Stolen from elsewhere:



The first thing you need is a Master tape, edited with selections in
order, and proper time between cuts. Preferred Formats are DAT,
CDR, Mini Disk, Reel-to-reel, or Cassette..


For reel-to-reel tapes:
Speed: 15, 30, and 7-1/2 ips in 1/4 and 1/2 inch formats, 1-7/8, and
3-3/4ips in 1/4 inch formats.


Speed of the record, 33-1/3, 45, 78, or 16-2/3.
Size of the record, 7", 10", or 12" for standard sizes...(I have seen
odd sizes)


Record (Matrix) number. This needs to be written in the "wax" so the
pressing plant can match the stamper plates to the labels. There is
really no standard convention for these numbers, but usually an
abbreviation of your record company followed by a series number, then
A and B for side one and two. (i.e.: FOS-1000-A and
FOS-1000-B )..Known as The number *Stamped* or Written in the "DEAD
WAX"


"PLATING"


The plater coats the master disk with a thin layer of silver. This is
then electroplated with nickel to about 15 thousandths of an inch
thick. When the metal is separated from the master disk, the metal
that was facing the disk now has protruding ridges where the grooves
were. This plate is called the FATHER plate.
The FATHER plate is oxidized, and plated again. The resulting plate
when separated becomes a metal duplicate of the master disk with
grooves again. This plate is called the MOTHER plate. The MOTHER can
be played on a turntable to check for errors in mastering or plating.
In a two step process, the FATHER plate is converted into a STAMPER,
the MOTHER is shelved for future use.


One FATHER can produce 10 MOTHERs. One MOTHER can produce 10
STAMPERs. One STAMPER can produce about 1000 vinyl records.


Labels are printed from typesets or camera ready artwork. Usually they
are one color ink on a contrasting paper such as red ink on white
paper, silver ink on black paper, black ink on pink paper. The inks
are to be the darker color except when using silver ink. Seven inch
records use 3-5/8 inch labels with either a 9/32 inch or a 1-1/2 inch
center hole. Twelve inch records use a 4 inch label with a 9/32 inch
hole, and ten inch records use either 3-5/8, or 4 inch labels with a
9/32 inch hole. 78s use a 3 inch label, as do some odd sized records.
Camera ready art should be black on white with specifications of what
color inks are to be used where the black is, and what color paper on
which to print..Simple eh !!!


Pressing:
The vinyl is loaded as a glob between the labels, then the mess is
squashed in the press between the two stampers at about 300 degrees
Fahrenheit, and 100 tons of pressure for about 20 to 30 seconds.
The excess vinyl is trimmed off the edge of the record, and the
record is stacked for cooling.
The final pressing is then loaded into the paper sleeves.

The clue is in the text folks!




And although the debate does get heated from time to time, we're all cool about it.

Right, I'm not dropping any more hints, that's yer lot.

Just because something is described in imperial doesn't mean it is designed and made in imperial.

Look what I've just found...
----------------------------------------------------------


As vinyl records developed, in the 1920s, they were designed and made 250 millimetres and 300 millimetres in diameter. In English speaking countries, they have been called 10 inch and 12 inch records ever since.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia

Pat Naughtin is a writer, speaker, editor, and publisher. Pat has written several books and he has edited and published many others. For example, Pat was the lead writer of a chapter of a chemical engineering encyclopedia, and recently he edited the measurement section for the Australian Government 'Style manual: for writers, editors and printers'. Pat has been recognised by the United States Metric Association as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist.

I'd check your history if I were you.

Look up when vinyl, as a recording medium, became available.

Then try looking at sites that are not biased toward pretending that all things are metric.

:-D

(I was waiting or someone to pick up that quote, waiting with hands rubbing and ready to pounce!)

;-)

<<<I'd check your history if I were you.

Look up when vinyl, as a recording medium, became available.>>>

It says since the 1920's records have been designed in metric. Not since they were first invented.

Admittedly the quote I found is from a pro-metric source. However, the guy does seem to be quite an authority on measurement so unless you can give me an equally respected source saying otherwise, then I believe him.

The fact that vinyl is *described* in imperial terms does not prove it is *designed* and *made* using imperial.

"It says since the 1920's records have been designed in metric. Not since they were first invented."

No - it says "As vinyl records developed, in the 1920s, they were designed....."

There were no vinyl records in the 1920's. Vinyl didn't come about until the late 50's.

Before then records were made in bakelite - as I have already said.

"Admittedly the quote I found is from a pro-metric source."

