Talk:Sound recording and reproduction/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Powering equipment up/down

In order to prevent potential damage to your sound equipment, it is important to turn on/off your connected pieces in the proper order.

Here is a good rule of thumb for turning connected equipment on/off:

+ When turning ON -- Follow signal path*, starting with microphone.

+ When turning OFF -- Trace signal path (backwards), starting with power amplifier (or speakers if you have powered speakers).

The basic principle is you don't want any piece of gear to "hear" another piece turning on/off. Why? For most pieces of audio gear, turning on/off creates a pop at its audio outputs, and this pop typically gets amplified by the next piece of gear downstream in the signal path IF it is ON. An amplified pop can overload and damage the downstream piece's circuitry.

--Tclei 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The signal path of a typical sound-reinforcement system may be microphone -> pre-amplifier -> mixer -> power amplifier -> speakers. That of a typical consumer stereo system may be CD player -> receiver -> speakers.

- This information is usefull and correct, but not as relevant to recording as to live sound. Additionally, it seems like a guideline, not information explaining what sound recording and reproduction are. Perhaps there is another place where it is relevant? 48v 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Audio Redirect

I don't think audio should redirect here. This page is very specific. Audio is a very abstract and broad subject. I would vote for the audio disambiguation page or failing that sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.128.106 (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Added link to The Beatles' influence on music recording

I've added a link to The Beatles' influence on music recording.

Apepper 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the sound actually get recorded or reproduced either mechanically or electrically?

Hello.

It seems to me that you have omitted to explain how sound actually gets recorded and reproduced in this article. I visited this web page for information specifically on how an electrical signal can turn into audio. How is it possible for an electrical signal to carry the information needed to be reproduced as an audio signal with the fidelity it has in modern audio equipment?

I do not want a mathematical explanation, but rather a plain explanation of the science of how an electric signal can be turned into sound, and how sound can be turned into an electrical signal. It seems that 'sound recording and reproduction' should cover that specifically. What this article actually refers to is the 'history' of sound recording and reproduction. I am not interested in the history. I am interested in the science.

Can someone with the relevant knowledge please add a section on the science of mechanical and electrical recording, or at least refer to an article in wikipedia that explains the science behind it.

Daniel Polwarth

Dpolwarth (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was plenty of references to the sciences and technologies scattered in links throughout the article. I just added a section that summarizes the technology. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing edits and corrections

A whole raft of edits and corrections to this article made since the 22nd of March have gone missing. They have even been removed from the article edit history. How come? 81.157.133.106 (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They were in fact there and clicking 'article' at the top brought them back. I don't know why but restoring an unwarranted removal from the article seems to have fixed it. I B Wright (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No I take it back. Linking to the page from anywhere alse or entering 'Sound Rocording' in the serch box takes you to a 22nd of March edit. The latest edit can only be accessed by clicking the 'article' tab, however the edit history stops at 22nd March. I B Wright (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jan Peerce.jpg

The image Image:Jan Peerce.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Basic components

I think we should add the basic nesessites needed for home recording or a whole nother article on it because it has become a Great trend now days and its like "the Thing" now. but overall i think alot of people would actually benifit from it. you know like the types of computer a person would need to the type of mic etc....and even like sound proofing but in depth and spesific for home recording Elbigger1 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "how to" article is needed here. There are already plenty of books and other resources describing how to record at home since this "Great trend" has been underway now for about 25 years. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardles of how long it has been underway my point is whoever is looking up this stuff has to look through out all of wikipedia instead of having it all on one article! its nerve racking to go from one page to another to find info on things that should be in one group! cause rock recording is different than singing recording..producing...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbigger1 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop Music?! Zappa?

Don't put 'Karlheinz Stockhausen, which in turn led to the innovative pop music recordings of artists such as Frank Zappa, The Beatles and The Beach Boys.'

