Talk:Electrical transcription

Merge here
Currently we have two articles discussing this topic, and then the redirect here to a subsection of the old-time radio article. Transcription disc is the oldest article with numerous contributors. It is by-and-large accurate, although it is sorely lacking in inline citations. Electrical transcriptions is a newly created article by user:Teblick which is well written and well-sourced. The content of the articles is disparate, so really the merging should be easy. I think Electrical transcription should be the location of the article, as it is in the singular per MOS, and transcription disc is a less-precise term. Comments, please? 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the author of Electrical transcriptions, I like the suggestion. I am in favor of merging the two articles.Eddie Blick (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and administrator user:Deb moved over the re-direct already, so that part is taken care of. Thanks Deb!    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merger. Can't see any objection. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Contemplating this proposal afresh after at least a year, and over two years after I was notified (via my longstanding nom de wiki, which I am still keeping on ice in order to thwart a disruptive edit-stalker, but which used to be fairly familiar in these phonographic realms), it strikes me that the "Transcription disc" article is primarily about the medium, while the "Electrical transcription" article is primarily about content and distribution. I am not sure if that argues for the merger or against it, but clearly this is not a case of two effectively identical articles under different names. If they are merged under this article's title, care should be taken to see that links to "Transcription disc" are redirected to the appropriate section, or subsection, of the resulting article rather than to its top: one of the functions the "Transcription disc" article serves is to debunk the fairly common misuse of the term "transcription disc" to describe "acetates" in general, or 16-inch records in general including soundtrack discs et al. 66.81.104.186 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electrical transcription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/Archive-BC-IDX/34-OCR/1934-07-15-BC-OCR-Page-5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414162816/http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/links.html to http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/links.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Issues
This article, and especially the pre-Contents paragraphs, have several issues that leave the reader (me) unclear on what an ET actually is:

1 - Why does it actually have electrical in the name? 2 - Why does it have higher quality audio than other recordings of the time? 3 - How does it differ from other 33 1/3 records? Can it be played on a home record player? 4 - What was used before "electrical" transcription? 5 - Why were they only used for radio stations? 6 - Why did they have less "surface noise"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.106.6 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Odd typography
For some reason, this article uses the odd typography "33+1/3" throughout. It should use the normal "33⅓" or "33 1/3" if for some reason the "vulgar fraction" is unacceptable to MOS. 121a0012 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a bug in template:fraction that is making those appear like that. I will edit the article to work around the bug. Indefatigable (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hill and dale
I dispute "the fact that the vertical recordings eliminated rumble". I can see several advantages in vertical recording, the obvious and unstated one being a slower head feed, ie the grooves can be closer together without interference, hence longer playing time. But I would expect the vertical component of rumble noise, which is mostly bearing noise transmitted through the centre shaft, to be similar, if not worse. Doug butler (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Rebroadcast
"The new medium was soon applied to a number of purposes by local stations, but not by the networks, which had a policy against broadcasting prerecorded material and mainly used the discs for archiving "reference recordings" of their broadcasts."

Was this American policy? Certainly not Australia in the 1950s, when tapes were unreliable and expensive, and long-distance broadcast-quality lines exorbitant for programs where timeliness was irrelevant. Blue Hills and When a Girl Marries went around the country on 16" lacquered aluminium discs. Doug butler (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By the late 1930s, "the networks" (meaning, yes, the four major US networks, CBS, Mutual, and the Red and Blue networks of NBC) had leased lines to all of their affiliated stations, and in fact programmed these stations for most of the day. Transcriptions were used by smaller networks that did not provide an entire day's worth of programming, and by advertising agencies. The networks used live programming, and in particular live music, specifically as a concession to the performers' unions. 121a0012 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)