Talk:Phonograph record/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 82.82.125.42 sites http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/geschichte/index_emil_berliner.html Infrogmation 03:05, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berliner details 

message: 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)
:::I've clarified that the "shellac" in records was both resin & fiber (which I didn't know; thanks for the info).  JHCC 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shellac 

message: The article currently says:
:A 33-rpm 7-inch was known as an "EP" (extended play), with 2 or 3 songs per side. However, 45-rpm 7-inch EPs were also produced, using narrower groove spacing (and therefore lower sound quality) to carry 2 songs per side.
My recollection is that EP was actually an RCA trademark and referred only to 45's. 7 inch 33's were pretty rare beasts in my experience. Can anyone clarify? Was this another transatlantic difference? 
Also, did 45-rpm EP's really have "lower sound quality?" Variable-groove recording was used, but that doesn't affect quality. To the eye, the main difference was simply that EP's used more of the available recording space--up to within about 1/8" of the label, whereas traditional 45's were quite wasteful and included a wide swatch of shiny unrecorded vinyl with only an endgroove. Of course, EP's belong to the era of home phonographs with one-ounce tracking force, and it's hard to believe many people would have been in a position to judge subtle differences in sound quality?
:I have plenty of UK EPs, identified as such, from various record labels, and they are a mixture of 45 and 33.3rpm. All my RCA EPs play at 45rpm, but that's not to say that no 33rpm RCA EPs existed. Bonalaw 13:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "EP" designation: 45 vs 33-1/3

message: I think one glaring omission of this article is that there is no discussion on the introduction of stereo records.  It mentions briefly the novelty variety, but never goes into detail on the far more common single groove variety.
I agree. - Brandon.irwin 00:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereo Records 

message: I would like to convert all measures found in the article from imperial to metric. However, since the wikipedia does not have a specific policy on the use of the use of the metric system, I'd like to ask everyone your opinion on this subject.
My idea is to show metric units first, with the aproximate equivalents in imperial in brackets. Most editors have not shown seriuos objections to this practice. However, this has not always been the case. For instance, metrifing AND reverting the order in which units appear (imperial (metric) to metric (imperial) resulted in my edits being reverted in theFlorida wiki ("Maveric149 m (Geography - rv U.S. topic so U.S. standard goes first)").
Another reversal in the floppy disk wiki was justified, since it refers to 5 1/4 inch and 3 1/2 inch disk. As nobody calls the 3 1/2" disk the "90 mm disk", it would only introduce confusion. I am unsure wether analogue disc could be a similar case.
I am aware that most US readers feel more comfortable with imperial. However I understand that most people can read metric (and understand it) to a point that  if they have imperial in brackets for reference, they will have no serious difficulties. After all, this is the english language wikipedia, and most english speaking countries use and/or understand metric on a day to day basis.
Your views shall be apreciated.
user:Thewikipedian 8 July 2004 13:35 UTC+1
:I'd suggest you add the metric equivalents in brackets. This isn't because I'm an imperialist reactionary (I love metric!), but in this case the record is largely defined by inch measurements for historical reasons. No-one speaks of a 178mm single, they say 7-inch single. It would be rather odd if the article suddenly deprecated all the common terms.Graham 23:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think listing round numbers that items were originally measured in first is a good policy. Yes, analogue disc records were designed at a time and place where inches were the standard measurement they were designed for, so I think that measurement should be first, followed by the metric equivilent. (Hm, with most records from that era anyway; Pathé Records might be an exception here, I'm not sure.) -- Infrogmation 18:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Metrication