Zappa didn't create pop music. He did however do some musique concrete works on the first few albums and continued doing so throughout his career as well as other avant garde music. Listen to some of his stuff before you put a musical genius like Zappa in the same sentence as 'pop music' and 'the beatles'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.16.99 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed this obviously incorrect edit back to the previous version. Zappa is by no means an AG composer.Flux712 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tape Cartridge Link

The link from Tape Cartridge takes you to a section on data storage in computer systems. I believe the author would have been referring to what is probably known (here on Wikipedia) as eight-track tapes...though the term Tape Cartridge (or Cart) was commonly used in radio. In fact most stations still use the term "Carting" to refer to the process of transferring produced audio onto the playable media of the on-air presentation system today despite the fact that endless loop tape cartridges (and indeed magnetic tape) is no longer involved.120.145.23.156 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.23.156 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The link was definitely wrong. I believe broadcast cartridge is what's being talked about here and I have fixed the link to point there. --Kvng (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alan Blumlein

I think a mention should be made of Alan Blumlein and a link inserted to his page on Wikipedia. His contributions to recording technology are incalculable. Gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Watkins (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done this (at last!). Paul Hodges (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The "cited" 1950's to 1980's "surround sound section .. has ONE extremely MAJOR important flaw..

It "only" relates to tose "northern hemisphere manufactured systems .. that "most" americans know of. It "DOES" not recognise -- one lone inventor .. of 1965 .. whom (by sheer cussed accidental means) discovered multiple ch ANALOGUE surround sound.. in at first 6ch surround .. then almost rapidly thereafter .. a summated truely sentral 7th CENTRE ch.

Nor -- anywhere in the article.. does it "render" any mention -- to the continued manufacture AND SALE and installation of that ONE stand alone "aftermarket" add_on (Deplexer_Decoder based) direct play method .. which today -- accurately employs more than the original 7 .. way past the non ampified minumal 9 - past the 10ch's of summated 9+1 to "now" encompass a small system .. in the New Zealand HANDBUILT "manufacturing company's own premises .. the testing facility AND remastering studio "backwards & forwards compatible AND fully capable .. 25 channel - 7 subwoofered 62 (64) speaker surround sound system .. which is "frequently" used .. to create fully transformativeness remastererings .. across ANY 2ch meduim ever recorded .. and through many divergent video & audio website hosts as facebook, xanga, blogspot, wordpress AND youtube..

NO_WHERE in Wikipedia .. has that 12yr old (in 1965) Kiwi Audio Hardware Inventor .. ever found mention of his own NZ Company's well known (in NZ) analogue product.. Apart from entries written by himself & even quicker to be deleted by otherwise completely IGNORANT northern hemisphere editors.. whom simply cannot imagine .. that a 12yr old Kiwi Lad.. could ever have invented multiple ch analogue surround sound .. in 1965 .. nor could ever have developed that system .. to be now fully installed in MANY commercial, Industrial, AND domestic installations in not only the Southern TWO provinces of the South Island of NZ .. but to also have several systems far flung .. as far away as Australia(2) China(1) and the3 USA (1). However. They exist. (so too- have all "availbale" discernably DIFFERENT -- semi-independant spherical suround sound_ball effects.. of the smallest VOLUMETRIC CONTAINER -- for "volume" to be therein contained.. the triangular pyramid shape.. of a FOUR sided "six edged" & thus 4 pointed (Perfectly simetrical in EVERY "ratioo, facet, angular displacement, as well as angular degree separations and "rotational feild effect.. Contained inside that very same minamalistical VOLUME "container".. the Triangular TETRAHEDRON. Which -- when one "expands" one of those -- by applying extreme internal presure.. one simply GETS .. a perfectly ROUND "ball" volumetrical container. BUT -- as every ch of audio -- within that 'container" is an EXACT precisely defined "slightly altered" compassed POINT -- around the circumferential points.. of the BALL -- exactly "spaced" Equi_distanced from not only their "immediately" neghbouring chs .. but equi distant to each next away & next level & nex opposing points.. inside that "spherical BALL's inner surface.. EACH CH .. is as near as can be acheived.. COMPLETELY independand in sound .. FROM ANY OTHER CH. Yet.. all can be "sourced" DIRECt -- via the original technology of the 1965 cicuitry.. to attain any "discrete"number of chs .. ALL NON DELAYED ..ALL "of ecatly precision positioned displacements.. AND-- With no "digitaly' delayed compensatory effects .. designed to redue echoed & self cancelling efffects .. of digital compression "virtual recreations.. to cush a mute point.. as to ensure. THERE NEVER EVER WAS.. any sweet spot.. in an Analogue Deplexer Decoded surround sound system. Which -- incidentally.. just "plays back -- exactly what the original analogue microphones recorded .. from the actual LIVE source. To replicate -- in a nearly mirror image .. that of the original "open air sound" But-- who am "I" - to say that Wikipedia editors in the Northern Hemisphere .. could ever possibly "understand that simple point. After all- at 57 yrs of age.. in 2011 I am -- still just.. that 12yr old Kiwi Lad.. from 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUIX4U (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

