Talk:Phonograph record

Still A-class?

The article has a lot of sections without any references. I don't think the A-class is still correct; currently it's more a B-class.--Oneiros (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely 'not A-class; after reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production/Assessment, IMHO C-class would be more appropriate. Since a two-letter-grade drop is pretty significant, I've dropped it down to B-class for now. The problem with an article of this length is that its really challenging to master all the details that people have contributed and come up with a coherent and less repetitive version. It's taken me hours just to do a little bit of clean-up and find the right place for the Sentinel Chromatron references I wanted to introduce when I first got here. 67.101.7.26 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

Length of 45 RPM record

"Early 45 rpm records were made from either vinyl or polystyrene.[17] They had a playing time of eight minutes.[18]"

this is unclear, does the 8 minutes refer to a single side or to both sides? to be clearer the article should state the absolute maximum time per side (7 or 8 minutes at a reduced volume) and the typical side length used in practice (between 2 and 4 minutes).

just noticed that the 'Types of Record' section contains various lengths, but not for the 45 rpm single. (it also states a playing time of 30 minutes per side - whilst this is possible, a typical LP side length used in practice was lower, say 15-25 minutes)

(Mjemmeson (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

World premiere recordings

This may not be the best place to ask this, but I can't think of a more appropriate place right now. Do we have an article listing the world premiere recordings of classical works? I realise it would be a very extensive list, but I'm sure it's something many people would be interested in reading. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

VinylDisc

This is such a great article, so I want to mess with it and leave the decision to you whether and where to insert info on the CD-Vinyl hybrid disc called VinylDisc by Optimal Media Production: see here (last item on the page). It's quite popular in Germany, as this article states: There was a market plus of 30 percent in vinyl sales, in part due to new formats like the VinylDisc. —85.178.76.160 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition: There's already an article on the VinylDisc. —85.178.76.160 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was no consensus – see rationale below — æk^Talk 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Gramophone record → record — Gramophone record to record. By far the most common way it is referred to. I've never really heard it referred to any other way, but as a record. If it doesn't cause confusion in speech, it won't cause confusion as the article title. Move the current record to record (disambiguation). Voortle (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Fixed unsubst'd template — æk^Talk 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because "gramaphone record" is commonly "record" does not mean that other "record"s are also not commonly "record"s. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested move and instead rename to phonograph record. It is not clear that the current name is the most commonly used. "Gramophone record" gets 153,000 google hits and "phonograph record" gets 275,000 hits. Add to that the fact that the umbrella article is at phonograph and we have phonograph cylinder. So it would appear to be better to use a single common name prefix. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No one uses either of those terms. They just call it a "record". I've never heard anyone refer to a "phonograph record" or a "gramophone record". Voortle (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, ahem, gramophone is British English and phonograph American. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Voortle that the current title is a problem since it does not reflect a name that is commonly used for this topic. However, that fact does establish primary use of the name. A compromise would be to rename it to Record (gramophone) or Record (phonograph). Either form would both correctly indicate the most common name used to refer to this topic, and would appropriately disambiguate it from other uses of the same name. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment How on earth would "Record (gramophone)", an artificial construction that as far as I know has never been in use, be better than "Gramophone record", which is not only shorter and simpler but also the actual name of the object, and has some 120 years of doccumented use? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment How about Record (disc)? Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If the concern is that the title needs to be in the dab form, then any of these suggestions would appear to address the concern better then my proposal. Apparently record (gramophone) or record (phonograph) are used in different versions of English and could be an issue while record (disc) may be language neutral. I would lean towards record (phonograph) since the other related articles use phonograph. Using a common name would help with readability for the average reader. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to record (disc). Voortle (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Record (disc). Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support but only for moving to 'Record', not 'Record (disc)', which feels unnecessarily awkward, despite being neutral w.r.t. national variants of English. There are 40 or so articles mistakenly linking to the record disambiguation page right now. Most of them seem to intend to point to world record. I would assume those that intended to link to this article have already been cleaned up. If those are the two main uses of linked record instances in articles, then it seems reasonable, as per the nominator's rationale, to just let the 'record' article be about gramophone/phonographic records, and use a WP:HATTEST template at the top of the article to direct the relatively small number of misdirected readers to the disambiguation page. However, I would also not mind things staying the way they are. —mjb (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. Please review previous discussions. There seems to be no name that pleases everybody, but "Gramophone record" has advantages such as being unambiguous and specific, and being the actual name the inventor gave to the device. If there is a better option, I don't believe it has yet been proposed. "Record" is not specific enough. What kind of record? Oh, a gramophone record. I find "Record (disc)" even more objectionable, since as far as I know noone has ever called it that, and I think such Wikipedia specific parenthetical neologisms should not be invented unless the actual name cannot be used (due to ambiguity or other reasons), which is not the case here. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support but only for moving to 'Record' - I agree with mjb's comment. Rothorpe (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "record" as it isn't the primary topic, and oppose move to "record (disc)" per WP:NCDAB. Support move to "Phonograph record" for consistency. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to record (disc)) 4.235.114.91 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move. All the alternative suggestions are less clear than the current title. Agree with Infrogmation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

