back in the day, during my hardcore punk listening days, bands would "cut a 7 inch". At the same time, you'd get special remixes usually on a "12 inch". I still have a handful of 7 inch records cut by small indie bands....and also a full 12" extended mix of Michael Jackson's Billie Jean. ......and lots of times when these extended mixes would be released on CDs, they'd be refered to as 12" extended mix. I have quite a few Depeche Mode special issues with these references, although to be fair, mostly they were reissues containing UK dance hall remixes or were UK imports to begin with. With regards to your measurements though, lots of my vinyl is of different construction. Some are very thick, heavy, and brittle. Others are thin, floppy and seem to be able to be bent strongly without cracking. Looking at and holding these albums, they have slightly different lip edges which could easily account for 3mm. I'd be curious to take a larger measurement sampling. But considering the LP (the 33 1/2 rpm album, 12 inch) was designed by an American company, I don't doubt it was designed to inches. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:44320] Records From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Date: Fri, April 03, 2009 8:38 pm To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> It seems the 45 min^-1 record is 60 years old. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/08/business_the_seven_inch_single/html/1.stm This is one of those remnants that extremists get excited over because the record mentioned is called by an inch name, even though it is incorrect. In the US we never called records by their inch size.. We always called them by their speed. We had the 45 min^-1 singles, 33-1/3 long playing and the older 78 min^-1. Everyone knows them simply as 45s, 33s and 78s. Never anthing else. Yet extremists falsely claim these to be inch based because they were falsely given inch names. I happen to have a sample of all three record types and I can honestly state that none are to the measurements the extremists drool over. My 45s are 175 mm. 7 inches is 178 mm. Thus the records are 3 mm shorter then their inch name claim. My 33s are 302 mm. 12 inches is 305 mm.. Thus the records are 3 mm shorter then their inch name claim. My 78s are 250 mm. 10 inches is 254 mm. Thus the records are 4 mm shorter then their inch name claim. I believe that outside the US 33s are 300 mm exactly. Some of you on this list who do not come from the US may be able to check their record collection and verify the diameters. The 17.5 cm disc was originally designed by Emile Berliner of Germany and he chose the metric size as standard and the inch sizes were the closes the English could come up with, but even with inch names they never changed the sizes Berliner chose to the rounded inch sizes they named them. Berliner arranged for the first gramophones to be made in Europe during the trip to Germany 1889-90. According to Raymond Wile, "It was in Germany that the first commercial beginnings of the gramophone occurred - presumably in July 1890. The toy makers Kammer and Reinhardt in Waltershausen (Thuringia) began to market small hand-propelled gramophones and a talking-doll. For the doll, a small 8 centimeter disc was prepared, and for the regular machine a 12.5 centimeter disc. The records were available in three substances during the period they were marketed. Without adequate documentation it is impossible to determine if the copies made in hard rubber or celluloid were contemporaneous, or which substances had precedence. For an additional price, zinc discs also were available. The records were produced by two companies, one known solely by the initials GFKC, the other was the Rhenische Gummi und Celluloid Fabrik Werkes of Necharan, Mannheim. The machines and records also were imported into England, notably by J. Lewis Young, but were available for only a few years in both countries" (Wile 1990 p. 16). As a result, Berliner's efforts led to the establishment of Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft (DGG, later to become PolyGram). http://history.sandiego..edu/gen/recording/berliner.html Thus despite the corrupted names, vinly records are a true metric invention. Jerry ________________________________ Surfing the web just got more rewarding. Download the New Internet Explorer 8 ________________________________ " Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now
