Jump to content

Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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 — ækTalk 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 — ækTalk 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. — ækTalk 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This redirect request was totally off target. Both phonograph and gramophone are somewhat archaic and out of common use. Here are some simple search numbers using exact text search filtering.
  • "gramophone record" - 783,000 hits
  • "phonograph record" - 637,000 hits
  • "vinyl record" - 8,890,000 hits
Both of the older terms should redirect to vinyl record. I do not know how to set up a vote, but this should clearly be done in my opinion. Jascal (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2012 (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)

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)

The science of cutting discs and reproduction. Vertical tracking angle, antiskate, the shape of arms and the two tangential points (geometry behind it), playback resonance, the physical movement of the stylus and corresponding voltage, etc. Very few people understand the science behind all of this and therefore do not know proper setup of a playback system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.163.111 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2011 (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)
On the plus side, it would be using the correct given name to the object, as opposed to the suggestion above to use "Record (disc)". I have never in my life heard anybody use the word "disc" in reference to a gramaphone record. HeyRick1973 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The device that plays either cylinders or discs is correctly named a 'phonograph'. The word 'gramophone' is (or was) a registered trademark of the His Master's Voice company of England (later Electrical and Music Industries (EMI)). The term 'gramophone' for a disc player passed into common usage in the United Kingdom, but the USA retained the word 'phonograph' even for disc players. The legacy can be seen today as the record pickup input on an amplifier system is usually labeled 'phono' (short for 'phonograph') on American sourced equipment (and Far East sourced equipment as they have largely adopted American English). 86.163.86.229 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Edison (whose opinion ought to count for something in this matter) patented both cylinder and disc versions of his early tinfoil-based device in 1877-1878, and he described them both as "phonographs". Decades later, when he finally conceded to the general verdict against the cylinder format and introduced his own disc-based system, he named it the "Edison Diamond Disc Phonograph", not "...Gramophone". Although both words are now generic, "Gramophone" (a word coined in the US by Emile Berliner circa 1887) was very much a trademark in 1901 when it ceased to be used in the US due to legal complications. I have read that in India a record player is known as a "patifon", a corruption of "Pathephone"—the Pathe company was the predominant manufacturer of disc records and players in India in the early 20th century. Even in gramophonic England, in early years, if a disc record manufacturer other than The Gramophone Company (which later became HMV) labeled their product a "gramophone record", a legal action for trademark infringement promptly ensued; in one such case in 1910, however, the word was adjudged to have become generic. These examples are added to reinforce the point made by the unregistered user immediately above: neither UK nor US (nor Indian) usage is "wrong" or based on ignorance or some irrational nationalistic obstinacy, they simply derive from whichever trademark happened to fall into generic use in that locale. With regard to the comment above by HeyRick1973, it might be noted that when cylinder record manufacturer Columbia added disc records to their line in the early 1900s each was prominently described on its label as a "Columbia Disc Record". I certainly have heard the word "disc" used in reference to 'gramophone' records in (relatively) modern times: "two-disc set", "damaged disc", "hot new disc from...", etc., and it is enshrined in long-established terms such as "disc jockey" ("DJ") and "discography" as well as in product names such as "Discwasher" et al. It does at least have the merit of being physically descriptive, unlike the unaccompanied word "record", which may correctly be applied to court transcripts, cuneiform inscriptions, electrocardiograms, documentary photographs, fossils, "the geological record", etc., etc. AVarchaeologist (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well said! Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 2 September 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)