Actually - it was from a pro-metric ACTIVIST source.
It would be like getting information about crime and the economy of the current goverment by asking the Torys.

"However, the guy does seem to be quite an authority on measurement"

Sorry, but the chap started a thread on the USMA listserv about pints in the UK being 500ml with the rest as froth. It took another pro-metric poster to "end" the argument by posting goverment websites showing that he was wrong.


"so unless you can give me an equally respected source saying otherwise, then I believe him."

You'd like me to find a pro-imperial website that claims that 12" records are 12" in diameter?
Eh?
(scratches head)
Think about what you're asking for!



Incidentally - I know quite a bit about this (its been my hobby since I was a kid).
Did you know that a record actually starts life at roughly 14" in diameter?

The fact that vinyl is *described* in imperial terms does not prove it is *designed* and *made* using imperial.

LOL!
(and "boll**"!)

I left the last bit of your post in mine.
Obviously I don't believe or mean that because, although accuracy of records are subject to - ahem - TEMPERATURE CHANGES, they are based upon the imperial measure of 7, 10 and 12".

Look carefully for ANOTHER clue.

Unless you want me to call you and actually describe the entire clue to you!!!!

BTW, exactly how metric was the US and UK (the 'big two' in terms of records and record players) in the 1920's?

A percentage will do!

;-)

OK, you've convinced me. It sounds like vinyl is imperial after all.

never been a fan of it myself anyway ;-)

Hmmm, perhaps I can convince Andy to become a fan?

This could be tricky.

I'll try this quote - which sums up the technology side of it:-

================
The sound quality of CDs is definitely different from that of records, but not necessarily better. True, CDs are capable of playing extremely high frequencies that can't be reproduced easily on vinyl. On the other hand, vinyl can hit low frequencies that CDs cannot reproduce (this extra bass kick is one reason vinyl is preferred over CDs by club DJs). Vinyl provides a unique sound that conveys a sense of spatial sonic arrangement that you don't get on a CD. Also, CDs are just digital samples of music. Much like film presents the illusion of motion with a rapid stream of still frames, CDs only reproduce bits and pieces of sound with infinitesimal gaps between the digital samples. Vinyl, however, uses analog sound, thereby reproducing a session in its entirety. Vinyl records pick up that missing sonic information that is lost between the 1's and the 0's of digital sampling.
===============

Note it doesn't necessarily say that "Vinyl is better" - but it's quite like comparing chalk and cheese.

Words cannot justify the actual experience of sitting in a room and actually listening to a well set-up turntable and seperates arrangement.

The experience can be sublime, as you close your eyes and for each flick of skin on cable the moment that you feel the sound of the guitar instead of hearing it - the moment you see the music blossom in your mind as the hairs on the back of your neck leap out as if to tear from your skin.

ENOUGH!
ENOUGH I SAY!

Breath in through the nose, out through the mouth....

In through the nose, out through the mouth....






;-)

Nothing above states that the actual diameter of the disc is an exact 7 (178 mm), 10 (254 mm) or 12 (305 mm) inches. Since you didn't provide a link to the site, Id be suspect of the authenticity of the information or whether the information is up-to-date or not.

The information may be true in the US and/or UK, but would not be true anywhere else in the world. The following link descibes information on records in Europe with the same informatio provided in Engliah and German. The record's diameters are stated as 30 cm, 25 cm, and 17.5 cm. There is an equivalent to trade names in inches, 12, 10 and 7, but you will note that the actual manufacturing dimensions in centimetres do not eqaul the trade name dimensions in inches via the common 2.54 conversion factor.

http://www.gzcd.cz/en/doc/tc-vinyl.pdf

http://www.gzcd.cz/de/doc/tb-vinyl.pdf

Anyone who reads the pdf via the link provided will see some of the same manufacturing data provided above but in rounded metric units.

The link to the RIAA below, shows the dimensions of American records in inches. Something Steve should have an orgasm over, but the site also PROVES that none of the records are (were) actually made to the rounded 7, 10, and 12 inch diameters that Steve insists they are. This is the point being made and the point Steve refuses to accept.

http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/riaa.htm

You can use the information from the RIAA website (note it is from 1963) and compare it to the Czech website and also see there is a difference in sizes from those records made in the US and those made in metric countries. Another fact Steve refuses to admit. I wonder why?

Steady on Steve you'll hyperventilate.

