Talk:Gramophone record

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Gramophone record is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2004.


Contents

[edit] Old discussion archives

[edit] Unusual types of gramophone record

I moved the disussion and listing of gimmicks and strange types of discs to a seperate article, Unusual types of gramophone records, as this article was getting long and that section was starting to bog what was otherwise mostly an overview of the subject down with trivia. -- Infrogmation 19:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough but what about putting a link to "Unusual types of gramophone records" at the bottom of the main article ?
It was there prominently at the time. If it has been lost in subsequent edits, it needs to go back; I'll put it there. -- Infrogmation 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] redirects and disambiguations needed?

You see how all this could confuse a poor traveler on the wikinet such as myself! The Phonograph page is extensive and well-written (IMHO) and links to this here Gramophone record article, but in a slightly obscure place in the sixth paragraph of section 4 ... it seems like it would be more useful to have this (dare I mention, "featured article"!) mentioned more prominently in that article. Perhaps a combination of redirects and disambiguations could be undertaken by a wikeditor more courageous, and more involved with this topic, than myself! Many thanks in advance, and thanks to all of the great contributions to this page, the Phonograph page, and the talk pages for both. ;^) -Tzf 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added redirects to this article from the redlinks. Others seem okay now with the possible exception of Gramaphone Records, article about the Chicago store. I added a link to this article at the talk of that page. However, as that article is an orphan other than this talk page, the notability of the store and need for that article might be open to debate. -- Infrogmation 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial commercial failure of 33⅓ rpm format

In 1930, RCA Victor launched the first commercially-available vinyl long-playing record, marketed as "Program Transcription" discs. These revolutionary discs were designed for playback at 33⅓ rpm and pressed on a 30 cm diameter flexible plastic disc. In Roland Gelatt's book The Fabulous Phonograph, the author notes that RCA Victor's early introduction of a long-play disc was a commercial failure for several reasons including the lack of affordable, reliable consumer playback equipment and consumer wariness during the Great Depression

Not strictly 100% true ! While 33⅓ rpm was a commercial failure in the 1930's as far as the consumer market was concerned it WAS adopted (for a time) by some movie studios using it as an alternative to "sound on film techniques" although it had more success in radio broadcasting where "transcription discs" were used both for archiving and distributing (non-live) programming to affiliates and overseas stations (78rpm records pressed on 12 16 or even 20 inch discs was a rival format in these applications) The 33⅓ rpm format was relaunched in the consumer market by Columbia records although it wasnt until the mid 1950's that it became a commercial success.

[edit] Close up picture of grooves would be nice

Has anyone got a picture of the grooves on a record, showing the various details, run in, run out, track separator, wave form visible in a groove? I couldn't get a usable picture with the camera I have.

[edit] Persistence of the cylinder?

I have the impression that I read somewhere that the cylinder format persisted in the South (southern U. S.) for much longer than in other parts of the country. There was an unstated implication that this popularity was primarily within the black community. Does anyone know anything more about this?

(Evidence that the black market was more or less distinct from the mainstream white market is provided by the 1920s phenomenon of "race records," recorded by black artists, marketed only to blacks, and unfamiliar to the white community at the time. These were, of course, discs). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the US, Edison Records was the only company still commercially mass producing cylinders in the 1920s. This was something of a nitch market of customers who had cylinder machines they'd bought years or even decades earlier, mostly in rural and small town markets. I believe at least from the mid 1910s on, all the new (not back-catalogue) cylinders were simply dubs of Edison disc records. Edison didn't make much of an attempt at reaching the "race records" market; that was pioneered in the early '20s by disc record companies, Okeh Records, followed by Columbia Records, Paramount Records, and others -- all standard disc makers. -- Infrogmation 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Magical Mystery Tour blurred out?

The legend could even have a link to the album... Why is that?

I don't know why the blurred it either. It can't be for copyright reasons, seeing how that would fall under fair use (you are showing an example of an album cover and LP, so it would be acceptable there), and also it doesn't fit in with the other pages for stuff like single and such. It probably was done in a moment of overzealous editing. If I had a camera, I would take a picture of a vinyl record I currently own and put it up, but alas, I have no camera.--THollan 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because the point of the photo is that it shows a vinyl record, not *which* vinyl record it is - blurring the cover puts the emphasis on the gramophone rather than the artist, yet still shows how they were packaged. I think it's quite clever. - DavidWBrooks 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's distracting. It draws attention to the fact that it is blurred out, and you wonder why it is blurred out. Essentially, people will see that it is an example of a vinyl record and packaging even if it is not blurred out. It over shadows the packaging and the record by being blurred out. I say we should ought to discuss whether it should be blurred out or not. Whose up for a vote. Mine would be for not blurring it out. --THollan 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
keep I like it the way it is. --Blainster 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody - ah, to possess such certainty - has bypassed the decision process un-fuzzed it, and I can't find the previous version. - DavidWBrooks 12:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the fuzzy version for now, and put a note in the caption referring folks back here. Personally, I like both versions and don't have a strong preference either way -- but given that it is being discussed here, I'd rather not see it changed out from under folks. zowie 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I see no point in blurring it. If you want to show how an album is packaged, then by all means, you should include the cover art. This actually varies from Tape, CD and Vinyl releases. By blurring the cover, we are simply destroying that needed element of the album packaging. Despite what the intentions may be, just showing a cardbox and a blank LP isn't really showing how it is packaged. One of the benefits touted for vinyl records is how it has larger artwork. Blanking that element of album art is something I CAN NOT GO FOR. Even though wikipedia is not a democracy, I won't be so bold to revert it to the original state.