I would like to second everything stated above by the refreshingly well-informed 78.26, with the exception that RCA Victor's early vinyl formulation was "Victrolac" (Victrola + c) according to the sleeves of the 16" pressed electrical transcription discs they manufactured in the middle to late 1930s (images of the sleeves can be found online), not "Vitrolac" as it is often spelled in latter-day sources. All of 78.26's information can be backed up by online sources, but because I prefer to cite specialized books and contemporary periodicals (all manner of nonsense can be supported by citing one or more of the error-laden web pages abounding online) I am not up to such a task. Will someone with more time to spare, and easier access to a large and long-established brick-and-mortar library, or an ample reference library of their own, kindly step into the breach?
In the interim, there is no Wikipedia rule which prevents an editor well-versed in the subject of an article from summarily deleting or replacing unsupported statements known with certainty to be erroneous. It might also be said that some editors fail to distinguish between "original research" as narrowly defined here and "research" of the commendable scholarly variety sometimes known as "studying", using verifiable sources, without which all the articles would have to be based solely on information that just happened to come to an editor's notice by chance.
The earliest generally known recording at 33 1/3 rpm is a 16-inch disc recorded from a WEAF line feed in mid-1925. It is a Western Electric/Bell Labs test recording made in the course of their development of both electrical recording and the film sound system which would eventually be named Vitaphone. References to it may be found online, usually due to Dr. Michael Biel, generally acknowledged as the foremost authority on early broadcast recording technology. I have personal knowledge of an earlier 16" 33 1/3 rpm Western Electric test, a proto-Vitaphone soundtrack disc dated 10-3-24 in the wax, but that is definitely in the forbidden realm of unverifiable OR. AVarchaeologist (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Which way around?

The introduction description of the article says "The groove usually ends near the periphery and starts near the center of the disc". The groove actually runs the other way around (contrary to many computer storage devices), which has had some interesting mechanical devices relying upon the behaviour of the inner groove, for "dismounting the read head" (cough, I mean, parking the stylus) or changing to a different record. HeyRick1973 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. My first thought was, "Maybe that's the direction they carve the groove?" My second thought was, "Hey, knucklehead, vinyl records are pressed."Daniel7066 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The original matrix is 'carved' not pressed - as you so eloquently put it!
Yes, generally, the groove starts at the outside and works its way toward the middle. But the practice was not universal. Pathe Freres[1] 'phonocut' (hill and dale) discs start at the middle and work there way out as did formats from a number of other sources including a few American sources and notably, a Philips offering where the record was played at a constant linear velocity (i.e. the rotational speed decreased as the record played).
[1] Yes: I know there should be accents, but I can't be bothered to include them! 86.178.176.25 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Digital Killed LP? What about magnetic media?

In the second paragraph, we find the sentence, "By the late 1980s, digital media had gained a larger market share, and the vinyl record left the mainstream in 1991." This gave me the impression that sales of digital media were what immediately followed the vinyl record, destroying its popularity. What about magnetic media? I can't help but think that the combined commercial sales of pre-recorded reel-to-reel, 8-track, and cassette tapes would have surpassed those of the gramaphonovinyLP... (disc) long before digital media hit the mainstream. That's what I remember, anyway. I admit that I do not have any sources to back that up, and maybe they weren't the nail in vinyl media's coffin, but I feel there should be at least a passing mention of magnetic media... for clarity's sake. Daniel7066 (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that magnetic media sales exceed those of vinyl? I for one don't believe it, largely because the cost of a vinyl disc plus a blank cassette was still less than the cost of the pre-recorded cassette. If you think this argument is invalid, then compare the same scenario with pre mastered mini discs. Pre mastered mini discs were typically £3 more expensive (in Britain) than the equivalent compact disc and the catalogue was steadily expanding throughout the 1990's. Initially blank recordable mini discs were around £12 each. As more manufacturers joined in making blanks, the price steadily dropped. As soon as the price of the blank dropped below £3, sales of pre mastered discs almost instantly stopped. This was, of course, because mini disc users could now buy the compact disc and a blank mini disc and copy one to the other for less money (and as a bonus had a CD as well). 86.178.176.25 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in the late 1980's album sales on cassette tape overtook vinyl. "At its mid-80s peak, it sold 900 million units a year, 54% of total global music sales". [2] Cassette tape was the most popular format until it was displaced by CD in the early 1990's. [3] You can disregard reel-to-reel and 8-track - sales of those formats had died off by the early 1980's. The popularity of the Sony Walkman (and clones) helped to drive cassette sales. Also, cassettte players were standard in cars until well into the 1990's. My memory is that the price of pre-recorded cassettes had converged with vinyl by 1985 at £5.99 while CDs were £11.99. I never understood why people bought pre-recorded cassettes when you could buy the vinyl album (or CD) and make your own on a good quality cassette. Perhaps it was simply a matter of convenience.
A couple of caveats: The retail price of CDs was up to 100% higher than vinyl in the late 1980's so the revenue of CD sales overtook that of vinyl a few years before the actual number of units sold. Also, sales of singles on vinyl or on cassette (in some markets) remained higher than CD singles until the mid 1990's.[4] Stanley Oliver (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What's with the Phonautograph Audio?

