Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 4

Unusual types of gramophone record
I moved the disussion and listing of gimmicks and strange types of discs to a seperate article, Unusual types of gramophone records, as this article was getting long and that section was starting to bog what was otherwise mostly an overview of the subject down with trivia. -- Infrogmation 19:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough but what about putting a link to "Unusual types of gramophone records" at the bottom of the main article ?


 * It was there prominently at the time. If it has been lost in subsequent edits, it needs to go back; I'll put it there. -- Infrogmation 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

redirects and disambiguations needed?
You see how all this could confuse a poor traveler on the wikinet such as myself! The Phonograph page is extensive and well-written (IMHO) and links to this here Gramophone record article, but in a slightly obscure place in the sixth paragraph of section 4 ... it seems like it would be more useful to have this (dare I mention, "featured article"!) mentioned more prominently in that article. Perhaps a combination of redirects and disambiguations could be undertaken by a wikeditor more courageous, and more involved with this topic, than myself! Many thanks in advance, and thanks to all of the great contributions to this page, the Phonograph page, and the talk pages for both. ;^) -Tzf 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gramaphone Redirects to Phonograph
 * Gramophone is a stub, not marked as a stub, or a half-hearted disambiguation page, not marked as a disambiguation page. It only refers to Phonograph and The Gramophone, a stub article about a publication.
 * Gramaphone Record
 * Gramaphone Records is a stub about a "DJ-based Vinyl record Store" in Chicago.
 * Gramaphone record
 * Gramaphone records
 * Gramophone Record
 * Gramophone Records
 * Gramophone record is the article for which this is the talk page.
 * Gramophone records is redirected to the article for which this is the talk page.


 * I've added redirects to this article from the redlinks. Others seem okay now with the possible exception of Gramaphone Records, article about the Chicago store. I added a link to this article at the talk of that page. However, as that article is an orphan other than this talk page, the notability of the store and need for that article might be open to debate. -- Infrogmation 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial commercial failure of 33⅓ rpm format
''In 1930, RCA Victor launched the first commercially-available vinyl long-playing record, marketed as "Program Transcription" discs. These revolutionary discs were designed for playback at 33⅓ rpm and pressed on a 30 cm diameter flexible plastic disc. In Roland Gelatt's book The Fabulous Phonograph, the author notes that RCA Victor's early introduction of a long-play disc was a commercial failure for several reasons including the lack of affordable, reliable consumer playback equipment and consumer wariness during the Great Depression''


 * Not strictly 100% true ! While 33⅓ rpm was a commercial failure in the 1930's as far as the consumer market was concerned it WAS adopted (for a time) by some movie studios using it as an alternative to "sound on film techniques" although it had more success in radio broadcasting where "transcription discs" were used both for archiving and distributing (non-live) programming to affiliates and overseas stations (78rpm records pressed on 12 16 or even 20 inch discs was a rival format in these applications) The 33⅓ rpm format was relaunched in the consumer market by Columbia records although it wasnt until the mid 1950's that it became a commercial success.


 * Interesting reading! First of all, I have a Victor catalogue from the 1930s which lists these long playing records as "Funeral Parlor Records."  That's where the marketing niche ultimately developed.  Also for a few years in the mid 1930s the fabulous Capehart phonograph sported both the 78 rpm and 33 1/3 rpm speeds.  In terms of home records available to the public the Victor long playing record was not a marketing success.  These records were more expensive than 78s and there was no quantum improvement in sound quality --- they were just longer, typically two 78 sides in length, per  long playing side.  The recording speed 33 1/3 rpm was developed by ERPI (associated with Western Electric) for motion picture sound records and became successful in the Warner Brothers Vitaphone system around 1927.  However, sound on film overtook the Vitaphone disc.  Also, synchronization of film and disc could be lost for a number of reasons.  It was easier to edit using film.  So, through ERPI, the 16" 33 1/3 rpm disc technology moved to radio programming.  One of the best examples are electrical transcriptions produced by World Broadcasting System using the Western Electric wide range system --- hifi for the era.  From about the early 1930s to some time in the 1960s, this 16" 33 1/3 rpm recorded format was commonly used by broadcasters.  It became supplanted on radio by 45s, Lps and magnetic tape. -- Jrpowell 00:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Close up picture of grooves would be nice
Has anyone got a picture of the grooves on a record, showing the various details, run in, run out, track separator, wave form visible in a groove? I couldn't get a usable picture with the camera I have.

Persistence of the cylinder?
I have the impression that I read somewhere that the cylinder format persisted in the South (southern U. S.) for much longer than in other parts of the country. There was an unstated implication that this popularity was primarily within the black community. Does anyone know anything more about this?

(Evidence that the black market was more or less distinct from the mainstream white market is provided by the 1920s phenomenon of "race records," recorded by black artists, marketed only to blacks, and unfamiliar to the white community at the time. These were, of course, discs). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the US, Edison Records was the only company still commercially mass producing cylinders in the 1920s. This was something of a nitch market of customers who had cylinder machines they'd bought years or even decades earlier, mostly in rural and small town markets. I believe at least from the mid 1910s on, all the new (not back-catalogue) cylinders were simply dubs of Edison disc records. Edison didn't make much of an attempt at reaching the "race records" market; that was pioneered in the early '20s by disc record companies, Okeh Records, followed by Columbia Records, Paramount Records, and others -- all standard disc makers. -- Infrogmation 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was Magical Mystery Tour blurred out?

 * The legend could even have a link to the album... Why is that?

I don't know why the blurred it either. It can't be for copyright reasons, seeing how that would fall under fair use (you are showing an example of an album cover and LP, so it would be acceptable there), and also it doesn't fit in with the other pages for stuff like single and such. It probably was done in a moment of overzealous editing. If I had a camera, I would take a picture of a vinyl record I currently own and put it up, but alas, I have no camera.--THollan 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because the point of the photo is that it shows a vinyl record, not *which* vinyl record it is - blurring the cover puts the emphasis on the gramophone rather than the artist, yet still shows how they were packaged. I think it's quite clever. - DavidWBrooks 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's distracting. It draws attention to the fact that it is blurred out, and you wonder why it is blurred out. Essentially, people will see that it is an example of a vinyl record and packaging even if it is not blurred out. It over shadows the packaging and the record by being blurred out. I say we should ought to discuss whether it should be blurred out or not. Whose up for a vote. Mine would be for not blurring it out. --THollan 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * keep I like it the way it is. --Blainster 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody - ah, to possess such certainty - has bypassed the decision process un-fuzzed it, and I can't find the previous version. - DavidWBrooks 12:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the fuzzy version for now, and put a note in the caption referring folks back here. Personally, I like both versions and don't have a strong preference either way -- but given that it is being discussed here, I'd rather not see it changed out from under folks. zowie 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see no point in blurring it. If you want to show how an album is packaged, then by all means, you should include the cover art. This actually varies from Tape, CD and Vinyl releases. By blurring the cover, we are simply destroying that needed element of the album packaging. Despite what the intentions may be, just showing a cardbox and a blank LP isn't really showing how it is packaged. One of the benefits touted for vinyl records is how it has larger artwork. Blanking that element of album art is something I CAN NOT GO FOR. Even though wikipedia is not a democracy, I won't be so bold to revert it to the original state.

However, on another note, the page Album uses that picture too. Either we unblur until we get this worked out for the sake of that page or give that page a new picture. Or else it just looks stupid. Frankly, I can't think of any real argument for blurring. --THollan 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the arguments as I see them -- feel free to add to the list...

Pro-blurring

 * defends against possible copyvio claims
 * prevents association of "Magical Mystery Tour" with all LPs
 * focuses attention on the LP itself rather that on which album is involved

Con-blurring

 * Distracts from the colorful packaging, which is the point of the illustration
 * May not be necessary -- after all, lots of other album covers are present in WP at 200-pixel resolution.
 * Annoys many

At the moment, I lean toward wanting a non-blurred image. Let's try to come to a rapid consensus here -- David, is there another reason for the blurring that I don't get? zowie 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that pretty much covers it - the question is whether the blurring succeeds in its intended job (placing attention on the LP rather than the particular album, while still showing how colorful packaging worked) or fails (causing such a distraction that it removes attention from the LP and pulls it onto the blurrification, raising questions that aren't answered in the article). I don't think copyvio has anything to do with it, for the reasons you said under "con". - DavidWBrooks 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the blurring fails at the goal of not distracting people from the disc. I base that opinion on both the arguments we're getting here on Talk and the amount of image reversion back-and-forth.  Given that, I think we're back into not-blurred territory, if you're willing to live with that.  We also have the option of using another photograph - perhaps of several LPs, to show varietey.  I don't think we should just show a "lone" LP with no jacket, because (as others have pointed out) the jacket itself is an important part of the whole "LP experience" even if it's not addressed directly in the article. zowie 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We need a picture showing everything - LP, 45, flexidisc, 78, etc - together, with applicable packaging. This is, after all, the gramophone record article - there should be pictures for everything. -Litefantastic 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here; what bothers me the most is that it doesn't even obscure the art -- everyone here knows it's Magical Mytery Tour anyways... aubrey 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

--

I haven't seen any discussion for the last two days, and I now think I don't see any strong reason for the blurring. In particular, copyvio probably isn't an issue since higher resolution album covers are peppered throughout WP; and the blurring arguably draws more attention to the "Magical Mystery Tour" than would a simple reproduction of the cover. Does anyone want to step up and either defend those arguments, or introduce some more? If not, let's just put back the original picture and be done with it. zowie 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, now it's 6-June and nobody has spoken up to defend "pro". I'm going to assume we've got a consensus here, and revert to the in-focus version.   zowie 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking from the losing side, I'd have to say this is a dangerous precedent of discussing an issue intelligently and without rancor and reaching a reasonable consensus. If that idea spreads, wikipedia as we know it is doomed - DavidWBrooks 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Degradation of audio quality
I removed the following text:


 * Degradation can be accelerated by playing a vinyl disk repeatedly in quick succession. The enormous pressure of the stylus in the groove &mdash; on a microscopic scale &mdash; causes the material to instantaneously heat up and become distorted.  With time, the vinyl tends to return to its original shape.  To obtain maximum life from vinyl records, audiophiles typically will play them no more than once per day, then allow them to rest.

