Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Untitled

Archive of older discussion for Talk:Gramophone record

Previous archives:

• Talk:Gramophone record/Archive2
• Talk:Gramophone record/Archive1

PAGE MOVE

Voting ended. "Gramophone record" with 17 votes edged out "record (audio)" with 13 votes in the run off. The Wikipedia page formerly known as "analogue disc record" is now at "Gramophone record".

Help in finishing the move: Fixing links

I believe I took care of fixing any double redirects. I hope those who offered to help with the move will now get into tackling the links to redirects. -- Infrogmation 00:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've taken care of a number of links, mostly in audio articles which were likely to benifit from a bit more editing than simply changing the link names. See Gramophone record:what links here for the numerous pages where link to "analogue disc record" (and variations) need to be changed to "gramophone record". Thanks! -- Infrogmation 15:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are about 100 links to fix -- let's get fixing them. I'll do ten. -- Done. -- The Anome 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starr

Kudos to the fine small group of users who took care of the hundreds of links! A special "Starr" is awarded to champion link fixer User:Kate. -- Infrogmation 15:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Our former title in the text?

In the "other names" section, the sentence The neologism "analogue disc record" has also been seen. was commented out with the note -- oh no it hasn't, give me the non-Wikipedia source if it has . That term still has dozens of wikilinks here to it. If/when Wikipedia no longer is linking to "analogue disc record", I have no objection to discussing the appropriateness of dropping the term alltogether; I do object to removing it from the text without first fixing links to it. -- Infrogmation 15:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yay, we seem to have gotten the links situation under hand. Well, I just did a google search for "analogue disc record": 1,880 (and 858 for "analog disc record"). Yep, the Wikipedia article is a the top of the list, and no doubt Wikipedia and mirrors played a big role in spreading the term. None the less, it "has also been seen". I think leaving the single mention of the term in the third paragraph of the "gramophone record" article, as is the situation now, is fine. 2 cents from Infrogmation 15:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't. I commented it out (not deleting it) because it really doesn't exist anywhere that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. If you think otherwise, provide solid references - David Gerard 16:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Analogue disc record" is indeed a Wikipedia neologism, which we have now decided collectively was a bad idea. It is thus non-encyclopedic. -- The Anome 23:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The neologism 'fragglesnot fizblit' has also been seen to describe the Fiji coups of 1987." Well, it has, now that you've read the previous sentence! This fallacy is matched in idiocy only by the original titling of the article, and I cannot believe we're actually discussing propagating it further. Austin Hair 03:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Kill it, kill it, kill it! We should not mention it at all in the main article namespace. Wikipedia's own use of this term is not notable, other than as an item of soon-to-be-nostalgic Wikitrivia. Outside of Wikipedia, even if it was ever used at all, by accident or coincidence or whatever, it was never a familiar or important term. Platter, pressing, LP, side, album, acetate, transcription, Victrola disc,... there must be a dozen obscure slang terms that I don't even know that were more common than "analogue disc record." I don't know what professional recording engineers called these things, but I'll bet it wasn't "analogue disc record" (or "analog disk record" for that matter). Mentioning "analogue disc record" in the article makes about as much sense as carefully noting that they were frequently called "Wekkids" by children. The only people who need to know about it are a tiny number of people who read the old article, remember it by the weird name, and need to find it again under that name... and we have a redirect for that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine then; I drop any objection to having the hated phrase totally absent from the article. -- Infrogmation 20:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) ...And now on to the next question....

Are there any other Wikipedia-inspired terms analogous :o) to this, that we have unwittingly (or wittingly) spread throughout the Internet? zoney ▓█▒ talk 21:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's a good question. I can only think of one other example. Operation Chastise (The Dambusters' raid) existed at "Operation Downwood" for about a year before anyone noticed that it was completely wrong. BY then it had spread throughout the Internet. I argued that this spread was solely inspired by the Wikipedia article and that the redirect should be deleted, but others disagreed. Mintguy (T) 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vinyl record

Should the Vinyl record article have its content merged into the "Gramophone record" article and become a redirect?

