Talk:Phonograph record

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gramophone record)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articlePhonograph 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
November 3, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject Albums (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Citation for virgin vs. recycled vinyl claims?[edit]

The article states "Since most vinyl records contain up to 30% recycled vinyl, impurities can accumulate in the record and cause even a brand-new record to have audio artifacts such as clicks and pops". But I don't see a citation. It certainly sounds plausible, and I've had many people tell me that 'virgin vinyl' is better, but I have yet to find a substantiated claim as to why. It seems all opinion based at this time. Is there a reason recycled would have more impurities than virgin (as far as I know, recycled plastics are cleaned of impurities just as virgin plastics are)?


Book-and-record-sets[edit]

Why isn't the page about book-and-record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book-and-record_set sets included in this article?

Suggest Vinyl records to have an article of its own[edit]

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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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 recordvinyl 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)
  • Record (disc) works, but with an upper-case 'R' and a few redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because other materials were used, including wax, aluminum, and even gold. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, looks like there is a page for LP record which covers much of the same ground. Because of the article Phonograph consistency within Wikipedia would lean towards renaming this page Phonograph record with redirects, and discuss the LP record page and the overlapping of the two pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Phonograph record as apparently the most common form, and technically more accurate than Vinyl record. It appears that "phonograph record" has always been the most common form.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - from the 1890s until the 1940s, phonograph records were not made out of vinyl. Although this term has come into use by hipsters, I don't know of any knowledgeable researchers/collectors who call them "vinyls". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Seems like the name that's emerging may be Phonograph record, and 'vinyl record' has been off the record-table for awhile now. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 5 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.

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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 GramophoneGramophone (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)

  • Oppose first two, but support third. Srnec (talk) 12:51, 23 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[edit]

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)