Talk:LP record/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two-sided discs

I'm taking this sentence out: "Incidentally, having both an A-side and a B-side (unlike the first 78s) also gave users the option to continue playing the other side of the album."

This awkwardly worded sentence means that LPs have music on both sides, but that was not a novelty; it had been standard for several decades by the time LPs were introduced. Juryen (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Tense

Vinyl records are still pressed, sold and fairly easily available on the open market. Why then, is this article written in the past tense? The tone makes it sound as if the technology has totally dissapeared. Stephanie Weil (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps due to the market? There's probably a half-million CDs sold to every LP these days. Is it truthful that the LP is market is in the past? Well, no, but on a practical level, that is pretty hard to refute. Overall, I thought the content of this article was outstanding. Sipfan (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the cd sales also take into account digital sales, and are thusly inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.4.146 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

History

This article could use some historical background. According to NPR, the inventor was Peter Goldmark, and he was recently inducted into the (U.S.) National Inventor's Hall of Fame. -- Beland 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Name?

What exactly does the LP stand for in an LP record? -- Kevin ^(TALK) 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it stands for long play... but that is a total guess! :P FSHero 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LP=long play. As opposed to the earlier format 7" disc singles that only played for four minutes at most, 12" LPs could play up to 22 minutes per side. Thomprod (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Cryptic humour is inappropriate

I read in the article: An analogue DJ may have been liable to resort to any available crate of the correct aspect, plastic milk crates perhaps being popular [2] when they had become available, as they could perhaps have been easily obtained on an unauthorised 'loan' for only the cost of a little guilt, and the owners were unlikely to monitor the individual locations of their many, low-cost crates.

I realise that by 'loan', 'stealing' is meant. But I think that this sentence needs to be rephrased, since others may not realise this. People who don't encounter English very often may not understand this!

If I have time soon, I'll try to reword this. (I wonder if there's any way to set a reminder...) FSHero 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone that owns quite a few LPs, I'd also like to add that they DON'T FIT in standard milk crates.JamesBenjamin 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

LP album → LP — The overwhelmingly obvious usage of the term "LP" is "long player", i.e. the subject matter of this very awkwardly named article. In such cases the proper disambiguation scheme is for the most obvious usage to be at LP, and the disambiguation page to be at LP (disambiguation). kingboyk 12:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