I can't see what would be lost by doing so. Make that a careful merge, though - past merges have led to much duplicated content, even in the intro - David Gerard 11:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The gramophone record in the era of digital technology section in this article now encompasses just about all information from the Vinyl record section Vinyl vs. compact discs and then some --Deelkar 04:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the merge idea, but (violating the "be bold" standard) I figure I'll let the editors who've already put so much effort into these two articles do it. That way we'll know it's done well. Also, (not to re-open a huge discussion. . . . ) perhaps the explanation of British vs. American names could be moved directly below the title. This could help eliminate any confusion on the part of us easily-confused Yanks. Soundguy99 15:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)Soundguy99

Why is the discussion of Vinyl records written in the past tense?

e.g. "Vinyl records were less subject to breakage." Vinyl records continue to be manufactured used and played all over the world.

I finally merged the two. This may need minor cleaning up, but I did the best I could. -Litefantastic

Yay! And now, we need to fix the hundreds of links. -- Infrogmation 12:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The list of types of audio records still needs fixing. Gramophone records and vinyl records point to the same article, yet they have different dates on the list.

Playback time of records

Shouldn't the timing of each format (in minutes:seconds) be displayed somewhere in the article?

The subject is mentioned in the Postwar Formats section under 33 rpm records. It cannot be exactly specified because the playing time is highly variable. It depends on the amplitude of the recorded signal and the amount of bass content as well as record speed (rpm). These first two items vary the groove spacing, thus varying playback time. --Blainster 00:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is the discussion of Vinyl records written in the past tense? e.g. "Vinyl records were less subject to breakage." Vinyl records continue to be manufactured used and played all over the world.

The table of playing times is suspect: 45rpm vinyl singles of 6 minutes or more, whilst not common, are easily found - Bohemian Rhapsody being a famous 6 minute single, Elton John had a long one too, I recall. Probably need to cite some references to back up assertions in this section. Spenny 13:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Were these six-minute singles actually recorded at 45 rpm. Sometimes particularly long songs were released on seven inch 33.3 rpm discs. I have seen hour long (i.e. 30 min or more per side) 12 inch 33.3 rpm discs

Link to wow

The link to "wow" (in the disc adapter caption) leads to a disambigulation page, but there isn't an entry for "wow" as it relates to audio matters. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the phenomenon to start an article on it.

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

= I have removed the comment re: souce required side two of Matching Tie and Hankerchief. It seems to me that this is a matter of fact, I did not own the record but spent a merry evening with friends enjoying this little feature, so I can confirm the authors description of this feature. Looking for sources on the Internet, the nearest I get is the Amazon.com reviewer who bemoans the lack of this feature on his review, but that is as much hearsay as my assertion. As this issue is not in dispute, the source for this feature is the identification of the album itself. There should be no need to go further. Spenny 11:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

== Thinks - really that para. should be deleted as it is covered under Unusual types of gramophone record. I also suspect that the former paragraph on Mercury Living Presence does not belong under this topic but an alternative topic on recording techniques. Most record labels claimed some unique fidelity process (Deram used the Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed as a showcase for their recording - it was presented as a sampler of the sound process - source: sleeve notes on the album).

"keen ears can detect the inherent surface noise"

Is this really true?

It's hard to challenge this, but what I thought for years was "surface noise" was really well-reproduced tape hiss. When LPs recorded using the Dolby system came out, the actual surface noise from the recording itself turned out to be very small indeed.

On the first playing, that is.

Even on subsequent playings, what I heard was light ticks and pops, not anything like a hiss or "texture."

On the other hand, rumble was a revelation to me. I never owned a system capable of truly reproducing rumble. But I once visited a very, very serious audiophile who had a couple of IIRC 16" Tannoys in a special acoustically treated room. And you know what? Very few recordings actually had bass low enough for them to matter. But on those that did... you know, low organ notes, and one recording where performers were on a dancing on a stage and you could feel the thump whenever they landed on it, and a very occasional bass drum stroke... you suddenly realized what you were missing.

However, on his system, almost every recording had a disturbing amount of rumble. You couldn't hear it, exactly. It sort of felt like the heating system in the building where I work, when it starts up. Or what you feel in a descending airplane. And I'm telling you about half the LPs he had had enough rumble to be annoying on this system. One of the few that didn't was an audiophile test record (which proved that the rumble really was in the recordings themselves).

