Talk:Phonograph
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phonograph article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 21, 2004, November 21, 2005, November 29, 2005, November 29, 2006, November 29, 2007, November 29, 2008, November 29, 2009, and November 21, 2023. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Front loading systems
editDoes anyone have a picture of one of these extraordinary devices? --Mmartins 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Gramophone
editGramophone is a musical grouped formed in California's Bay Area.
Members
Daniel Rosado- Guitar, Stephen Harkins- Vocals,Guitar, Marcelo Brasil- Drums, Alex Ball- Bass [Image:http://myspace-189.vo.llnwd.net/00288/98/11/288781189_l.jpg]
They are well known in Nevada.
Resurging market?
editI reverted the edit by 67.70.212.194 because it seemed like it was just hype for vinyl, in addition to having a number of typos. If you feel that this information is actually true, please correct the typos and post a reference here on the talk page.
Superior Sound Quality?
edit"While there are many audiophiles who still prefer vinyl records over digital music sources (primarily compact disc) for superior sound quality..."
Isn't that an opinion? They prefer the sound of vinyl, but what makes it superior to a CD? Sounds like more vinyl hype. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be more a case of vested interests. You might be very surprised to learn that musicians are paid exactly the same royalty per track published today that they were in the 1960's. In the UK at least the royalty was 1d (one old penny) per track sold. Today it is 0.4p (0.4 of a new penny - exactly the same amount). No record company would publish 'prestige' recordings on vinyl and expect rave reviews - after all every released vinyl recording is an eighth generation copy of the original and each new generation introduces distortions and noise (bearing in mind that the generation subsequent on the first are also distorting the distortions and the noise previously introduced.
- This 'vinyl is better' nonsense is largely pushed by the bands making the records, mostly because the do not want (or probably more accurately: cannot afford) to pay for their records to be fully digitally recorded and mastered (where every subsequent copy is identical to the original). It is much more expensive because the equipment is more expensive - analogue studios are mostly using antiquated equipment because it still works. It is worth noting that the well established and popular bands do release fully digital recordings. 86.132.158.45 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Steel Needles
editI'm offended! I have a Jelly Roll Morton 78 that I like to play on my Victor Victrola 4-3, and I use the steel needles only once. The records actually don't wear out quickly-quite the contrary. Don't be afraid of using a steel needle with a wind-up record player-it won't hurt it.
- The advice is to change the needle every record. This actually means change the needle every side played. I have several records where side 2 is worn out because someone didn't play it with a new needle. This is particularly important these days because most needles come from China and are rarely the correct radius. If you change the needle every side, the wear to the record is minimal. The needles are far cheaper than the records and a lot less rare! I have quite a few records that still play like the record was new (that is without the krkrkrkr noise of a worn record). The record did contain a lubricant in the shellac mix but this is rapidly worn away with worn out needles. 86.132.158.45 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Phonograph's disruption of live music/sheet music business
editI would really like to see someone go into depth on this topic if they are familiar with it. I think it has historical value for the changes taking place today. Otherwise I am off to the library this weekend to research. NickD 19:44 15 June 2007(UTC)
unknown comment
editWhat's with this "1 gram of stylus force" statement? A gram is a unit of mass, not force! Well, that's how people refer to the force with which a needle bears into a groove. Perhaps it's scientifically questionable, but it's the correct phrase for the article. --128.119.22.152 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bkaduk (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rent A Troop (talk • contribs)
Clean your turntable for crying out loud. Look at that dust! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.181.173 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Gramophone Record vs Phonograph Cylinder
editThis article refers to gramophone records and phonograph cylinders as one concept. Gramophone records are flat discs whereas phonograph cylinders are disparate. The entry for Phonograph makes phonograph and gramophone synonymous where "gramophone record" remains a separate entry from "phonograph cylinder"s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.117.162 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Disc players were known as phonographs in America long after the cylinder disappeared. The word 'gramophone' was a registered trademark of His Master's Voice and the word passed into common usage in the United Kingdom for disc players. It was far less common in America even though the Victrola company was able to use both the registered trade mark as well as the Nipper dog logo. 86.163.86.229 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Édouard-Léon's voice
editThe article contains 3 recordings of Au Claire de la Luna with 2 of them pitch adjusted to reflect the pitch of Édouard-Léon's voice. Unless there is a another recording of his voice that is of a precisely known recording speed (highly unlikely), this would be impossible to achieve. 86.184.233.167 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Based no the known male vocal range you could at least get it in the right octave. Possibly even in the right key. --Kvng (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the recording because it was too much for a WP:SUMMARY. I wasn't sure whether to replace the recording already present on Phonautograph so I instead landed it on the talk page for discussion. --Kvng (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
VolksWagen Van
editI have deleted the unsourced illustration of the VolksVagen van sitting on a record. Without any further description of what it is and what it does, the illustration adds nothing to the article. It could just be a photo of any toy van placed on a record. If you wish to reinstate it, please at least add some description as to where it fits into the phonograph story (with appropriate citations of course). 86.177.27.130 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- It was a Volkswagen van that held a phonograph cartridge, a phonograph preamp, and a speaker. In other words, it was a complete phonograph. A novelty item that never became popular, its applicability to this article is very small. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I had guessed that it was something of that nature. But that was my principal objection - I had to guess. 86.182.65.190 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Device shown in October or November? Citations needed.
