Talk:Phonograph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photos

Er.. I don't get it. If Phonograph is the cylinder thing and gramophone is the disc thing, why does gramophone redirect to here. As gramophone is by far the more successful of the devices then surely either phonograph should redirect to gramophone or gramophone should have its own page. (anon)

As the article says, what is called a gramophone in UK English is called a phonograph in American English. The the cylinder and disc technology, early on, had little difference other than the shape of the record. The article discusses both phonographs and gramophones (UK usage); perhaps that should be made clearer at the top of the article. -- Infrogmation 15:32 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Second the motion 67.32.164.199 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. So long as it's also possible to have a Gramophone (magazine) (UK magazine on classical music, reasonably major in the field) that doesn't resolve to Phonograph (magazine), but it seems that is does and will... Schissel 05:45, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Except that it's called The Gramophone and the article would be titled accordingly. Graham 22:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word "gramophone" is highly specific, referring to one specific approach to recording and reproducing sound, whereas there's a long tradition (at least in American usage) of using "phonograph" as the generic term for all sound-recording instruments. Thus, a "gramophone" is arguably a type of "phonograph" in a way that a "phonograph" is not a type of "gramophone." So "phonograph" should not redirect to "gramophone" any more than "dog" should redirect to "beagle." But the idea of a separate gramophone page may have merit. Phonozoic (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've modified some of the information listed under "oldest playable recordings" to conform to the latest published information. Specifically, there's now some doubt about the age of the Lambert lead pipe; the original Handel Crystal Palace cylinders do survive, not just dubs; and there are now so many cylinders known to be older than the Stanley recording that it seemed advisable to drop the reference to that one. Phonozoic 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added Anthropology and the Phonograph to this page because the phonograph is a very important tool not only for the use of music but for recording distant cultures that before were unable to be displayed around the world. The phonograph changed the way that people all over the world carried out anthropology. There are two new links that go to the San Fransisco State University Museum of Anthropology and to Edison Sound recordings, an alternitive site to listen to early 20th century recordings via MP3. Also i have tried to add my references but it has deleted all the other ones, i apologize for doing so and would like to know how to fix the problem. Thank You, RBiggs1013

Sorry, but I think this section is misplaced in this article, and I don't think it quite captures the scope of its topic. I believe that this section is more essentially identifying the important impact of sound reproduction technology on academic study in general. Certainly, it has had a major impact on anthropology -- the same sort of impact it's had on psychology, linguistics, political science, theater. I think this section, supported by references, might be a valuable addition to Sound recording and reproduction. The impact of the phonograph on anthropology is neither a phenomenon peculiar to the field nor to the device. —ptk✰fgs 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a very knowledgable and enthusiastic new editor here who made some major revisions to the article. Welcome, and thank you for your input and work! However there were a few possible new user mistakes, like adding signatures to the article, and IMO a bit of text taken out that I thought should go back in. I've edited what I thought should be, but a double check of recent edits by another experienced editor here would be appreciated, thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I provided some grammar-type improvements (such as toning down the use of commas) and a few corrections. The enthusiam for turntables has also spilled over into some other articles. :) --Blainster 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the reference to thermal noise in the pickup system section, because thermal noise by its nature is not reducable by shielding. Also added clarifications on tone arm forces, and a bit on the stylus. --Blainster 05:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The section claiming that "many" audiophiles believe Vinyl is better than CD should support the argument the other way as well, as "more" people probably feel the same way about CD/DVD Audio/SACD etc, I don't have the time, but i think it'd be good if someone could find some scientifically done double blind testing on vinyl vs cd etc. "Audiophile" magazines are rarely a valid source for any sort of real information on this debate (except that of opinion). 220.253.99.47 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the high-end audio article. It is perfectly fitting to have a section that describes why the subject of this article is still relevant today. The tone of the section is fairly neutral and does not warrant the NPOV tag. -- Austin Murphy 20:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Carbon fiber