Theoretically, digital systems ought to be able to record and play back DC. I've always wondered when someone will invent a speaker system that can reproduce it. I'm not quite sure what "reproducing DC means," come to think of it. A breeze issues from the speaker? Or the air in the room is instantly pumped up a fraction of a PSI above the barometer reading? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, speaker systems often do reproduce DC - you can get a cone extended by applying a bias, and in a digital system this is quite feasible. With a cartridge system it relies on the change and cannot generate the signal. Unless a speaker is enclosed, there would be no effect, and realistically even if enclosed there is no useful effect. The problem with DC is offsetting the speaker so it distorts. You could probably reproduce the effects with a sound file editor - CoolEdit 2000 has a feature to normalise the signal to remove the offset for example.

I certainly can hear surface noise, though whether you would call it inherent - you don't need keen ears or a high end system. I've just transferred some vinyl to MP3 and there are two quality issues that come out:

1) the surface noise between tracks which has a swishing effect. You can on some older recordings, then hear the tape noise as they fade up ready for the first note. The run in track has this effect. I'd understood it to be the grain of the vinyl causing this and it could vary by materials used. Coloured vinyl was more prone to this due to the different quality of vinyl that was used to tolerate the colouring process.

2) the distortion of the inner tracks. Audiophiles may well be right that the outer tracks may be of a higher quality, but I had innumerable recordings where the last track on a side suffered from appauling(sp?) distortion. The worst example I can cite is 10cc, Sheet Music, cut by Mel according to his signature in the inner clear bit - engineers often signed their work - which is recorded several dB above the typical level, and results not only in distortion at this point, but also my player would skip as the grooves were too difficult for the stylus to traverse. Spenny 11:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (formerly anonymous pedant!)

Oh, inner groove distortion is quite apparent. To me, anyway. But I don't call that "surface noise."

As for the "swishing between tracks" you mention is variable. It's not rare, but it's by no means "inherent." I assume you mean a noise that has a giveway "once-per-revolution" periodicity. I have many records—London's classical pressings being consistently good, but not unique—in which all I can hear between tracks is a few irregular light ticks from dust, plus rumble from the turntable itself. No "hiss" and no once-per-revolution swishing.

So, I don't know what we should say about a defect only occurs on "bad pressings," when probably half of all records produced are "bad pressings." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, to be clear, the point about distortion was a separate observation and I have added a couple of paragraphs. The differing speed/quality issue is probably one of the most important issues, and I recall at the time that the CD solution of changing the speed was considered rather revolutionary. In terms of the audiophile argument over quality, it is often overlooked. If you went back to Hi-Fi magazines of the late '70s/early '80s you'd probably find a wealth of source material on distortion at different points across the record. I was almost tempted to do a calculation on the different playback speed at the outer edge to the inner edge - I think it is at least double at the edge (2.5" vs 6" radius).

With regard to noises, I am positive there is audible hiss - similar to white noise to be really precise - which is created by the surface imperfections of vinyl. As the surface becomes worn, not by scratching but simply by repeated playing, this surface texture noise can increase, however, even a brand new record may have this sound. The quality of the pressing material will have an influence. It is of course difficult to isolate the different sources:

• vinyl
• cutting process
• pressing process
• recording - tape hiss, electrical noise etc.
• mechanical noise
• wear

but there is certainly a lot of noise in the silence of a record. In the late 1970s I acquired a Hi-Fi magazine (Hi-Fi Answers - UK) test record, and it had a finite life, especially for some of the more challenging tracks - I think they talked about something like 10 plays. I'll have a rummage around and see if I can find it in the loft some time.

Spenny 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is more in the nature of chatting or musing than arguing...

Obviously there must be some inherent surface noise. I buy everything you say, except your characterization above that it is "a lot of noise." Shellac certainly had "surface noise" audible to the casual ear. Bad vinyl pressings, which are very very common, do have surface noise audible to the mildly critical ear as that once-per-revolution "swish."

The question I'd like to ask is: in a system that is very good, one that might belong to an "audiophile" but not an absolute-sound price-no-limit purist, how does the "inherent" surface noise compare to the other sources of noise in the system?

I'd hazard a truly wild-ass guess that the "inherent" surface noise might be more than 10 db below the recorded tape hiss on 1960s LPs.

Another question that I'd like to ask is: in practice, would you say that the actual surface noise is anywhere near as "audible," in the sense of intruding on the listening experience:

• ticks and pops due to the near-impossibility of keeping the record perfectly clean;
• tracing distortion on loud passages and sharp transients;
• low-frequency rumble (on a system with speakers capable of reproducing it);
• inner groove distortion?

Another way to ask the question: can you ever hear actual vinyl-disc surface noise on anything but a silent track? Are you able to hear it during a soft passage in classical music?