However, on another note, the page Album uses that picture too. Either we unblur until we get this worked out for the sake of that page or give that page a new picture. Or else it just looks stupid. Frankly, I can't think of any real argument for blurring. --THollan 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the arguments as I see them -- feel free to add to the list...

[edit] Pro-blurring

  • defends against possible copyvio claims
  • prevents association of "Magical Mystery Tour" with all LPs
  • focuses attention on the LP itself rather that on which album is involved

[edit] Con-blurring

  • Distracts from the colorful packaging, which is the point of the illustration
  • May not be necessary -- after all, lots of other album covers are present in WP at 200-pixel resolution.
  • Annoys many

At the moment, I lean toward wanting a non-blurred image. Let's try to come to a rapid consensus here -- David, is there another reason for the blurring that I don't get? zowie 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that pretty much covers it - the question is whether the blurring succeeds in its intended job (placing attention on the LP rather than the particular album, while still showing how colorful packaging worked) or fails (causing such a distraction that it removes attention from the LP and pulls it onto the blurrification, raising questions that aren't answered in the article). I don't think copyvio has anything to do with it, for the reasons you said under "con". - DavidWBrooks 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that the blurring fails at the goal of not distracting people from the disc. I base that opinion on both the arguments we're getting here on Talk and the amount of image reversion back-and-forth. Given that, I think we're back into not-blurred territory, if you're willing to live with that. We also have the option of using another photograph - perhaps of several LPs, to show varietey. I don't think we should just show a "lone" LP with no jacket, because (as others have pointed out) the jacket itself is an important part of the whole "LP experience" even if it's not addressed directly in the article. zowie 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We need a picture showing everything - LP, 45, flexidisc, 78, etc - together, with applicable packaging. This is, after all, the gramophone record article - there should be pictures for everything. -Litefantastic 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here; what bothers me the most is that it doesn't even obscure the art -- everyone here knows it's Magical Mytery Tour anyways... aubrey 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any discussion for the last two days, and I now think I don't see any strong reason for the blurring. In particular, copyvio probably isn't an issue since higher resolution album covers are peppered throughout WP; and the blurring arguably draws more attention to the "Magical Mystery Tour" than would a simple reproduction of the cover. Does anyone want to step up and either defend those arguments, or introduce some more? If not, let's just put back the original picture and be done with it. zowie 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now it's 6-June and nobody has spoken up to defend "pro". I'm going to assume we've got a consensus here, and revert to the in-focus version. zowie 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking from the losing side, I'd have to say this is a dangerous precedent of discussing an issue intelligently and without rancor and reaching a reasonable consensus. If that idea spreads, wikipedia as we know it is doomed - DavidWBrooks 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degradation of audio quality

I removed the following text:

Degradation can be accelerated by playing a vinyl disk repeatedly in quick succession. The enormous pressure of the stylus in the groove — on a microscopic scale — causes the material to instantaneously heat up and become distorted. With time, the vinyl tends to return to its original shape. To obtain maximum life from vinyl records, audiophiles typically will play them no more than once per day, then allow them to rest.

I believe that the excised text is bullshit. Here's why:

Styli in hi-fidelity equipment are balanced for about 10 milliNewtons (the weight of 1 gram of mass) of force. A typical stylus contact patch might be something like 30 microns by 50 microns. The pressure is thus 6 megaPascals or, for Americans, ~1000 psi. That sounds like a lot, except that the plastic deformation strength of vinyl is more like 3,000-6,000 psi (20-40 megaPascals), quite a bit higher.

If the drag force is comparable to the down force, then the dissipated power from the stylus heating the record is about 5-10 milliwatts. The region under the stylus is exposed for about 0.02-0.05 milliseconds depending on the location on the disk. Worst case - the needle deposits about 5e-7 Joules on each contact patch as it goes over. Even with no conductive cooling, that will heat the disk by something like a tenth of a degree Celsius. zowie 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • That is so cool. At your discretion: why not paste it in in placement of the excised text? -Litefantastic 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why is the new picture's sleeve blurred out? I think either a plain picture of the record or an unblurred sleeve with an explanation would suffice. 207.7.188.108 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion two above this. - DavidWBrooks 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentance

In extreme cases, they can cause the needle to skip over a series of grooves, or worse yet, cause the needle to skip backwards, creating a "locked groove" that repeats the same 1.8 seconds of track (at 33⅓ rpm) over and over again.

How can anyone tell if it is 1.8 seconds? Couldnt it be different second amounts depending on the severity of the dust?