Is a single filement (that is, a carbon fiber) used to hold the stylus, or are we talking about a graphite-reinforced plastic with resin holding many fibers together? I've recently deconflated these two topics, and I'm trying to make all the links go to the right place, but in this case I'm not quite sure. If someone in the know could take care of this article, I'd appreciate it.--Joel 04:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stereo

How does stereo playback from a record player work? I think if anybody knows how it works it should be added to this article. I can't for the life of me figure out how one needle can produce two seperate sound tracks. Borb 22:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I just found the answer (after a bit of searching) on Gramophone record. It says the needle moves up and down as well as side to side. I think that should be incorporated into this article as I think it belongs here more than on the gramophone record page. Borb 23:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is also explained in the Magnetic cartridge article linked from the phonograph article (although not as well the external link animation at [1]). Since it is the cartridge that produces the sound, not the whole machine, that should be the best place for the explanation. Notice that the stereo signal multiplexes the motion in both planes into each channel. That is, the horizontal motion (mono) gives L+R channels, while the vertical motion L-R is also contained in both channels. This is the same way that an FM radio signal is multiplexed so that a mono radio picks it up fine (L+R) while the stereo radio adds and subtracts the (L-R) signal carried at a higher frequency to get the separate left and right channels. But the pickup coils do it mechanically by being oriented at 45° so that each channel picks up vibration in both horiz. and vert. planes:(L+R) + (L-R) = L for the left channel or (L+R) - (L-R) = R for the right channel. --Blainster 08:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither one of you (referring to the two responses above) are quite correct on this. The first is a common misconception, that the side-to-side movement of monophonic recordings was supplemented by up-and-down ("hill-and-dale") motion for the 2nd channel. And the second reply is correct for FM multiplex, but not for records. In fact (and this is explained in the magnetic cartridge article), the two channels are cut at 45° to the record surface (90°) to each other. There's no need for "sum and difference" signals as there is with FM (this is how older monophonic and newer stereo FM equipment can use the same main signal). Mono players (are there still any out there?) simply sum the two channels mechanically. --ILike2BeAnonymous 00:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging Individual Types of Turntable into Phonograph

The Direct_drive_turntable page is pretty poorly written and overlaps heavily with this page (which is far better written). So I reccommend a merge.

• Another option is that the Direct Drive Turntable page could have related material from phonograph moved into it, and a re-write.
• Opinions? Ideas?

The Phonograph article is big (long) enough as it is. Merging it with the other article could mean that we would now have think of ways of shortening the phonograph article. Both articles will grow in the near future/future. Leaving them as seperate articles is probably the best option.

Concur. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There's also a Belt drive turntable article. Rootless 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no. They are completely different things.

I agree with leaving them as separate articles. The articles on both the belt-drive turntable & direct drive have tons of room for expansion. Plus, they're the sorts of things people will research individually. glitterglue

Australian Terminology

This page mentions British and American terminlology but does not mention Australian terminology. I dislike the fact that most of the (anglophone) web is to UK/US centred, when the education system in Australia is centred down under.

So, go ahead and add information that is lacking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mechanical gramophones

I visited this page for information on the early mecahnical gramophones/phonographs (mainly 78rpm and cylinder), but was surprised that there was very little - I think it would be great if there was a separate page for these machines which went into their detail and maybe history. -elynnia-

There is no freaking information on the KLH Model 11 Portable anywhere on the wikipedia website and all who trust wikipedia are silly ducks. This is due to the fact that anyone can come onto the website and change anything and everything. Just like what I am doing now. Click the edit button and type away. So hmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.45.226 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, silly duck. Please do type away if you have something useful to add (edits that make things worse rather than better generally get reverted). -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stack player

At the miscellaneous reference desk I asked someone if they could add their knowledge about stack players to this article and got the following reply. Just thought that this would be the best place to safeguard this info, in case someone might want to use it here. Oh, and the reason this came up is a that I asked why some (US) double albums are backed 1/4 and 2/3. Turns out this was for use on stack players - after playing sides 1 and 2 (on the two separate lp's), you'd turn them around and sides 3 and 4 would get played. DirkvdM 10:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a very finished-looking article that seems to have been well researched and is written in excessively posh language. I ain't touchin' it to add sumthin' just based on my recollections.