A phonautograph has absolutely nothing to do with records, as a phonautograph and a gramophone are two different things. 24.84.174.115 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

When the phonautograph sound was recently decoded—made into audible sound—the phonautograph suddenly appeared in many Wikipedia articles about sound-producing and recording devices. I think the additions, taken together, were too much emphasis on a very minor and previously unknown technology. I don't mind if the phonautograph stuff is removed from this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The phonautograph certainly does have someting to do with gramophone records. It is a direct ancestor: Emile Berliner's earliest gramophone discs were first recorded as "phonautograms"—the term Berliner himself used, giving due credit to the phonautograph's inventor (see the reference supplied as part of my edits to the phonautograph article)—before being converted into playable gramophone records by photoengraving or direct etching.
Although a wider awareness of the phonautograph may be due to the recent extractions of audio from 1860 phonautograms, the device has long been included in books dedicated to phonograph/gramophone history, from Gelatt's 1955 classic The Fabulous Phonograph (his topic includes the "gramophone", a proprietary trade name in 1901 when it was abandoned in the US for legal reasons) on up to the present.
I would agree, however, that more than a short sentence or two here, with the name linked to the main WP article, is inappropriate in this already bloated article. Certainly, a phonautogram audio file is badly out of place here. AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Update: removed the phonautogram sound file per the above, rewrote the relevant paragraph to at least be more accurate and informative if not shorter, then yielded to the irresistible urge to also do some fairly extensive correcting and overhauling of the rest of the history section. AVarchaeologist (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You inspired to me to do something about the longstanding fact tags. I deleted a bunch of text that I could not find support for... especially a bunch of material about ganged needles on two grooves for high and low frequencies, and the same for left and right channels. Whatever work was done in this direction never became mainstream, so I cannot see its worth here. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Genesis-Duke-LPpreecho.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Genesis-Duke-LPpreecho.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 12 January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

modern player for 16 inch record?

Is there a modern player available that can work with 16 inch 33.3 RPM LP records? I happen to have a few obtained as surplus, but they're nearly impossible to fit onto a consumer-grade player... there is not enough distance between the spindle center and the tonearm pivot. DMahalko (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Although this should probably be at the helpdesk, not here, there are a few places that sell these turntables. They're not cheap, though. I won't give the URLs, and I am in no way associated with these companies, but do a search on "Nauck's Vintage Records" and "kabusa". Also, the article Garrard Transcription Turntable may have some useful information. 78.26 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Time duration

How come the "Time duration" column in the "Common formats" table doesn't actually give the time duration? I guess it depends on a number of factors, but surely we could give a range or typical value in minutes and seconds? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Stereo Soundstage

About: "The stereo image is not made up of fully discrete Left and Right channels; each channel's signal coming out of the magnetic cartridge contains approximately 20% of the signal from the other channel. The lack of pure channel separation makes for a sense of diminished soundstage."

Is the above from a scientific reference?