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is the point of such a comment - how does it help the reader? As part of the generation that was wedded to vinyl, and presented with CDs, the silence was important - the inherent noise (from whatever source, faults or the fundamentals of the medium) led to both the RIAA standard to supress the noise by boosting higher frequencies, the use of compression to avoid low volumes, but also meant that people would avoid putting quiet bits on their records. With classical music, here are extremely quiet passages where such noise would intrude, this is definitely a limitation of the medium.

I think, having had this discussion, there would be a benefit in changing the emphasis of the discussion to a general (brief) set of observations on the all limitations of the medium, much as the lists above, perhaps ordered (somewhat subjectively perhaps) into orders of irritation. However, we should be careful to distinguish between the medium and the player - rumble, for example, is much more likely to be an artifact of the player, tape hiss is nothing to do with the medium and more to do with the era (though it is useful to give an indication as to the relative impact of the various faults).

It is worth noting that the problems of the medium were significant enough that there was a system called DBX which was applied to vinyl recordings, but it never really took off. (I'd need to check sources on this one). The complaints were that the pumping of the compression were more of a problem than the issues it was addressing - noise and restoring dynamic range. DBX compressed the recording onto vinyl, and you needed a DBX decoder. (Later) I note that the article already refers to this.

Another limitation was the "pre-sounding" of a track. Some of this is tape print through, but the cutting process could cause the track to be heard on the previous rotation albeit again at a very low level. Spenny 10:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Spenny - what you talk about on the pre-sounding of a track occurs on CDs as well. One instance I know of personally is Talking Heads 'Once in a Lifetime' boxset. On the track Life During Wartime, if you turn up the volume very loudly (to combat the fading at the end of the song), you will hear the opening chords of "Memories Can't Wait", which followed "Life During Wartime" on the album Fear of Music. That's a fault of mastering, not a fault of the medium. (Also, keep in mind, on the boxset which I refer to, the track that follows is "Air", so it isn't a laser misread).

Also, it couldn't be a side effect of the needle. What that is implying is what is known as bleeding, and that couldn't happen on a record player using a conventional needle, since the needle can only play one groove at a time. Bleeding only happens on tape decks.

Whenever you hear the the beginning of the next track (though at a low level), it is always a mastering error. There is no evidence to show that this is from the cutting of the record (or else you would be hearing the next second of a song occasionally).

In fact, your previous comments sound on end groove distortion more like bad mastering. A well mastered vinyl record will take into accound end groove distortion and can actually eliminate it (at the expense of total playing time), and will keep surface noise to an absolute minimum. A peice of important information is who pressed the records with end groove distortion, since in my experience, professional record companies (except in the late 80s, when records were beginning to go out of fashion) generally avoid basics like end groove distortion, but smaller record companies are more likely to fall suspect to it. Judging on what you said, the 10cc album seems to be cut by someone who didn't know didly squat about cutting an album, since he failed on one of the most basic concepts about cutting an album - keep the volume low enough (or make the groove wide enough if you insist on having a very loud album, especially a bass heavy album) so that the needle doesn't skip. This was a problem on Bad Religion's first pressing of the EPs. The drums were mixed too loudly, so everytime the snare drum was hit, the needle skipped ahead. We don't say that CDs can't handle bass just because the earliest CDs had horrible bass reproduction. We recognize that as a fault of the master and a failure to take into account the issues involved in every format. However, End groove distortion is an issue inherent with records, but it is easily overcome with proper mastering.

A lot of what you state really aren't limitations of the medium, it is just the nature of it. Stuff like tape hiss is always present on anything recorded or mastered on tape. Even on Modest Mouse's Good News for People Who Love Bad News, you can hear hiss on the quiet tracks. A lot of the things affect the level of the hiss, like the era it was recorded, the volume of the song itself (a loud song will generally mask tape hiss), the quality of the tape and recorder, the quality of the master, and finally, how it was recorded and put together (on a lot of the Beach Boys work, you can hear signifigant tape hiss since Brian Wilson literally would take the four tracks of a tape, and mix it down to one, which increases the volume of the hiss substantially).

Now, I can tell you, on many first listenings, I never heard a bit of surface noise. Silence was silence. The only noise in silence would be after a few plays a handful of pops and clicks, but this is the nature of the beast.