• Oppose As CDs have largely replaced records, "LP" no longer 'overwhelmingly' refers to long-playing records in many people's minds. In addition, the letters LP are short for the adjectival "long-playing" record--LP is not the noun here, formally speaking. I think the problem is that the current LP page (not to mention the similar but not identical L.P. page) is littered with too many things that belong in a dictionary rather than here--many of them don't even mention "also known as LP" in their articles.WikiGnome 12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So we cater to teenagers only do we? Please tell me what usage of the term "LP" comes anywhere, anywhere close to long player album? --kingboyk 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not catering to teenagers, just to the world as it currently is and current word usage. We also don't write articles in Old or Middle English, to give a more extreme example. I'm not implying that no one uses records any more--just that many people no longer think "record album" when they hear "LP." And because there are many other terms that use that abbreviation, it makes sense to me to leave it as a disambiguation page. WikiGnome 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been suggested and rejected before, if I understand your suggestion correctly. The thing is that LP is more or less equally used in the meaning of release format and medium format (according to the work I did on disambiguating links once), so having the disambiguation page at LP is the correct thing to do. It seems to work fine as it is now. --Pekaje 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Release format and medium format? Do we need such a distinction? I'm not sure I even totally understand the distinction, alas :)/:( --kingboyk 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, let me clarify. By release format, I mean what kind of compilation it is. For instance, there is Album, Single, and EP (a few singles, but short of an album). By medium format I mean the physical medium, i.e. CD, Gramophone record, Compact Cassette, DVD, etc. Now, having seen a fair share of articles during disambiguating LP, I can say that neither Album, nor Gramophone record get the majority of links. The naming convention for disambiguation pages states that when there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the plain title, i.e. the one without (disambiguation). Oh, and the very fact that this discussion has been raised several times would seem to indicate that there is no primary topic ... :-) --Pekaje 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I think this article probably ought to be improved. I see the problem is with the messy articles not with any confusion over the meaning of LP. Are we agreed that LP - whatever it means exactly is something to do with music, to most people? :) If we are, then can't we construct an article which says an LP is an album, most usually a gramophone record. Alternatively, do we need the article LP album article at all, when album and gramophone record exist? --kingboyk 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes to the fact that LP means something with music. No to LP usually meaning gramophone record (evidence just doesn't bear this out). It seems that LP has slipped into general usage for meaning Album (not just on Wikipedia), yet when referencing a medium format it also means something else. I agree that it's not perfect as it is now, but what you're suggesting goes against the naming convention referenced earlier. I also fail to see the point in the move. --Pekaje 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The point to the move request is simply that 90%+ of people coming here (I estimate) are looking for the same thing: the meaning of the term in relation to music. This dab page isn't helping, nor is the existence of articles on roughly the same thing. I understand now what you're saying vis-a-vis LP as album vs LP as long playing vinyl record, but don't think they're sufficiently different to be sending readers on this wild goose chase. I'm certainly not proposing the deletion or hiding of the dab page; I just feel that users should end up at a suitable article first then can click through to the dab page if that article doesn't help. Currently they end up at a dab page, which should always be the second choice solution. I believe we can do something about that here. Perhaps redirecting LP to album. Perhaps merging LP album into album. I don't know, but I'm sure we could come up with something :) Thanks, again, for the dialogue. --kingboyk 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • But my point is that LP is the suitable name for the disambiguation page, since we have no way of knowing which one of the more or less equally popular usages brought them there. However, I think that LP needs some serious de-crufting to be useful again. --Pekaje 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I understand your point but I disagree; we'll have to agree to disagree on that one :) Very much agree with you on the decrufting. Cheers. --kingboyk 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. These days, I'd venture that LP more commonly refers to Liquid Propane than to albums. older ≠ wiser 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While that may be my primary meaning, I'm pretty sure that is not the primary meaning for the community at large. Vegaswikian 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to LP (album), LP (music) or LP (record), or something to that effect. "LP album" isn't a natural or common usage, it's in effect a kluged title to resolve the ambiguity, without making explicit that it is a disambiguation. Alai 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Longest LP?

The article currently states: The longest known LP is Judy Garland's "Collectors Remembrance Album" with a playing time of 90 minutes. However, I can't find any references to this album online other than mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Where is the evidence that such an album even exists, much less that it was the longest LP ever? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll replace it with info about The Comic Strip Presents, a comedy album from 1981 that runs for over 70 minutes (it has a 38-minute side!). Not sure how to 'cite' something like this. It was a pretty influential record in the British comedy scene so you can probably find a scan of the back cover, which states the playing time as over 70 minutes. 80.4.202.8 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands goes on at some...um...length about historical LP's of greater than average duration, but doesn't seem to mention any of lesser than average duration. Why is this? Because LP is an abbreviation of Long Player, not Brief Player? In any case, I think we should give the typical range, explain the technical problems associated with significantly exceeding the typical range, and leave it at that. Wikipedia in general needs to be much more wary of random listing. TheScotch (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

LP first used for Talking Books program

In my time at The American Foundation for the Blind, it was widely accepted that the LP was first used for the Talking Books program: recordings of texts on discs so blind or visually impaired subscribers could hear more lengthy recordings than were previously available. The AFB website (http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=69&DocumentID=3746) only gives this line of information, though: "The long-playing record (LP) was being used by those with vision loss 14 years before it was made available to the general public by CBS in 1948." They don't give any reference as to who might have developed the LP, if indeed the implication is that it wasn't CBS, which I don't believe such an implication necessarily exists in the wording of their quote. I just wanted to pass this information along as I feel it bears examination due to the possibility that the prehistory to CBS's public release of the LP is of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.232.85 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional Use of LP in the Digital Era

I believe this article is missing the context of LP as it relates to describing an album that has 8-10 tracks. EP is still used to describe new releases on digital media where the published album is shorter than 8 songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.143.189 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