editIn the intro, it says that Edison showed the phonograph in October. Later, it says November.
As there were disputes (and lawsuits) related to the invention of the telephone and/or microphones around about that time, it seems important that the exact timing of related inventions be stated and cited. (There are SEVERAL articles here about the telephone and its timeline. And they don't all entirely agree.)
The article on Microphones didn't seem to help, as it has didn't have a history section or timeline (that I saw); and many of the developments mentioned don't have dates.
Different articles across Wikipedia state that different people invented the microphone.
They say, in short that:
In 1876, several people were working on a microphone concept -- some say Emile Berliner invented it, some may say Elisha Gray, or Alexander Graham Bell, though some mysterious voice-related devices were apparently shown in the 1840s and 1850s. (Documentation?) One also says that In 1876, the first carbon microphone was tested by Thomas Edison.
Not being a historical expert on these matters, and not having citations handy, and not having hours to research this, I therefore added [citation needed] in the intro here.
For this device, which was it, November or October? :)
Misty MH (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) June 11, 2011.
- In fact there were lawsuits over the phonograph as well. It is alleged (so it won't go in the article) that Edison spent more on litigation over the phonograph than he ever made out of it - and most of the lawsuits were against Edison alleging that most of his phonograph features were unpatentable as they were developed by others. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Photograph source disagreement?
editOn this page, the photograph of Edison with his second phonograph is attributed to Matthew Brady; clicking the link shows the same photograph attributed to Levin C. Handy, an attribution supported by its link to The Library of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.50.18 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Vinyl 78s
editThey do exist: I've got a vinyl 78. It's "Putting [sic] On the Style" c/w "Gamblin' Man" by Lonnie Donegan and his Skiffle Group, recorded 9 May 1957, on Pye Nixa N.15093. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have several vinyl 78s in my collection. They can't, of course, be played on any of my vintage wind up gramophones because the steel needle and the heavy sound box would ruin them. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, have some vinyl 78s. I have a lightweight cartridge with a sapphire needle made for playing them, on a modern phonograph produced in 2000. I also have a heavy steel needle cartridge for older records. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Who deleted record player
editI don' know about you, but I called it a "record player" or a "turntable". It a record that you put on you record player or a turntable, so that it plays sound. No one called it phonogragh any more. I'm just saying make a differet article, OK. hul3124 comment added by 130.156.142.240
- No need for a new article, record player works. The problem with turntable is that it has other meanings. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Choice of words
edit"While other inventors had produced devices that could record sounds, Edison's phonograph was the first to be able to reproduce the recorded sound." - so how did people know if the sound was recorded unless it played back. Obviously preceding inventions could also reproduce sound, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.183.27 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Previous machines, although they recorded sound, were never intended to play that sound back. The machines were invariably constructed in order to investigate the properties and nature of sound. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Lenco - wet play
editVinyls have been played liquid-greased, too. Trademark Lenco sold slim cylindric plastics bottles, containing about 150 ml clear liquid (I think iso-propanol, water, antistatics) brushed on in a thin layer by a second lever, before & during play on the groove and drying soon. Starting about 1975 or 1980 --Helium4 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
incomplete
edita couple of us were looking for information on how the sound was reproduced. This article is the perfect place for such info but way too much time is spent on the recording mechanism and not enough on the replay mechanism. We're still in the dark. Pun intended. 68.55.64.124 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the current rev of the opening paragraph now makes that a bit clearer right off the bat, at the cost of being considerably longer. But the reader still has to be willing to click on a link or two or three if the nature of sound is not already well-understood, or an audio waveform is not easily visualized, etc. AVarchaeologist (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Historically inaccurate changes made to promote Tomorrowland movie
editRemoved reference to "Plus Ultra" and other changes made that referred to fictional elements of the upcoming Tomorrowland movie from Disney Pictures. See link for details: http://www.tomorrowlandtimes.com/2014/09/tomorrowlands-secret-plus-ultra-society.html
Inclusion of Vertical players?