Also, the CD solution with the speed towards the center of the track has nothing to do with sound quality. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, about maintaing a constant bit rate. So, that is a moot point. I don't know if you could vary the speed of a record while in play, seeing how that just would seem to add to the wear. --68.196.38.13 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Stereophonic sound

People might be interested in an ongoing discussion at Talk:Stereophonic sound as to whether the term Stereophonic sound is tautological and therefore incorrect, and (presumably) whether the article ought to be moved to a more acceptable title. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Locked grooves

I was wondering where the phrase "locked groove" came from, it isn't a description I was familiar with. Just stood out as odd. Spenny 02:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's a slightly obscure phrase - I've never heard it before - but it's accurate enough. A record is really just one long continuous groove that ends in a locked groove at the center of the record. Some record players have a device that picks up the needle when this happens. However, artificial locked grooves happen when the needle skips backwards, then does so when that damaged part of the record comes around again. And again. And again. Hope I answered your question in there somewhere. -Litefantastic 17:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd Questions

Because I didn't know where else to go with these. -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd Question 1: How long is a track?

I understand that it probably varies for microgroove records and such, but does anyone know how long the entire groove on one side of a record is? -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It probably would be impossible to calculate (or at least be very hard), since many things need to be accounted for. A side running 13 minutes will be shorter than a side running 20 minutes. Also, since grooves are space widely inbetween tracks, the number of tracks have to be taken into account. Plus other things like the amount of bass, the size of the end groove, and the volume would have to be considered. Really, it be pretty hard, if not impossible to calculate.

This is not too difficult to estimate. All you need to know are the running time, the record speed in rpm, and the average groove area diameter (say, 20 cm for a 12 inch LP– I measured 11.5 cm on the leadout (inside dia.) and 29 cm on the leadin (outside dia.)). If the record runs 25 min x 33⅓ rpm that is 833 revolutions x Pi(3.1416) x 20 cm or 52,339 cm = 523.4 m or 1716 ft. Yeah, the groove spacing will vary if there is a wide variation in dynamics, but the total time irons this out unless the soft parts (or loud parts) are concentrated wildly on the inside or outside tracks, so this still gives you the basic idea. --Blainster 23:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd Question 2: Directions?

Could one of you please direct me to a website detailing how to make a recording device? I want to try making records at home. -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

100 year old records

This may seam as a strange questions but I have recently found what looks like a large collection of about 100 year old records. Among plastic records I have also found a metal disk record also from this time perion (around 1900's). Does enyone know what approximate value may be or where on the internet one can find information on a value of such thing. Thanks --Dado 02:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Do a search on Ebay to check possible values. The metal disk is possibly either a plated metal master or if it has ridges instead of grooves it is a metal positive stamper.

Re: metal records - 1 -Litefantastic 17:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless you have some sort of extremely rare and sought after album among them, they are nearly worthless. I personally see them all the time at thrift stores and Half Price Books in the record sections. The most I ever paid for one was $2 for a 78 of "Satanic Blues." Antique stores generally charge the most, with prices ranging from $5 -$15 each. Many people avoid purchasing 78s because they contain a very limited song selection. They are also not as clear sounding on modern record playing equipment due to the size different in needle grooves (78's being about 3x larger). If you want to make a profit your best bet would probably be to sell them all at once in order to generate interest in the sale. --Professor London 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that early 78's dont play well on modern equipment is that equalisation curves were only standardised in 1955 with most records from before the early/mid 1930's not using equalisation at all !

Records manufactured before 1930 are not strictly speaking 78's as the 78 speed was only standardised around 1930 prior to this recordings were made at anywhere from 60 to 130 RPM (although most were between 72 and 82 rpm.) Even "78" wasnt a worldwide standard as American records were recorded at 78.26 rpm and European records were recorded at 77.92 rpm explanation

help with reference citation

i'm not exactly sure what the appropriate method of citing my source would be (re: the information about the x2 double-groove stuff).

more info here: [1]

X736e65616b 11:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Beyond the 1990s

I think this following stuff is distinctly POV, and seems to be a sales pitch for vinyl rather than some facts from which someone could come to their own decision on whether "investing" in a record player was a sensible decision.

Regardless, many personal collections still include large numbers of records, even among young people.

Ho hum, my attic includes a large personal collection, but like most people I know who have not binned their vinyl it is unplayed most of the time.

