|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LP record article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Average tangential needle speed
The average tangential needle speed relative to the disc surface is approximately one mile per hour according to the article. Averging over a radius from 15 to 7 cm we get 1.382300768 km/h or 0.383972435 m/s, which is about 1 mph. Jimp 06:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone here needs a lesson in doing calculations and giving results using significant figures. 1.38 km/h or 380 mm/s, neither of which is close to 1 mi/h or 447 mm/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ametrica (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Album or LP
What is the essential difference between a LP record and an album? If there isn't one, then the articles should be merged. If there is one, then that should be described. What, for Wikipedia purposes, is the distinction between LP record and Gramophone record? I'm wondering if LP record is stuck between describing album and Gramophone record, and if so, should the article be refocused, or should it be merged? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- An album is a collection of tracks that could be physically on an LP, CD, cassette, 8-track, minidisc, etc. An LP is a vinyl record, and one type of gramophone record, that usually contains an album. --Michig (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Michig. An "album" of recordings was originally a set of 78s packaged together like a photograph album. The fact that the word was used colloquially, later, as synonymous with an LP or CD is certainly deserving of mention, but doesn't warrant any merging of articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
An album can be made up of one LP record, a pair of them (a Double Album), three (a Triple Album), etc., or as was said above, could be music released on other formats such as CD or cassette. An LP record is just that. One Long-Playing record. A single lump of plastic. A Gramophone record is not necessarily an LP. A gramophone record is playable on a gramophone, but that doesn't carry with it the long-playing aspect. 45RPM and 78RPM records are both gramophone records, but are of short duration, therefore not LPs Musicfan1353 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Does all of the above get solved by merely changing the first sentence of the introduction from "This article is about vinyl or gramophone records. " to "This article is about the long-playing (LP) vinyl record, a type of gramophone record. " ??? Musicfan1353 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see that as a problem. We are not talking about the article itself here - we are talking about the hatnote at the top of the article, which is only there to point readers to the right article if they arrive here by mistake. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
it might be time to update the last sentences of this section, specifically
- "...by the early 1990s the CD had definitively succeeded in toppling the LP from its throne." and "...a modest renewed interest in vinyl has developed and the demand for the medium has been on a steady increase in niche markets, particularly among audiophiles, DJs and fans of indie music. However, the vast majority of recorded music sales are of compact discs and downloadable digital audio files, because of their greater convenience of use, generally cheaper prices and wider availability."
in 2016, vinyl dominates existing bricks and mortar stores, which are themselves a niche market ... whether or not this is a fad is debatable but the record companies and stores are clearly exploiting the demand while it exists ... there are plenty of articles on the "vinyl revival" in the mainstream press that could be used as citations, including info on new and old pressing plants ... J Edward Malone (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- It probably is time to update it, but please note that hard facts (numbers) and good references will be needed. And we need the format-independent numbers to put the LP numbers into context. (As an example of what we don't want, the popular press is fond of raving e.g. "sales increased by 40%!" when they increased from 10 units per year to 14.) Jeh (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Like a broken record
This. Ought be difficult to prove one way or the other, but I would suspect the record referred to in this simile is in fact a 78, not a vinyl record. Vinyl records do not very easily break, although it is easy to scratch one. Shellac records are rather easy to crack or break, and if you have a record that remains on one piece but has a crack, it will skip. I guess you could call a severely scratched vinyl as being "broken", as sometimes "broken" is used as a synonym for "defective", but I remember this saying from as far back as the early 1959s, when 78s were still quite common while vinyl was more of a niche market. Wschart (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Except that this simile does not refer to a record that has been physically broken into multiple pieces. (You're right about that being far easier to do to a 78 than to a vinyl LP... you can bend the latter practically double... 