Actually there can only be one truth. Either the records are metric or they are not. The proof has been presented that they were conceived in metric. Thus I can claim that I am entirely correct.
This is very important for metrication to show that even in the past engineers and developers conceived in metric but somehow their ideas were corrupted when the names were changed to inches giving false assurances that the products started out in inches and thus can never be done in metric unless you want to deal with increments of 25.4. I remember some years back when extremists made mocking comments concerning the floppy disk. Since they falsely assumed the dimension was a true 3.5 inch they insisted metrication would require it to be known as a clumsy 88.9 mm disk. Since the true dimensions were rounded metric to which they were unaware, the renaming of the disk to 90 mm would have been more true to the actual dimensions. Metric supporters need to be shown that metric is not something new and that for a very long time many products in use today actually were conceived in metric. It is high time we point these products out and show how they were numerically corrupted but how the true metric hidden dimensions still shine through. It is really a shame that so many metric supporters have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing extemist deceptions about the origins of many products. Isn't it time they woke up to the truth? Jerry ________________________________ From: "br...@bjwhite.net" <br...@bjwhite.net> To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com Cc: U.S.. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:37:56 AM Subject: RE: [USMA:44375] RE: Records The point was that no one was entirely right or entirely wrong. Don't get such a big head that in the first two sentences you say someone is absolutely right and another is absolutely wrong. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:44375] RE: Records From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Date: Sun, April 05, 2009 6:59 am To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> John, Thanks for verifying what I have said. We now have proof that I am correct and Stephen is wrong. But I highly doubt Stephen will change his position and continue to spout error. The RIAA spec is very interesting as it butts up against an interesting problem in converting millimeter dimensions to fractional inches. I would say that in 1963 when the spec was made (possible from an older spec) that decimal inches were rare and not popular and it was common to express all (or most) inches in fractions. So, how do you convert a rounded metric number to a fractional inch and then come up with a usable fractional size that is in either 16-ths or 32-nds? Anything smaller is not practical. 302 mm converts to 11.89 inches. The nearest fraction is 11.875 mm which is 11-7/8 inches. This however is only 301.625 mm. The reason for the asymmetrical tolerances is to accommodate rounded numbers in both units, the 302 mm in metric and the 11-7/8 in inches. If we add the 1/32 tolerance to 301.625 mm we get 302.42 mm. The average of the two is the 302.02 mm you noted, which for all practical purposes is the 302 mm intended. However, in inches there is no common fraction to equate to 302.02 mm. So the closest common fraction was chosen and the tolerance was made asymmetrical. If the RIAA spec were ever to be updated it could simply drop the 0.02 mm extra you noted and simply make it 302 mm +/- 0.4 mm. Would you agree? I do find it interesting that the RIAA wanted their records to be an extra millimeter in radius bigger then the standard 300 mm. Could be they wanted to have extra leader space at the beginning. As a side note I wonder if the 1963 spec was an update to an earlie spec and how far back the spec really goes? If so, and the inches were in fact not post 1960 inches, then how would pre-1960 inches or even pre-1900 inches affect the outcome of the conversions? At least we now know that the dimensions are what is intended and that the reference to shrinkage is just wishful thinking. It just goes to show that the extremist propaganda that claims everything in the past started out as inch based is wrong and that there are many examples that actually started out as metric based and were later corrupted by the English world in inches and the metric history was forgotten. It is time to revive the truth about products that originally were metric to begin with. Jerry ________________________________ From: John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 6:59:20 AM Subject: [USMA:44370] RE: Records We have spent enough time on record size on this and other boards that I did some research. I shall play Solomon; you are each awarded half a child for the merits of your position. :) Wikipedia is not the greatest source, but they say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record [startquote] Vinyl record standards for the United States follow the guidelines of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).[26] The inch dimensions are nominal, not precise diameters. The actual dimension of a 12-inch record is 302 mm (11.89 in), for a 10-inch it is 250 mm (9.84 in), and for a 7-inch it is 175 mm (6.89 in). Records made in other countries are standardized by different organizations, but are very similar in size. The record diameters are typically 300 mm, 250 mm and 175 mm.[endquote] They are not the best source, but they give references, including a link to the RIAA specs for American made records. http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/riaa.htm (I can not find a link to the ISO spec to confirm international sizes) It is worth noting that a 12" record is forbidden to be 12". The nominal diameter is 11 7/8" with assymetric tolerance of +1/32" -0. It is a 1963 spec and it is in fractions of an inch. Engineers prefer symmetric specs, and playing with fractions, it is 11 57/64" ± 1/64". This is not shrinkage, this is specification. Conversion to metric gives 302.02 mm ± 0.40 mm. With symmetric tolerances 7" and 10" records are also 7/64 shy of nominal and convert to 175.02 mm and 251.22 mm respectively with the same ±0.40 mm tolerance. So, they are odd inch fraction sizes, smaller than their nominal names. They roughly match millimeter sizes claimed to be used in the rest of the world. However the tolerances for 10" and 12" records do not include the claimed metric sizes of 250 mm and 300 mm (7" tolerance does include 175 mm). Perhaps in our continued metrification of obsolete technologies, we could move on to the proper metric diameter of buggy whips. :) --- On Sat, 4/4/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> wrote: From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Subject: [USMA:44367] RE: Records To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 10:36 PM Brian why not just measure one for yourself? Then you will see that it is not 12 inches (=305 mm). If you have any from outside the US measure them too. You will see that neither are 305 mm. Just because they were designed in the US doesn't mean they weren't designed by someone who was pro-metric or foreign born and wanted the record to be metric too, even if hidden. 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 10:08:50 PM Subject: [USMA:44365] RE: Records I don't know about other sizes, but the "Long Play" records or "LP" was designed by an American record company. Columbia I think.....out of LA. Early 50s if I remember right...so I wouldn't be surprised if it was designed to 12 inches. But....does any of this *REALLY* matter? The 3.5 inch floppy was in fact 90mm. That is an industry fact. Everything being discussed here is just conjecture and speculation. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:44364] RE: Records From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com> Date: Sat, April 04, 2009 6:52 pm To: "U.S.. Metric Association" <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