With the stack player my parents had, instead of a short center post to put the records on, there was one about 4 inches high, with a pair of little prongs sticking out (like thorns, angled upwards) about an inch down. There was also a holder arm, (shaped like a backward ? with the curved part relatively small), mounted on a second vertical post to one side of the record. In its normal position its curve was hooked around the center post without touching it, but it was free to be lifted upward on the post, and in its highest position you could pivot it around the post and swing it to one side, clear of the area above the actual turntable.

To load the player, you first lifted the holder arm and swung it to the side. Then you put one or more records on the center post and let them slide down as far as the prongs. Since they were suspended in the air by their centers, they would now tend to tilt, but now you would swing the holder arm back in and lower it onto them, letting it lie on the top of the top record in the stack.

When you pressed the start control (or when the end of a record was reached and the tone arm had returned automatically to its start position), the prongs would retract for a moment and allow one record to drop to the turntable. I think there was a second pair of prongs that protruded at a slightly higher level during this process to keep more than one record from dropping, or something like that. Once the record dropped, then the tone arm would move back in and start playing it. When the last record dropped, the holder arm would finish in a position below the prongs and this would trigger a sensor that kept the mechanism from trying to start another record. Then when the record finished and the tone arm returned to its start position, the turntable would just switch itself off instead.

If you used the stacker, you had to use it even to play a single record. You also had the option of not using it, if it wouldn't work with your record (I think it wouldn't work with 78 RPM records because they were too thick, although we never had any 78's) or if you were afraid of it getting scratched. In that case you would lift out the center post and insert a short one without the mechanism. I think if you then used the normal start control it would detect that no record was stacked and would stop instead, so you had to move the tone arm onto the record by hand.

Most systems however detected mechanically the shorter center post and hereby accepted a normal startup of playing of just a single record and stopped also afterwards. Even a very old 78rpm changer (yes they did exist!) I once repaired when young possessed this feature. Donvr (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

--Anonymous, writing entirely from memory, 18:25 UTC, January 21, 2006.

In the U.S. these were called record changers, and they dominated the market in the 1950s and early 1960s. Only the cheapest record players, or professional transcription turntables came without a changer arm in those days. Most of these units used ceramic cartridges tracking at 5-8 g and styluses with two points, a 1 mil (.03 mm) diamond for 33⅓ LPs on one side and a 3 mil saphire for 78 rpm on the other. The stylus could be flipped over for the proper record type.--Blainster 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Portables and manufacturers

We have nothing on the many portable players of the 1960s, not even the nice ones like the KLH Model 11.

And how about the many Garrard turntables that were dominant in the 1960s and 1970s? History of Garrard -- Perspective 02:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This info can be put into articles on the appropriate models, and a new category for phonographs to relate them to this article. --Blainster 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Navbox placement

Part of a good encyclopedia is good page design. Some articles have pictures, content boxes, and other illustrations arranged carefully so that they complement the article. Please take some care in placing them so they are symmetrical and won't negatively affect the page formatting or run into the text. --Blainster 18:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No conflict with present posn on my screen--Light current 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Your positioning pushes the "phonograph photograph" across a section boundary, creating an ugly kludge. Lindosland has agreed with me on the preferred positioning. --Blainster 22:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the preferred posn?--Light current 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we discussed this on Lindos' talk page and agreed that placement next to the contents box is generally more compact, and the contents box auto adjusts to narrower screen widths for those that have them. But we aren't insisting on rules, just want to have the branchlist in a prominent place while still integrating with the other page elements. When there is no picture at the top there is generally no problem. It is when an image is present that more care is needed. --Blainster 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fools

Someone's leg is being pulled here. Hint: it's near the end of the article. (Hey, wasn't me.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was quite cute. dewet|™ 07:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry to see it gone. Next time I'll keep my big mouth shut. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Phonautograph

Is there any way to reproduce phonautograph recordings by, let's say, tracing the waveforms of the recordings, and translating it to sound? I've never heard of any attempt of this.