I believe that the excised text is bullshit. Here's why:

Styli in hi-fidelity equipment are balanced for about 10 milliNewtons (the weight of 1 gram of mass) of force. A typical stylus contact patch might be something like 30 microns by 50 microns. The pressure is thus 6 megaPascals or, for Americans, ~1000 psi. That sounds like a lot, except that the plastic deformation strength of vinyl is more like 3,000-6,000 psi (20-40 megaPascals), quite a bit higher.

If the drag force is comparable to the down force, then the dissipated power from the stylus heating the record is about 5-10 milliwatts. The region under the stylus is exposed for about 0.02-0.05 milliseconds depending on the location on the disk. Worst case - the needle deposits about 5e-7 Joules on each contact patch as it goes over. Even with no conductive cooling, that will heat the disk by something like a tenth of a degree Celsius. zowie 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is so cool. At your discretion: why not paste it in in placement of the excised text? -Litefantastic 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Why is the new picture's sleeve blurred out? I think either a plain picture of the record or an unblurred sleeve with an explanation would suffice. 207.7.188.108 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See the discussion two above this. - DavidWBrooks 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sentance
In extreme cases, they can cause the needle to skip over a series of grooves, or worse yet, cause the needle to skip backwards, creating a "locked groove" that repeats the same 1.8 seconds of track (at 33⅓ rpm) over and over again.

How can anyone tell if it is 1.8 seconds? Couldnt it be different second amounts depending on the severity of the dust?


 * (60 seconds/minute)/(33.33 revolutions/minute) = 1.800 seconds/revolution.  zowie 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! I see. 199.224.109.217 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on "Arguments about sound fidelity"
Not that the same problem doesn't exist elsewhere in the article, but this section in particular is a festival of weaseling. "Some audiophiles prefer..." "Some listeners were also disappointed..." "Proponents of analog audio argue..." "Proponents of digital audio argue..." "The 'warmer' sound of analog records is generally believed..." "Critics of compact disc audio have observed..." "it is believed by some that this might not be noticeable..." That's seven by my count.

Hasn't anyone got any references?

(Also, by this time, hasn't anyone tried any actual experiments to see whether ordinary humans are really capable, in blind tests, of detecting the difference between the signal coming from a cartridge, and the same signal after being recorded onto and then reproduced from a CD?) Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have performed this test with a SHUR magnetic cartridge and a nice belt-drive turntable, using David Bowie's album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars and the Beatles' album Abbey Road, both of which I have on both CD and LP. It is easy to tell the difference between the two, even after the soundstreams have been mpeg compressed to 160kbps.  At least from my turntable and with 20-year-old records, the main audible cue is a slight rumble and soft popping in unprocessed audio from the LP.  This is an effect I have heard referred to as the "campfire effect&quot; and it really does sound sort of like a large campfire sitting behind the soundstage.  (Perhaps that is why LPs are considered "warm"? :-)  The campfire effect is so pronounced that it is a no-brainer to distinguish the sound streams when you hear them back to back.


 * I did the test because the Abbey Road CD sounded somewhat "flat" to me compared to the LP playback. I spectrum-analyzed some clips from each album, using Audacity.  I did not carefully match up the soundstream in the time domain, but did spectrum-analyze the same 2-second clips to within maybe 0.2 second.  The LP had slightly more response in both bass and treble, and in quiet passages the amplitude was proportionally higher than in the CD soundstream.  This makes me think that some compression had been applied to both of the LPs during final, post-mix mastering, together with some tuning to make the sound more "alive" (whatever that means).  I surmise that the CDs were created straight from the post-mix master tapes with linear digitization and flat pre-amp profile.


 * The apparent compression could also be due to the cartridge: like most cartridges, mine is slightly nonlinear in response: the output signal grows slightly slower than linearly compared to displacement of the stylus. That effect imposes a slight dynamic range compression on the ouput signal from nearly every turntable, and is why you have to adjust the anti-skating force properly to avoid distortion (if you get it wrong, then the compression fronts have a different gain than the corresponding rarefaction fronts).  Based on seeing the wave form with and without correct anti-skating adjustment makes me think that strong passages are compressed by as much as 3-5dB with my rig; this is in addition to any compression that may have been applied during mastering.


 * I'm not an expert on psychoacoustics, but I also think that the "campfire effect" boosts the feeling of "presence" that people like about LPs -- particularly in quiet passages, the subsonic rumble seems to be a sort of "silent sound" that signals activity but that does not interfere with hearing ambient noise in the room as would an equally loud sound in the midrange part of the spectrum. Certainly the signal compression changes the "feeling" of the music, bringing faint sounds and passages slightly more to the fore of the music.


 * I don't have any references, only my "original research", which is why I haven't said anything about it in the main article. However, these results are pretty easy to reproduce, for anyone with a turntable and a sound-card-equipped computer.  I used Audacity to record and analyze the sound. zowie 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You would probably have to go back to old 1980s HiFi magazines such as HiFi Answers (UK) to get some good tests. Essentially there are so many variables that a good blind test is tricky to do. For example, a small lift in sound level is more attractive to the ear so you have to get the sound levels right. Disks had to use compression due to the low signal to noise ratio - so the quiet passages might sound "better" just because they are louder. Modern CD re-releases do significant extra processing - I think the most stunning example I heard was Free - Alright Now where the drum sound was transformed - the original vinyl was soft and the remix was stunning. Spenny 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

CD "compression ratio"
I deleted the following text:


 * The CD compression ratio was developed by studying just how much information could be dropped during digitalization, without sounding strange. The MP3 compression was a further loss of information.  Both to allow smaller computer files.

CD audio is not compressed in either the dynamic range sense nor the digital sense. The sample rate was determined as a nice harmonic of the video scan rate (the lower levels of the CD protocol stack are lifted from the older LaserDisc protocol; the CD sample rate of ~44 kHz is a small harmonic of the raster frequency of NTSC video. (11 data bytes per raster, plus some overhead, if I recall correctly).

Nearly every piece of hi-fi audio equipment in the U.S. cannot reproduce sounds at higher frequencies than 15 khz because of the decision to multiplex FM stereo at that frequency -- for cost and consistency reasons most consumer level pre-amps (even high end ones) drop like a rock starting at that frequency. The 44kHz sample rate of CDs gives approximately 3:1 sampling at 15 kHz, which is sufficient to preserve all phase information in sound that is band-limited to lower frequencies than that. That is (at least a major part of) why the CD sample rate was selected, not minimization of file size.

MP3 compression is a different subject entirely but is not particularly relevant to LPs. The CD discussion is an important contrast largely because of the ongoing debate between audiophiles (and the snake-oil salesmen who prey on them) vs. signal-processing experts over which format is probably "better". zowie 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to rain on your parade, but the sampling frequency fo Compact Discs had absolutely nothing to do with the NTSC television system. It did, however, have everything to do with the PAL television system.  The (more or less) standard sampling rate for digital systems was settling on 48 kHz.  The Dutch company, Philips, who largely developed the CD system decided to use widely available TV colour subcarrier crystals as a cost saving exercise.  These were 4.433619 MHz and indeed the prototype CD system used 44.33619 kHz sampling (having divided the crystal frequency by 100).  Philips decided to use 44.1 kHz sampling in the final version, easily achieved by pulling the crystal frequency downwards slightly. 86.132.205.117 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I violenty disagree! If your "take" is true, then why is SoundBlasters, and others, promoting & selling PCI ADC cards for 24-bit and 192kHz, @ $250? And phono-preamp marketers promoting 20- 192kHz thru-put @ $300 (visit TRACERTEK.com)? And amplifier marketers likewise (visit MOTHER-OF-SOUND.com). Read about the promotions of audio editing programs, eg: GoldWave or CD Six. Look at their visual graphics of sound waveforms. Google search about CODEX, and the development of the CD and MP3 compression scheme, about DVD-A, org, etc. Read about high-end audio within Wikipedia. Ask a musician to listen to a record, a tape, a CD, a DVD-A of the same song, in the same enviroment and comment as to the quality, which sounds best. Heck, in late 1950s, I bought amplifiers whose specs were to 20kHz. PhonoPreams capable to 40kHz are but $200. AGAIN: all digital conversion involves SOME loss of information! How much is acceptable is different for each individual. Perhaps I should have used a different word than "strange" -- maybe "poor". CEM-BSEE 2 Jun 2006 6am. A quick review of articles which I downloaded for my best friend, a professional musician for 45y, and retired rocket engineer who was responsible for heat transfer and fluid flow systems on the trips to the moon, evidenced relative to DVD-A the statement that the recording equipment has 64-bit, 384kHz capability for soundwaves for the DVD-A having 24-bit 96kHz capability. If your statement that CD audio suffers no losses, then why is DVD-A even of interest? CEM-BSEE 6/2/06 7:30a.