Curiously, for a young person with an honest love of older music, a record player may very well be a better investment than an MP3 player. Records, now largely considered an obsolete format, are generally quite cheap, and new record players (actual, new record players are still being made) run from roughly $100 to $200, though high quality players aimed at the audiophile market can cost condiderably more.

Basically this is saying that obsolete record collections can be picked up cheaply, why not say that.

Compared to the purchase of, say, an iPod and the same songs in digital format, the record player has a heavy financial advantage. A new iPod is generally several hundred dollars, and the going rate for a digital song is $1 at iTunes. Many listeners cannot easily distinguish purchased or encoded digital music from the sound of a vinyl record, especially through inexpensive headphones. As far as mobility goes, however, the iPod, weighing mere ounces, is the clear winner, while record collection takes up a large amount of space. However, despite the massive MP3 and CD libraries commercially available, virtually every piece of music recording up until around 1980 is available on some format of record.

Biased argument, MP3 players can be picked up very cheaply. Not quite sure what the rest of the argument is, that you can get any record on CD or any CD on record.

I'm going to be bold Spenny 18:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your decision; if it wasn't POV then it's very likely original research unless the poster can show otherwise- though I think POV is still more likely. Even if it were neither, articles can still get very bloated very quickly with a few of these 'comparison pieces'. Fourohfour 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Trigger mechanism for auto turntable arm raising

Automatic turntables rely on the sudden change of direction of travel of the arm as it reaches these more widely spaced grooves to trigger the mechanism that raises it. (In the "Basics" section)

My Sony PS-X30 turntable (a beautiful beast) does not use "sudden change of direction of travel" to trigger the lift. It triggers when it reaches a certian distance from the center/re of the record. Even if I manually move the needle above the record (parallel with it) very quickly from outside to inside, the lift will trigger when it reaches that point. An occasional record has a runoff that ends slightly further out than most and the auto lift won't engage. As far as I know, this was true with several other turntables I owned over the years including both standard and auto-changing models.

LuiKhuntek 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This was edited over a previous comment that had explained this properly, but in my less bold former self I couldn't be bothered. However, I do know that some mechanisms used to not trigger properly with slow runoffs, so I can understandhow a misunderstanding came about. Basically, pull a turntable apart and you will find some trip lever which engages some mechanical device driven by the turntable motor which is disengaged when it returns home. Spenny 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Variable Speed

Removed the following because it is technically incorrect - fidelity degrades to the centre of the disc. I'd not come across this, but if someone cares to correct and cite sources then of course it can go back.

The late 1970s/early 1980s saw the development of variable speeds. Because the fidelity of the record gradually improves towards the center of the disc, consideration was being given to gradually slow the record speed down making a standard 12" record last almost 90 minutes per side. The introduction of the CD, which utilized this improvement, stopped further consideration.

Spenny 07:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC) There is an effect called "end of side distortion" (not sure of the exact technical mechanism causing it) Loud heavily modulated music (with lots of energy at the extremes of the frequency spectrum) was prone to it. So it was not unusual for tracks on albums to be recorded in a different sequential order to that on tape or CD (with the endineers putting the "difficult" tracks at the start of the disc)

Packaging and Distribution - Non-Worldview

"Records were luxury items and in the mid-1960's a typical price was 33 shillings (£1.60) in the UK for a full price record. Most record companies had cut-price labels selling sampler or compilations at 10 shillings (£0.50). These would have simple covers and track selections picked to ensure that the main products were not undercut. Prices were listed and rarely discounted (manufacturers were allowed to insist on maintaining a selling price in those days). In the 1970's, incomes rose and prices fell. With the advent of discount warehouses such as the Virgin warehouses founded by Richard Branson in the UK, buying LPs became very affordable, and it was easy to get the top titles of the time such as Fleetwood Mac Rumours for around £3.00, though recommended prices were around £5.00. During the 1980's prices rose to around £5.00 discounted, £8.00 recommended, compared with the £10 or more for a CD."

That paragraph seemed to be only from the view of someone in England. Many people in America do not know what a shilling is, how that translate to American money, and keep in mind inflation, and that piece of the article means little to the world as a whole, especially those of us who didn't grow up in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Since these numbers are meaningless for a large population of the world, and the fact that these are not adjusted for inflation (keep in mind, as records get more expensive, they become more affordable. Without comparing what money was worth in the 60s to what it was worth in the 70s, it does sound rather odd), I deleted it.