45s are almost as easy to break as 78s.) When someone is accused of "sounding like a broken record", it means they are repeating the same thing over an over.... like a record with a scratch in it that pulls the stylus back a few groove-widths, so that short section of the material, one or a few revolutions' worth, repeats over and over. Given how soft the vinyl LP is, together with lighter tracking forces and much shallower grooves than the 78, this was much easier to do on an LP (or a 45) than a 78. It doesn't require a crack. Jeh (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I recently made an edit regarding this matter, but just now belatedly discovered this discussion. My edit added a parenthetical noting the precedent of a cracked (rather than simply scratched) shellac 78, as it seemed readers might otherwise be puzzled about why a merely scratched record could be called "broken" in the simile. The expression certainly goes back to the shellac era: there was a now-obscure popular song in 1936 entitled "The Broken Record" (lyric excerpt: "My Sweetheart, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous tonight / That's a song I heard on the phonograph / The needle caught on the broken half / And kept playing..."), waxed by at least a half dozen bands ranging from Guy Lombardo to Red Norvo and Wingy Manone. Relevant OR: it takes one hell of a scratch or divot to cause the steel needle in the very heavy pickup of a typical prewar record player to jump outward from the beefy groove it is playing and repeat. In my experience, skipping ahead is almost always the journey made by a needle thus momentarily dislodged. An open crack, especially a break resulting in misalignment across the fracture, is a far more likely cause. I sometimes get the impression that many writers, including collectors who ought to know better, are falling into the error of contemplating vintage phonographic technology through the lens of their own experiences with semi-permanent styli (which do not wear out in the course of playing one side of a 16" shellac disc) and featherweight pickups that can get bounced by a lead-footed stroll across the floor or a fleck of crud in the groove. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think calling a record that skips "broken" requires that it be physically cracked. It's "broken" as far as correct functionality is concerned, right? Anyway, the current text (as last edited by .154) seems to address both usages and the historical connection between them, so that seems fine to me. Jeh (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Emory Cook's binaural LPs
I do believe that Cooks binaural records belong in this article as they are the first commercially available two channel recordings on disk but some of the details are inaccurate.
Here's the text: "Emory Cook's 1952 idea of using two tracks, and a system using vertical modulation (harking back to Edison's 1877 experiments) for one channel and (then-universal) horizontal for the other".
I believe that there are two issues here (although perhaps only one is inaccurate).
The two channels on Cook's binaural disks are recorded with different equalizations but both are horizontal. A Cook binaural tonearm (such as that manufactured by Livingston) simply required two standard cartridges. For more detail see the discussion in the Cook Records entry.
Also, Edison's disks were successfully marketed for a number of years (1912-1929) and were cut vertically (hill and dale) so I don't know that characterizing the method as harking back to his experiments gives the right impression (although this is, of course, accurate).
I'd have changed this but I thought that the original author may want to investigate and change.
- You are correct, I have a few of these discs. I'm not sure where the vertical modulation came from. (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- RichardBeckwith Actually, I'm pretty sure the vertical/horizontal system is referring to a system that is independent of Cook's, at least that's how I read the sentence ("...and a system..."). I'd leave it alone for now, but if no references can be found for this system (I've not heard of it, did it ever see commercial production?) then it should be removed. (spin me / revolutions) 18:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice to know someone else owns some of these. I have a few myself. I have a thing for obsolete technology so I have collected a bit of Cook-binaural equipment over the years and have interacted with others about this. imagine that I'd have heard of another format if it existed. This is especially the case since it would suggest a different style tonearm and I have spent an embarrassing amount of time obsessing about tonearms. As a consequence, I am fairly certain that there are no disks quite like those described. It is certainly the case that there are no tonearms that have ever been manufactured for playback (which, oddly enough, I'll admit doesn't mean that the disks were never made). I wonder if this description is not a kind of permutation of the description of standard Westrex-style stereo, which essentially combines the vertical and lateral (as noted later in the paragraph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBeckwith (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LP record. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/market/releases/statover.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609184049/http://audacityteam.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=102&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&view=print to http://audacityteam.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=102&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&view=print
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.