Re:

"Also, CDs are just digital samples of music. Much like film presents the illusion of motion with a rapid stream of still frames, CDs only reproduce bits and pieces of sound with infinitesimal gaps between the digital samples. Vinyl, however, uses analog sound, thereby reproducing a session in its entirety. Vinyl records pick up that missing sonic information that is lost between the 1's and the 0's of digital sampling"

I'm not convinced by this. To extend the analogy it's a bit like saying you miss things in a movie because of the gaps between frames and it somehow affects picture quality.

It doesn't if the frame rate is fast enough. The human eye (or brain) smooths it out by filling in the gaps (interpolation) by assuming a smooth transition of visual content between the frames. Anything fast enough to depart from that and return to normal is probably too quick for the eye to see anyway.

There are stroboscopic affects that can occur with movie - remember the wagon wheels that appear to rotate backwards in westerns - but that's an artifact of the movie camera as it captures the image of each spoke of the wheel in each frame (I don't know if there any analagous effects with sound).

However (I digress), returning to audio, the same interpolation occurs with the human ear and digitised sound, assuming that is, that a stepped waveform reaches the power output stages of the amplifier. Again it depends on sampling rate. As a general rule if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest perceptible frequency of the listener it shouldn't be detectable. I believe for CD it's 44 kHz and very few people can hear above about 20 kHz.

There may well be qualitative differences between CD and vinyl but that's probably due to surface noise or distortion that occurs as a result of wear on the vinyl disc. I read somewhere that a typical vinyl disc starts to exhibit detectable wear after being played only 5 times!

<<I'm not convinced by this. To extend the analogy it's a bit like saying you miss things in a movie because of the gaps between frames and it somehow affects picture quality.>>

It does. Thus 25fps looks better than 12fps (frames persecond, not to be confused with feet per second).
The point being made is - a CD is reinterpreted from its digital signal to that of an analogue one. With vinyl the who process is (usually) analogue. At no point should the original signal go through a DAC or CAD.

<<It doesn't if the frame rate is fast enough. The human eye (or brain) smooths it out by filling in the gaps (interpolation) by assuming a smooth transition of visual content between the frames. Anything fast enough to depart from that and return to normal is probably too quick for the eye to see anyway.>>

At this level the simile between film and CD/Vinyl gets clouded. I'll dig out a better quote later.

<<However (I digress), returning to audio, the same interpolation occurs with the human ear and digitised sound, assuming that is, that a stepped waveform reaches the power output stages of the amplifier. Again it depends on sampling rate. As a general rule if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest perceptible frequency of the listener it shouldn't be detectable. I believe for CD it's 44 kHz and very few people can hear above about 20 kHz.>>

In theory this is true, but in tests EVEN THOUGH the human ear shouldn't pick up the difference it does. It manifests itself as a change in ambience. I disagree with the notion that vinyl just sounds "warmer" (although that may be true in some cases). Condier hearing the spoken voice via CD through a very good amp, now consider hearing that voice "live" from the person himself. The logic, again, should negate those things that fall outside the human's ability to pick up - but it does sound different.
Vinyl has a frequency range far greater than that of CD. And its greater than our ears are meant to pick up. But something changes in the music as a result of this breadth. It's so hard to explain what the differences are because there are no words for it. Well there are words such as "seperation" and "speed" but these have different meanings to those who haven't heard it to those who have.
100% of those who have listened to my set-up went from the range of "impossible" to "dubious" to "skeptical" to utterly agreeing with me once they'd heard it for real.

On one occasion I had three blokes sitting on a sofa with "lost faces" whilst looking towards the speakers as my Sondek LP12 strutted its stuff.

Most came away with "did you hear that bit in the music when..." or "On my copy I can't hear some of the instruments".

They all came away shocked that so much information can be dug from a piece of vinyl.

"There may well be qualitative differences between CD and vinyl but that's probably due to surface noise or distortion that occurs as a result of wear on the vinyl disc."

Vinyl should not wear if you set your system up correctly. The needle does not hit the groove bottom - it sits in the shoulders of the groove. When you play an album the needle passes thruogh the groove for one microsecond - and that's on a 40 minute (avg) album.
Think about the physics of how swiftly one part of the record gets read and for how long? Imagine how long that one groove would be if you stretched it out? Imagine that laying on the floor and you walking down the length of it? How long would you be at one particular part of the walk.

" I read somewhere that a typical vinyl disc starts to exhibit detectable wear after being played only 5 times!"