editIs it worthwhile added a reference / image of the Sharp (I do not know if other manufacturers made similar devices) Vertical, linear record players to the Linear tracking section - such as the one built into the VZ-2500 Ghetto-blaster from the early 1980s? This particular model is a little iconic as a portable player (though it does automatically stop playing and reset the tone-arms if lifted from the surface if it is playing a record!) capable of playing both sides of a 7/10/12 inch 33⅓/45 r.p.m. vinyl record. SlySven (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"Murder Weapon" section is unsourced, false
editThe original link is dead. The article can be retrieved at the writer's personal site in the form of a Word doc.
I read this article, and found this is the extent of Frank Palka's supposed phonograph murder (note there are no phonographs here):
THE EXAMPLE OF FRANK PALKO Frank Palko was a resident of the state of Connecticut. Late one evening in 1935, he broke into a music store, stole a radio and fled on foot (in those Great Depression days, a getaway car was a luxury few criminals could afford--O Tempora, O Mores). The police were summoned and they contacted Palko a few blocks away. When they approached him, Palko shot and killed one of the officers and escaped. He was captured and arrested a month or so later.
The idea that Palka clobbered someone to death with a phonograph clearly is untrue and not related to this Wikipedia page. Therefore: I'm deleting it. If someone wants to add it back, maybe they could find evidence for such absurd claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.221.217 (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Removed uninformative image
editThis image was previously being used as an illustration in § Phonographs in the 21st century, until I removed it just now. The data it represents (information which we have no way to verify), the number of images associated with each manufacturer that have been contributed to a particular website by its user community, is not informative in any way within the context of the article. In fact, it's entirely possible that it was added for no other purpose than to tacitly promote the website named in the caption. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Pic Elliptical stylus , TEXT wrong
editThe elliptical stylus allows for more groove contact area, which increases fidelity,
The increased contact area does defnitely NOT increase fidelity, it may reduce pressure and record wear, or may NOT ... The contact area is increased vertically, but reduced horizontally (smaller contact radius).
The main increase in fidelity is, that the Elliptical stylus is able to follow the curvature of the groove at higher frequencies (steep slopes, slewrates). This will be important above 2 kHz. Also the contact area at the spherical stylus moves around the needle, this increases also some sort of distortions.
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Phonograph record which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Unlikeliness versus impracticality.
edit@User:Just plain Bill You made this revert, and now it's clear that you confuse cause and effect here. The cause is the impracticality of storing large numbers of records in the cylindrical form, because they would take too much space. The effect is the unlikeness that anyone would choose such an impractical option. Let me give you a simple example: You can say that wearing white clothes by coal miners is unlikely. But coal miners don't wear white clothes for a reason. What is the reason? Unlikeness? By your logic coal miners don't wear white clothes because it is unlikely that coal miners wear white clothes. The absurdity of such reasoning is self-evident. Can't you see it? Someone chose the black color not because the white color is somehow unlikely, but because it is impractical.
PS. I restored my version, split the sentence and corrected the logic. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The workers I see doing dirty jobs tend to wear inexpensive durable blue denim, not black. In commercial food preparation, the workers tend to wear white, so dirt is obvious, indicating that it is time to change a soiled garment. In that field, industrial laundry services are often provided by the employer.
- None of that is relevant to bureaucratic reasons for preserving or discarding sound recordings in an era of paper-based record keeping. Once a Dictaphone record had been handed off to a stenographer and a paper transcription made, the archived copy was the paper, not the wax cylinder. In many cases, the sound recording was seen as a transient preliminary artifact not worth keeping, hence unlikely to be kept, whether storage was practical or not. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
> The workers I see doing dirty jobs tend to wear inexpensive durable blue denim, not black.