Perhaps a little bold ;) It was very specifically identified as a UK perspective, on the basis that I could not provide another one. A more appropriate approach would have been to either neutralise the language, or provide other perspectives - i.e. provide American or other country perspectives. I thought it useful perspective and specifically gave the UK attribution - there isn't anything wrong with that in Wiki as opposed to stating something as being universally so when it is a national trait. Yes, it needed some sense of the RPI and a clean up. I think there are a couple of sentences in there that are worth retaining to make the point of the transition of records from luxury goods to commoditities. I'm not that wedded to the paragraph it to revert it though. Spenny 14:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

For most of the early to mid 1980's the typical selling price of an LP album was £6.99 (Ireland) or £4.99 (UK) "Welcome to the pleasuredome" (Frankie Goes to Hollywood) and "Make it big" Wham were the first (single) albums to breach this price barrier although some record shops would charge an extra 50p for "TV advertised" albums which sold in bigger numbers but had a lower profit margin.

Early Inventors

_ _ The text

Recording on disc as opposed to phonograph cylinder had been experimented with by such inventors as Charles Cros, Thomas Edison and Chichester Bell, but the first to actually develop usable disc record technology was Emil Berliner...

as the beginning of the "Early history" section turned up via the 15:01, 15 July 2005, revision in my search for WP instances of Bell's name, but he is no longer mentioned. That text was included for between 18 and 24 months before then, i.e., during its featured status.
_ _ The edit that removed it on 24 July 2005 is summarized "This is the new version, merged with Vinyl record for a richer, fuller bodied wikipage. You can always go back and get stuff if I forgot anything." That suggestion may be important to prevent the loss of significant-sounding material (well beyond what i have noted, one should suspect), that does not appear to be covered elsewhere in WP. (IMO, either the deletion of material should have been defended as a remedy for false info, or it should have been transfered elsewhere (and the transfer documented at both ends -- the new loc to conform with GDFL & this end to save wild goose chases for where it went.)
_ _ Some research required.
--Jerzy•t 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

These men, including Chichester Bell, are covered in the phonograph article history section. --Blainster 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

I have a great deal of old 78 records with no dates on them. How can I find out which ones have lapsed into the public domain. -Litefantastic 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

History of materials

I think it's worth mentioning the really cheap records you sometimes find in things like magazines and stuff like that. They're really flimsy, wobbly sheets of (usually clear) plastic, usually square, with the circular track as usual and a hole punched in the center.

I think it's also worth mentioning more elsewhere that 78's are not "vinyl records" (except for a few exceptions) since they're made of shellac that can be shattered. The article introduction makes it seem like "vinyl record" is a synonym for every kind of record discussed in this article.

- Corby 05:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

LPs, 45s, and the exceedingly rare, spoken word only, 16s are usually made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and hence may be referred to as vinyl records or simply vinyl.

Polystyrene is also widely used for making records. 45rpm/7 inch singles are usually polystyrene while 33rpm/12 inch albums are usually vinyl.

Polystyrene is less prone to accumilating static charge but is also more prone to distortion (not sure why)

There were at different times proposals for materials other than the usual vinyl, shellac, acetate or polystyrene for making records. Some of the suggestions included concrete, metal, paper and even choclate (so if one didnt like the record one could eat it !!!). World events often had an effect on the quality of materials used to manufacture records. WW2 lead to a chronic shortage of good quality shellac (in some countries unwanted records were collected and the material recycled to make new records with predictably awful results) the "oil shocks" of the 1970's resulted in thinner vinyl which was more prone to warping/wear. Many record collectors today find that their 1950/60's era vinyl is in better condition than their 1970's/80's vinyl. Improvments of the purity of vinyl in the 1970's made the records initally sound better (lower surface noise) but also more prone to accumilating static charge (in suceptable enviornments) which in turn attracted dust that was sometimes difficult to remove this often had the long term effect of making the noise on records worse.

The mention of flexible "soundsheets" used to be in there. Maybe it was lost when the vinyl record article was merged with the gramophone record article. Also, the composition is discussed under "Disc limitations". Unfortunately many editors adding things here and there has reduced the readability and organization of the article. It could stand some editing to re-impose some continuity, if you are so inclined. --Blainster 11:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's there, just not in the same article X_X I believe it's in Flexi disc. btw sorry for all the edit's i'm getting used to wikipedia :) --ThatFunkyMunki

The "soundsheets" were more commonly known as "flexidiscs" and were often distributed as "free giveaways" with magazines. Sound quality and useful life were rather limited

Records in the present day

I changed the heading of "Beyond the 1990s: Records versus the digital media", because it was inaccurate, and combined its introduction with text from the overall introduction and the first paragraph of "Arguments about sound fidelity". In the process I removed the following statements which I was unable to reconcile:

"... gramophone records continue to be made in limited quantities, particularly ... for local artists recording on small regional labels. As of 2006, most major releases still receive a vinyl release."