The only picture on this page is of a postage stamp? Rather odd. Perhaps something better could be found.

- J

? Would a graphical precisely 'engineered #D drawing of a 25ch analogue surround sound systems "tonal speaker placement" (not perse` where you NEED to put them .. but there actual 'grphically reprented trigonometrical placements.? Um .. suffice.? As I'm sure - that by having many of those already UPLOADED - around a huge array of PUBL:IC DOMAIN access points on this internet thingie .. someone OTHER thatn the creator of that image -- could upload it here .. with FULL non-copyrightable licence free rights.. given NOW -- by it's "original_artist" creator..(ME) QUIX4U (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Oh.. and if YOU cannot use google.? Then how did I get here. QUIX4U (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"How stuff works" reference deleted

[1] This image is part of an edited phrase and its reference I deleted. The reference is completely misleading in that the webpage shows a theoretically perfect analog sine wave compared to digital samples that haven't yet been low-pass filtered. The output of a digital system should be compared to the output of an analog system--why compare a theoretical ideal sine wave to a single stage in the inner process of digital recording? Not even an analog system can reproduce 10 kHz perfectly; there should be a degree of noise squiggles along that black line. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

P.s.. a quick "ask" of User:Binksternet ? How do you 'see" just a single sinosidual wave .. for an analogue "content" ..

when comparing that .. to digitally compressed sound.?

As surely .. each and every SINGLE frequency .. on each & every pitch on each and everypower level .. of every intermingled "tone" of any sound recording .. in Analogue.. Must - by the "theory of Frequcny sinosidual waveforms.. Actually hold TRILLIONS -- of ever competing .. nver ever "always in phase -- never ever al;ways out of phase .. across multitudes of "waveforms" .. when the only way YOU are watching them .. is to use a single trace (1-wave).. or even a dual trace (2_wave) signal oscilliscope.? When the ONLY real way -- would be to "watch" - as if down a long tunnel of complex sunlight rays ?The effects of those trillions of variagated colours of audio as depicted by the LIGHTS SHOW that a Rainbow shines (with her colours) .. down the stormwater drainpipe.? All one would then see.. is a SOLID MASS of light (as IF -- just a visual unmoving solid beam).? Cheers. I will leave that "compound" thought (description) hanging in here.. For your contemplations - to "look" at. QUIX4U (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Secretly recording

I believe there's a US Federal law against secretly making a sound recording, but only found an ambiguous entry at telephone tapping. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of material about job losses among theater musicians

Mention of the impact of the sound film revolution of the late 1920s on theater musicians, along with a cit that includes an unusually long block quote, has been added to this and a number of other audio-related articles. I see no point in wading through the history to find out when this was done and who did it. Although the material is obviously a good-faith contribution and appropriate to WP articles with a focus on the advent of sound film or the history of theater orchestras, it has been injected into several articles where it is very tangential at best, a distraction and irrelevant cit-bloat at worst. IMO, this is one of those instances, so I am deleting it. AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

section deleted by Profperry

The paragraph that was deleted by Profperry was a copyvio from [2]. The deletion should not be reverted. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the pianola a sound recording device?

