Talk:LP record

message: The average tangential needle speed relative to the disc surface is approximately one mile per hour according to the article. Averging over a radius from 15 to 7 cm we get 1.382300768 km/h or 0.383972435 m/s, which is about 1 mph. Jimp 06:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean 384 mm/s ... if you're going to nitpick over sigfigs, you need to be consistent about it. Also, that's 0.859 mph. Though it's probably better to give the typical outer and inner diameter speeds to show how much they vary through the course of playback... 46.208.118.253 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average tangential needle speed 

message: What is the essential difference between a LP record and an album? If there isn't one, then the articles should be merged. If there is one, then that should be described. What, for Wikipedia purposes, is the distinction between LP record and Gramophone record? I'm wondering if LP record is stuck between describing album and Gramophone record, and if so, should the article be refocused, or should it be merged? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: An album is a collection of tracks that could be physically on an LP, CD, cassette, 8-track, minidisc, etc. An LP is a vinyl record, and one type of gramophone record, that usually contains an album. --Michig (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with .  An "album" of recordings was originally a set of 78s packaged together like a photograph album.  The fact that the word was used colloquially, later, as synonymous with an LP or CD is certainly deserving of mention, but doesn't warrant any merging of articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't see that as a problem.  We are not talking about the article itself here - we are talking about the hatnote at the top of the article, which is only there to point readers to the right article if they arrive here by mistake.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Album or LP

message: it might be time to update the last sentences of this section, specifically
:"...by the early 1990s the CD had definitively succeeded in toppling the LP from its throne."     and     "...a modest renewed interest in vinyl has developed and the demand for the medium has been on a steady increase in niche markets, particularly among audiophiles, DJs and fans of indie music. However, the vast majority of recorded music sales are of compact discs and downloadable digital audio files, because of their greater convenience of use, generally cheaper prices and wider availability." 
in 2016, vinyl dominates existing bricks and mortar stores, which are themselves a niche market ... whether or not this is a fad is debatable but the record companies and stores are clearly exploiting the demand while it exists ... there are plenty of articles on the "vinyl revival" in the mainstream press that could be used as citations, including info on new and old pressing plants ... J Edward Malone (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It probably is time to update it, but please note that hard facts (numbers) and good references will be needed. And we need the format-independent numbers to put the LP numbers into context. (As an example of what we don't want, the popular press is fond of raving e.g. "sales increased by 40%!" when they increased from 10 units per year to 14.) Jeh (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Competing Formats

message: This. Ought be difficult to prove one way or the other, but I would suspect the record referred to in this simile is in fact a 78, not a vinyl record. Vinyl records do not very easily break, although it is easy to scratch one. Shellac records are rather easy to crack or break, and if you have a record that remains on one piece but has a crack, it will skip. I guess you could call a severely scratched vinyl as being "broken", as sometimes "broken" is used as a synonym for "defective", but I remember this saying from as far back as the early 1959s, when 78s were still quite common while vinyl was more of a niche market. Wschart (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that this simile does not refer to a record that has been physically broken into multiple pieces. (You're right about that being far easier to do to a 78 than to a vinyl LP... you can bend the latter practically double... 45s are almost as easy to break as 78s.) When someone is accused of "sounding like a broken record", it means they are repeating the same thing over an over.... like a record with a scratch in it that pulls the stylus back a few groove-widths, so that short section of the material, one or a few revolutions' worth, repeats over and over. Given how soft the vinyl LP is, together with lighter tracking forces and much shallower grooves than the 78, this was much easier to do on an LP (or a 45) than a 78. It doesn't require a crack. Jeh (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Jeh is correct. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently made an edit regarding this matter, but just now belatedly discovered this discussion. My edit added a parenthetical noting the precedent of a cracked (rather than simply scratched) shellac 78, as it seemed readers might otherwise be puzzled about why a merely scratched record could be called "broken" in the simile. The expression certainly goes back to the shellac era: there was a now-obscure popular song in 1936 entitled "The Broken Record" (lyric excerpt: "My Sweetheart, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous, you're gorgeous tonight / That's a song I heard on the phonograph / The needle caught on the broken half / And kept playing..."), waxed by at least a half dozen bands ranging from Guy Lombardo to Red Norvo and Wingy Manone. Relevant OR: it takes one hell of a scratch or divot to cause the steel needle in the very heavy pickup of a typical prewar record player to jump outward from the beefy groove it is playing and repeat. In my experience, skipping ahead is almost always the journey made by a needle thus momentarily dislodged. An open crack, especially a break resulting in misalignment across the fracture, is a far more likely cause. I sometimes get the impression that many writers, including collectors who ought to know better, are falling into the error of contemplating vintage phonographic technology through the lens of their own experiences with semi-permanent styli (which do not wear out in the course of playing one side of a 16" shellac disc) and featherweight pickups that can get bounced by a lead-footed stroll across the floor or a fleck of crud in the groove. 66.81.220.154 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think calling a record that skips "broken" requires that it be physically cracked. It's "broken" as far as correct functionality is concerned, right? Anyway, the current text (as last edited by .154) seems to address both usages and the historical connection between them, so that seems fine to me. Jeh (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like a broken record 