Maybe, but their clothes are certainly not snow-white. So, please, read the word "black" in my example as "non-white".
> In commercial food preparation, the workers tend to wear white, so dirt is obvious, indicating that it is time to change a soiled garment.
Yes, but in my example I wrote about coal mining, not food preparation. Besides, I don't claim that white clothes are impractical in every situation. Sometimes white color is very practical, for example as camouflage for soldiers on snow.
> None of that is relevant to bureaucratic reasons for preserving or discarding sound recordings in an era of paper-based record keeping.
There are many applications of sound recording. But you are talking only about dictaphones in courts. But even there convenient practical storage matters. And this is why in 1947 Dictaphone introduced its Dictabelt technology. Sound recording needed a recordable medium. Vinyl records were non-recordable by a user, and thus useless for this purpose. Therefore dictaphones with a wax cylinder survived to 1922. However, for playing recorded music, vinyl records were ideal at the time. They were flat, hence practical for storing. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Where did I say anything about courts?
The commercialization of sound recording technology was initially aimed at use for business correspondence and transcription into writing, in which the cylindrical form offered certain advantages.
- In business applications, the cylinders were seen as ephemera of little value, an intermediate step between dictation and archived paper, so they were seen as unlikely to be stored. Practicality has very little to do with that. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah indeed, you said nothing about courts, sorry about that! I thought that stenography took place mostly in courts, hence my mistake. However it does not change much. Do you really think that the huge market of recorded music had no impact on the transition from cylinders to disks? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what I think about the recorded music market. The bit of text in question is not about that, anyway; it is about the use of one-off voice recordings in business. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ah indeed, you said nothing about courts, sorry about that! I thought that stenography took place mostly in courts, hence my mistake. However it does not change much. Do you really think that the huge market of recorded music had no impact on the transition from cylinders to disks? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
eco sytem
editwhat is an eco system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:D002:E925:853D:1207:3DCF:B981 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
RCA connectors vs. phono connectors
editMy recent edit adding this sentence to the end of the United States section was reverted by an IP editor: In its mono form this was the original use of the RCA connector, also known as a "phono connector". (In bold because the original sentence contains double quotes.) The reason given by the IP editor for the revert was: "Phono connectors existed long before amplifiers had 'phono' inputs. Besides the 'phono connector' and the 'RCA connector' are not the same. Though similar, the plug of one does not correctly mate with the socket of the other."
Though the specifics the IP editor gave MAY be true, that does NOT affect the validity of my statement; thus I consider his reasoning bogus. As ANYONE who reads the "History" section of the RCA connector article should know (the IP editor obviously did), the first "phono connectors" were being used internally within RCA combination radio-phonograph floor consoles by 1937; by 1938 they had been expanded to the rear of RCA AM radios to connect low-cost phonograph players or even TV sets; by 1939 there were also RCA radio-TV floor consoles using them internally, plus RCA and even non-RCA TVs that used them for audio output instead of a built-in audio amplifier and speaker (as most TVs have even today, though they're becoming worse with each new generation of flat-screens due to limited space).
It is true, as the "History" section goes on to read, that "(r)efinement of the RCA connectors came with later designs". Though it goes on to read that "they remained compatible" (with "citation needed" tag), the "phono connector" pictured in that section (a female jack on a 1939 model RCA AM radio) clearly has BOTH too large a center pin hole (determining its gender) AND an outer ring not deep enough to accommodate modern RCA male plugs. Nonetheless, it is CLEAR from that photo plus the statement that the 1930's "phono connector" was indeed the origin of today's "RCA connector", ALSO sometimes called a "phono connector" or "RCA phono connector" itself (as the lead article says) BECAUSE of its origin. As recently as stereo equipment in early 1980's RadioShack catalogs, RCA connectors were more commonly called "phono jacks / plugs" (with only occasional reference to RCA which was still in business at that time); though those had the dimensions of today's RCA connectors, they did NOT have the color-coded insulators (jacks) & external grips (plugs) of today's RCA connectors. That came along in the mid-to-late 1980's (just before the original RCA was absorbed by GE with its electronics business sold to Thomson, now Technicolor SA), as RCA connectors expanded into VCRs and more modern stereo equipment became ubitiquous; this required greater clarity as to which connectors connected to which.