Here is some reality to encourage sourcing a scientific reference: I had a stereo demo record which in part played jazz on one channel and classical music on the other channel. I turned off my right or left speaker to choose which performance to listen to. I noticed no crosstalk from the other channel. 30 dB of channel separation is enough to give the same impression as infinity dB of separation, because 30 dB of signal from the other channel is 1000 times less sound power; easy to not hear the classical when listening to jazz as in my actual above mentioned experience. With 30 dB of separation, there is no effect on soundstage, and 30 dB of separation was common with the better magnetic cartridges. If "20 percent of signal" was true (I assume signal voltage), that would be somewhat less, amounting to only about 14 dB of separation (only 25 times less sound power from the other channel), which indeed would affect the soundstage somewhat, but not much even then.

Listen to a stereo vinyl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3VaSFKf9to or search youTube: supremes hanging on perez

Listen to the beginning of "You keep me hanging on" by the Supremes. There is a mixer board stereo pan at the beginning. Headphones are even more impressive. One part of the pan seems to "shut off" one ear completely for a moment. Sounds like infinity separation, although probably about 30 dB as measured. At this level of separation, there can be no human disernable effect on the "soundstage". Ohgddfp (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I added that section back in 2007 after being on Wikipedia for just a short time, which is why the section has only two references (one Audacityteam cite and one Japanese website). These days I am a stickler for references—my style has evolved. Back in 2007 when I added the "Shortcomings" section I used books and technical websites as the sources of my information, guided by long personal experience with LPs and 45s. The main book I referred to was my 1987 copy of Glen Ballou's Handbook for Sound Engineers which was exhaustively complete for its day. I am familiar with how effective was (is) the stereo separation of LP microgroove records, and I agree the 20 percent figure is not very helpful. It would be better to describe stereo separation or crosstalk in decibels at specific frequencies. For instance, a 1964 review of a cartridge described its separation performance: "Subjective stereo separation is quite good, too. I am completely satisfied with the stereo effects produced by this cartridge. Measurements showed about -25 db at mid-frequencies, dropping to -12 db at 12,000 cycles. These are not the best separation figures I have ever measured, but I reiterate my complete personal satisfaction..." The American Record Guide, page 364. The Glen Ballou book talks about stereo separation for various types, so I will put that into the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Playback EQ vs Recording EQ

At one point the article says that treble is boosted to improve S/N. This is not so. Actually, during recording, treble is attenuated, not boosted. (This is done to avoid cutting head burnout.)

This misconception exists because people forget (or don't know) that magnetic cartridges respond to velocity, not amplitude. Given a flat (constant amplitude) recorded frequency sweep, output rises at 6dB per octave. The playback curve everybody's familiar with takes this into account. In the case of an amplitude-sensing cartridge (e.g. ceramic or crystal), the playback curve cuts bass and boosts treble, exactly the inverse of the recording curve.

We do have it right about boosting the bass to overcome rumble. But note that the magnetic playback curve boosts bass too. Once again, that's for the cartridge, which rolls off bass faster than the recording curve boosts it. Net result (recording curve * cartridge * playback curve) = flat.

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage Dave (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

note on 16 rpm and 45 rpm ep

The 16 rpm format was also used by labels such as Caedmon for poetry and plays due to the large capacity of records recorded at this speed and the lack of need for high fidelity. I have a Mercury 45 rpm "extended play" (as it says) record jacket that is 16" x 16".50.172.239.160 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