 * Hmmm... I should perhaps have spoken more carefully. Most consumer-level hi-fi receiver/amplifiers have been band limited as I described -- I can't speak to professional recording equipment or audiophile high-end systems.  However, in the context of vinyl enthusiasts, 15kHz is a reasonable cutoff.  A 30cm dia. 33-1/3 RPM record has a rotation speed of around 0.5 m/s near the outer edge, or 0.25 m/s near the inner edge.  A nice biradial stylus might have a lengthwise radius of 0.3 mils (diameter of 0.6 mils, or 15 micron), contacting the record for about 0.3 mils near the center.  If the record is traveling 0.25 m/s, that is about 33,000 independent samples per second, with a resulting frequency cutoff of just over 15 kHz just from the stylus-record interaction.  I do not know the shape of the styli used by the record companies to cut the grooves -- but it is possible that the groove contained higher frequencies.  High end styli can be found with lengths as low as 0.1 mil, about 5 micron, which would permit 99,000 independent samples per second.  At least one quadraphonic system used ultrasound to encode the multi-channel information, but failed because the ultrasonic portion of the signal would rapidly degrade with play.


 * Still, most consumer grade turntables sold for most of LPs' dominance simply couldn't reproduce frequencies at higher than 15-20 kHz tops. 44kHz sampling is sufficient to preserve all phase information at up to 15 kHz (about 3 samples per period).


 * My point is that, at least insofar as is relevant to this article, CDs aren't so bad. They match reasonably well the characteristics of the vinyl records that they replaced, in mass-market circumstances with typical hi-fi equipment.  One can argue over whether phase information or ultrasonics are important to human hearing, but the gramophone article probably isnt' the place to do so.


 * I think the current text is pretty good, pointing out that many early CDs were not well mastered. Another point, covered elsewhere on the 'net, is that some kinds of poor mastering are much better tolerated by gramophone records than by digital media.  Boosting sound levels too high on the medium is one such sin.  Provided that the groove never intersects itself, vinyl records have excellent tolerance for high signal levels and only introduce small amounts of distortion with even very large signal (the distortion is usually due to slight nonlinearity in the cartridge; this is why you have to get the anti-skating force adjusted right for best playback).  CDs, on the other hand, impose an absolute limit on total signal strength and sloppy mastering can make them clip the signal something awful.


 * One reason for a mastering/mixing company to go with 384 kHz sampling is that it eliminates a whole host of problems with entrance filtering and also allows higher noise levels in the A-D converter. Oversampling by a factor of 9 allows you to get away with a S/N ratio that is three times worse than you would need if you were sampling critically, and also prevents you from having to match the input filtering characteristics to your sample rate -- any artifacts are pushed safely up in to the ultrasound, where you can edit them out later in digital post-processing.  With the price and speed of microelectronics these days, who knows -- 384kHz sampling may actually be cost-competitive with more careful treatment of the signal and lower rate sampling, particularly for a high end application like mixing/mastering.  (However, I sincerely doubt that your friend's 64-bit, 384-kHz system is recording more than 16-20 bits in a meaningful way).


 * Of course, all that is sort of irrelevant to vinyl, which certainly can't match DVD-A for signal reconstruction :-) zowie 23:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Split out recording medium comparison?
Both the comments-on-fidelity section and the recording medium comparison section seem to deal with material that is not directly relevant to vinyl itself: quality of CDs, cassette tapes, and the like. It seems to me that these sections would be best split out into a separate article that is linked to from the main article. Comments? zowie 17:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly. This article is good, but very long and that could be a good element to segment out. 48v 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. -- Infrogmation 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Why hasn't this been done? Rigadoun (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also. Kevin KBG (talk) 19:25, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

SACD vs vinyl
I just reverted a few anonymous edits to the media-comparison section. The edits asserted that sound from CD and LP sources are different, but that SACD and LP are quite simialr in fidelity. Since the main difference between CD and LP sound is that LPs contain artifacts (rumble and pop) that are not in CDs (notwithstanding any high-frequency phase arguments) it would be foolish for the SACD engineers to produce a medium that sounded more like vinyl -- they would have had to add in artifacts that are not present in the digital medium. zowie 14:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vinyl side naming and today's speed usage
Some vinyl records call the first side "A" and the second "B", while other vinyl records use "A" and "AA". Is there any convention behind this system?

Also, I cannot see the reasons why some electronic music singles use 33 rpm and others 45 rpm, although the music is structurally equal (approximately 8 minutes for one track on one side, dynamic range / bass usage similar among productions).

Thanks, --Abdull 10:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "AA" is a "double A-side" - there's an explanation in the A-side and B-side article. 220.157.85.81 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you very much for your help! --Abdull 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vinyl in the present day - another perspective
The Business recently published an intriguing article about the apparent resurgence of interest in vinyl in the UK:

Back in the groove

Quote:


 * According to Rob Campkin, the head of Music at Virgin Megastores, vinyl is now outselling CDs when it comes to the latest records.


 * “Up to 70% of sales of new releases are vinyl. The fans of popular new rock bands like Arctic Monkeys and The Raconteurs prefer vinyl to CD,” said Campkin. “When the Raconteurs’ latest single was released, 80% of high-street sales were for seven-inch vinyl and only 20% were for CDs.”

220.157.85.81 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Analogue disc record vandal
FYI: one or more folks using the IP of Travis Air Force Base have the really funny joke going on of changing the first reference to "analogue disc record" (see discussion above, from a long time ago). He/she/they do it over and over and over and over and over and over ... yawn ... so if you spot it, please revert. - DavidWBrooks 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should a ban be requested from an admin?