Look at the Pianola article. It states:

"Music rolls for pneumatic player pianos, often known as piano rolls, consist of continuous sheets of paper, about 11 1/4 inches wide and generally no more than 100 feet in length, rolled on to a protective spool, rather like a large cotton reel. The paper is perforated with numerous small holes, which control the pattern of the notes to be played as the roll moves across a tracker-bar. On reproducing rolls, additional holes control the volume level, accents, pedals, etc., to faithfully recreate the original performance."

Sound recording means to record sound waves on a support. But can it also mean to record a performance on a support? Because that was the case with pianolas. The earliest example of a pianola was produced in 1863, which is before Edison's phonograph.

I had a discussion about this recently. The most fundamental question is probably the above mentioned: does recording have to involve sound waves. Because any recording of sound is in some way codified, whether it is a cd, an lp, or a paper pianola roll with punches.

Any thoughts about this? Nickel van Duijvenboden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelvd (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC

No, I think the Pianola, or the player Piano as it is known in the United States, does not really achieve the status of being a recording, any more than the doorbell in many homes. Both the Player Piano and the door bell can reproduce exactly the same note on command, but do not rise to the level of "recording" as such, other than in the rare and extreme reproducing Piano's of the 1920's and 30's. I own and love an Apollo Player Piano, but to attribute any roll to a particular artist would be as to know who is ringing the doorbell, when you are in another room. The exception being the aforementioned Reproducing Piano, which offer better sound than is possible from the early electrical, and even more primitive accoustical recordings of the same era. I had heard or read, that there are electrical sound recordings made in the 1930's of George Gershwin, who died in 1937.The same pieces of music, played on a reproducing player piano is in another league! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.50.200 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged for your interesting response. Especially the doorbell comparison makes it pretty clear. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelvd (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC

This article is about "sound recording", not simply "recording", which can mean making a written record of something by jotting it down with pencil and paper. Sound is a series of audio-frequency waves propagating through the air, or through some other conductive medium such as a non-soundproof wall or the internal structures of the human ear. When a recording piano was used to capture an actual live performance, the resulting piano roll is a recording of the piano key strokes, not the sound. Otherwise, a music roll is simply a manual encoding of written music in a form that can be played automatically. AVarchaeologist (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Cultural effects

I have moved a contribution by OnBeyondZebrax from the lead to a new section Sound recording and reproduction § Cultural effects. Material in the lead must be supported by material in the body of the article. This new material is also uncited and potentially original research. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sound recording and reproduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122042326/http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/recording/speed45.html to http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/recording/speed45.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

78 RPM gear ratio claim

What is the source for this statement: "The specified speed was 78.26 rpm in America and 77.92 rpm throughout the rest of the world (this was related to the speed of a mains-driven synchronous motor)" I doubt that the speed is related to an electric motor. It was commonplace for early recording studios to use a weight driven clockwork motor to drive the turntable- early electric motors were notoriously unreliable as to maintaining a constant speed. Saxophobia (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit improve it? TJRC (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the gear ratio explanation is a myth, although one now so well-established by so many otherwise excellent sources that I despair of ever being able to expurgate it from the many WP articles in which it appears. The specified speeds of 78.26 in the 60 Hz AC US and 77.92 in 50 Hz AC countries resulted from the widespread adoption, by around 1930, of stroboscopic discs or turntable edge markings to standardize the speeds of recording lathes. They were the nearest speeds that stroboscopic markings for use with those AC frequencies could come to the 78 RPM average of the 76 to 80 RPM recording speeds nominally or actually used by the major record companies (late acoustical and early electrical recordings by Victor, for example, were usually cut at about 76 RPM, despite public statements that the correct playing speed was 78 RPM). As noted by the initial poster, early recording lathes typically used weight-driven motors, which had been refined to a high degree by the mid-1920s, and this continued well past the introduction of electrical recording. Electric motors were less stable and they created electrical fields which could introduce hum into the signal, which is also why the recording electronics were battery-powered for quite some time. Vintage 78 RPM turntables directly gear-driven by synchronous AC motors are so very rare that several advanced collectors have reported never coming across such a creature. In the 1920s in both the US and UK, 60 and 50 Hz, respectively, were not yet universal standards. Several other frequencies were also in use, frequency and voltage were far from stable, and electricity was still DC in some densely populated urban centers with original Edison service, such as Manhattan in NYC.