Neither have I, but they should be easily scannable (optically), then digitized into sound. Surprised nobody's done this if there are unheard recordings extant. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been done, see here. -- Rootless 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, you meant phonoautograph recordings... You'll have to convince Ofer Springer to modify his software, then. -- Rootless 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting "archaeology" experiment. Interesting, too, that he got a fundamental thing wrong: like so many other people, he believes that stereo phonograph records were recorded with one channel horizontal, the other channel vertical (so-called "hill-and-dale" recording). While there were systems tried that used this approach, the typical ordinary LP placed the two channels each at 45° from the horizontal (or 90°) to each other. (I think this is explained correctly in this article, though there was even this misinformation here at one time). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent revelation of Leon Scott's 1860 phonautogram of "Au Clair de la Luna" says that this is "the earliest known recording of sound to be played back as well as the earliest known recorded sound confirmed to be playable" I think this language is a bit vague, confusing and somewhat muted in its historical importance. In fact, the phonautogram of this song is currently the oldest known recording of a human voice, the oldest known recording of music and the oldest known recording of sound in history. It seems that Edison supporters are trying to spin this as not a legitimate discovery so as not to infringe on his legacy. Unfortunately for Edison, his record has in fact been broken. (Pun intended)

On another note, kudos for ILike2BeAnonymous, who actually came up with the theory of how to do this well over a year before it was actually achieved! (see above) Yet another example of Wikipedia's significance in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.206.219 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: If you look at the FirstSounds website where these recordings have been published, you'll see that the "Au Clair de la Lune" is not the oldest known recording of sound -- they have also posted an 1859 recording of a tuning fork at 435 Hz and an 1857 recording "of a voice from a distance" which, at least in part, has been recovered, though still garbled. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I aslo wanted to leave a note here to say that I feel the link within the article to the audio file of the newly-recovered "Claire de la Lune" recording is highly relevant to this entry, and should not be summarily deleted. I have restored it, and if the anonymous IP user who deleted it would like to explain why he/she feels it is not relevant, I would welcome comments here. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Steel needle lifespan?

I'm sure I've read that steel needles on wind-up (and early electric) phonographs were intended to be used only once - i.e. you were meant to change the needle after every record side. Supposedly, if you failed to do this, your records would wear out very quickly indeed.

Does anyone know if there's any truth to this, or if there were any specific recommendations on needle life in the days before sapphire/diamond styli? 217.155.20.163 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that's not true. Somewhere around here in my archives (i.e., piles of crap) is a table of needle lifespans, listing steel, osmium and diamond: as I remember, even steel needles give multiple playings. I'll try to find it, and add it to the article when I do. (So the answer to your last question is "yes": manufacturers listed their estimates of needle life before and after sapphire/diamond styli.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely true for standard old style wind up disc players. The reproducers are quite heavy, and playing will produce wear. Soft steel needles (and less common variations such as bamboo and cactus needles, which produced significantly less loud sound) were used to make more of the wear go to cheap replacable needles rather than to the records. Some folks would rotate the needle about 180 degrees between sides to get two plays from a needle, but this money saving practice is not reccomended. "Use once needles" continued in a few of the very earliest electric pickups of the 1920s, but then were replaced by longer lasting stili as newer style pickups put less weight on the records. If you're thinking of playing records on an old windup Victrola or something similar, don't use any near mint nor very valuable records if you wish to keep them in as good condition as you can. Do use the use-once steel needles per original instructions. Yes, a few companies do still make new ones. Saphire and diamond needles are a different case and can be used for a very long time if they are not nicked or damaged. BTW, minority technologies such as the Edison systems were using semi-permenant diamond needles many years before such were adopted by the standard lateral cut gramophone record companies. -- Infrogmation 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea behind the use of soft steel needles for playing records was that nearly all the wear occured to a cheap easily replaceable needle rather than the relatively expensive record. The nature of the way a gramophone operates dictates that the needle wears substantially greater on one side than the other. This is because the spiral groove imparts a force on the needle driving it towards the middle of the record. The tone just has a plain bearing (if you could even describe it as that) that requires a relatively high force to turn it compared with modern tone arms. The means that the needle, which starts as a spherical point, becomes sharper as the record is played. Some people like to push the needle for 2 sides, but it isn't to be recommended bearing in mind that 78 records are now irreplaceable. Do beware of cheap needles made in China, they have a much sharper point and are also harder. They wear records out much quicker than needles of the correct shape. It should be noted that the radius of the spherical point (0.003 inch) is actually a compromise as different manufacturers designed their grooves to be played with different radii of needle or stylus (and no-one actually used 0.003 inch). I B Wright (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I've done a bit of reordering & cleaning up of the Terminology section; however it's still somewhat long, repetitive and poorly structured. Please improve! Ben Finn 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The terminology section mentions "grams of fat". Is that a vandalism (possibly corrupted "gramophone") or some term I'm not familiar with? Stepho-wrs (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming and structure(again)