 * They use a number of different IPs - it would have to be a pretty widespread ban. We can live with it. - DavidWBrooks 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood you and thought it was a specific IP. 48v 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be a single IP; only recently has the vandal started coming from a whole range of IPs at TAFB. zowie 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that some of these IPs awe in use by legitimate contributors as well and thus it would be counter-productive to block them. However, 4.243.176.199, 4.243.212.116, 4.243.179.50, and 4.243.143.122 have all been used only for attacks (some of which were signifigantly more offensive.) And most of them link to a talk page identifying the user. So perhaps these IP's should be up for blocking. I'm basing this on their user contribution and talk pages. 48v 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One more incident this morning. Reverted. Please note that user : 'ThePatriots' was not one of the vandals, but happened to come between the anonymous vandalism and the title getting repaired. I did not revert his/her edits as they were legitimate. 48v 10:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Articles to be split"
I notice the "Articles to be split" category has been added to this article, but no discussion of splitting it is here. Should we split this article up into some sub articles? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I think that the "comparison of recording medium" table should be made into it's own page. Most of the formats on that list have nothing to do with phonograph records, and other pages might be able to benefit by a link to it. --35.11.141.49 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speeds
I changed the speeds reference back to the electric motor/gear ratio; the strobe wasn't invented until 1931. How can we change the non-US speed related content to not reflect a strobe and be accurate? DJLon 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. Though perhaps some note should be made of the attempt by some labels, such as Columbia and Edison, to standardize rotation speed at 80 rpm for a dozen years or so up to the mid '20s. -- Infrogmation 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The NAB standards of 1949 do talk about the number of bars on a strobe for the 78 rpm and 33 1/3 rpm speeds, so it's quite appropriate to talk in terms of a strobe. Prior to the common availability of the strobe, some phonograph manufacturers and record makers printed speed on the record label.  Columbia and Edison especially used 80 rpm for the diamond disc. -- Jrpowell 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
gramophone record to record. Then move record to record (disambiguation). "Gramophone record" is rarely used, and our policy at Wikipedia is to use the common names. Voortle 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Oppose -- "record" is just too general. Though I'd support a similar move to phonograph record, which in my experience is much more common than "gramophone" in both the U.S. and university communities in the U.K. (except when talking about old non-electronic systems such as direct-induction 78s).  I can't comment on other communities.  zowie 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- "record" is what most people would be thinking of when looking up record. Or move to phonograph record if this is unacceptable. --Lukobe 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- I agree with Lukobe. DJLon 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Per reasons I've stated above. Voortle 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Zowie above: "record" is far too general. "phonograph record" is fine, though. - DavidWBrooks 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: "phonograph record" also refers to phonograph cylinder records as well, which is a reason why the more specific term is used here for an article on the disc variety. -- Infrogmation 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose – agree that "record" is too general. And we have been through the debate over "phonograph record" previously.  It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other. --Blainster 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the nomination as it is. Since the article for the player is at Phonograph, I would support a move to Phonograph record. But I agree with the others above that "Record" has far too many alternate uses. Kafziel 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Absurd. There are many types of record. "Gramophone record" is what the person who invented it named it. This has been discussed before. -- Infrogmation 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There being many types of records is not a reason to use such an obscure name for the title. Besides, we don't have any articles on Wikipedia about any other type of records presently, so it's fine. Voortle 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
gramophone record to record (audio). Okay, it appears that moving this article to plain record wouldn't do, as record has other meanings. I propose that it be moved to record (audio) as "gramophone record" is a very rare term and our policy is to use common terms. Voortle 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: "gramophone" is the preferred term in the UK and its former possessions, "phonograph" is preferred in the USA". It's just another English language variation, not "a rare term".  Wiki policy states both are acceptable, and the original author prevails in articles where both versiona are applicable.  This was debated and decided here many moons ago.  --Blainster 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history, those facts are not supported as clearly as you state. When Gramophone record first appeared, it did so as a redirect to Phonograph.  The next version had an internal name of The Analogue Disc Record and was according to the edit summary a rework of Vinyl Record.  So apparently Gramophone record was not the first choice.  Vegaswikian 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Oppose. The policy is also not to use parenthesis unless absolutely necessary. Again, I would support a move to Phonograph record, since the article for the player is located at Phonograph and it would make sense for them to match. Besides which, records can also be used for non-musical things like spoken word... and disco. Kafziel 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - lots of LPs and such contain other things than music. But this is a good idea and I'd support record (sound) or record (audio) provided that gramophone record and phonograph record linked there.  zowie 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the modified record (audio) proposal . While Kafziel has a good point that parens should be avoided, this seems like an appropriate case as we have both "phonograph" and "gramophone" camps and it appears that the two will not be able to reach a resolution. zowie 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Move to record (audio). I agree that record (music) is not the best title. I've changed the proposal. Voortle 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Record" is currently a disambig page providing a link here. "Record {audio)" would not be a meaningful change, just a change to the link on the dab page. The basic decision between phonograph and gramophone (USA/UK) was made long ago, and I see no reason to flip back and forth between them, either.  --Blainster 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support move to either Phonograph record or record (audio). The current name is simply too obscure.  Vegaswikian 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - It's not "obscure" is the proper name for them. A phonograph is a device for playing cylinders while a gramophone plays discs and the word phonograph is "obscure" in Britain. Rutabega and zucchini in common with thoudands of other artcle titles are pretty "obscure" to pretty much everyone outside of the USA. Have a sense of give and take. Jooler 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Record (audio)" still ambiguous. It can mean the verb to record audio, a phonograph cylinder (also commonly known as a "record" in its heyday), or any other audio recording. (Certainly you don't mean to tell me that my compact discs are not "records" of "audio"?) We've been arguing over the title of this article for years-- I fear a "perfect" title that will please everyone is not to be found. "Gramophone" is very far from "obscure". If that is not what many people call it in casual conversation, note for example that the "telephone" article is not at "phone" -- there is nothing wrong with using a proper name in an encyclopedia. -- Infrogmation 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * <> I have heard "telephone" zillions of times, however I have never heard anyone refer to a "phonograph record". Hence that argument doesn't fit. Even if there can be other audio records, the term "record" in audio usage is most commonly associated with what is described in this article. Hence, it's fine. Voortle 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I have never heard anyone refer to a "phonograph record". " Ignorance has never been a good argument for anything other than education. Jooler 07:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're saying I'm ignorant just because I have never heard anyone refer to it as a "phonograph record"? How dare you. That certainly doesn't make me ignorant. I've removed your personal attack Voortle 23:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were ignorant, I did not use that word and I didn't not refer to you personally. I was talking about the state of ignorance. Ignorance means the state of being unaware/uninformed about something - see our article at ignorance. This does not constitute a personal attack. You have already stated that "I have never heard anyone refer to a phonograph record" - thus you are displaying ignorance of that specific fact and as I stated above - boats of ignorance of have never been a good argument for anything other than education. Jooler 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Infrogmation is correct. Back in the days when these devices were popular, phonograph and phonograph record (in the USA) were words used just as commonly as record player and record. Methinks you just dated yourself. --Blainster 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename to Record (vinyl) Record (gramophone, phonograph) (with appropriate redirects) but not to the ambiguous Record (audio). An interview recorded on cassette tape is an audio record. David Kernow 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC), amended 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: For the first 50 years of gramophone records, they were made of material other than vinyl. (This is one of the reasons why it was decided not to have the main article at "vinyl record" years ago. Deja vu.) -- Infrogmation 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight; have amended the above accordingly. Regards, David 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - We had this debate ages ago and 'gramophone record' was the outcome. No reason whatsoever to change it. Jooler 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see a lot of people saying, "We already had this debate a long time ago". So what? What does that have to do with anything? If you look at the vote, it was actually quite close between Gramophone record and Phonograph record, with a pretty strong showing for Record (audio). There was certainly no consensus. Just a vote which barely scraped by in Gramophone's favor. There's absolutely no reason why it can't be revisited now, and saying that we already discussed it is not a valid objection here. (For the record, I opposed this move above. But not just because it was already voted on once in the past.) Kafziel 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only issue is that there has always been a very even balance between "gramophone record" and "phonograph record." There was consensus that it would be much better to use one of these names than any alternative; the only serious debate has been which one to use. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Gramophone is the name of the format, not a record. As record tends to be more general in use. Mr.Blonde 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the article should follow the common name of record and since that needs to be dabed to record (audio) or record (phonograph) if audio is not acceptable. Vegaswikian 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current title already disambiguates record clearly. What type of record? a gramophone record. -- Infrogmation 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Record (audio)" (or "audio record") is not a term anyone really uses, and the naming convention is to use the most common term. At one time I believe this article was called analogue disc record and, really, almost everyone agreed that it was better to use a term that was in actual use rather than one invented for the purpose of resolving cross-pondian differences. The only sensible titles for this article are Gramophone record and Phonograph record. I don't have any objection to creating Record (audio) as a redirect to this article if anyone thinks it will help; I don't. I don't think Non-compact disc or Spiral-grooved electro-mechanical vinyl disc audio reproduction format will help, either, but wouldn't object to them as redirects. Record is a likely entry, and it is currently a dab page with this article as the first choice, so that's fine. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P. S. I once saw a test that asked you to supply names for each of a series of pictures of objects. After you identified it you would get points according to what you had called it. For example, for a certain device, "ice box" might have scored five points and "refrigerator" zero. The machine for reproducing sound electromechanically from an inscribed spiral groove was one of the ones that had the most choices. I believe "stereo" got the fewest points, "record player" more, "phonograph" more, "victrola" more, and "gramophone" the most When you were done, you added up the points and the result was supposed to be your approximate age.... in the U. S. "gramophone" being a term used only in the distant past. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

LOL "Record (audio)" thats a totally redundant expression  AJUK  Talk!! 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Increasing vandalism
There has recently been a new bout of vandalism, which displayed an offensive image many times. Myself, and someone else (via edit conflict) spent some time reverting all of this vandalism as it was so spread out. So, I ask two questions: Thanks, 48v 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1 Is there an easier way for reverting vandalism that I don't know about? I have a feeling I'm spending too much time on it.
 * 2 Should this article be considered for protection, at least qagainst unregistered users?

More on the British vinyl revival
As a follow-up to The Business article mentioned above, here's an intriguing Sunday Telegraph piece about the increasingly healthy sales figures for vinyl 7 inch singles in the UK:

Why singles are top of the pops again

There's some interesting speculation that vinyl records could outlive the compact disc, which in the era of MP3 players and digital downloads is seen as an outdated 1980s relic. AdorableRuffian 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More about sound fidelity
The article says "Since most vinyl records are from recycled plastic, it can lead to impurities in the record, causing a brand new album to have audio artifacts like clicks and pops. Virgin vinyl means that the album is not from recycled plastic, and will be devoid of the possible impurities of recycled plastic". I think this needs a source; pressed vinyl is pressed vinyl.203.129.40.188 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this section needs some Information Theory and Psychoacoustics light shed into it... that should put the argument to rest, giving us an actual veridict instead of a bundle uninformed opinions from both sides, giving subjective judgements on the subject.

Now, folks, please, don't let your medium of preference or comparisons between your favorite album analog vs. digital versions (in both cases, we talking about heavily processed audio and thus unsuited for such) get in the way... this article needs _SCIENTIFIC_ light shed into it, i.e., Information Theory (that says what resources exactly are needed for retaining the pertinent information) and Psychoacoutics (that says what does our ears and brain can or cannot hear) together with the description of the methods used in capturing sound should lead the way in answering the question of fidelity.

That said, I must add that although I am no expert in neither subject (being this the only reason that prevents me for correcting this section), I have little reason for doubting that Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) at 16 bit and 44.1 KHz (i.e., CD qualitity audio) is by far superior to records regarding fidelity, taking into consideration that:


 * 1) - This setup has a superior dynamic range (about 96 dB) than any record (actually, if I am not mistaken, that's more than the highest signal-to-noise ratio you could get with any sound capturing equipment);


 * 1) - It has _suficient_ bandwidth; that is, records have a much higher one, but we can only hear up to 20 KHz, and no harmonics above that, so that harmonic distortion of PCM @ 44.1 KHz on high frequencies (5 KHz and above) is quite irrelevant -- e.g., at more than 10 KHz your next harmonic lies above human hearing range ( more than 20 KHz), so even if you had the most distortion possible (only two bits per cycle), turning a sine wave into a square wave, it wouldn't matter, because: 1) you can't hear it 2) It's (analogicly) filtered out (low-pass filter) of the signal driving the speakers;


 * 1) - Digital audio is not affected by playback while analog media (gramophone records included) are slightly altered (eroded) each time;


 * 1) - Digital audio playback is almost pixel perfect, to the last bit, every time, always the same thing, while gramophone records, not only _not_ being the same thing (since it's slightly altered each time), have that hissing and popping as an inherent design flaw from the playing device (this doesn't actually concern the _medium_ fidelity per se, but surely makes a good case together with the previous arguments).