As far as I am aware, the only significant vintage recording and playback system in which the turntable was driven by a synchronous AC motor in such a way that there was an absolutely fixed ratio between the rotational speeds of each was the Vitaphone system for motion picture sound. In filming, the separate cameras and recording lathes were securely driven by synchronous AC motors powered from a common source, an absolute necessity in order to keep photography and sound recording perfectly synchronized. In projection, the turntable was driven by the projector motor via a flexible coupling, so its rotation, too, was locked to a motor's RPM, but that motor was not necessarily either synchronous or AC. These appear to be the only notable exceptions, and it may be that the mechanics of this very specific system got generalized by someone into a now widely disseminated statement about all electrical-era disc recording.

My enlightenment on this subject came from following discussions on 78-L in the late 1990s (similar but more recent postings have appeared on other discussion boards), but although most of the participants were well-known and highly respected archivists, scholars, collectors and reference book authors, it is not practical to cite sources in this piecemeal form in a WP article. Does anyone know of a good citable source that can be used to demolish this exasperatingly ubiquitous gear ratio myth once and for all? AVarchaeologist (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a link [3] to a relatively recent (2008) ARSC discussion list summary of the matter by Dr. Michael Biel, possibly foremost among the aforementioned well-known and highly respected scholars and authors. It goes right for the jugular of the authoritative-seeming but ill-informed AES Society article by the late Warren Rex Isom which may have started the error on its journey into the wider world and which this article currently cites. Any opinions as to whether information in such a format and forum is acceptable as a WP cit for the purpose of slapping the myth down? AVarchaeologist (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I missed seeing that discussion, although I subscribe to both groups. Great, now I have to modify my user page. I think if the text were changed to show the "correct" information as shown in the discussion board, it would quickly be reverted to the "verifiable" source showing the incorrect information. What we need is for Dr. Biel to publish his research in the ARSC Journal, which definately qualifies as a reliable source. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Citing that particular list posting in the WP article would be very unfair to Dr. Biel: it is plainly a reply he dashed off quickly and sent raw, with grammatical outrages left untamed and otherwise badly in need of copyediting, which is certainly not typical of his writing. He would surely be chagrined to find it being spotlighted to the general public. IIRC his 1990s 78-L contributions are far more presentable and detailed. I am hoping that by now the information in them has worked its way into at least one citable book or periodical. AVarchaeologist (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@AVarchaeologist: Am so glad I stumbled onto this thread. A lot of things do sound different outside the USA, but this was a peculiar, lifelong mystery I thought was all in my head. Thank you both!! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@AVarchaeologist: Heh, that Biel email, dashed off quickly and sent raw as it may be, is great. He opens:

We fought this out several times in the 78-L in past years, and someone might be able to come up with my more detailed answers.

...and then proceeds to pound out four lengthy, dense paragraphs. Are we sure he's not a Wikipedian? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It is suggested above that DC power in Manhattan lasted until the 1920's. Just as a bit of trivia, it lasted much longer than that. The last commercial DC power feed in Manhattan was turned off in 2007! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 02:50, 08 January 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that nothing at all is suggested about when DC power was turned off, only that it was still in use in the 1920s. Which makes your update no less interesting. I'm only bummed that I've now lost the chance to be flabbergasted by this in a future round of "three truths and a lie" or something. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 10:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)