[Jukebox-list] Re: How to clean those records?

[David Breneman]

--- Bob Ellingson <bobe at halted.com> wrote:


> I don't think vinyl was ever intended to be the "ultimate archiving
> material".
> I think it was intended to allow easy mass-production of recorded
> sound, i.e.
> the whole thing could be pressed at once, rather than being cut or
> impressed
> along the length of the groove.  The durability was undoubtedly
> going to be
> longer than the popularity of most songs, and didn't need to be
> longer from a commercial standpoint.


Vinyl actually cost more than shellac, which it replaced.
RCA picked vinyl for the 45 because the small diameter
and this cross-section of the record made vinyl price
competitive with shellac.  Also, the smaller size, lighter
weight and unbreakable nature of the records made their
production and distribution cheaper.  The other value
of vinyl versus shellac was that since it didn't require
fillers like shellac did to hold together, the groove
could be narrower and the surface quieter.  I have vinyl
records almost 70 years old that are still holding up,
but shellac disks and "wax" cylinders much older.



David Breneman         david_breneman at yahoo.com


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow