Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Berliner details

No, 82.82.125.42; Berliner was FROM Hanover, but he developed the Gramophone while in Washington, DC according to every source I can find, including the LOC link at the bottom of the page; see also chapter 10 of "From Tinfoil to Stereo" The Advent of Discs.

I also cut the sentance:

" The mass production of shellac records began in 1898 in Hanover, Germany. "

For all I know off hand this may be so, but as much of 82.82.125.42's other changes are wrong, I'm removing it pending a source or confirmation. -- Infrogmation 02:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

82.82.125.42 sites http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/geschichte/index_emil_berliner.html Infrogmation 03:05, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shellac

Shellac is not a urea-formaldehyde resin. It's a product made from the shields of a particular species of insects that live in India. And yes, shellac records were not made of pure shellac, it was mixed with other ingredients (minerals, cotton fibers etc) depending on the manufacturer.

I removed the phrase "urea-formaldehyde resin" from a rather brittle urea-formaldehyde resin formula known as "shellac". Someone (maybe you or me) should do an article on shellac some time. IIRC, Columbia's discs for years contained a core of asbestos. -- Infrogmation 20:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ut! There already is a shellac article! Hurrah for Wikipedia! -- Infrogmation 21:11 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've clarified that the "shellac" in records was both resin & fiber (which I didn't know; thanks for the info). JHCC 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Titling this article

"Analogue Disc Record" is a really bad title. Can we call this either "gramophone record" or "phonograph record" (I don't care which), and redirect the other here? -- The Anome 11:02 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hm. "Phonograph record" would give possible confusion with the phonograph cylinder, while "gramophone record" would be disconcerting to speakers of American English (who, if they recognize the word "gramophone" at all, tend to think of it as something from the very early days of wind-up phonographs). I tried to give the article the shortest title which would be precise. Part of the problem is that many of the most commonly used terms "record" and "album" are ambiguous. I don't think that the title for the article is particularly dreadful as long as there are links to it in other places that people might look for such information. Other suggestions, however, are still welcome. -- Infrogmation 18:08 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

While discussing how to call this page, let's not forget that this is a great article. Never mind the title. --KF 20:39 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

"A 33-rpm 7-inch was known as an "EP" (extended play), with 2 or 3 songs per side"

Hmmmm... they were also 45rpm EP isn'it ? Ericd 11:07 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

ONLY 45, I thought... see note at bottom. Dpbsmith 14:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Analogue disc record!? What bright spark thought of that as a title? and thought it would appease American English speakers? Don't most American English speakers use "analog" and "disk"? What's wrong with calling it what the rest of the world calls it gramophone record? A phonograph is the cylinder thing anyway!. Can gramophone record upset American English speakers more than Analogue disc record? (ANON)

• Google "phonograph record" = 10800
• Google "gramophone record" = 2890
• Google "analogue disc record" = 18

Speaks for itself. Given Infrogmation's point about potential confusion with the cylinder, best to put it under "gramophone record". I'll take care of that shortly. Tannin 11:28 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

With phonograph (American English usage) being the top hit, perhaps "Disc phonograph record"? I don't think that sounds much better though. "Gramophone" is not a familiar word at all to most American English speakers; it never caught on as the term for a disc phonograph in the USA. Again, "analogue disc record" or some variation of that, has the advantage of being a specific technical term, neither the common UK or USA term, but unambiguous. With redirects from other terms and explanation at the top of the article I don't find it objectionable. Now I've said my piece, and will go with the consensus. -- Infrogmation 15:39 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

When you say gramophone in Britain most people will think of windy up old boxes and not modern record turntables, and the phrase gramophone record isn't really in common usage these days, but it's technically the correct term as a phonograph is Edison's cylinder device. The word phonograph is unknown in Britain except in its historical context. Mintguy 15:46 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I still think this should be moved to gramophone record Analogue disc record is just soooo bad, and at least the word gramophone is an accurate description (unlike the more generic phonograph), if a little arachaic. Mintguy 22:06 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If Wikipedia used British English as it's standard, I'd support that. However in American English "gramophone" is not merely archaic, it was a brand name that disappeared from the market in 1901. It never was the common term for disc records. Early on "Gramophone records" were considered a subset of Talking-Machine records or Phonograph records; both of the later terms applied to both discs and cylinders in US English.

Other possibilities if it must be moved:

1)Phonograph record. As noted above, this is by far the most common and popular term as shown on google. The first paragraph could note that this talks about the analogue disc varieties, and that phonograph cylinders have thier own seperate article. How objectionable or counter-intuitive is this to native speakers of British English?

2)Disc record. This is a historically documented term; the first parapgraph could note the seperate article for compact discs.

Others? "Talking machine disc records" had some historic use, but sounds needlessly archaic in American English; was the term "Talking Machine" ever commonly used at all in British English? What else? Wondering spinningly, -- Infrogmation 22:41 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

's'in a name? crap by another name'd smell as bad =) But surely the logical name would be phonogram. (Logic having nothing to do with English, phonograms are Something Completely Different.)

My father had—maybe still has—a player w/the "16" speed on it, and dusty memory tells me the actual speed was 16 and some fraction.

We could be really silly and list the musical intervals approximating the manifold speed ratios =) — Kwantus

PS: Didn't extended play actually refer to groove spacing—instead of a fixed pitch, it was wide and narrow as the content was loud or soft—?

I'm going to press again for this page to be moved. I'm sorry but "Analogue disc record" is just a bloody awful. Gramophone record is 100% accurate; it is distinctive from phonograph cylinder; it is known in almost every part of the world. Although it an archaic word, so is the medium itself. Whilst not common in the US it is not unknown, after all 'The Grammy awards' are short for 'The Gramophone Awards'. Mintguy 12:07, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I support the move to Gramophone record. Despite the fact it was once a trademark in the US, it was so short-lived and now such a generic term anyway I don't think that small fly in the ointment should stop the article from being moved. GRAHAMUK 12:12, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As I said months ago, I'm happy to go with the majority decision. Repeating unanswered questions: What's wrong with "phonograph record" (with the phonograph cylinder disambiguated early in the article? As someone pointed out a while back, that is overwhelmingly the #1 hit on google. Is that "bloody awful" for British English speakers as well? Also, if you insist on "gramophone record" I'd like to see some support from American English speakers before the move. Some feedback by US folks, please? -- Infrogmation, who trys not to be infavor of bloody awful things.

When I see gramaphone records I automatically think 78 rpm and heavy fragile disks. I can't even spell it right, I see now. Rmhermen 22:55, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Phonograph record is not "bloody awful" for Brits, at least not this one - but it doesn't quite convey the same object (to me at least), even though I know it is! Gramophone record just sounds more familiar I suppose, if a little old-fashioned. Why don't we go with both, make one a redirect to the other? That way, whatever your pet term, you'll find the article, which is really what matters. I guess the reason most of use think of fragile old 78s with the term "gramophone" record (or phonograph record for that matter), is because as long as I was growing up, it was simply a "record". That was the primary meaning of the term. I guess that era has now long passed, and anyway it's too late to make it the primary use of the term "record" on WP, so we are forced to go with a more archaic term. However, I don't think "analogue disc record" is a good alternative either, since it's a bit too wordy and doesn't lend itself so well to actually locating the article from a search. GRAHAMUK 00:03, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The current lead sentence of the article: An analogue disc record is a type of sound recording medium, commonly called a gramophone record in British English or a phonograph record in American English. ... and it is called an "analogue disc record" by no one. So let's change it. I think my fellow Americans are avoiding insisting on "phonograph record" because of a misplaced embarassment about our cultural imperialism, but like it or not the American hegemony is something of a fait acompli (look at the google numbers again). So let's just call it a "phonograph record" already, and turn the other names into re-directs. -- Doom 06:39, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't fall foul of trying to use Google hit counts to justify American usage. Google hit counts for particular usage only indicate that there are more pages in the United States of America than in the rest of the world, and nothing else. Mintguy (T) 10:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And please don't quibble about a rough metric unless you sincerely believe the metric is pointing in the wrong direction. Are you trying to tell me that the bulk of the english-speaking world *doesn't* favor American usage? -- Doom 23:27, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. Both words are archaic, but AFAIK it is only in the North America that "phonograph" is more commonly used to refer to the disc device. The rest of the world usually refers to the disc as a gramophone, whilst phonograph refers to Edison's cylinder device. Mintguy (T) 01:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at population figures for countries where English is the first language, the US clocks in at 293 million, and the rest of them combined are less that 80 million. In any case, this is a pretty silly argument: the google numbers almost certainly reflect the current population likely to be reading the wikipedia. -- Doom 00:38, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

If I've understood your analysis correctly, you appear to be implying that there is a direct correlation between google hit counts for a particular phrase and its worldwide usage because the only people who can read web pages written in English are people who live in a country where English is the first language and who have themselves already published a page on the web. I hope you can see that there is a flaw in this argument. Mintguy (T)

The point is that the google numbers reflect the terminology of the people on the web who care about this subject enough to put up web pages on the subject. Whatever flaws exist in this argument, they would have to be *huge* flaws to tip things back in you're direction. Look at the magnitudes of the google numbers, the American usage wins by a factor of almost 4. Put another way, it's 20% for grammophone, and 80% for phonograph. Please stop quibbling about rough metrics being rough unless you've got something better than a flat assertion to substitute for them.

Even if next year there was a sudden influx of people on the web from countries where British english is favored, the worst that could happen is they'll be mildly annoyed by a re-direct page. -- Doom 22:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess I can never convince you. BTW we are talking about the hit count for "phonograph record" vs. "gramophone record". The Google hits count for "gramophone" vs "phonograph" tips the balance the other way. As gramophone gives 304,000 hits whilst the hit count for "phonograph" is 283,000. What does this prove? Nothing. Because google hits counts are completely uselsss in determining correct usage. You may note for example that your misspelling of "grammophone" gives a hit count of 23,000, whilst "gramaphone" gives 21,000. Enough of this pointless argument. Make a vote below. Mintguy (T)

You haven't tried to convince me. Sigh. At least not until now: you have a point that if you do google counts on "gramophone" and "phonograph" alone you get something like a tie (or you would have a point if you were willing to admit that google counts count for something). I can't say I see why "gramophone" by itself is so much more common: is it because of that on-line music magazine called "The Gramophone"? Maybe Gramophone has become a brand name again. Or could it be antique listings, mentioning the *old* brand name? Hm.

Anyway, there is no such thing as "correct usage" where English is concerned, all there is is current usage. Some people doing a look up will get a re-direct, some won't, that's all. Minimizing that number is the only point here. -- Doom 18:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is nearly this entire article in the past tense? At least some paragraphs, such as "Audiophiles would take great care of their records, often playing them on expensive equipment to get the best sound and impart the least wear to the disc. However, even with the best of care, keen ears could often detect slight surface noise and audio degradation after two to five playings of a vinyl record. Repeated use degraded the audio quality further." sound like information about the current state of affairs. I know that encyclopedias are supposed to take the historical approach, but is this wikipedia policy? Also, it seems like the section on records in the 20th/21st centuries should include at least some information about turntablism, since its rise is one of the major factors that shaped the use of the record in the modern era. Adam Conover 1/24/04

---

Acronym vs. Initialism

The distinction between an acronym and initialism is by no means wide-spread -- all the definitions of it I've found so far qualify that the distinction is only made certain people. Since the term is so obscure, I think it will simply be confusing to readers, (who wonder what "what is an initialism?" when they really don't have to), so I've changed it back to acronym.

---

1.5 inch centre hole

Surely that's too big? I've always thought the size of a single's centre hole was 1 inch diameter, but it might be slightly less, surely not more. Lee M 18:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I measured one last night. It's 1.5 inches (to within the accuracy of a middle-aged eye and a plastic desk ruler). Dpbsmith 21:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://members.aol.com/clctrmania/cm-adapt.html says 1.5 inches. Dpbsmith 21:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So does http://www.coolname.com/pipermail/maplepost-mirror/2000-September/001603.html Dpbsmith 21:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you check out the image of the 45 rpm record, I find the spindle hole to have a diameter of 62 pixels and the whole record to have a diameter of 281 pixels. The diameter of the whole record is nominally 7" though I don't know what the exact value is. If you assume it's exactly 7" and do the math, you get a spindle hole diameter of 1.54" Dpbsmith 21:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is competition between Columbia and RCA the sole reason for the larger hole? They've always bothered me as i can never find my adapter.

"EP" designation: 45 vs 33-1/3

The article currently says:

A 33-rpm 7-inch was known as an "EP" (extended play), with 2 or 3 songs per side. However, 45-rpm 7-inch EPs were also produced, using narrower groove spacing (and therefore lower sound quality) to carry 2 songs per side.

My recollection is that EP was actually an RCA trademark and referred only to 45's. 7 inch 33's were pretty rare beasts in my experience. Can anyone clarify? Was this another transatlantic difference?

Also, did 45-rpm EP's really have "lower sound quality?" Variable-groove recording was used, but that doesn't affect quality. To the eye, the main difference was simply that EP's used more of the available recording space--up to within about 1/8" of the label, whereas traditional 45's were quite wasteful and included a wide swatch of shiny unrecorded vinyl with only an endgroove. Of course, EP's belong to the era of home phonographs with one-ounce tracking force, and it's hard to believe many people would have been in a position to judge subtle differences in sound quality?

I have plenty of UK EPs, identified as such, from various record labels, and they are a mixture of 45 and 33.3rpm. All my RCA EPs play at 45rpm, but that's not to say that no 33rpm RCA EPs existed. Bonalaw 13:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picture problems?

I seem to be having some picture problems. Namely, the EBerlinerGramophoneDisc2.jpg used on the page fails to show up at all. Is anyone else having this problem?--Lucky13pjn 04:44, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Image:EBerlinerGramophoneDisc2.jpg is showing up fine for me. -- Infrogmation 05:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "show up at all?" Do you mean "almost perfectly black, with the 'label' area unreadable?"

That's the way the original version of the image looked. I downloaded it and photoshopped it a bit, playing around with levels and constrast, to make the "label" area legible. Infrogmation liked the improved version. But for some reason the version that I am seeing now looks to me like the old, almost perfectly black disk again. So, yes, there is something weird going on here. As if the version it is using is different from the version that it claims to be using. Will look at this some more when I am at home and have a few minutes. Dpbsmith 15:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will show you what I mean. Clicking on the larger picture link shows me the picture perfectly fine though. [1]--Lucky13pjn 19:01, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not seeing anything like that. And now that I'm home the images look as I expect, too. Don't know whether that's a difference in monitor settings at home and at work, or whether something weird has now been fixed... Dpbsmith 23:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bad Title

How did this become a featued article with such a bad title?

Vinyl vs. CD discussion

I have softened the wording of the article a little here: I changed the sentence "There are also inherent limitations of the 44 kHz sampling rate used for CDs, which tends to distort subtle phase differences that affect the psychoacoustic placement of the sound in the stereo image." to the softer "Some audiophiles feel that there are inherent limitations with the 44.1 kHz sampling rate used for CDs, which may not be a high enough sampling rate to capture subtle phase differences of the psychoacoustic placement of sound in the stereo image".

The reason for this is because the original sentence is based on an old misconception that people who don't like the CD format have: The misconception that one can not have a delay shorter than 1/44100 of a second long in a 44.1 khz digital stream. One can certaintly have a delay of any arbitrary short length in 1 44.1 stream; if the delay is shorter than one sample long, the delay will change the amplitude of the samples instead of changing where the samples are located.

The Vinyl vs. CD discussion is an old controversey; and one which we should delicately handle in something like an encyclopedia entry. - Sam

reverted: I prefer "esoteric" over "eccentric" for the people who attribute non-provable properties to the record. "Eccentric" would additionally suggest some non-standard behavior... - Fuffzsch

Possible additions

This article could use some discussion of the record as the source for the terms DJ, spinner, etc. And a section on the hip hop use of records as instrument - I don't feel competent to write that. Maybe a mention of the gold records awarded for sales landmarks (are they supposed to look similar to masters/were they once actually masters?) Rmhermen 12:49, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Stereo Records

I think one glaring omission of this article is that there is no discussion on the introduction of stereo records. It mentions briefly the novelty variety, but never goes into detail on the far more common single groove variety.

I agree. - Brandon.irwin 00:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Metrication

I would like to convert all measures found in the article from imperial to metric. However, since the wikipedia does not have a specific policy on the use of the use of the metric system, I'd like to ask everyone your opinion on this subject.

My idea is to show metric units first, with the aproximate equivalents in imperial in brackets. Most editors have not shown seriuos objections to this practice. However, this has not always been the case. For instance, metrifing AND reverting the order in which units appear (imperial (metric) to metric (imperial) resulted in my edits being reverted in theFlorida wiki ("Maveric149 m (Geography - rv U.S. topic so U.S. standard goes first)").

Another reversal in the floppy disk wiki was justified, since it refers to 5 1/4 inch and 3 1/2 inch disk. As nobody calls the 3 1/2" disk the "90 mm disk", it would only introduce confusion. I am unsure wether analogue disc could be a similar case.

I am aware that most US readers feel more comfortable with imperial. However I understand that most people can read metric (and understand it) to a point that if they have imperial in brackets for reference, they will have no serious difficulties. After all, this is the english language wikipedia, and most english speaking countries use and/or understand metric on a day to day basis.

Your views shall be apreciated.

user:Thewikipedian 8 July 2004 13:35 UTC+1

I'd suggest you add the metric equivalents in brackets. This isn't because I'm an imperialist reactionary (I love metric!), but in this case the record is largely defined by inch measurements for historical reasons. No-one speaks of a 178mm single, they say 7-inch single. It would be rather odd if the article suddenly deprecated all the common terms.Graham 23:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree about using the original, rounded units first, then the other units second, perhaps in parentheses. This article refers to discs which are made to inch specifications, so inches should go first. CDs on the other hand are exactly 8 and 12 centimeters, so 3 and 5 inches are just approximations, and should therefore go second after cm or mm.

In the case where both are arbitrary (like a distance or height/elevation/altitude), I might put U.S. customary units first for articles regarding the U.S., but always metric first for everything else. (PS: Technically, it's metrication not metrification, I think.) -radiojon 02:47, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

I think listing round numbers that items were originally measured in first is a good policy. Yes, analogue disc records were designed at a time and place where inches were the standard measurement they were designed for, so I think that measurement should be first, followed by the metric equivilent. (Hm, with most records from that era anyway; Pathé Records might be an exception here, I'm not sure.) -- Infrogmation 18:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)