Talk:Phonograph record

---

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)