LP/EP/SP

The "LP − long playing, SP − single, EP − 12" single or extended play" is wrond, LP is Long play, but SP is standard play, the early 78RPM discs, this is why EP were introduced, the Extended Play could hold more music. EP is basicaly everything that is not SP and LP, most commonly the 7" 45, the 12" maxi-single, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.239.255 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC) I tried to fix it, but the edit was reverted. And if you need a source:[5] Page 2. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check more than one reference to see what the proper terms are. The term "Standard Play" was not often used for vinyl discs; it has much stronger established usage as the normal (fastest) speed of VHS tape, the other two speeds being LP and EP.
Regarding "Standard Play", here are some other references:
I regard the first and last books to be of higher authority, as the authors specifically talk about the term. However, you can see that our reliable sources contradict each other. Some say the "Standard Play" is a 78 rpm shellac disc made electrically. Some say the "Standard Play" is a 45 rpm vinyl microgroove single. There is no simple answer. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Constand misusing of clear terms, I own few shellacs AND 78rpm vinyl they have written on the Standard Play, the reason why it is called Standard, is that 78rpm became the standarized speed. as for 45rpm record, this is Extended Play (first source). The unfortunate thing is, that despite LP being used to describe Album, everyone instinclively know that LP is a 33rpm 12" (usually) vinyl record and Album, is a release of certain length (over 25 minutes in UK), but not many people realise that what they call EP is actually a mid-length Album, a Mini-Album, while EP technically means 45rpm record, LP, EP and SP are types of vinyl on the same basis, as CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, are types of Optical disc and VHS, Reel, etc are types of tapes, we cannot use those interchangably to retain the precission of nomenclature and clearance of database. I have been talking with many artists regarding EP/Mini-Album and all of them agreed, that they use EP to call short albums and LP for long albums, but this doesn't make those released physically LPs and EPs. As for SP, SP is Standard Play and Single is Single, SP is a type of vinyl, but Single is a general type of music release, not nessesarly vinyl, as an example [6] Both EP and Single are used, EP describes a type of vinyl (45ropm) paired with diameter and Single indicates that the release is a Single taken from an Album, in this case "Live at the End...", on which this track originally appears, the same with Mayhem's Psywar, the vinyl is called EP, because it is 45rpm, but the Psywar itself is a single (this is the reply the band gave me when I asked if Psywar is EP or Single). But unfortunately there isn't much tightness in the industry as I read your links, which makes me even more determined to convince people to user proper nomenclature. Beside, EP format is used mainly for Singles and short albums, but there are 7"LP Mini-Albums as well, perfect example is Magical Mystery Tour it is regarded as Album, while in the USA it was released on LP with bonus tracks, but it was released as set of two 7"EP vinyls in the UK, but still this is the same MMT release and this still is an album.
83.13.239.255 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing you've written suggests that SP is a term that applies to a 33 or 45 rpm record, nor have EP or LP ever applied to 78s that I can see... so by your terms, SP, LP, and EP are not all on the same axis the way they are for, say, VHS tape. And your "talking with many artists" is original research.
But in any case, it is not Wikipedia's job to "convince people to user [sic] proper nomenclature". It is Wikipedia's job to report on information found in reliable sources. If multiple equally-reliable (or approximately so) sources say different things, WP policy is to report what the various sources say. It isn't our job to pick one and denigrate the others. In this case, clearly those sources describe, and ample examples abound of, inconsistent use of "EP", so we should report that. Editors who are on a mission to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS usually have short, unhappy careers here. Jeh (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
So you mean I will meet a fate of Giordano Bruno, if I try to fix those terms? But seriously, LP is a Long Play, EP is Extended Play and SP is a Standard play, it is written on plenty of vinyl sleeves, and ALL of them have soecific connection to the speeds of 33rpm, 45rpm and 78rpm, on the sleeves it is written "78rpm Standard Play record", or "33rpm Long Play", etc, those ters (LP, EP and SP) are bound to their speeds, as created, patented and introduced by respective companies, LP by Columbia Records, EP by RCA and SP, well, I can't remember who standarized the speed to 78rpm to make Standard Play (this is why it is called Standard), it is common sense, not my personal research, those informations are even only based on what is written on wikipedia. Also, please do not mix vinyl types (LP, EP, SP) with types of music release (Album, Mini-Album and Single) those types can be released on various vinyl types, albums on LPs, EPs and SPs, Singles on LPs, EPs and SPs, etc.
SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The real world is less well organized than you wish it to be. The speed of 33 has been a single, the speed of 45 has been a single, the speed of 33 has been an EP, etc. There is not a one-to-one correlation of speed and the naming scheme LP/EP/SP. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A Single is a type of music release, not type of vinyl record, it can be released on CD, tape, standard play vinyl record, extended play vinyl record and long play vinyl record. An Extended Play record CANNOT be 33rpm, RCA created an extended play format as 45rpm vinyl record, 33rpm vinyl record is only a Long Play record as created by Columbia Records. There is one-to-one correlation of speed and the naming scheme LP/EP/SP, because basically this is how those vinyl record formats have been created for, 78rpm has been called Standard Play (SP), because this was the standarized speed, 45rpm was called Extended Play (EP), because it had extended playing time, than SP and 33rpm was called Lpng Play (LP), because, who would have thought, it can play LONG. There is exact and precise correlation between those terms LP/EP/SP and their speeds, because they are specific vinyl formats, developed by independent companies who patented those names. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Patented? Really! That's great for you: if you can come up with patent numbers you can end this debate right now. If not, please give it a rest. Jeh (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
btw - if a 33rpm cannot be EP, how do you explain this: [7] Jeh (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If I may, it sounds like there are obviously different interpretations of these labels. But perhaps one way to resolve it is to point out that some people use the terms to refer to the playing speed (LP = 33, EP = 45, SP = 78) which is akin to how audio tape speeds were noted. And some people use the terms to refer to the total playing time of the content (LP = full album, EP = partial album, SP = single). In other words, they mean different things depending on the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BB01:7427:C90A:283A:AC96:4845 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gramophone record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Equalisation