This shift also tended to replace the historic magnetic "phono" inputs of stereos with today's "line-level" audio inputs, which work with tape decks, cassette players (including the Walkman), VCRs, CD players, etc. all the way to some cellphones today (even using phone connectors with now-ubitiquous Y-adapters); only a pre-amp is needed to connect phonograph players, and modern phonograph players often come with them built-in. Nonetheless, EVEN IF you could overcome the physical difference between 1937-39 "phono connectors" (also intended for magnetic inputs from phonograph players; TVs probably followed that as well) and today's RCA connectors, there are two signficant OTHER compatibility issues: First, 1937-39 radios were almost always mono; that itself could be overcome with a Y-adapter, but it's uncertain if the vacuum tubes in use back then would have withstood that. More importantly, record companies didn't use modern-day equalization until the 1940's, and the now-standard RIAA equalization curve didn't exist until the 1950's; thus the sound output from a 1930's AM radio playing today's records would likely be even worse than its modern-day AM radio reception. THIS is why your comparison is wrong; you probably couldn't connect a 21st-century turntable to a 1930's AM radio even if you COULD plug it in directly. --RBBrittain (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TLDR The (American) RCA connector was derived from the (UK) phono connector, but they were not the same. The RCA plug is frequently, these days, called a phono plug which is not a problem as the original phono plug is entirely obsolete. The phono plug's central pin, though the same diameter as the RCA connector was one quarter of an inch longer (I have examples of both but I cannot upload photographs). This meant that if the phono plug was inserted in an RCA socket, the shield of the plug would just make contact with the shield of the socket. In practice tolerances meant that it sometimes touched and sometimes didn't and if it did, it was a very poor contact. Similarly, inserting an RCA plug into a phono socket meant that the central pin failed to make contact as it was too short. The plug became obsolete precisely because it did not correctly mate with RCA sockets which were becoming common on imported Japanese audio equipment.
- The (UK) phono plug was originally developed in the late 1920's as a cheaper and smaller alternative to the more expensive shielded connectors of the day for the more professional equipment. Where domestic radio sets had the ability to act as the amplifier to an external record player, the connection was made through a simple unshielded two hole 'banana' socket (and the setting on the wave-change switch that selected it was usually labelled 'G' or 'GRAM' - short for gramophone). The phono plug did have a brief resurgence in the domestic market for 1950-1960's era reel-to-reel tape recorders as an inexpensive alternative to the DIN plugs used in Dutch and German machines.
- Exactly why the plug was described as a 'phono plug' is not clear. It may have been used to connect early electrical disc recording equipment, but the term 'phonograph' was only ever used in the UK to describe acoustic cylinder playing machines, the word never having been applied to acoustic disc playing machines let alone electric disc cutters or players or indeed anything else. 86.132.158.45 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, on thinking about this: it may well be that the 'phono plug' was probably not known by this name at its inception. Connectors of the era were invariably proprietary and usually known by the company that introduced them, as in the 'RCA connector' or 'Belling Lee connector' etc. I do not know who first designed the phono plug. It is possible that it subsequently inherited the 'phono' label from the superficially similar 'RCA phono connector'. The name has to have come from the US as phono, as stated above, was not a UK term. The problem with this theory is that the RCA connector was largely unknown in the UK until Japanese imported audio equipment started appearing at the end of the 1960's. 86.132.158.45 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I remember these plugs well. All my phono plugged cables which fitted my British made tape recorder, would not reliably connect to the Japanese made tape recorder which replaced it in c1970.
- I have little doubt that the reason for the incompatibility was down to the fact that the original phono plug was almost certainly a patented design (this was a time when companies would patent anything and everything). I assume that the patentee made the classic mistake of including the dimensions of the plug and socket in the patent. When RCA came to rip off the design they were easily able to do so simply by changing the length of the centre pin. The patent would have specifically covered a plug with a 0.71 inch long pin (assuming the quarter inch difference is correct). RCA, by making the pin 0.56 inches long evaded the patent because the plug and socket they produced was not exactly the ones specified in the patent.