I've read that.
Its not true.
Records have proven to last longer than CDs!!! I kid you not! 20 yr old CDs have been found to lose the reflective portion with some becoming transparent and unplayable. Compare the playability with that CD with a record thats been left in a room with a 4 yr old for half an hour! At least the record will still play.
BTW - I have a collection of 10" 78 rpm gramaphone records that still play perfectly. Some are fron the 50's and cost over 40 quid - they play superb.

My prediction - vinyl will outlive SACD as CD itself dies of old age in the next 2 yrs.

Here's some more quotes that I promised, some with which I agree and some with which I agree less! :-







Many audiophiles dispute the superiority of CDs. The lack of hiss or background crackling is not an inherent quality of CDs, but is dependent on the quality of the original recording. Also the quality and clarity of the sound is very much dependent on the quality of the reproduction equipment, for example the DAC (digital to analog converter).

Some feel that there are inherent limitations with the 44.1kHz sampling rate used for CDs, which may not be a high enough sampling rate to capture subtle phase differences of the psychoacoustic placement of sound in the stereo image. CD recording is limited to a little more than the frequency range of human-audible sounds, with a sharp cutoff before the Nyquist frequency of 22.05 kHz, and many feel that this makes CD-recorded sound "cold": the theory behind this being that non-audible sounds add to analogue recording a "warmth" lacking in CDs. To try to solve this specific problem various solutions have been proposed, like CD players that try to digitally extrapolate non-audible sounds from the recording, and switching to DVD-Audio with its wider frequency range.

More esoteric audiophiles may also state, that instead of just "reproducing" the sound as a CD would, the analogue disc record is able to capture the "real" sound and continue its natural distribution when the record is played.

The background noise one hears on a vinyl record has been compared to the patina of an oil painting -- a part of the work, not an imperfection to be eliminated; moreover, it has been claimed that some pre-CD recordings were made with this patina in mind. To further cloud the issue, some pop music released on CD has had crackles and hiss added artificially, for effect. See Lo-fi. Laser turntables which vacuum clean the vinyl surface before reading it are said to give CD-like clean sound reproducing while preserving all the warmth of analog recording, but they are at the moment extremely expensive for home use.

One argument in favour of vinyl albums is that older recordings were made specifically for vinyl, with equipment specifically calibrated to produce a good-sounding LP. Then, when CDs were introduced, the albums were hastily remastered, and the CD does sound inferior. This is not a fault of the digital medium itself, but rather that the recording was not made to take full advantage of it. Recently, many albums from the pre-CD era (around 1990 or so tends to be the cutoff for when CDs became "the standard" to which recordings were targeted) have been carefully remastered, and sound as good as the original LPs.

"""You'd like me to find a pro-imperial website that claims that 12" records are 12" in diameter?"""


Go ahead and try. But we will all know it is a lie. Don't forget some of us have actually measured the records we have and we know they are 302 mm for US made and 300 mm when made elsewhere. There are no 305 mm records anywhere! Period!

"""Look up when vinyl, as a recording medium, became available.>>>

It says since the 1920's records have been designed in metric. Not since they were first invented."""

The 1920's saw the discontinuation of the cylinder type record played on Edison type grammophones.


See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph


From the mid 1890s until the early 1920s both phonograph cylinder and disc recordings and machines to play them on were widely mass marketed and sold. The disc system gradually became more popular due to its cheaper price and better marketing by disc record companies. Edison ceased cylinder manufacture in the fall of 1929, and the history of disc and cylinder rivalry was concluded.

<<I'm not convinced by this. To extend the analogy it's a bit like saying you miss things in a movie because of the gaps between frames and it somehow affects picture quality.>>

It does. Thus 25fps looks better than 12fps (frames persecond, not to be confused with feet per second).
The point being made is - a CD is reinterpreted from its digital signal to that of an analogue one. With vinyl the who process is (usually) analogue. At no point should the original signal go through a DAC or CAD.

<<It doesn't if the frame rate is fast enough. The human eye (or brain) smooths it out by filling in the gaps (interpolation) by assuming a smooth transition of visual content between the frames. Anything fast enough to depart from that and return to normal is probably too quick for the eye to see anyway.>>

At this level the simile between film and CD/Vinyl gets clouded. I'll dig out a better quote later.