The section on RIAA is so laughably bad I'm surprised it's been allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.228.111 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC) The idea that RIAA was not adopted in Europe until the 1970s is complete nonsense and no evidence is presented for the statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.148.216 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassettes

This article says that Groove recordings 'held a predominant position for nearly a century—withstanding competition from reel-to-reel tape, the 8-track cartridge, and the compact cassette" yet Compact Cassette says "Between 1985 and 1992, the cassette tape was the most popular format in the UK". The cassette was invented in 1962 (after 1957) so it seems irrelevant to imply that it was any competition in the first century of vinyl records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tomato (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gramophone 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Less well known speed and size standards

In addition to the 16rpm speed (which really should be called 17rpm i.e. sixteen and two thirds rounded up) there was a very small number of spoken word recordings issues on "8 rpm" (8.3333?) discs [8]. There was even (at least one) attempt at a "3rpm" (4.167 ?) recordings [9]. 86.190.104.103 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Unusual types of gramophone records extensively covers the more unusual speeds and form factors. 86.129.213.73 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggest Vinyl records to have an article of its own

I reached this page by searching "Vinyl records". And altough old 78 rpm's also are build on analogue storing of music (usually), do I mean that vinyl records require an article of its own, based on a cultural point of view. The revival of especially LP-albums clearly shows there is a call for such an article. Between the late 1950's and mid 1980's (a 25 year period) was vinyl records the fundamental way to store music. Especially the LP's were something different from CD's. Music was in that sence something one was careful with. Millions and billions of people collected LP's. And the covers were something to look at while listening, with pictures and/or lyrics etc. A cover like Led Zeppelin's dubble-LP Physical Graffiti can't be done on a dull CD cover etc. None of these issues existed during the 78 rpm era, and they break extremely easy. (Vinyl records also last for a lifetime). I think there should be one article about grammophone records, but another as well about vinyl records and a third article about the 78 rpms Boeing720 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

dbx-encoding

Regarding the discussion of dbx-encoded disks, is it really accurate to say that "disks were recorded with the dynamic range compressed", as opposed to "disks were mastered with ...? But I though I would check here before making any change. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Gramophone 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gramophone 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gramophone 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2017

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.

