Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 3

message: Voting ended. "Gramophone record" with 17 votes edged out "record (audio)" with 13 votes in the run off. The Wikipedia page formerly known as "analogue disc record" is now at "Gramophone record".
===Help in finishing the move: Fixing links ===
I believe I took care of fixing any double redirects. I hope those who offered to help with the move will now get into tackling the links to redirects. -- Infrogmation 00:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of a number of links, mostly in audio articles which were likely to benifit from a bit more editing than simply changing the link names. See Gramophone record:what links here for the numerous pages where link to "analogue disc record" (and variations) need to be changed to "gramophone record". Thanks! -- Infrogmation 15:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: There are about 100 links to fix -- let's get fixing them. I'll do ten. -- Done. -- The Anome 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGE MOVE 

message: I believe I took care of fixing any double redirects. I hope those who offered to help with the move will now get into tackling the links to redirects. -- Infrogmation 00:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of a number of links, mostly in audio articles which were likely to benifit from a bit more editing than simply changing the link names. See Gramophone record:what links here for the numerous pages where link to "analogue disc record" (and variations) need to be changed to "gramophone record". Thanks! -- Infrogmation 15:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: There are about 100 links to fix -- let's get fixing them. I'll do ten. -- Done. -- The Anome 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Help in finishing the move: Fixing links 

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
= I have removed the comment re: souce required side two of Matching Tie and Hankerchief. It seems to me that this is a matter of fact, I did not own the record but spent a merry evening with friends enjoying this little feature, so I can confirm the authors description of this feature. Looking for sources on the Internet, the nearest I get is the Amazon.com reviewer who bemoans the lack of this feature on his review, but that is as much hearsay as my assertion. As this issue is not in dispute, the source for this feature is the identification of the album itself. There should be no need to go further. Spenny 11:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: People might be interested in an ongoing discussion at Talk:Stereophonic sound as to whether the term Stereophonic sound is tautological and therefore incorrect, and (presumably) whether the article ought to be moved to a more acceptable title. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Stereophonic sound]] 

message: I was wondering where the phrase "locked groove" came from, it isn't a description I was familiar with. Just stood out as odd. Spenny 02:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked grooves 

message: Because I didn't know where else to go with these. -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not too difficult to estimate.  All you need to know are the running time, the record speed in rpm, and the average groove area diameter (say, 20 cm for a 12 inch LP– I measured 11.5 cm on the leadout (inside dia.) and 29 cm on the leadin (outside dia.)). If the record runs 25 min x 33⅓ rpm that is 833 revolutions x Pi(3.1416) x 20 cm or 52,339 cm = 523.4 m or 1716 ft.  Yeah, the groove spacing will vary if there is a wide variation in dynamics, but the total time irons this out unless the soft parts (or loud parts) are concentrated wildly on the inside or outside tracks, so this still gives you the basic idea.  --Blainster 23:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Questions

message: I understand that it probably varies for microgroove records and such, but does anyone know how long the entire groove on one side of a record is? -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not too difficult to estimate.  All you need to know are the running time, the record speed in rpm, and the average groove area diameter (say, 20 cm for a 12 inch LP– I measured 11.5 cm on the leadout (inside dia.) and 29 cm on the leadin (outside dia.)). If the record runs 25 min x 33⅓ rpm that is 833 revolutions x Pi(3.1416) x 20 cm or 52,339 cm = 523.4 m or 1716 ft.  Yeah, the groove spacing will vary if there is a wide variation in dynamics, but the total time irons this out unless the soft parts (or loud parts) are concentrated wildly on the inside or outside tracks, so this still gives you the basic idea.  --Blainster 23:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Question 1: How long is a track?

message: Could one of you please direct me to a website detailing how to make a recording device? I want to try making records at home. -Litefantastic 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Question 2: Directions?