More on that, I would really like if you could get rid of the "warmy/fuzzy" kind of description... come on... that, as far as I am concerned, only proves the point I just made further, that people are not actually discussing _FIDELITY_ but an overall feeling to the audio that (ironicly) has to do with artifacts of the recording technology used, that is, things that aren't supposed to be there in the first place if there was all that fidelity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.199.96.10 (talk • contribs) 01:12, October 14, 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking personally, I hold these truths to be self-evident:
 * 1) During the period from, say, 1980 to 1995, when vinyl and CD existed in parallel, the variation in sound quality within each medium was far greater than the variation in sound quality from one medium to another. That is, throughout that period, the very best LPs sounded better than the average CD (and vice versa).
 * 2) On one occasion, I played an almost new Telarc digitally-recorded LP and the same Telarc title on CD. My equipment was not high-end, but I think was in the lower ranges of "audiophile" quality: I was using a good cartridge (Shure VR-IV) and good headphones (Sennheiser HD 570). It was a very good recording of Fennell and the Eastman Wind Ensemble. I started them at the same time so that I could switch back and forth between them and almost A-B them, and normalized them to the same volume. They sounded very, very, very nearly identical to me. There was a very subtle difference in equalization, and even though the LP was almost new, there was a very occasional audible tick. Not a blind test by any means, but it convinced _me_ that the _intrinsic_ quality differences between LP and CD were not important to _me_.
 * 3) I was never able to keep my LPs clean enough to avoid any audible ticks. For me, the presence of ticks is a _major_ issue and I've never understood why analog enthusiasts insist that they can "listen through" them. One tick in the silent space between cuts is not a problem. One audible tick in a quiet passage is a minor problem. Two ticks with a 1.8 second interval between them is a major problem. I've always thought the absence of ticks from dust was a huge, huge advantage for CDs. So is the total freedom from wow and flutter. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, the popularity of Bose and other faux audiophile-grade brands with ridiculous equalization curves is indicative of the subjectivity of any discussion of quality. There are times when imperfect reproductions are perceived as more accurate than they are (MP3s rely on this) or of higher 'quality' (e.g., people tend to think anything with a lot of high end is 'clearer'). And then there's the tendency of the human brain to tune out some kinds of noise and minor distortions, and to adjust to compressed dynamics, stereo imprecision, and other features of analog encodings. So you need to make a careful distinction between measurably accurate reproduction of sound, and psychoacoustically perceived quality. When talking about people's preferences, technical accuracy is far less important than one might think.
 * That said, although the article doesn't quite phrase it the way I just did, I don't see any particularly egregious assertions or dubious comparisons; various positions are characterized fairly neutrally. The anonymous poster's suggestion that we seek "an actual verdict" is misguided. Wikipedia is not the place for drawing conclusions. That would be against policy. See WP:OR. mjb 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How common were styrene 45s?
Does anyone know which labels used polystyrene for their 45s, and in which countries they were issued? The only styrene records I've ever seen were U.S. Columbia 45s; I don't think any European pressing plants used styrene.

What kind of material were RCA's original 45s made out of? 217.155.20.163 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the original question about styrene 45's, it isn't so much which labels as which pressing plants used styrene. Besides Columbia (which pressed for a ton of different labels and companies over the years, in addition to their own product), there was Bestway Products, Mountainside, NJ; Shelley Products, Huntington Station, NY; Allied Record Co., Los Angeles, CA; Monarch Record Mfg., Los Angeles, CA; PRC Recording Corp. (formerly Philips Recording Corp. and before that Mercury Record Mfg. Div.), Richmond, IN; and (from 1979 to its closing in 1987) RCA's Indianapolis, IN plant.  And that's that I know of.  European pressing plants, to my knowledge, may not have used styrene, but they did use the process of injection molding which was associated in the U.S. with styrene pressings (whereas vinyl used the compression method of pressing).  Up to about 1960 some LP's were pressed by Columbia in styrene, mostly low-budget releases (on the Harmony imprint), and the Shelley plant pressed their LP's in styrene until about 1967.  Might that answer your pertinent question or questions? –Wbwn 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul needed
I just started rearranging misplaced material -- in particular, some dangling sections (such as "Progress, and the War of Speeds) didn't make any sense in the current structure -- and realized that the article is so far out of whack that it probably needs to be reorganized by some enterprising person. I am not that person today -- don't have the 2-3 hours to spare that a proper job would take -- but someone really should have a look at how the article should be structured -- it is currently a hash of ideas that probably doesn't even make Good Article status, though with proper restructuring it could be Featured level once again.

A suggested outline: * introduction * structure of a gramophone record (incl. materials & less common formats) * gramophone playback equipment (turntables, disk changers, disk washers, laser styli) * sound fidelity considerations * history * notes

I may or may not be able to get around to doing this in the next few weeks (less time for WP than I used to have), but it is clearly needed. zowie 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul needed - a suggestion
Perhaps we should give some thought to articles on subtopics or directly related topics, and whether some of the content of this gargantuan article ought to be farmed out to those (or vice versa)? The following existing articles are related to this one to a greater or lesser extent - this isn't an exhaustive list by any means, feel free to add to it:


 * data storage device
 * phonograph cylinder
 * recording format
 * jukebox
 * phonograph
 * record changer
 * extended play
 * long play
 * flexi disc
 * RIAA equalization
 * format war
 * magnetic cartridge
 * stereophonic sound
 * disc jockey
 * unusual types of gramophone records
 * quadraphonic
 * monaural
 * record label
 * album
 * album cover
 * record collecting
 * slip-cueing
 * beatmatching
 * scratching
 * Record press
 * turntablism
 * cardboard record
 * Kansas City standard ("floppy ROMs")
 * gatefold

Any thoughts? 217.155.20.163 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Functioning
How the hell do the damned things work? Why does vertical and horizontal movement create streo sound? All this is amazingly unclear in the article. 71.102.186.234 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well, it's not vertical and horizontal, it's diagonal up-and-left and diagonal up-and-right. Motion in one of those directions tweaks the left speaker. Motion in the other one of those directions tweaks the right speaker. That's all there is to it. zowie 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

EP and LP in the context of CDs
Has anyone else found that it is not uncommon for usage of the terms EP and LP to be extended to CDs? I'm pretty sure it is fairly common to refer to a short CD (20-30 minutes) as an EP and by extension, though much less frequently, full length CDs can be referred to as LPs. Does anyone think that would be worth mention in the article, or is it maybe just a usage I dreamed up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmRadioHed (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * It is common, and it's mentioned in the Long play and Extended play articles. Rootless 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard of (and got some) CD singles, and CD-EPs (which can be CDs about the same length as a single side of a 12", or an album that's longer on CD than the original release), but the only "LP" CD I've seen is a copy of the Pet Shop Boys "Discography" which ran to 78 minutes (and so being "long play" in that it's more than the "standard" 74 minutes)... maybe it depends on the market they're being sold in as to the prevalence of the term? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An old 78 rpm record
Where do i find out about an old 78 rpm record of Edith Evans Anthology that I have? I want to know how much it is worth and possibly where i go to sell it. Cheers 82.27.179.243 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Skully


 * Google, perhaps? Or Yahoo, Lycos, Microsoft Live Search, Altavista etc if you don't want to be part of the whole Google LLC Hegemony 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't really believe it
Gramophone records remain the medium of choice for many audiophiles and music aficionados, especially in the electronica and classic rock genres.

I don't think this holds water, I can just about go along with audiophiles being the esoteric bunch that they are (but I don't really believe it), but I would class myself as an aficionado, along with many other people, who have been religiously upgrading their vinyl to CD which is my medium of choice. I think it should simply be deleted from the lead in and then appropriate words put in Current status.

Spenny 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I happen to know that most music in some electronic dance genres (at least minimal techno, tech-house and related) is released only on vinyl (see this record shop for some examples). Records are also constantly released in styles which are less DJ-oriented (indie rock, for example), and somebody out there is buying them.  There are lots of record shops in most European cities (although I personally only visited dance music shops, friends told me about non-dance vinyl-only stores).  My own Original Research shows that youngsters these days buy turntables, some for DJing, others for listening.  So it seems to me that while vinyl is not the #1 mainstream audio media, it thrives quite nicely in its little niches.  Rootless 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem with what you say, it is not quite the implication of what the sentence says which is wider. I just am uncomfortable with pushing a line which seems to be a continuation of a 25 year old debate on which is best, CD or vinyl. Many is a vague word which has a suggestion of a sizeable number, possibly a majority, whereas in the market as a whole, it is a very small portion. I tweaked wording about this elsewhere some time ago to get that sense of a happy niche based on personal preferences, which is uncontroversial, as opposed to a controversial suggestion of vinyl being the desirable choice of a wide group. Cheers Spenny 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The old debate is still relevant, because both vinyl and CD technologies advance, and neither is satisfactory at the moment. (I'm waiting for DVD-A).


 * I see what you mean by misleading wording. Maybe something as simple as replacing "many" with "some" will help.  Rootless 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you enjoyed the DVD-A era. It arrived and departed scarcely noticed.  I would like to think it may enjoy a revival now that most Blu-ray players are able to play the format, but somehow I don't think so. 86.132.205.117 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Which is better"? Hmm. From a technical standpoint, CD is better, maybe not an order of magnitude, but noticably so, and the arguments about vinyl sounding "warmer" etc is so much hogwash, as most of that feel comes from the quality of the equipment (I've heard some great, full-sounding and some terrible, tinny turntables, just the same as CD players), which will probably be better in an audiophile, vinyl-loving household. However, vinyl is much more interesting, visceral and fun, giving you something a bit more substantial to handle, something to watch as it plays, and is a lot more immediate if you want to "play" with the sound, such as when scratching or mixing. Plus the sound is still acceptably good, in the same way that tape (or even minidisc) shares these qualities (except the visual aspect, for MD) vs, say, an MP3 player 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Playing record at wrong speed
Not sure if this is worthy to include as an example. When I was eight or nine years old, we had a 45 of "Ca-na-da" by Bobby Gimby, sung by the Young Canada Singers... children. The record player we used was an old one from an old radio-record player console. The drive band for 45 rpm was worn out so it would only play at 33 and 78. So when we played a 45, it would sound wrong, naturally. Ca-na-da would, if played at 33, sound like men were singing it slowly. At 78, it sounded like The Chipmunks singing it fast. Later, my father acquired a suitable replacement drive band and we were able to listen to the song at its proper speed... long after 1967, though. GBC 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Phonograph record