I am closing this request as no consensus. The originally proposed title did not gain support. Two other variants were also suggested -- "Record (disc)" and "Phonograph record". Neither of these titles gained a clear consensus either, however it may be worthwhile for further discussion to take place with the aim of solidifyign consensus around one of these two choices. — æk^Talk 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions by User:99.30.228.42

See the dif [1] for a series of large additions of text by IP editor User:99.30.228.42. It is mostly unreferenced, and should probably be removed as original research unless it can be verified with reliable sources. In particular, some of the historical curiosity stereo recording methods do not seem to be referenced: left channel on top of the record, right channel on the bottom of the disc; one channel laterally cut and the other vertically cut. I have read of the Cook side by side stereo system and know it is easily referenced. The discussion of laminated records veers off into discussion of tee shirts or body building. Some of the text is a how-to, which Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Edison (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comeback???

What way is vinyl making a comeback??? It goes to 2.9 million, from 11.7 million in 1990, and it's making a comeback? That's only 1/4 what it was in the early 90's when they were ending their stay from mainstream, and people are saying it's a comeback? HOW??? It's still a VERY, VERY, VERY small percentage of the overall sales total!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The comeback is because it has hovered around 1 million since 1999, and so for it to go to 2 or even 3 million means it has grown 100 to 200%! Jimmy Bob Clark, Wikipedia editor since 2010! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.159.133 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Book-and-record-sets

Why isn't the page about book-and-record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book-and-record_set sets included in this article?

Outline proposal

I've been working on reorganizing the article into a more logical outline so that all the redundant material can be cut out more easily. Here's a very rough version of what I came up with:

1. Formats
   1. talk about 78s, 33s, 45s, etc. Talk about how records work mechanically
   2. less common formats (CLV, etc)
   3. strobic thing
2. Sound reprodution & materials
   1. How it works
   2. RIAA curve
   3. freq response and noise
   4. materials (vinyl, shellac, etc)
3. history
   1. early history
   2. standardization on 78rpm
   3. acoustic recording
   4. electrical recording
   5. new speeds/formats
   6. high fidelity and other technology improvements
   7. packaging/origin of the album
   8. laser turntabl
   9. CD overtakes vinyl, and the debat over that
   10. hip-hop/rave djs during 80s/90s
   11. current status

Any thought on this, or better ideas? —Sebquantic (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stereo section

This section feels like cut&paste from another source, it is rambling and contains a lot of inconsequential material. I don't have enough expertise to fix it, though. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

vertical versus lateral recording; stereo recording

These sections contain a substantial amount of wildly inaccurate information. If someone wishes to fix them, I'll be glad to help. I don't have the time to do it myself. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"phonograph" versus "gramophone"

Historically, a cylinder recording is a phonograph record, a disk recording is a gramophone record. If there are more searches for "phonograph" than "gramophone", the former should be the default, with "gramophone" requests being redirected.

Strictly speaking, a "record" is a recording of anything. A compact disk is a record. So is a photograph. So is the transcription of the testimony at a trial. When I play an LP, I am playing a gramophone record -- not a "record". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Most Americans would be shocked to here that their record collection consists of "gramophone records"--unless said records date back to the Victorian era. 169.231.53.195 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

size and format

Unfortunately I had to reverse an edit. I think that the 16" radio transcription should get a little more time than it does. Here was the incorrect statements in the recent posting: They were not always vinyl. The early 16" discs were shellac. Yes, they are very heavy! They are, with extremely rare exception, and only on laquer discs at that, 33rpm. I have never heard of a 78rpm 16" transcription that was pressed. Certainly many of the early 12" transcriptions, such as the first Amos and Andy shows, were 78rpm. Until the Armed Forces Radio Service started using microgroove in the mid 1950s, radio transcriptions used a groove size that was smaller than standard 78rpm cut, but larger than LP cut. The average side was just short of 15 minutes, not 25 to 30. 25-to-30 minutes would be a correct statement contemplating both sides of the disc. The recordings were certainly *not* discontinued in 1949. I have transcriptions in my collection dating to 1968, and I think the format survived a couple more years.

That said, the current article needs some cleanup. It now only mentions the 16" format in the 1940s, but this had been used earlier by Pathe, was used for Movie Soundtracks, and was used by the early 30s by radio stations.

I'm rather dubious about that statement that vinyl was first used for a cigarette advertisement. Defining "vinyl" is difficult, as there are many formulations. I think this statement should be more specific about the formula used. Would anyone consider "Vitrolac" that Victor used in the early 1930s for transcriptions to be a type of vinyl? I'm sure some would. 78.26 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So why don't I edit this article? I'm afraid everything I've stated would be considered "original research", and is not properly sourced. 78.26 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)