Moved to Phonograph record. There is a consensus that the article should be moved from its current title, but not for the proposed target; the alternative has garnered more support (and, specifically, less objection). It has also correctly been pointed out that it would be technically to refer to all gramaphone/phonograph records as "vinyl", since other materials have been used to make them. bd2412 T 03:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Gramophone record → vinyl record – More common term. They're typically referred to as vinyl records these days or simply vinyl or records. RightGot (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. AusLondonder (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (2 October Edit: Phonograph record per information below) per common name and the rest (although the 'V' should be capitalized). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They are not all made of vinyl. The present title is broader and more accurate, so also more encyclopedic. Srnec (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article covers shellac discs and other formulations than vinyl. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    In that case why don't we go with Phonograph record, which already directs here and seems a more modern name than the old-timey term 'Gramophone'. Wikipedia uses Phonograph, a more North American term, so 'Phonograph record' would assure site-wide consistency. Looking at Google and other resources, even to this page, a 'gramophone' seems to usually be pictured in the old-time form. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Vinyl record per WP:COMMONNAME, and because "gramophone record" is positively jarring in its obsolescence. (I would also support Randy_Kryn's alternative of moving to Phonograph record.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Vinyl record. Support move to Phonograph record. Although Google Trends shows that "Vinyl record" is by far the more searched for term, per Srnec, the title is inappropriate as the article covers shellac records as well. Doing a Google Trends comparison of just "gramophone record" and "phonograph record", the two have recently had approximately the same search popularity, although the further back in time you go, the more dominance "phonograph record" had. Looking at the region map below shows why: "phonograph record" is more common in American English, while "gramophone record" is more common in British English (including India and Australia). As British-English-speaking countries, India in particular, have started making up a dramatically increasing portion of internet users, "gramophone record" has started catching up. However, since both the gramophone and phonograph are American inventions, and most of the development of them was by American technology and record companies, I would still have to give the edge to "phonograph record". If the search queries are inconclusive, we can also turn to the Google Ngrams report on the three terms. The ngrams show that, although "phonograph record" and "gramophone record" were close around 1900, phonograph has been consistently the preferred term in books. The term "vinyl record" didn't start being seriously in books until about 1990. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, because I don't much like either name. For the reasons pointed out by Ahecht, the old debate about gramophone vs. phonograph reflected the issue of preferring one form of English over another (i.e., British vs. American). And so we ended up with the bizarre result of calling the discs "gramophone records", but calling the device that plays them a "phonograph". I would prefer to go with the option that wasn't chosen back in that old debate -- call the disc a record (audio) (which currently re-directs to a disambiguation page) and call the device that plays it a record player (which currently re-directs to phonograph). NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phonograph 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move Gramophone → Gramophone (disambiguation) and redirect Gramophone to Phonograph. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

– A page named "phonograph" (the original invention) happening to include "gramophone" (a thing that used to be very popular during several decades) is highly unfortunate. I am suggesting to rename "Phonograph record"->"Gramophone record" and convert the disambiguation page "Gramophone" to a primary topic. See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Page_"Gramophone"_is_badly_needed oldid Taylor 49 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Taylor 49 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now: The nominator has not provided a comprehensible rationale. Why should these moves take place? Also, one of the suggestions is to "move part of contents". This seems like it might be more of an article content suggestion than a requested renaming of an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Gramophone" moving to "Gramophone (disambiguation)" with "Gramophone" redirecting as a primary redirect to Phonograph. No comment on the others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean that there should be 2 separate articles, one for "Phonograph" (the original invention) and one for "Gramophone" (the device popular during many decades). There are multiple ways to achieve this, but none without controversial moves:

Please see the linked Wikipedia:Teahouse#Page_"Gramophone"_is_badly_needed containing a rationale. Repeating it here:

  • the article about the player should use same terminology and the article about the media (disc/record)
  • wikipedias in all (or at least most) other languages have succeeded to distinguish "Phonograph" from "Gramophone"
  • none of the alternative terms is acceptable:
    • "phonograph" cannot be the primary term for "gramophone" since it is the original invention using a cylinder (not a disc)
    • "vinyl" cannot be the primary term for "gramophone" (gramophone record / gramophone technology / ...) since it is the primary term for something else: vinyl, it is incorrect ("poly" and "chloride" parts in Polyvinyl chloride are important), the gramophone technology had been around for several decades when manufacturers started using Polyvinyl chloride as material to make gramophone records, and the term "vinyl" apparently got popular only after Compact disc was introduced and the gramophone industry was already decaying
    • "LP" cannot be the primary term for "gramophone" (gramophone record / gramophone technology / ...) since it is a subclass of gramophone discs and the gramophone technology had been around for several decades when manufacturers introduced "LP"
    • "record" is a bad candidate as the primary term for "gramophone" (gramophone record / gramophone technology / ...) since it has 17'000'000 meanings (5 on wiktionary for now) and sound can be recorded in 17'000'000 ways (physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder, physical deviations of a groove located on a disc, track on a film, magnet tape, digital data on a hard disk, digital data on flash/SSD/portable player, ...) and only one of them is "gramophone"
    • "turntable" is a bad candidate as the primary term for "gramophone" (gramophone record / gramophone technology / ...) since it has further meanings (most notably Railway turntable) that had been around for some decades when gramophones became commercially relevant

Thus the term "gramophone" is best (Deciding_on_an_article_title: Precision Conciseness Consistency) despite its usage has declined in favor of a large amount of more fancy/slangy terms (vinyl, phonograph, LP, turntable, record player, ...). Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited (as well as unproven and false) Statement

I just removed the following text: "Records may be scratched or warped if stored incorrectly but if they are not exposed to high heat, carelessly handled, or broken, records have the potential to last for centuries". This statement was uncited, and it also can't be proven (the "lasting for centuries" part) due to the fact that phonograph records were only invented in the 30's. Not just that, but it's false as well. My copy of Shadow Dancing is 42 years old, stored correctly, handled properly, and yet the skipping and static is awful, not to mention the endless loop at the beginning of the last chorus refrain of "An Everlasting Love". But if anyone can find a citation, or prove that statement is true, feel free to put it back in the article. ☶☲SouthernKangaroo☶☲ (☎) 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Westrex?

Westrex isn't mentioned, yet there is any interesting article on their efforts regarding 45/45 recording: www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_03-1975_westrex.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.152.175 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

LP vs Cassette

In the article there's a section comparing the LP and the CD. I believe there should also be a section comparing the LP and the cassette, considering the cassette was a widely used audio medium. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Phonograph record

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Phonograph record's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gracyk":

  • From Phonograph cylinder: Gracyk, Tim (2006). "Phonograph Cylinders: A Beginner's Guide". Tim's Phonographs and Old Records. Retrieved 2018-01-12.
  • From Leon Douglass: Gracyk, Tim. "Leon F. Douglass: Inventor and Victor's First Vice-President" Accessed July 13, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Phonograph record → Vinyl record – WP:COMMONNAME, Vinyl records has around 3 to 4 times the amount of search results and articles as phonograph records does. I believe vinyl is mentioned much more in article titles as well. In terms of the records themselves and not the device that they are played on, vinyl has become the common parlance. Swordman97 talk to me 07:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - "vinyl" only refers to modern records made from that material. This rename would confusingly limit the scope of the article. -- Netoholic @ 11:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per previous, substances other than PVC have been used to make phonograph records, not seeing any WP:SECONDARY provided to support the "common parlance" suggestion, need to make a better case. Acousmana 12:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above comments. The term "Vinyl" as applied to Phonograph recording technology is a RECENTISM that has only come into common use in recent years to distinguish high fidelity recordings produced using the older analogue technology from newer digital technologies such as compact disks and streaming services. The term "Vinyl record" is more exclusive and only seems to apply to more recent recordings and does not seem to apply to all types of phonograph records made from vinyl, nor other types of phonograph records. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phonograph_record/Archive_5&oldid=1162412981"