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 


 * Well, it looks like there is little if any interest in making the proposed move at this time, so I will close this informal poll. Having a redirect to here from the other name will suffice. Thanks to all. Edison 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that this has been proposed before and shouted down. Let's look at it again. "Phonograph record" is the more commonly used term, as witnessed by 250,000 Google hits for "Phonograph record" compared to only 73,000 hits for "Gramophone record." There was the claim that "Gramophone" is the original name. This is incorrect, since Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1878, built a disc machine that same year, and applied for a disc phonograph patent that year, but did not develop a commercial disc machine until 1912.   Berliner patented the "Gramophone" in 1887 and first offered machines and records for sale in 1895. Berliner's mechanism and method of making discs (acid etched zinc masters and vulcanite stamped records) was soon superseded by recording on wax and using electroplating to produce masters, similar to Edison's (phonograph)  and Bell's (graphophone) techniques. By the first decade of the 20th century the generic term was not "gramophone" records but just "records" or "sound records" or "disc records" or "discs" sold under a variety of names such as "Zonophone." By 1901 the "Gramophone" name had been dropped from machines and records in the US. "Phonograph" was used for cylinder machines and records.  The source for this is "From tin foil to stereo, the evolution of the phonograph" by Oliver Read and Walter L. Welch,  Howard Sams Co., New York, 1959. Per Phonograph the term "gramophone" was widely used in the UK from the company name, but referred most specifically to a wind up disc player, and fell out of use in the 1960's. This article should be moved to the title Phonograph record. Edison 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~ Edison 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Gramophone record" disambiguates it from phonograph cylinder (which are also phonograph records); while "Gramophone" became uncommon in US English by mid 20th century, continued in UK English; that's what the person who invented them called it; due to differences in English language usage there is no one name choice that will please everyone, but after substantial repeated earlier discussion here this was determined to be the least objectionable. -- Infrogmation 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support As noted, "gramophone" stopped being used in the US by 1901, not by the "mid 20th century." Gramophone is actually a highly objectionable term, since it was apparently appears to have been the common term only in the UK, and then only for windup disc records until the 1960's. "Phonograph cylinder" is a poor choice for the name of that other article, since the term was not ever widely used. It will be a separate issue to try and get that renamed "cylinder record"  which was the actual term used. If someone after the 1920's had heard the term "phonograph record" it would have unambiguously called to mind a disc record.  Edison 15:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems to be established that "phonograph" is the term commonly used in the US, and "gramophone" in the UK.  Wikipedia has a world-wide readership - not US-only, or even primarily.  What is therefore critical are the views of readers in other parts of the world, outside both US and UK.  Until we have a clear global consensus the current status quo should remain.  Ghmyrtle 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Archive notices belong on archived pages, not active talk pages. Perhaps there is another template you can use. I don't have a particular desire to change the title, but user Ghmyrtle's point is not well taken.  WP has a tradition of deferring Brit/US spelling style to the article originator, but alternative words are usually selected according to the most common use.  Since the population of the US is five times that of the UK, the US version should be preferred between the two.  --Blainster 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Didn't the cassette kill the vinyl record?
OK, I'm exaggerating. It was the cassette and the CD. But cassette sales surpassed CDs by 1984 (according to RIAA statistics I've found in news clippings--I'm looking for more direct statistics sources) and cassettes outsold vinyl by 40 times and CDs by almost two-to-one in 1990. In all of the articles I've read from the time record company execs cite both formats as the reason they dropped vinyl production. The quote I'm referring to--"Groove recordings, first designed in the final quarter of the 19th century, held a predominant position for an impressive amount of time - just about a century - withstanding competition from reel-to-reel tape, the 8-track cartridge and the compact cassette"-- from "Current Status" is clearly inaccurate. Can anyone suggest/provide a replacement? With references?--Otterfan 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find the references right now but we should be looking for mid- to late-'70s sales of pre-recorded cassettes vs. vinyl discs. IIRC, the 1979 Walkman was the telling blow. Binksternet 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical on this. Perhjaps the CD outstripped vinyl sales but portable casettes, a very different market, persisted for a while. People did not generally have a high quality home player for pre-recorded cassettes in preference to a turntable. I recall prerecorded casettes as being inferior in audio fidelity to vinyl in stereo magazine tests and reviews of the two formats. The Walkman has a very different market than the home stereo. CDs hurt vinyl sales and replaced them as a high fidelity medium, but cassettes are inferior acoustically, especially prerecorded ones which were duplicated at several times normal speed. Dolby noise reduction was a godsend for CDs and reel-to reel, because before it the hiss was appalling. Many people certainly recorded their vinyl onto cassette for the Walkman. Cassettes also were physically likely to fail when the tape got stretched or when the lubricant on the reels dried up, so they no longer played after a few years. Print-through was also a problem for the thinner bases of long playing casettes. 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edison


 * Cassettes made little inroads because they were so poor. Also, more typically people would buy the vinyl and tape it for use in cars. Pre-recorded tapes were usually far worse quality than taping off vinyl. Also head alignment issues meant that tapes often did not play well in other machines. Cassettes were more awkward for shops to stock and display. Walkman's were a popular way of playing your own tapes. Spenny 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly dispute this - what's your evidence for this? I have a fair number of both pre-recorded and home recorded tapes, including some of each that are more than 20 years old (e.g. a copy of Born in the USA bought when it was in the charts, and a home recording of Pat Benatar and Dire Straits LPs - can't make any excuses for the musical quality there) and others dating to the late 90s (commercial) or a few days ago (home-made), and have in more bored and younger moments recorded examples of each into my PC (to make mp3s, etc) from various decks. The quality of the pre-recorded cassettes were a little variable, but never any worse than a typical MP3 (16kHz, and not sounding any more distorted than a 128k file after electronic noise-reduction) and often knocking on more towards VBR or CD territory (18kHz+). The quality of the home-recorded tapes were much more variable, and though were in many cases about as good as a commercial copy, could be pretty terrible; one (not particularly cheap-looking) brand of tape I found would only waver around 12kHz with a lot of noise - thought it was deck incompatibility (as I got it from a friend), but it remained poor even when I re-recorded it... I doubt a commercial outfit would use media of such low grade, at least hopefully not for long. The Springsteen tape has aged remarkably well and still sounds good, except for a small chewed part; the LP copies are slightly more muffled and noisy but acceptable. Recent copies made from CD are perfectly good, at least in the situations I used them (walkman outdoors, in the car), but the mid-90s commercial ones are best.
 * Rather than actual quality issues, I'm thinking it's more ease of copying, and durability that would have prevented commercial cassettes making big sales - why buy a cassette, when you can buy a (slightly) better quality LP and a blank tape for about as much and have one fragile "master" and a tougher, disposable "working" copy? Or get an entire pack of tapes for about as much and go to a friend's house to fill them up for free, then return the favour for them the next week? (Same as I did with my parent's LPs, then my friends' CDs (or discs borrowed cheaply from the library), instead of actually buying the desired albums straight away with limited childhood funds - who needs MP3?). Note use of "disposable"... in how tapes are more resistant to casual physical shock and contact damage than either LPs or CDs, but do have something of a high attrition rate in and around cheap, ageing or abused equipment (particularly car radios, that tend to be all three), becoming mangled in the mechanism if they don't despool from being left out of their boxes... do you want to pay good money on a pre-recorded tape only to have that happen, or rather put your music on a cheap blank that can be thrown away without much thought when the inevitable occurs? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the quoted source, I think it is simply inadequate to make any assumption. I think personally is what it represents was that by the 90s the CD had replaced vinyl but that the cassette market had survived in the States (portable CD players and CD car radios at that time still being relatively expensive). I think you also need to remember that there is a world-wide market. Spenny 09:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with this theory - just from seeing where pre-recorded cassettes are STILL being sold... motorway service stations (typically talking books and cheap compilations) and grocery stores in low-income inner city neighbourhoods with a high immigrant population (lots of interesting exotic titles) where budgets may not stretch to replace the small radio + tape ghetto blaster they brought with them, or a tape walkman at 4.99 is still more affordable (and pocketable) than a rough supermarket discman, and far more so than an MP3 player that also requires a computer in order to record any new music. These things don't die out anywhere near as quickly or completely as the manufacturers and marketers want them to, or want you to believe they do. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pre-recorded cassettes were outselling CDs in the USA and Canada in the early 80s, well before CDs gained any broad popularity. While I think that CDs played more of a role than cassettes in the ultimate demise of vinyl, I definitely think (from looking at sales figures, quotes in news stories from the time, and my own recollection of record stores with more cassettes than LPs or CDs) that cassettes held the "predominant position" by 1988 or so. I definitely think the statements needs to cite an authoritative source either way. --Otterfan 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, my view is that there is not a simple cause and effect, there was a lot going on and as you say, to do the policy thing properly, we would need a solid source. I think the general principle of the statement, that the Heath Robinson affair that was the vinyl record did last surprisingly well, is sound and uncontroversial. Whether it was the CD of the combined might of CD and tape, I'm not too worried. Basically tapes just about died with vinyl, for similar reasons. Spenny 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link from RIAA to show record/CD/cassette sales from 1990 to 1999. Judge for yourself what killed what:

http://76.74.24.142/01F751EA-7C8C-5D03-E206-D26FEB360519.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.30.185 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Such speculation and original research isn't going to get you far on Wikipedia. Those RIAA figures only tell you that vinyl production and sales declined as cassette and CD sales increased, but they don't tell the whole story. I just added information to the article, citing four sources, about how the major labels and their distributors worked together between 1988 and 1991 to slash production of vinyl and simultaneously make it all but impossible for retailers to afford to stock all but the most popular titles. Demand for vinyl at the time was slowing, but not at a rate that required such measures; it was deliberate and is widely seen within the retail side of the industry as a conspiracy to accelerate profits from the cheaper formats. I strongly encourage reading the Journal of Popular Culture article about it if you have access (check with your school or local library), although the other sources are good, too. —mjb (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, they don't tell you cassette sales increase. If you really did read the numbers you'll see that ONLY compact disc sales increase, and eventually take the market from cassettes, which DECREASE during the 90's! Read the numbers for yourself, then judge what killed what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.76.95 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 200x
This image is labeled as having a 200x magnification. This description does not make sense, since one doesn't know at what size the image appears on the computer screen. The article doesn't list typical capacities of the various formats, but IIRC an LP has about 25 minutes per side over 85 mm from the edge to the "end of the music". That means a groove spacing of 0.085 m / 25 minutes / (33 grooves/minute) = 0.1 mm per groove. The picture is 5 grooves high (0.5 mm), so a 200x magnification would be correct if the image is displayed as 10 cm. Anyway, the conventional way of indicating the scale of a microscopic image is to place a scale bar inside the image. Han-Kwang (t) 08:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are probably correct, but as someone who spent hours repairing mother matrix's at 200x magnification this photo looks pretty good and brings back memories. Adimage (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Even in print it's usually a good idea to include a scale bar as it may be reproduced at a size other than the original; on the other hand, the 200x scale is probably assuming a "standard" monitor reproduction resolution of 96 dpi (not an actual fixed resolution, but the windows default and a typical monitor is within about 10% of this, particularly a modern LCD panel) so it's in with a fair chance of being accurate when displayed on a "normal" screen (i.e. a normal desktop or laptop screen at native resolution, not at reduced resolution, a(n HD)TV or extra-fine subnotebook or pda display). On mine (105dpi, for XGA on 12.1") it'll be a bit small, but within that 10% (appearing larger as I sit closer, because its a laptop) and really not worth arguing about. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Video recording has been perfected?
From the article:

"As video recorders became perfected technically"

Video recording has been perfected techincally? That's news to me. As someone who works with video, it remains extremely imperfect on a technical level. Heck, when is anything perfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.109 (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was probably a relative statement, as in them reaching the current general level of technical development which is about as good as can be expected from typical videotape or real-time DVD recording (which is almost transparent to SD broadcast quality at maximum rate), and any recorder you may go buy will produce fairly consistent output that's much the same as any other (at least, in the same vague price range, but with even the cheapest ones producing decent quality). Of course it won't be "perfect" until it captures information concomitant with the human eye, but it doesn't pay to be super pedantic on such points :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Shellac in the future?
I removed the claim "Somewhat ironically, the Library of Congress is engaged in a project to archive its audio library to shellac discs for posterity. Unlike audio tape, vinyl or even CD, shellac is chemically stable and will remain playable beyond a millennium.  The Library's greatest challenge lies in the sheer volume required for recordings.  For example, Eminem's The Marshall Mathers Project is carefully edited to take up every last second of a standard, 74 minute CD.  That translates to an even dozen 10-inch 78s." This was the sole contribution  by an IP contributor, and is both unsourced and extremely improbable. Shellac 78's had high surface noise and were easily scratched or broken. Any such claim needs to be referenced to a reliable source. Edison (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The claim of Library of Congress archiving onto shellac probably came from a National Public Radio hoax program from April Fool's Day 2003.Edison (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

split the article?
A note at top of the edit page suggests that this article should be split. I'd like to suggest that what should be split are the very technical matters that are discussed beginning about half way throught the article. All the highly technical matters could and should be moved to another article linked to this one. Wis2fan (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LP versus CD section is slightly misleading
The section states that CD has a frequency response of 20 Hz to 20.05 kHz. I haven't even read the article about Red Book specifications, but it should be obvious that there's no lower limit of 20 Hz with CD's, and that CD is in no way inferior to LP in this regard. 20 Hz is probably often quoted because that's roughly how low people's hearing goes, but it's not a technical limitation of the medium. If you record a 1 Hz sine wave on a CD it'll move your speaker cones just fine, although there's no audible effect. Any disagreements here? Antti Salonen (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The ability of a CD to move a loudspeaker at infrasonic frequencies can be limited at a number of stages. The CD player itself may have a high-pass filter (HPF), the preamp, router, or mixer (if any) and the amplifier may all have a HPF (many professional amplifiers have unstated internal HPF values between 5 and 15 Hz) and the loudspeaker may not be able to move at the frequency of interest. It's true the CD itself doesn't have this limit. I don't have a problem with the statement that CD response is 20-22k, though saying that the high frequency limit of CDs is 22,010 cps implies that kind of precision at the low end; misleading if not matched by a similar statement about the low frequency limit of the CD. I imagine the low frequency limit of an 80-minute CD is one cycle per 80 minutes, or about 0.0002 Hz! Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CD material can indeed be from 0Hz (as in, stable DC - usually seen manifested as mastering errors...) right up to 22050Hz (the nyquist sampling limit), but most professionally mastered material is allegedly subject to a 20 - 20000Hz filter applied at the studio and verifiable by examining the spectrogram of certain commercial discs which will exhibit a roll-off or even a complete cutoff above and below these. Then again, others don't, but it occurs often and consistently enough to be more than just a strange error on one or two releases. I can only surmise it was used as a way to cut out supra-nyquist frequencies that may interfere with the main signal, and infrasonic noise/DC loading, using older analogue or unsophisticated digital filters that had to trade shallow(er) attenuation curves for minimised distortion of the actual content... and it just so happens that the specs used match the filters used for vinyl quite well (or it may even be that the CD sampling rate was chosen to mate nicely with the filters)... and the ones where the spectrogram goes basically full range, the equipment is presumably more modern (e.g. maybe recorded at 48 or 50kHz and electronically resampled) so this more heavy-handed treatment is no longer required to prevent distortion.


 * Only a theory, like, but the best coming together I can produce from what of this stuff I know 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Test acetate"?
I have a 10" (45rpm) copy of Simon & Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water that is made out of acetate, not vinyl. My mother (who worked in the music industry in the 60s) always described this as a "test acetate". Does anyone know what this phrase actually means? What was it supposed to test? I thought at first it was what they used to test the metal master before putting it into mass production, but that doesn't make sense since I'm pretty sure they never released a single of that disc size/speed. Also, the two times that "acetate" is mentioned in the article don't give much info on what it was used for. Can someone provide any more info on this? -- Hux (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Acetate disc... Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

data on 78 rpm length
I have believed for years that the time limit for a 10" 78 rpm record was about 3 minutes. I had heard that for years. But now that i have started checking, I discover that a large number of 78s ran longer than 3 minutes and I've put that information in the article. Wis2fan (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There were millions of 78rpm records. It seems undue weight to talk as much about a few records as your recent edits have done. It is also original research. The best source for statements about how lon a 78 could run would be books on recording technology. I will remove the specific discs and leave the general statement about them running a bit over 3 minutes. Edison (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are too many individual records and their durations being added to the article. It is not really of great encyclopedic interest. Please find secondary sources which talk about the durations of records of various types. This is original research. Edison (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

CD Versus Record
Does anyone know a good source that shows the history of vinyl in the 80's? I know personally, in 1991 most of the new vinyl records I was seeing in stores were singles, the HUGE majority of new albums were on CD. Were the early 90's the final hurrah for major record sales? Pika62221

I added a link to the page that shows that 1991 was the final year for vinyl record albums mainstream. It wasn't hard to find, as common sense told people that in 1990 vinyl was dieing. I think Target and K-Mart stopped carrying their records that year, and I believe Wal-Mart did in 1991. Don't quote me on that, those are approximate years. Anyway, you're right, in the early 90's, vinyl was definately phased out.

Why 78
I note recent edits with interest.

Off the top of my head I have the impression that 78 rpm was established in the days when phonographs/gramophones used spring drives, electricity in homes was far from universal, and house wiring was as likely to be DC as AC. (Some Boston University dorms had DC wiring as late as the 1960s).

So I doubt that considerations involving synchronous motors and gearing had anything at all to do with it.

(Those spring-drives had clever little governors and the speed was more accurate than one might imagine....) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a relevant reference and inserted some material.


 * We have an issue here: my reference does not state precisely when the speed became standardized at 78 rpm. It implies that it occurred very early, so early that the history is unknown.


 * But the article currently says the standardization occurred in the 1930s, specifically "In the early 1930s, the speed of the record became standardised on (nominally) 78 rpm."


 * While it may be true that speeds from 60 to 120 rpm were used, I've owned a spring-wound Victrola that included a collection of recordings going back as far as the early 1900s (acoustic Victor records recorded on only one side) up through electrical recordings from the 1950s. I'm not an antiques maven or sound historian so I don't know what kind of Victrola it was, but it was a very popular model&mdash;I've seen lots of them&mdash;and it was not an Orthophonic, which probably says something about when it was built. This Victrola had a spring governor; there was a quadrant with a speed adjustment lever and 78 was prominently indicated, and the pointer was placed at that setting, every record we owned was being reproduced at about the right speed.


 * So I'm 99.9% sure that the standardization on 78 rpm occurred well before the 1930s.


 * I suspect that what happened in the 1930s was not that the speed became standardized at 78 rpm, but that it became standardized specifically to the precise value of 78.26 rpm (in the U. S.) By that time, recording engineers in studios would surely have been using synchronous motors and there was obviously a need to decide exactly what gearing to use. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When did the 78.26/77.92 speeds become standardized?
I found a relevant article entitled AES 78 rpm Calibration Disc Set. However, it seems to be at odds with the statement that these standards were set in the 1930s, although it's not clear. What it says is:


 * For records with a nominal speed of rotation of 78 rpm, the International Standard IEC 98 of 1958 set a blanket tolerance of +/- 0,7 %. In fact, practical speeds were determined by the synchronous motors used for professional cutting equipment - such as the lathes made by Neumann, Scully, Presto, Lyrec, and Westrex. Because they were locked to the power supply frequency they provided a very precise rpm. Some equipment used slow-moving direct drive multi-pole motors to achieve the final speed, or they used mechanical gearing. In either case, the speed ratios could only be simple ratios of the power-line frequency, and were not identical when 60 Hz operation is compared to 50 Hz operation.