- I can certainly confirm that the term phonograph was not a term used for anything other than a cylinder playing mechanical machine (of which I have a fine example made by the Edison company in 1909). The term ‘phono’ did not exist in British English for anything other than the phono plug. I would agree that the description ‘phono’ must have originated from across the pond. I cannot confirm whether the RCA sized plugs were generally available at the time other than to note that I do recall having the devil’s own job attempting to acquire them. Fortunately, my Japanese tape recorder did have a parallel connected DIN socket for the line input and output connections (doubtless for the European market). 85.255.234.148 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Using image
editShould this image be used in this page? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Electronics, the vacuum tube
editIt seems to me that the article misses the introduction of the vacuum tube, a major advance over the purely mechanical players. Vacuum tubes aren't mentioned until we get to transistors. Mwanner | Talk 22:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
T4P and other systems not described !?!
editT4P and other systems not described !?! -- 2A02:8071:819F:4700:7835:1C1E:E3F2:6492 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Uncited material in need of citations
editI am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
|
1930s
editI'd appreciate if the history section of this article said something about technology between 1907 (acoustic amplification) and 1955 (first solid state phonograph). I expect that somewhere in between, there were vacuum tube amplifiers. More info would be helpful. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:6032 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
"use would grow" the year after it was invented
edit- "The phonograph was invented in 1877 by Thomas Edison.[1][2][3][4] Phonograph use would grow the following year."
Of course usage grew after it was invented. The question is to how much? Are we trying to say usage grew quickly? How about just saying that? B9 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
"since the late 2000s" is confusing
edit- Records have undergone a revival since the late 2000s.
The phrase "the late 2000s" seems more applicable to 2999 than 2009. Why was it phrased this way? Is there controversy? Looking at https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/, for example, it appears we can just say "since 2009" based on the increase of LP sales year over year.e. B9 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's safer to stick to "late" instead of fixing on a single year. Sales have increased every year since 2007 but because the bar was really low back then it can be misleading into readers believing that records were "wildly popular" from that time on when it wasn't. Also there's evidence at least from the UK that the revival was already beginning in 2006. Sateystnes (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- The original point is that "late 2000s" is ambiguous; it most naturally refers to years such as 2089, 2094, or 2098. But the intention is to refer to years late in the period from 2000 to 2009, i.e. years 200x, for which the digit x is towards 9. Unfortunately there is no obvious unambiguous way (in English) to refer to this. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The Rise of CDs
editNot just this article, but across Wikipedia falsely state that the introduction of Compact Discs in 1982 saw the new format immediately become the most-bought format of the public, and actually substantially increased total recorded music sales overall.
This is bizarre, and could only have been written by someone who wasn't there at the time. In fact, CDs were originally a niche market, and CD buyers were at first seen as being obnoxious yuppie types. By 1986 the disparaging term "compact dickhead" to refer to the type of person who purchased CDs was fairly widely used. While vinyl did lose a definite percentage of the marketplace, it was to audiocassettes, not compact discs. By the mid-to-late 80s, tape was the dominant medium. In the early 90s some new albums would be released on CD only. And then this became far more common. I wish I had ten bucks for every time somebody wanted a new album on tape, only to find out it was only available on CD. I'd be filthy rich.
Yet, according to Wikipedia, compact discs were introduced in 1982, and immediately became the dominant format, creating an enormous boom period for sales of recorded music. I guess I also imagined all those warnings about how home recording(onto tape, of course) had caused sales of recorded music to drop, and how music piracy was a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.164 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 6 May 2024
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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Phonograph → Record player – Phonograph is a very old term that isn't common and widely recognised today - it may have been suitable if this was an article strictly about something historic but this is something current too. Today the common name is a "Record Player", or a "Turntable" (often interchangable but the latter is strictly about a specific type of record player). See WP:COMMON it applies here. Sateystnes (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that a move seems reasonable. I'm English, but live somewhere else, so I have no idea what terminology is common now, (or in the US, where I wouldn't be surprised to learn they call it a "disk rotator" or something). But notice that "record player" has only the one applicable meaning, whereas "turntable" also has other meanings, so is less clear. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Read the article. It is a historical article, more than half if it is about cylinder phonographs and wind-up gramophones that are not commonly referred to as "record players". "Record player" is a colloquialism that, however popular in some countries, is not universally used in English. "Phonograph" is the parent term encompassing all varieties of this technology. Walrasiad (talk)
- Oppose, the current primary redirect of Record player works fine. 162 etc. (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per common name and historical long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Walrasiad; the scope of the article includes cylindrical and other phonographic devices that are not within the general definition of "record player" (which refers to players of circular phonographic platters made of vinyl and early on of hard wax). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)