Just to raise an old chestnut again, this article is clearly more generic than phonographs and perhaps it is worth reconsidering whether the main article should be "Record player" with the archaic terms redirecting here. That might then lead to a better split of the article with Gramophone/Phonograph being split out, only discussing old technology with a brief summary remaining here. Spenny 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It might also discourage such anachronisms as "The phonograph in the 21st century"! Spenny 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to make a compromise between U.S and British usage here. In the U.S., "record player" is a more specific term than phonograph, referring to units with built-in amplification and loudspeakers. —ptk✰fgs 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a big difference. I guess the problem is that record player is not the perfect word as it is still to a certain extent informal and imprecise. Instruction books and so on do tend to talk of phonographic equipment so perhaps I am being overly sensitive. That being said, I think it would be useful to get a division between the history of the phonograph and how a phonograph works (and I hate writing it like that, it seems really unnatural). Perhaps that is the restructure, rather than a rename. How do people feel about a summary article and then two new articles "History of the phonograph" and something like "Technology of the phonograph"? Spenny 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that "record player" would refer specifically to reproduction (i.e., "playback") equipment, whereas the article deals equally with a recording technology. Phonozoic 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Audio quality

I removed the section with the blustering about digital having a "noise gate" that hides subtle recorded details. This is complete BS and totally incorrect. The Analog sound vs. digital sound article should be proof enough for this. The dynamic range of an LP is in the realm of 20-25db worse than CD audio (75db vs. 96db), thus even 16 bit digital is an immense improvement in noise performance. This equates directly to the medium's ability to record and playback quiet and subtle "audio cues."

Please don't add that foolishness back into an article that has good stuff in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.167.186 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 July 2007

Undid the reverted edits to again remove the above referenced section, which couldn't be more incorrect. The above writer (which was me when I didn't sign in from a remote location) is right, there is no "noise gate" and LP's have far, far less dynamic range (although they have enough). Infrogmation, do some research. The 75db noise floor of an LP is actually being generous, and 90+db is possible to achieve with even the most inexpensive digital audio playback equipment. There is no argument here, these are facts. And I am not even a fan of the CD, I prefer my LP's, but not because I am under the incorrect impression that they are LESS noisy or have MORE dynamic range (both would directly equate to a lower noise floor for LP's, which is not the case). Tell22 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For that text to be added back in, some pretty solid source needs to be provided to meet Wikipedia verification policy (which doesn't just mean a quote from HiFi Answers). I'm not keen on quoting policy (usually because it is aimed at me!), but this is appropriate here. Spenny 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That text was totally wrong anyways, and was totally non-technical jargon to boot. There are many great things about vinyl, noise floor is not one of them. Even analog tape is quite a bit better, and with high output tape and noise reduction, open reel tape noise performance can really be quite excellent. But even excellent tape still far noisier than even CD quality digital audio.Tell22 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Surving Music

"Frank Lambert's lead cylinder recording for an experimental talking clock is often identified as the oldest surviving playable sound recording,[2] although the evidence advanced for its early date is controversial.[3] The phonograph cylinders made on June 29, 1888 of Handel's choral music at The Crystal Palace in London are the oldest known surviving musical recordings.[4]" "Controversial" is not synonymous with "incorrect". Should the second part be changed to make this clearer, or am I missing something that makes both of the statements correct? --Daniel 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Phonautograph paragraph

I am not sure enough about doing edits correctly so I will add my information here, and let someone else do the edit.