message: i'm not exactly sure what the appropriate method of citing my source would be (re: the information about the x2 double-groove stuff).
more info here:  
X736e65616b 11:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: help with reference citation

message: I think this following stuff is distinctly POV, and seems to be a sales pitch for vinyl rather than some facts from which someone could come to their own decision on whether "investing" in a record player was a sensible decision.
Regardless, many personal collections still include large numbers of records, even among young people.
:Ho hum, my attic includes a large personal collection, but like most people I know who have not binned their vinyl it is unplayed most of the time.
Curiously, for a young person with an honest love of older music, a record player may very well be a better investment than an MP3 player. Records, now largely considered an obsolete format, are generally quite cheap, and new record players (actual, new record players are still being made) run from roughly $100 to $200, though high quality players aimed at the audiophile market can cost condiderably more.
:Basically this is saying that obsolete record collections can be picked up cheaply, why not say that.
Compared to the purchase of, say, an iPod and the same songs in digital format, the record player has a heavy financial advantage. A new iPod is generally several hundred dollars, and the going rate for a digital song is $1 at iTunes. Many listeners cannot easily distinguish purchased or encoded digital music from the sound of a vinyl record, especially through inexpensive headphones. As far as mobility goes, however, the iPod, weighing mere ounces, is the clear winner, while record collection takes up a large amount of space. However, despite the massive MP3 and CD libraries commercially available, virtually every piece of music recording up until around 1980 is available on some format of record.
:Biased argument, MP3 players can be picked up very cheaply. Not quite sure what the rest of the argument is, that you can get any record on CD or any CD on record.
I'm going to be bold Spenny 18:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beyond the 1990s 

message: Automatic turntables rely on the sudden change of direction of travel of the arm as it reaches these more widely spaced grooves to trigger the mechanism that raises it. (In the "Basics" section)
My Sony PS-X30 turntable (a beautiful beast) does not use "sudden change of direction of travel" to trigger the lift.  It triggers when it reaches a certian distance from the center/re of the record.  Even if I manually move the needle above the record (parallel with it) very quickly from outside to inside, the lift will trigger when it reaches that point.  An occasional record has a runoff that ends slightly further out than most and the auto lift won't engage.  As far as I know, this was true with several other turntables I owned over the years including both standard and auto-changing models. 
LuiKhuntek 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This was edited over a previous comment that had explained this properly, but in my less bold former self I couldn't be bothered. However, I do know that some mechanisms used to not trigger properly with slow runoffs, so I can understandhow a misunderstanding came about. Basically, pull a turntable apart and you will find some trip lever which engages some mechanical device driven by the turntable motor which is disengaged when it returns home. Spenny 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trigger mechanism for auto turntable arm raising

message: Removed the following because it is technically incorrect - fidelity degrades to the centre of the disc. I'd not come across this, but if someone cares to correct and cite sources then of course it can go back.
The late 1970s/early 1980s saw the development of variable speeds.  Because the fidelity of the record gradually improves towards the center of the disc, consideration was being given to gradually slow the record speed down making a standard 12" record last almost 90 minutes per side.  The introduction of the CD, which utilized this improvement, stopped further consideration.
Spenny 07:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variable Speed

message: _ _ The text
: Recording on disc as opposed to phonograph cylinder had been experimented with by such inventors as Charles Cros, Thomas Edison and Chichester Bell, but the first to actually develop usable disc record technology was Emil Berliner...
as the beginning of the "Early history" section turned up via the 15:01, 15 July 2005, revision in my search for WP instances of Bell's name, but he is no longer mentioned.  That text was included for between 18 and 24 months before then, i.e., during its featured status.
_ _ The edit that removed it on 24 July 2005 is summarized "This is the new version, merged with Vinyl record for a richer, fuller bodied wikipage. You can always go back and get stuff if I forgot anything."  That suggestion may be important to prevent the loss of significant-sounding material (well beyond what i have noted, one should suspect), that does not appear to be covered elsewhere in WP.  (IMO, either the deletion of material should have been defended as a remedy for false info, or it should have been transfered elsewhere (and the transfer documented at both ends -- the new loc to conform with GDFL & this end to save wild goose chases for where it went.)
_ _ Some research required.--Jerzy•t 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These men, including Chichester Bell, are covered in the phonograph article history section.  --Blainster 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Inventors 

message: I have a great deal of old 78 records with no dates on them. How can I find out which ones have lapsed into the public domain. -Litefantastic 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright question

message: The article previously claimed that the visible gap between tracks was called a "rill". I've never heard this term before, and it's unknown both to Google and to the knowledgeable folk at AudioAsylum.com, so I removed the reference for now. 217.155.20.163 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap between tracks