"Punk, rap and hardcore bands also often produce their albums and singles on vinyl."

I suspect that these statements were written based on specific experience and not on knowledge of the market in general. It would be good if someone with a broader view of the record market could summarize what kinds of releases are being made on vinyl today. Benhutchings 00:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Where can I get modern (released last month) music on records? Is there a website I can go to or something? -Litefantastic 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Try the likes of hmv.co.uk or amazon.co.uk. They don't seem to let you search by format, but the LPs and 45s are there if you look for them.

Here in the UK, a lot of major albums still receive a vinyl release, although "most" is probably pushing it! Recent figures for UK album sales show that 99.7% of albums sold are CDs, 0.2% are LPs, and 0.1% are "other" (cassettes, mini discs, SACDs, DVD-As, etc.) The sales figures for vinyl singles are far healthier, though - see the news item "British indie rock fans spark vinyl revival" at [2] 217.155.20.163 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Off-centre lead-out grooves on older records?

I've noticed that on 78s, the lead-out is almost always cut off-centre, so when the stylus reaches the locked groove at the end of the record, it moves continuously from side to side until you lift the arm or stop the turntable. I've seen this on some early LPs too (mostly British HMV pressings from the early 50s). Anyone know the reason? 217.155.20.163 14:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but all my 78s are like that too. -Litefantastic 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've since found out it was a means of triggering the auto stop and return functions on older gramophones - I'm a bit short on details, but it seems they had some sort of ratchet mechanism requiring a backwards action (i.e. pushing the arm away from the label). Presumably mechanisms like this were still common by the time LPs first appeared.

For what it's worth, 78 collectors use the term "eccentric groove" (or "oscillating groove") to describe this type of run off. 217.155.20.163 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Beatles 78's

"The Beatles recorded some of the last commercially-released 78's."

This sentence needs to be clarified, annotated with source, or removed. It's not true as far as I'm aware. Apple Records did put out one 78 record, but it wasn't of the Beatles.

I've removed the sentence. It was just tacked on to the end of the paragraph anyway. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, that sentence is untrue, but not for the reason you think! Much of the Beatles catalogue did in fact appear on 78rpm records - but these weren't the last commercially released 78s by any means.

This does need to be contextualised to some extent, though. As a commercially viable product, the 78rpm record was largely dead in Western countries by the end of the 1950s, but in some countries 78rpm production continued well into the 1960s (and possibly even into the 1970s).

In India, for example, EMI was still putting out 78rpm records as late as the mid-1960s, including 78s by the likes of the Beatles and the Beach Boys. The same was true of some African countries, I believe.

According to a few articles I've read, the 78 survived for so long in these countries because huge numbers of record buyers did not have access to an electricity supply - hence they were reliant upon their wind-up gramophones. That explanation may be apocryphal, but it makes perfect sense. 217.155.20.163 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember children's records being issued in 78 RPM format as late as the early 1970s, to be played on cheap record players used by kids. *Dan T.* 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatles on 78 yes its true http://www.tinfoil.com

Gap between tracks

The article previously claimed that the visible gap between tracks was called a "rill". I've never heard this term before, and it's unknown both to Google and to the knowledgeable folk at AudioAsylum.com, so I removed the reference for now. 217.155.20.163 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Metal?

I have an old record which is vinyl pressed onto a metal center, however, I notice there is no mention of metal being used as a material in this article. Also, many LPs have been pressed with Gold and Platinum materials covering them, however this isn't mentioned whatsoever. Anyone care to elaborate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Experimentation with medium

A section detailing the history of experimenting with vinyl may be in order. Boyd Rice used to purposely press records with off-center holes and locked grooves. On many occasions he made albums capable of being played at numerous speeds, including "Ragnarok Rune," which had one side of music and one side with a Wolfsangle symbol engraved deeply into it. Many rock bands have also used "Back-masking," both intentionally and unintentionally. "Scratching" could also be included. These are just a few examples; I'm sure there are more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)