(60 seconds/minute)/(33.33 revolutions/minute) = 1.800 seconds/revolution. zowie 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I see. 199.224.109.217 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "Arguments about sound fidelity"

Not that the same problem doesn't exist elsewhere in the article, but this section in particular is a festival of weaseling. "Some audiophiles prefer..." "Some listeners were also disappointed..." "Proponents of analog audio argue..." "Proponents of digital audio argue..." "The 'warmer' sound of analog records is generally believed..." "Critics of compact disc audio have observed..." "it is believed by some that this might not be noticeable..." That's seven by my count.

Hasn't anyone got any references?

(Also, by this time, hasn't anyone tried any actual experiments to see whether ordinary humans are really capable, in blind tests, of detecting the difference between the signal coming from a cartridge, and the same signal after being recorded onto and then reproduced from a CD?) Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have performed this test with a SHUR magnetic cartridge and a nice belt-drive turntable, using David Bowie's album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars and the Beatles' album Abbey Road, both of which I have on both CD and LP. It is easy to tell the difference between the two, even after the soundstreams have been mpeg compressed to 160kbps. At least from my turntable and with 20-year-old records, the main audible cue is a slight rumble and soft popping in unprocessed audio from the LP. This is an effect I have heard referred to as the "campfire effect" and it really does sound sort of like a large campfire sitting behind the soundstage. (Perhaps that is why LPs are considered "warm"? :-) The campfire effect is so pronounced that it is a no-brainer to distinguish the sound streams when you hear them back to back.
I did the test because the Abbey Road CD sounded somewhat "flat" to me compared to the LP playback. I spectrum-analyzed some clips from each album, using Audacity. I did not carefully match up the soundstream in the time domain, but did spectrum-analyze the same 2-second clips to within maybe 0.2 second. The LP had slightly more response in both bass and treble, and in quiet passages the amplitude was proportionally higher than in the CD soundstream. This makes me think that some compression had been applied to both of the LPs during final, post-mix mastering, together with some tuning to make the sound more "alive" (whatever that means). I surmise that the CDs were created straight from the post-mix master tapes with linear digitization and flat pre-amp profile.
The apparent compression could also be due to the cartridge: like most cartridges, mine is slightly nonlinear in response: the output signal grows slightly slower than linearly compared to displacement of the stylus. That effect imposes a slight dynamic range compression on the ouput signal from nearly every turntable, and is why you have to adjust the anti-skating force properly to avoid distortion (if you get it wrong, then the compression fronts have a different gain than the corresponding rarefaction fronts). Based on seeing the wave form with and without correct anti-skating adjustment makes me think that strong passages are compressed by as much as 3-5dB with my rig; this is in addition to any compression that may have been applied during mastering.
I'm not an expert on psychoacoustics, but I also think that the "campfire effect" boosts the feeling of "presence" that people like about LPs -- particularly in quiet passages, the subsonic rumble seems to be a sort of "silent sound" that signals activity but that does not interfere with hearing ambient noise in the room as would an equally loud sound in the midrange part of the spectrum. Certainly the signal compression changes the "feeling" of the music, bringing faint sounds and passages slightly more to the fore of the music.
I don't have any references, only my "original research", which is why I haven't said anything about it in the main article. However, these results are pretty easy to reproduce, for anyone with a turntable and a sound-card-equipped computer. I used Audacity to record and analyze the sound. zowie 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You would probably have to go back to old 1980s HiFi magazines such as HiFi Answers (UK) to get some good tests. Essentially there are so many variables that a good blind test is tricky to do. For example, a small lift in sound level is more attractive to the ear so you have to get the sound levels right. Disks had to use compression due to the low signal to noise ratio - so the quiet passages might sound "better" just because they are louder. Modern CD re-releases do significant extra processing - I think the most stunning example I heard was Free - Alright Now where the drum sound was transformed - the original vinyl was soft and the remix was stunning. Spenny 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD "compression ratio"

I deleted the following text:

The CD compression ratio was developed by studying just how much information could be dropped during digitalization, without sounding strange. The MP3 compression was a further loss of information. Both to allow smaller computer files.

CD audio is not compressed in either the dynamic range sense nor the digital sense. The sample rate was determined as a nice harmonic of the video scan rate (the lower levels of the CD protocol stack are lifted from the older LaserDisc protocol; the CD sample rate of ~44 kHz is a small harmonic of the raster frequency of NTSC video. (11 data bytes per raster, plus some overhead, if I recall correctly).

Nearly every piece of hi-fi audio equipment in the U.S. cannot reproduce sounds at higher frequencies than 15 khz because of the decision to multiplex FM stereo at that frequency -- for cost and consistency reasons most consumer level pre-amps (even high end ones) drop like a rock starting at that frequency. The 44kHz sample rate of CDs gives approximately 3:1 sampling at 15 kHz, which is sufficient to preserve all phase information in sound that is band-limited to lower frequencies than that. That is (at least a major part of) why the CD sample rate was selected, not minimization of file size.

MP3 compression is a different subject entirely but is not particularly relevant to LPs. The CD discussion is an important contrast largely because of the ongoing debate between audiophiles (and the snake-oil salesmen who prey on them) vs. signal-processing experts over which format is probably "better". zowie 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I violenty disagree! If your "take" is true, then why is SoundBlasters, and others, promoting & selling PCI ADC cards for 24-bit and 192kHz, @ $250? And phono-preamp marketers promoting 20- 192kHz thru-put @ $300 (visit TRACERTEK.com)? And amplifier marketers likewise (visit MOTHER-OF-SOUND.com). Read about the promotions of audio editing programs, eg: GoldWave or CD Six. Look at their visual graphics of sound waveforms. Google search about CODEX, and the development of the CD and MP3 compression scheme, about DVD-A, org, etc. Read about high-end audio within Wikipedia. Ask a musician to listen to a record, a tape, a CD, a DVD-A of the same song, in the same enviroment and comment as to the quality, which sounds best. Heck, in late 1950s, I bought amplifiers whose specs were to 20kHz. PhonoPreams capable to 40kHz are but $200. AGAIN: all digital conversion involves SOME loss of information! How much is acceptable is different for each individual. Perhaps I should have used a different word than "strange" -- maybe "poor". CEM-BSEE 2 Jun 2006 6am. A quick review of articles which I downloaded for my best friend, a professional musician for 45y, and retired rocket engineer who was responsible for heat transfer and fluid flow systems on the trips to the moon, evidenced relative to DVD-A the statement that the recording equipment has 64-bit, 384kHz capability for soundwaves for the DVD-A having 24-bit 96kHz capability. If your statement that CD audio suffers no losses, then why is DVD-A even of interest? CEM-BSEE 6/2/06 7:30a.

Hmmm... I should perhaps have spoken more carefully. Most consumer-level hi-fi receiver/amplifiers have been band limited as I described -- I can't speak to professional recording equipment or audiophile high-end systems. However, in the context of vinyl enthusiasts, 15kHz is a reasonable cutoff. A 30cm dia. 33-1/3 RPM record has a rotation speed of around 0.5 m/s near the outer edge, or 0.25 m/s near the inner edge. A nice biradial stylus might have a lengthwise radius of 0.3 mils (diameter of 0.6 mils, or 15 micron), contacting the record for about 0.3 mils near the center. If the record is traveling 0.25 m/s, that is about 33,000 independent samples per second, with a resulting frequency cutoff of just over 15 kHz just from the stylus-record interaction. I do not know the shape of the styli used by the record companies to cut the grooves -- but it is possible that the groove contained higher frequencies. High end styli can be found with lengths as low as 0.1 mil, about 5 micron, which would permit 99,000 independent samples per second. At least one quadraphonic system used ultrasound to encode the multi-channel information, but failed because the ultrasonic portion of the signal would rapidly degrade with play.
Still, most consumer grade turntables sold for most of LPs' dominance simply couldn't reproduce frequencies at higher than 15-20 kHz tops. 44kHz sampling is sufficient to preserve all phase information at up to 15 kHz (about 3 samples per period).
My point is that, at least insofar as is relevant to this article, CDs aren't so bad. They match reasonably well the characteristics of the vinyl records that they replaced, in mass-market circumstances with typical hi-fi equipment. One can argue over whether phase information or ultrasonics are important to human hearing, but the gramophone article probably isnt' the place to do so.
I think the current text is pretty good, pointing out that many early CDs were not well mastered. Another point, covered elsewhere on the 'net, is that some kinds of poor mastering are much better tolerated by gramophone records than by digital media. Boosting sound levels too high on the medium is one such sin. Provided that the groove never intersects itself, vinyl records have excellent tolerance for high signal levels and only introduce small amounts of distortion with even very large signal (the distortion is usually due to slight nonlinearity in the cartridge; this is why you have to get the anti-skating force adjusted right for best playback). CDs, on the other hand, impose an absolute limit on total signal strength and sloppy mastering can make them clip the signal something awful.
One reason for a mastering/mixing company to go with 384 kHz sampling is that it eliminates a whole host of problems with entrance filtering and also allows higher noise levels in the A-D converter. Oversampling by a factor of 9 allows you to get away with a S/N ratio that is three times worse than you would need if you were sampling critically, and also prevents you from having to match the input filtering characteristics to your sample rate -- any artifacts are pushed safely up in to the ultrasound, where you can edit them out later in digital post-processing. With the price and speed of microelectronics these days, who knows -- 384kHz sampling may actually be cost-competitive with more careful treatment of the signal and lower rate sampling, particularly for a high end application like mixing/mastering. (However, I sincerely doubt that your friend's 64-bit, 384-kHz system is recording more than 16-20 bits in a meaningful way).
Of course, all that is sort of irrelevant to vinyl, which certainly can't match DVD-A for signal reconstruction :-) zowie 23:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Split out recording medium comparison?

Both the comments-on-fidelity section and the recording medium comparison section seem to deal with material that is not directly relevant to vinyl itself: quality of CDs, cassette tapes, and the like. It seems to me that these sections would be best split out into a separate article that is linked to from the main article. Comments? zowie 17:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly. This article is good, but very long and that could be a good element to segment out. 48v 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. -- Infrogmation 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Why hasn't this been done? Rigadoun (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. Kevin KBG (talk) 19:25, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SACD vs vinyl

I just reverted a few anonymous edits to the media-comparison section. The edits asserted that sound from CD and LP sources are different, but that SACD and LP are quite simialr in fidelity. Since the main difference between CD and LP sound is that LPs contain artifacts (rumble and pop) that are not in CDs (notwithstanding any high-frequency phase arguments) it would be foolish for the SACD engineers to produce a medium that sounded more like vinyl -- they would have had to add in artifacts that are not present in the digital medium. zowie 14:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinyl side naming and today's speed usage

Some vinyl records call the first side "A" and the second "B", while other vinyl records use "A" and "AA". Is there any convention behind this system?

Also, I cannot see the reasons why some electronic music singles use 33 rpm and others 45 rpm, although the music is structurally equal (approximately 8 minutes for one track on one side, dynamic range / bass usage similar among productions).

Thanks, --Abdull 10:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"AA" is a "double A-side" - there's an explanation in the A-side and B-side article. 220.157.85.81 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much for your help! --Abdull 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinyl in the present day - another perspective

The Business recently published an intriguing article about the apparent resurgence of interest in vinyl in the UK:

Back in the groove

Quote:

According to Rob Campkin, the head of Music at Virgin Megastores, vinyl is now outselling CDs when it comes to the latest records.
“Up to 70% of sales of new releases are vinyl. The fans of popular new rock bands like Arctic Monkeys and The Raconteurs prefer vinyl to CD,” said Campkin. “When the Raconteurs’ latest single was released, 80% of high-street sales were for seven-inch vinyl and only 20% were for CDs.”

220.157.85.81 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analogue disc record vandal

FYI: one or more folks using the IP of Travis Air Force Base have the really funny joke going on of changing the first reference to "analogue disc record" (see discussion above, from a long time ago). He/she/they do it over and over and over and over and over and over ... yawn ... so if you spot it, please revert. - DavidWBrooks 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should a ban be requested from an admin?
They use a number of different IPs - it would have to be a pretty widespread ban. We can live with it. - DavidWBrooks 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood you and thought it was a specific IP. 48v 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It used to be a single IP; only recently has the vandal started coming from a whole range of IPs at TAFB. zowie 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that some of these IPs awe in use by legitimate contributors as well and thus it would be counter-productive to block them. However, 4.243.176.199, 4.243.212.116, 4.243.179.50, and 4.243.143.122 have all been used only for attacks (some of which were signifigantly more offensive.) And most of them link to a talk page identifying the user. So perhaps these IP's should be up for blocking. I'm basing this on their user contribution and talk pages. 48v 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
One more incident this morning. Reverted. Please note that user : 'ThePatriots' was not one of the vandals, but happened to come between the anonymous vandalism and the title getting repaired. I did not revert his/her edits as they were legitimate. 48v 10:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Articles to be split"

I notice the "Articles to be split" category has been added to this article, but no discussion of splitting it is here. Should we split this article up into some sub articles? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I think that the "comparison of recording medium" table should be made into it's own page. Most of the formats on that list have nothing to do with phonograph records, and other pages might be able to benefit by a link to it. --35.11.141.49 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speeds

I changed the speeds reference back to the electric motor/gear ratio; the strobe wasn't invented until 1931. How can we change the non-US speed related content to not reflect a strobe and be accurate? DJLon 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Though perhaps some note should be made of the attempt by some labels, such as Columbia and Edison, to standardize rotation speed at 80 rpm for a dozen years or so up to the mid '20s. -- Infrogmation 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

gramophone record to record. Then move record to record (disambiguation). "Gramophone record" is rarely used, and our policy at Wikipedia is to use the common names. Voortle 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose -- "record" is just too general. Though I'd support a similar move to phonograph record, which in my experience is much more common than "gramophone" in both the U.S. and university communities in the U.K. (except when talking about old non-electronic systems such as direct-induction 78s). I can't comment on other communities. zowie 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- "record" is what most people would be thinking of when looking up record. Or move to phonograph record if this is unacceptable. --Lukobe 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- I agree with Lukobe. DJLon 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Per reasons I've stated above. Voortle 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zowie above: "record" is far too general. "phonograph record" is fine, though. - DavidWBrooks 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: "phonograph record" also refers to phonograph cylinder records as well, which is a reason why the more specific term is used here for an article on the disc variety. -- Infrogmation 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree that "record" is too general. And we have been through the debate over "phonograph record" previously. It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other. --Blainster 12:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the nomination as it is. Since the article for the player is at Phonograph, I would support a move to Phonograph record. But I agree with the others above that "Record" has far too many alternate uses. Kafziel 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Absurd. There are many types of record. "Gramophone record" is what the person who invented it named it. This has been discussed before. -- Infrogmation 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There being many types of records is not a reason to use such an obscure name for the title. Besides, we don't have any articles on Wikipedia about any other type of records presently, so it's fine. Voortle 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

gramophone record to record (audio). Okay, it appears that moving this article to plain record wouldn't do, as record has other meanings. I propose that it be moved to record (audio) as "gramophone record" is a very rare term and our policy is to use common terms. Voortle 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: "gramophone" is the preferred term in the UK and its former possessions, "phonograph" is preferred in the USA". It's just another English language variation, not "a rare term". Wiki policy states both are acceptable, and the original author prevails in articles where both versiona are applicable. This was debated and decided here many moons ago. --Blainster 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you look at the article history, those facts are not supported as clearly as you state. When Gramophone record first appeared, it did so as a redirect to Phonograph. The next version had an internal name of The Analogue Disc Record and was according to the edit summary a rework of Vinyl Record. So apparently Gramophone record was not the first choice. Vegaswikian 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose. The policy is also not to use parenthesis unless absolutely necessary. Again, I would support a move to Phonograph record, since the article for the player is located at Phonograph and it would make sense for them to match. Besides which, records can also be used for non-musical things like spoken word... and disco. Kafziel 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lots of LPs and such contain other things than music. But this is a good idea and I'd support record (sound) or record (audio) provided that gramophone record and phonograph record linked there. zowie 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the modified record (audio) proposal . While Kafziel has a good point that parens should be avoided, this seems like an appropriate case as we have both "phonograph" and "gramophone" camps and it appears that the two will not be able to reach a resolution. zowie 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Move to record (audio). I agree that record (music) is not the best title. I've changed the proposal. Voortle 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Record" is currently a disambig page providing a link here. "Record {audio)" would not be a meaningful change, just a change to the link on the dab page. The basic decision between phonograph and gramophone (USA/UK) was made long ago, and I see no reason to flip back and forth between them, either. --Blainster 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move to either Phonograph record or record (audio). The current name is simply too obscure. Vegaswikian 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - It's not "obscure" is the proper name for them. A phonograph is a device for playing cylinders while a gramophone plays discs and the word phonograph is "obscure" in Britain. Rutabega and zucchini in common with thoudands of other artcle titles are pretty "obscure" to pretty much everyone outside of the USA. Have a sense of give and take. Jooler 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Record (audio)" still ambiguous. It can mean the verb to record audio, a phonograph cylinder (also commonly known as a "record" in its heyday), or any other audio recording. (Certainly you don't mean to tell me that my compact discs are not "records" of "audio"?) We've been arguing over the title of this article for years-- I fear a "perfect" title that will please everyone is not to be found. "Gramophone" is very far from "obscure". If that is not what many people call it in casual conversation, note for example that the "telephone" article is not at "phone" -- there is nothing wrong with using a proper name in an encyclopedia. -- Infrogmation 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
<<If that is not what many people call it in casual conversation, note for example that the "telephone" article is not at "phone" -- there is nothing wrong with using a proper name in an encyclopedia.>> I have heard "telephone" zillions of times, however I have never heard anyone refer to a "phonograph record". Hence that argument doesn't fit. Even if there can be other audio records, the term "record" in audio usage is most commonly associated with what is described in this article. Hence, it's fine. Voortle 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"I have never heard anyone refer to a "phonograph record". " Ignorance has never been a good argument for anything other than education. Jooler 07:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying I'm ignorant just because I have never heard anyone refer to it as a "phonograph record"? How dare you. That certainly doesn't make me ignorant. I've removed your personal attack Voortle 23:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you were ignorant, I did not use that word and I didn't not refer to you personally. I was talking about the state of ignorance. Ignorance means the state of being unaware/uninformed about something - see our article at ignorance. This does not constitute a personal attack. You have already stated that "I have never heard anyone refer to a phonograph record" - thus you are displaying ignorance of that specific fact and as I stated above - boats of ignorance of have never been a good argument for anything other than education. Jooler 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Infrogmation is correct. Back in the days when these devices were popular, phonograph and phonograph record (in the USA) were words used just as commonly as record player and record. Methinks you just dated yourself. --Blainster 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Record (vinyl)  Record (gramophone, phonograph) (with appropriate redirects) but not to the ambiguous Record (audio). An interview recorded on cassette tape is an audio record. David Kernow 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC), amended 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: For the first 50 years of gramophone records, they were made of material other than vinyl. (This is one of the reasons why it was decided not to have the main article at "vinyl record" years ago. Deja vu.) -- Infrogmation 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the insight; have amended the above accordingly. Regards, David 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - We had this debate ages ago and 'gramophone record' was the outcome. No reason whatsoever to change it. Jooler 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see a lot of people saying, "We already had this debate a long time ago". So what? What does that have to do with anything? If you look at the vote, it was actually quite close between Gramophone record and Phonograph record, with a pretty strong showing for Record (audio). There was certainly no consensus. Just a vote which barely scraped by in Gramophone's favor. There's absolutely no reason why it can't be revisited now, and saying that we already discussed it is not a valid objection here. (For the record, I opposed this move above. But not just because it was already voted on once in the past.) Kafziel 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The only issue is that there has always been a very even balance between "gramophone record" and "phonograph record." There was consensus that it would be much better to use one of these names than any alternative; the only serious debate has been which one to use. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Gramophone is the name of the format, not a record. As record tends to be more general in use. Mr.Blonde 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then the article should follow the common name of record and since that needs to be dabed to record (audio) or record (phonograph) if audio is not acceptable. Vegaswikian 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Record (audio)" (or "audio record") is not a term anyone really uses, and the naming convention is to use the most common term. At one time I believe this article was called analogue disc record and, really, almost everyone agreed that it was better to use a term that was in actual use rather than one invented for the purpose of resolving cross-pondian differences. The only sensible titles for this article are Gramophone record and Phonograph record. I don't have any objection to creating Record (audio) as a redirect to this article if anyone thinks it will help; I don't. I don't think Non-compact disc or Spiral-grooved electro-mechanical vinyl disc audio reproduction format will help, either, but wouldn't object to them as redirects. Record is a likely entry, and it is currently a dab page with this article as the first choice, so that's fine. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • P. S. I once saw a test that asked you to supply names for each of a series of pictures of objects. After you identified it you would get points according to what you had called it. For example, for a certain device, "ice box" might have scored five points and "refrigerator" zero. The machine for reproducing sound electromechanically from an inscribed spiral groove was one of the ones that had the most choices. I believe "stereo" got the fewest points, "record player" more, "phonograph" more, "victrola" more, and "gramophone" the most When you were done, you added up the points and the result was supposed to be your approximate age.... in the U. S. "gramophone" being a term used only in the distant past. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


[edit] Increasing vandalism

There has recently been a new bout of vandalism, which displayed an offensive image many times. Myself, and someone else (via edit conflict) spent some time reverting all of this vandalism as it was so spread out. So, I ask two questions:

    1. 1 Is there an easier way for reverting vandalism that I don't know about? I have a feeling I'm spending too much time on it.
    2. 2 Should this article be considered for protection, at least qagainst unregistered users?

Thanks, 48v 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the British vinyl revival

As a follow-up to The Business article [1] mentioned above, here's an intriguing Sunday Telegraph piece about the increasingly healthy sales figures for vinyl 7 inch singles in the UK:

Why singles are top of the pops again

There's some interesting speculation that vinyl records could outlive the compact disc, which in the era of MP3 players and digital downloads is seen as an outdated 1980s relic. AdorableRuffian 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about sound fidelity

The article says "Since most vinyl records are from recycled plastic, it can lead to impurities in the record, causing a brand new album to have audio artifacts like clicks and pops. Virgin vinyl means that the album is not from recycled plastic, and will be devoid of the possible impurities of recycled plastic". I think this needs a source; pressed vinyl is pressed vinyl.203.129.40.188 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I think this section needs some Information Theory and Psychoacoustics light shed into it... that should put the argument to rest, giving us an actual veridict instead of a bundle uninformed opinions from both sides, giving subjective judgements on the subject.

Now, folks, please, don't let your medium of preference or comparisons between your favorite album analog vs. digital versions (in both cases, we talking about heavily processed audio and thus unsuited for such) get in the way... this article needs _SCIENTIFIC_ light shed into it, i.e., Information Theory (that says what resources exactly are needed for retaining the pertinent information) and Psychoacoutics (that says what does our ears and brain can or cannot hear) together with the description of the methods used in capturing sound should lead the way in answering the question of fidelity.

That said, I must add that although I am no expert in neither subject (being this the only reason that prevents me for correcting this section), I have little reason for doubting that Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) at 16 bit and 44.1 KHz (i.e., CD qualitity audio) is by far superior to records regarding fidelity, taking into consideration that:

  1. - This setup has a superior dynamic range (about 96 dB) than any record (actually, if I am not mistaken, that's more than the highest signal-to-noise ratio you could get with any sound capturing equipment);
  1. - It has _suficient_ bandwidth; that is, records have a much higher one, but we can only hear up to 20 KHz, and no harmonics above that, so that harmonic distortion of PCM @ 44.1 KHz on high frequencies (5 KHz and above) is quite irrelevant -- e.g., at more than 10 KHz your next harmonic lies above human hearing range ( more than 20 KHz), so even if you had the most distortion possible (only two bits per cycle), turning a sine wave into a square wave, it wouldn't matter, because: 1) you can't hear it 2) It's (analogicly) filtered out (low-pass filter) of the signal driving the speakers;
  1. - Digital audio is not affected by playback while analog media (gramophone records included) are slightly altered (eroded) each time;
  1. - Digital audio playback is almost pixel perfect, to the last bit, every time, always the same thing, while gramophone records, not only _not_ being the same thing (since it's slightly altered each time), have that hissing and popping as an inherent design flaw from the playing device (this doesn't actually concern the _medium_ fidelity per se, but surely makes a good case together with the previous arguments).

More on that, I would really like if you could get rid of the "warmy/fuzzy" kind of description... come on... that, as far as I am concerned, only proves the point I just made further, that people are not actually discussing _FIDELITY_ but an overall feeling to the audio that (ironicly) has to do with artifacts of the recording technology used, that is, things that aren't supposed to be there in the first place if there was all that fidelity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.199.96.10 (talk • contribs) 01:12, October 14, 2006 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I hold these truths to be self-evident:
1) During the period from, say, 1980 to 1995, when vinyl and CD existed in parallel, the variation in sound quality within each medium was far greater than the variation in sound quality from one medium to another. That is, throughout that period, the very best LPs sounded better than the average CD (and vice versa).
2) On one occasion, I played an almost new Telarc digitally-recorded LP and the same Telarc title on CD. My equipment was not high-end, but I think was in the lower ranges of "audiophile" quality: I was using a good cartridge (Shure VR-IV) and good headphones (Sennheiser HD 570). It was a very good recording of Fennell and the Eastman Wind Ensemble. I started them at the same time so that I could switch back and forth between them and almost A-B them, and normalized them to the same volume. They sounded very, very, very nearly identical to me. There was a very subtle difference in equalization, and even though the LP was almost new, there was a very occasional audible tick. Not a blind test by any means, but it convinced _me_ that the _intrinsic_ quality differences between LP and CD were not important to _me_.
3) I was never able to keep my LPs clean enough to avoid any audible ticks. For me, the presence of ticks is a _major_ issue and I've never understood why analog enthusiasts insist that they can "listen through" them. One tick in the silent space between cuts is not a problem. One audible tick in a quiet passage is a minor problem. Two ticks with a 1.8 second interval between them is a major problem. I've always thought the absence of ticks from dust was a huge, huge advantage for CDs. So is the total freedom from wow and flutter. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the popularity of Bose and other faux audiophile-grade brands with ridiculous equalization curves is indicative of the subjectivity of any discussion of quality. There are times when imperfect reproductions are perceived as more accurate than they are (MP3s rely on this) or of higher 'quality' (e.g., people tend to think anything with a lot of high end is 'clearer'). And then there's the tendency of the human brain to tune out some kinds of noise and minor distortions, and to adjust to compressed dynamics, stereo imprecision, and other features of analog encodings. So you need to make a careful distinction between measurably accurate reproduction of sound, and psychoacoustically perceived quality. When talking about people's preferences, technical accuracy is far less important than one might think.
That said, although the article doesn't quite phrase it the way I just did, I don't see any particularly egregious assertions or dubious comparisons; various positions are characterized fairly neutrally. The anonymous poster's suggestion that we seek "an actual verdict" is misguided. Wikipedia is not the place for drawing conclusions. That would be against policy. See WP:OR. mjb 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How common were styrene 45s?

Does anyone know which labels used polystyrene for their 45s, and in which countries they were issued? The only styrene records I've ever seen were U.S. Columbia 45s; I don't think any European pressing plants used styrene.

What kind of material were RCA's original 45s made out of? 217.155.20.163 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As to the original question about styrene 45's, it isn't so much which labels as which pressing plants used styrene. Besides Columbia (which pressed for a ton of different labels and companies over the years, in addition to their own product), there was Bestway Products, Mountainside, NJ; Shelley Products, Huntington Station, NY; Allied Record Co., Los Angeles, CA; Monarch Record Mfg., Los Angeles, CA; PRC Recording Corp. (formerly Philips Recording Corp. and before that Mercury Record Mfg. Div.), Richmond, IN; and (from 1979 to its closing in 1987) RCA's Indianapolis, IN plant. And that's that I know of. European pressing plants, to my knowledge, may not have used styrene, but they did use the process of injection molding which was associated in the U.S. with styrene pressings (whereas vinyl used the compression method of pressing). Up to about 1960 some LP's were pressed by Columbia in styrene, mostly low-budget releases (on the Harmony imprint), and the Shelley plant pressed their LP's in styrene until about 1967. Might that answer your pertinent question or questions? –Wbwn 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul needed

I just started rearranging misplaced material -- in particular, some dangling sections (such as "Progress, and the War of Speeds) didn't make any sense in the current structure -- and realized that the article is so far out of whack that it probably needs to be reorganized by some enterprising person. I am not that person today -- don't have the 2-3 hours to spare that a proper job would take -- but someone really should have a look at how the article should be structured -- it is currently a hash of ideas that probably doesn't even make Good Article status, though with proper restructuring it could be Featured level once again.

A suggested outline:

* introduction
* structure of a gramophone record (incl. materials & less common formats)
* gramophone playback equipment (turntables, disk changers, disk washers, laser styli)
* sound fidelity considerations
* history
* notes

I may or may not be able to get around to doing this in the next few weeks (less time for WP than I used to have), but it is clearly needed. zowie 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul needed - a suggestion

Perhaps we should give some thought to articles on subtopics or directly related topics, and whether some of the content of this gargantuan article ought to be farmed out to those (or vice versa)? The following existing articles are related to this one to a greater or lesser extent - this isn't an exhaustive list by any means, feel free to add to it:

Any thoughts? 217.155.20.163 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Functioning

How the hell do the damned things work? Why does vertical and horizontal movement create streo sound? All this is amazingly unclear in the article. 71.102.186.234 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well, it's not vertical and horizontal, it's diagonal up-and-left and diagonal up-and-right. Motion in one of those directions tweaks the left speaker. Motion in the other one of those directions tweaks the right speaker. That's all there is to it. zowie 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EP and LP in the context of CDs

Has anyone else found that it is not uncommon for usage of the terms EP and LP to be extended to CDs? I'm pretty sure it is fairly common to refer to a short CD (20-30 minutes) as an EP and by extension, though much less frequently, full length CDs can be referred to as LPs. Does anyone think that would be worth mention in the article, or is it maybe just a usage I dreamed up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmRadioHed (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


It is common, and it's mentioned in the Long play and Extended play articles. Rootless 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGramophone_record_57e0.html"