message: I do believe that Cooks binaural records belong in this article as they are the first commercially available two channel recordings on disk but some of the details are inaccurate.  
Here's the text: "Emory Cook's 1952 idea of using two tracks, and a system using vertical modulation (harking back to Edison's 1877 experiments) for one channel and (then-universal) horizontal for the other".
I believe that there are two issues here (although perhaps only one is inaccurate).  
The two channels on Cook's binaural disks are recorded with different equalizations but both are horizontal.  A Cook binaural tonearm (such as that manufactured by Livingston) simply required two standard cartridges.  For more detail see the discussion in the Cook Records entry.  
Also, Edison's disks were successfully marketed for a number of years (1912-1929) and were cut vertically (hill and dale) so I don't know that characterizing the method as harking back to his experiments gives the right impression (although this is, of course, accurate). 
I'd have changed this but I thought that the original author may want to investigate and change.  
RichardBeckwith (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I have a few of these discs. I'm not sure where the vertical modulation came from.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I'm pretty sure the vertical/horizontal system is referring to a system that is independent of Cook's, at least that's how I read the sentence ("...and a system...").   I'd leave it alone for now, but if no references can be found for this system (I've not heard of it, did it ever see commercial production?) then it should be removed.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emory Cook's binaural LPs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LP 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/market/releases/statover.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609184049/http://audacityteam.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=102&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&view=print to http://audacityteam.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=102&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&view=print
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Longplay (video games) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I actually own this album. It's not a single LP with 90 minutes of music. It's 2 LPs. I don't think that this is a good example for an extended play LP. Tdknox (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  90 Minutes With The Magnificent Maestros 

message: While it’s nice to have some logo visuals, :File:LPlogo.svg lacks both source and author information, and above that, any authority to provide a logo for this type of medium. I suggest it being removed, or anyone could provide a phantasy version of “a logo for LP record”. -- WA1TF0R䷟ 09:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That logo is not "ficticious". (WA1TF0R's original word) Columbia used it on its first commercially-released LP's and players in 1948 and it should not be removed. Its provenance must be available somewhere. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are images of labels with the logo in this Library of Congress article and in Columbia Records 1949 catalogue. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed logo (LPlogo.svg) 

message: In theory, quantization noise for 16 bit audio CDs is about -100dbB.  That isn't zero. Practically, it is below just about every other noise around, in just about ever environment.  Maybe except for an anechoic lab. Gah4 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory 

message: There are 2 images referencing "Neumann lathe." Yet there is nothing in the article referencing the subject. More information is needed.
76.88.55.202 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I noticed this article does not cite a patent or a paper showing the original specs (e.g. weight, groove size...) of the long play vinyl record. Do they exist?-- Carnby (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original specs 

message: So a bad thing about this article I see is that, in addition to talking about the original LP from Columbia and the history behind it etc, it also contains numerous contemporary info that isn't necessarily specific to the LP and these are basically already covered in phonograph record. Since the phonograph record article talks generally about all record formats, this article needs to focus specifically on LP when it was still something distinctive.
It's really confusing. I imagine a young kid reading this who wants to know about records will just end up confused about how there's this LP and a phonograph record without a proper explanation for them (and the fact the term "LP" is still used generically). I am going to make edits to this article to make it more clearer at the top and maybe remove some of the very recent stuff that are already in phonograph record. Sateystnes (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate parallel with [[phonograph record]]