 * Recognising this, Edition 2 of IEC 98, published in 1964, stated speed tolerance more accurately:


 * Rated speed of rotation	50 Hz electric supplies	60 Hz electric supplies
 * Nominal 78 rpm	77,92 rpm +/- 0,5 %	78,26 rpm +/- 0,5 %

This suggests that the standard was "78 rpm +/- 0.7%" prior to 1958 and that the speeds were not standardized at "77,92 rpm +/- 0,5 % and 78,26 rpm +/- 0,5 %" until 1964.

(Interesting since by 1964 it hardly would seem to have been worth the effort!)

Comments? Barring other information I intend to edit the paragraph to reference this article, and state no more than what the reference states. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The one thing that confuses me here is - how difficult can it be to engineer in a 5:6 speed reduction (or 6:5 increase?). Maybe difficult to do it if you're trying to make your machinery as absolutely simple as possible without being too bothered about ultimate quality, but I'm thinking a slight relocation of the motor and insertion of a 10- and 12- toothed pair of gears on a short shaft would convert from 78.26rpm at 60Hz to 78.26rpm at 50Hz (or 77.92 at each)... and a not-too-tricky lever arrangement even to flip between the two modes for discs produced at either speed (or some kind of toothed belt and switchable 10/12 - 11/11 pulley arrangement), for exacting audiophiles or synchronisation purposes.
 * I suppose there must have been some kind of major engineering reason for it, but on the outside it looks more like cheapness and carelessness! 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I find strange is why wasn't 80 rpm adopted on bith sides of the pond. This speed is easily derived from synchronous motors working off of either supply frequency.  Several record makers had already adopted it. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Period terminology: was it "electronic" or "electrical" recording?
Although the post-acoustic era used technology based on vacuum tubes, and would today be called "electronic," was it actually called "electronic" at the time? I thought it was called "electrical recording." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A search of the New York Times before 1952 for the exact phrase "electronic recording" gives the first occurrence in 1943; the context is a book about "acoustics of music" which "venture[s] a little into electronic recording and reproduction and the synthesizing of sound." A 1947 display ad is clearly not about phonograph records; it is an ad by the Brush Development Corporation (antecedent of Ampex) about the "new post-war wonder of electronics," which "through the magic of the new electronic wonder--Magnetic Recording--you can record your voice onto a small paper disc..."

On the other hand, a search for the exact phrase "electrical recording" turns up many irrelevant early uses (the "electrical recording of the energy furnished by the human heart... on what was described as an oscillograph (1920)," then relevant hits beginning as early as 1926. A Wanamaker's ad, Jan 16, 1926, p. 16, offers "Victor Records... #19897, 'Song of the Vagabonds' sung by Dennis King... Records by the latest Victor process of electrical recording." By 1930 a record review (Feb 23, 1930, p. 118) says
 * There is no question that the time has come for serious musical criticism to take account of performances of great music reproduced by means of the records. To claim that the records of succeeded in exact and complete reproduction of all details of symphonic or operatic performances... would be extravagant. [But] the article of today is so far in advance of the old machines has hardly to admit classification under the same name. Electrical recording and reproduction have combined to retain vitality and color in recitals by proxy.

On May 18, 1930, p. X8, a reviewer talks of "At the time electrical recording upset the catalogues..." "WOR To Try A Music Box, July 6, 1930, p. 110" describes the station's intentions of broadcasting records. The station, it says, has "four turn-tables[sic] in all--two for 33 1-3 revolutions per minute and two for 78 revolutions... earnest students of broadcasting are enthusiastic over the possibilities of electrical transcriptions... Broadcasting of records [got off to] a bad start in 1921 and 1922 [because] the records were not electrically recorded and sounded none to good on the air..."

Accordingly, I'm editing that paragraph to use the word "electrical." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The book "From tin foil to stereo" by Oliver Read and Walter L. Welch(Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc., New York 1959) is a history of phonographs and recording, and uses the term "electrical recording" rather than "electronic recording."  Electrical recording was considered an advance over acoustic recording. Electrical recording preceded electronics, as in the wire recorder of Poulsen (1898), or the discussion of phonograph recordings of telephone conversations, from the first days of Edison's phonograph. Western Elecric scientists made electrical recording a practicality by 1924. In 1925 electrical "Orthophonic"recordings were offered by Victor. Edison (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Electrical" or "electrically recorded" is the phrase I've come across pretty much always in period publications (and still used by record collectors); IIRC some discs soon after the change over even had the phrase "electrically recorded" on the labels. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ninth Symphony on one record
I'm moving this statement here for discussion. It's unsourced and I'm very skeptical of it.
 * Columbia's president, Edward (Ted) Wallerstein insisted that the new system permit the recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one record.

I don't believe I've ever seen more than 30 minutes to a side on an LP, even with variable-groove recording. LP record says "The 52+ minute playing time remained rare, however, due to mastering limitations, and most LPs continued to be issued with a 30- to 45-minute playing time throughout the lifetime of their production." An album, Columbia CL 700, "Levant Plays Gershwin," boasts:
 * More Music&mdash;twice as much as before&mdash;is on this Columbia "Lp." Where Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue and American in Paris alone took a complete old-style "Lp", they are here coupled with the Concerto in F. By Columbia's superior grooving method a saving of fifty percent in purchase costs and storage space is effected for the buyer&mdash;an additional development in the miracle of modern long-playing recording.

The timings for this recording are 12:48 + (est) 17 for one side = just under 30 minutes, 12:24 + 11:57 + 6:29 = just over 30 minutes. I think this is close to the extreme limit for an LP.

For one performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which I don't think is atypical, the total timing is 74:45 and the four movements are 18:11, 11:51, 19:59, and 24:41, respectively. There's no conceivable way that could fit on a single LP, even if you allowed movements to be broken across sides. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

P. S. The statement was added in this edit, by User:Wis2fan. I left a message on his Talk page asking him to respond here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I used to have a single-disc 9th from the late 70s. I'm pretty sure it was on CBS. Needless to say, the fidelity was dreadful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.225.137 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NME
Not sure if its worth a mention but there is a free 7" record with this months NME, somthing that would probably never happend just a few years ago.  AJUK  Talk!! 09:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did notice that, and mused on whether the thing was actually meant to be played by most of their readers, or kept as a collector's piece by all but a few. How many readers of the NME do we think have a working turntable any more? :) (I speak from the point of *wanting* to get a half-decent record player to replace my old one that has terminally died, and I'm having trouble finding any that aren't either hopelessly expensive, or apparently made of spit and clingfilm) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LP Length
The comment is right, I don't have a source for my comment that the Pres of Columbia wanted to put the complete 9th Symphony on one LP. I'll remove the comment until I can find a source that supports my statement.Wis2fan (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel you may have become confused with the classic urban legend (...or is it?), re: the president of Sony/Philips/whoever having a hand in the engineering of the Compact Disc as they wished to have the entire 9th to play continuously on one optical disc (as opposed to having to split it across four sides of two LPs, or two sides of a 90-minute tape)... which is allegedly why CDs, and then Minidiscs, originally had a maximum running time of 74 ~ 75 minutes, rather than a round 60 minutes (or a round, but technically more difficult, 90, 100 or 120). 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

33⅓ rpm, 7" EPs common?
I need to ask this, as they don't appear in the list of common formats. Not super knowledgeable about vinyls and don't have a great collection, but do have some LPs, singles and EPs - and the EPs I do have are all 7", 33.3rpm, compromising between reduced treble response and improved noise levels (wider grooves) vs the stated 45rpm version (but narrower grooves/similar treble to the inner area of an LP), to fit in 2 songs per side.

So have I just ended up with discs that are all wierd, or is it an omission? Could be either at the moment :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone? ... I may toss it into the article anyway, yknow. Making an EP this way does make some kind of sense. Even though from what I've recently learnt about max theoretical frequency response of vinyl, it would affect the reproduction somewhat. Exchanging absolute treble fidelity for less overall noise and an increased play time and durability. (Going from what I've seen quoted as roughly 25kHz at the outer edge to 17.5kHz on the inner edge for 45rpm (anyone want to still claim the superiority of vinyl when the inner tracks can be as limited in scope as LP2 ADPCM?), to a 18.5 -> 13.0kHz drift for 33 1/3rpm... so long as you have a good quality small-diameter stylus. Cheap ones - one cause of the awful crashy treble on low end turntables - may be more like 16 down to 11~12kHz. Still vaguely acceptable for music, particularly a short-run oddity, but borderline, like the ultimate breakpoint of such a compromise. Those 16 2/3rpm 45s must have sounded pretty rough, with potential frequency response maxing at ~9kHz and sliding down to ~6... but in the days of AM radio it might not have seemed too bad! BTW for 33rpm LPs - 33kHz down to 17.5 again... but for a 12" single at 45rpm you could see almost 24kHz from start to finish and a peak of almost 45kHz at the outside edge. Maybe the reason for 48kHz, and later 96 becoming the standard in digital mastering?) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see 33.33rpm 7" singles as already being listed in section 5 - so did you miss it, or am I missing something? Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

7-inch, 33⅓ rpm, was the standard format for singles and EPs in Brazil. 45 rpm records were rare. I don't know if it happened on other countries, so I decided not to edit the main article. Rsnetto74 (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bollywoodvinyl.com
In the Bollywood Vinyl section there is an appropriate mentioning of the web page www.bollywoodvinyl.com. This reference doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and should be removed.--Bjornwireen (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That whole section was looking like an advertisement. I drastically trimmed it and added a fact tag. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Split off the 78 speed history section
My god that's long. I mean, I love the info (though it also desperately needs to be reworked), but it's way too long for a nice overview of the topic of vinyl records. Yeah they're mostly history now, but the article seems way to 78-speed heavy. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that there's too much written here about 78rpm records. 78s take up about 20% of the article; a decent amount. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)