On a BBC radio interview clip in today's news, the interviewer is speaking to the inventor's great-grandson. He makes the comment that the only known working phonautograph, still in his family, was stolen and never recovered, in 2001. The link to that radio article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7318700/7318701.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1 J. Kulacz 96.18.50.143 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the phonautograph here at all is already one step off topic. Mentioning this news item is two steps off. This article is about the phonograph. The info belongs at the phonautograph and sound recording articles, not here. WillOakland (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point here, but this would require that there be an article on the phonautograph, whereas at present it is only a redirect to Phonograph. Until someone creates an independent article, the materials in the section here seem important enough that they ought not to be summarily blanked. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. That is clearly wrong, if it redirects then it should redirect to the article about Scott at least. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split

As per earlier discussion here on the Talk page, I would like to suggest that the "Phonautograph" section be split off into its own article (the article title currently redirects here). Reasons being: this is a separate technology, originally not intended for sound reproduction, and ergo not a subset of "Phonograph" which otherwise includes only machines capable of reproducing sound; section on the recovered 1860 recording has already been once deleted as off-topic by an anonymous user; interest in Phonautograph and newly recovered recordings significant and notable enough to merit a separate article. Clevelander96 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An afterthought to this -- now that an image of Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville has been placed at the top of the entry, it seems to me we need to make a clearer distinction about "first recording intended for sound reproduction" or else give the whole entry an overhaul using all early sound technologies and melding the timelines together. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. We have enough material on the subject to warrent a seperate article on the phonautograph (I suspect we did not back when the redirect was created back in 2004). -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support As this vote has garnered little interest, but seems uncontroversial, I'll boldly do it. As of this year, this topic is worthy of an article of its own; in 2006, it was a footnote. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

date of announcement phonograph

In the article, it is stated that Edison "announced his invention of the first phonograph, a device for recording and replaying sound, on November 21, 1877, and he demonstrated the device for the first time on November 29".

This do not seem to concur with two newspaper articles from that year. One, in the New York Times from November 7, 1877 (p.4), begins: "The telephone [...] is destined to be entirely eclipsed by the new invention of the phonograph. The former transmitted sound. The latter bottles it." Nowhere in the article is the inventor of the phonograph mentioned.

The other article was printed in the New York Sun on November 6th and reproduced in the Chicago Daily Tribune on November 8th, 1877 (p.2). It begins: "The Scientific American of this week contains the first announcement of what may be the most wonderful invention of the day. [...] whoever has spoken or whoever may speak into the mouth-piece of the phonograph, and whose voices are recorded by it, has the assurance that his speech may be reproduced audibly in his own tones long after he himself has turned to dust." The article then goes on to describe the machine and his possibilities. Again, the name of the inventor is not mentioned. Which is curious, because Edison had been in the news quite often that year because of his inventions in telegraphy and telephony.

So which is the correct date of Edison's unveiling of his invention? mwvandersteen 17:02 jun 8, 2008 [GMT] —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Styli

What's with this "1 gram of stylus force" statement? A gram is a unit of mass, not force!

Bkaduk (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ceramic v. moving magnet

Oh, if only MM won out on the low end. Nope. Magnavox might have finally stepped up for its console stereos at some point in the 70's, and the cheapest stereo seperate units did _eventally_ drop ceramic, but ceramic carts provided reproduction in virtually every cheap K-mart stereo and kids table sold under brands like Yorx, Soundesign, Emerson, and many if not most branded mini-systems, too. They're still in use today for nostalgia tables and the portable Numark unit. This article should be edited; currently, it makes it look like MM killed ceramic for all purposes, when ceramic tables probably OUTSOLD moving magnet ones in the seventies and eighties. --128.119.22.152 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)