<<However (I digress), returning to audio, the same interpolation occurs with the human ear and digitised sound, assuming that is, that a stepped waveform reaches the power output stages of the amplifier. Again it depends on sampling rate. As a general rule if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest perceptible frequency of the listener it shouldn't be detectable. I believe for CD it's 44 kHz and very few people can hear above about 20 kHz.>>

In theory this is true, but in tests EVEN THOUGH the human ear shouldn't pick up the difference it does. It manifests itself as a change in ambience. I disagree with the notion that vinyl just sounds "warmer" (although that may be true in some cases). Condier hearing the spoken voice via CD through a very good amp, now consider hearing that voice "live" from the person himself. The logic, again, should negate those things that fall outside the human's ability to pick up - but it does sound different.
Vinyl has a frequency range far greater than that of CD. And its greater than our ears are meant to pick up. But something changes in the music as a result of this breadth. It's so hard to explain what the differences are because there are no words for it. Well there are words such as "seperation" and "speed" but these have different meanings to those who haven't heard it to those who have.
100% of those who have listened to my set-up went from the range of "impossible" to "dubious" to "skeptical" to utterly agreeing with me once they'd heard it for real.

On one occasion I had three blokes sitting on a sofa with "lost faces" whilst looking towards the speakers as my Sondek LP12 strutted its stuff.

Most came away with "did you hear that bit in the music when..." or "On my copy I can't hear some of the instruments".

They all came away shocked that so much information can be dug from a piece of vinyl.

"There may well be qualitative differences between CD and vinyl but that's probably due to surface noise or distortion that occurs as a result of wear on the vinyl disc."

Vinyl should not wear if you set your system up correctly. The needle does not hit the groove bottom - it sits in the shoulders of the groove. When you play an album the needle passes thruogh the groove for one microsecond - and that's on a 40 minute (avg) album.
Think about the physics of how swiftly one part of the record gets read and for how long? Imagine how long that one groove would be if you stretched it out? Imagine that laying on the floor and you walking down the length of it? How long would you be at one particular part of the walk.

" I read somewhere that a typical vinyl disc starts to exhibit detectable wear after being played only 5 times!"

I've read that.
Its not true.
Records have proven to last longer than CDs!!! I kid you not! 20 yr old CDs have been found to lose the reflective portion with some becoming transparent and unplayable. Compare the playability with that CD with a record thats been left in a room with a 4 yr old for half an hour! At least the record will still play.
BTW - I have a collection of 10" 78 rpm gramaphone records that still play perfectly. Some are fron the 50's and cost over 40 quid - they play superb.

My prediction - vinyl will outlive SACD as CD itself dies of old age in the next 2 yrs.

Here's some more quotes that I promised, some with which I agree and some with which I agree less! :-







Many audiophiles dispute the superiority of CDs. The lack of hiss or background crackling is not an inherent quality of CDs, but is dependent on the quality of the original recording. Also the quality and clarity of the sound is very much dependent on the quality of the reproduction equipment, for example the DAC (digital to analog converter).

Some feel that there are inherent limitations with the 44.1kHz sampling rate used for CDs, which may not be a high enough sampling rate to capture subtle phase differences of the psychoacoustic placement of sound in the stereo image. CD recording is limited to a little more than the frequency range of human-audible sounds, with a sharp cutoff before the Nyquist frequency of 22.05 kHz, and many feel that this makes CD-recorded sound "cold": the theory behind this being that non-audible sounds add to analogue recording a "warmth" lacking in CDs. To try to solve this specific problem various solutions have been proposed, like CD players that try to digitally extrapolate non-audible sounds from the recording, and switching to DVD-Audio with its wider frequency range.

More esoteric audiophiles may also state, that instead of just "reproducing" the sound as a CD would, the analogue disc record is able to capture the "real" sound and continue its natural distribution when the record is played.

The background noise one hears on a vinyl record has been compared to the patina of an oil painting -- a part of the work, not an imperfection to be eliminated; moreover, it has been claimed that some pre-CD recordings were made with this patina in mind. To further cloud the issue, some pop music released on CD has had crackles and hiss added artificially, for effect. See Lo-fi. Laser turntables which vacuum clean the vinyl surface before reading it are said to give CD-like clean sound reproducing while preserving all the warmth of analog recording, but they are at the moment extremely expensive for home use.

One argument in favour of vinyl albums is that older recordings were made specifically for vinyl, with equipment specifically calibrated to produce a good-sounding LP. Then, when CDs were introduced, the albums were hastily remastered, and the CD does sound inferior. This is not a fault of the digital medium itself, but rather that the recording was not made to take full advantage of it. Recently, many albums from the pre-CD era (around 1990 or so tends to be the cutoff for when CDs became "the standard" to which recordings were targeted) have been carefully remastered, and sound as good as the original LPs.

replace "go through a DAC or CAD" with "go through a DAC or ADC"