LP album → LP record — Relisted since the nomination pointed to a closed discussion which may have confused editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only what one may call an album can be LP, there are also 7" or 10" records with the LP tag. long play *only* refers to smaller and closer together grooves, nothing else http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-format.html#LP_v_12 Album is a quite controversial term. Everybody has his own definition. the term 'album' must not be in the title E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. An LP is always a record but not always an album. For a time, LP was used as a shorthand synonym for record as in "this album is available on LP and cassette". — AjaxSmack 06:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - it's a "long-playing record", not a "long-playing album". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Columbia" trainwreck

The last subsection ("Columbia") under the history section has some serious problems -- it diverges significantly from the history of the LP (and mostly has nothing to do with Columbia), it's mostly unreferenced original research, and some of the tangential information is just plain wrong (talking about DJ's and queuing cassette tapes). Without having the time to consult the article history, it looks like this is victim of a merge or expansion gone sideways. Anyone familiar with the subject matter mind taking a look? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fidelity and formats

I'm not happy with the section on Fidelity and formats.

In the list of bullet points:

- The elliptical stylus is covered by the lower point on better stylus tip shapes.

- The benefits of lower tracking force are not explained.

- Quadraphonics was not a success. It was more a brave failure than a "significant advance", so either it needs to go or the preceding remarks need to be revised.

The comparison of sound quality of vinyl vs CD was hotly debated. On early CDs, quiet passages - especially on classical recordings - could sound unpleasant due to digitisation effects of the low waveform amplitude at that moment. High-frequency harmonics could be distorted by imperfect filtering at the 40 kHz cutoff point. Playback relied on accurate clock timing and synchronisation with playback speed, and some people believed the problem was underestimated by most equipment designers. Early CDs could sound especially bad if the engineers were inexperienced in the new technology. On the other hand vinyl had well-known problems of its own. Wendy Carlos has an informed discussion here.

The closing statement "Records are now used as wall art, since CD cases and album art don't show the true artistic value of the album art." is badly worded and not wholly correct. Album covers have been used as wall art at least as far back as the 1970's to my knowledge, probably much further back. Books of album cover art have been published.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because something was a commercial failure doesn't mean it wasn't a significant advance. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Genesis-Duke-LPpreecho.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Genesis-Duke-LPpreecho.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 12 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

variable pitch

This otherwise-excellent article completely overlooks variable-pitch recording, which was the method by which you could get a half-hour or more of music on one side, without having to greatly lower the recording level. It needs to be added. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

33 1/3

Still don't know why such an odd number for the rpm. Anyone? AMCKen (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding out might require a time machine trip back to 1924 and a visit to the Western Electric research laboratories, the year and place of origin. It was settled on as the speed to be used for the soundtrack discs in what was eventually dubbed the Vitaphone motion picture sound system, publicly unveiled in 1926 and most famously used for The Jazz Singer the following year. The reason for that exact speed still eludes me, as there is no obvious correlation with the 24-frames-per-second sound speed of the accompanying 35 mm film, which works out to 43.2 film frames per disc revolution. 30 rpm and 48 frames per rev seems more desirable for several reasons. AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can narrow it down. Like 45, 33-1/3 is one of the speeds that can be gotten from either 50Hz or 60Hz AC mains by an integer divide. To the end user, this might sound like ado over nothing, since turntables weren't gear-driven; but recording lathes were, to ensure cutting at exactly the proper speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage Dave (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Record cutting lathes are not gear driven; they are driven by electric motors connected by belts or directly connected to the platter. The motors are speed regulated by quartz timing circuits. Cutting lathes can vary the cutting speed.

The first 33 1/3 discs were not the modern LPs: RCA came out with ten-inch monaural 33 1/3 rpm disks in 1931. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt very much that quartz timing circuits were freely available in 1931, so the explanation given by Vintage Dave is perfectly plausible.

The continued production of 33 1/3 RPM records is easily explained: inertia, and the cost of providing new equipment and difficulty of obtaining the pocket-book approval of purchasers.

It wasn't broken, so they never fixed it.2602:304:AE25:BAD9:E9F5:D314:41FC:E511 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

RIAA EQ

"The RIAA equalization curve (used since 1954) de-emphasizes the bass notes during recording, allowing closer spacing of record grooves and hence more playing time"

Not so. This common - and understandable - misconception stems from naively inverting the playback curve. But magnetic pickups' output rises with frequency - 6dB per octave - and the playback curve corrects this as well as the recording's EQ. The cutting curve is actually a modest bass boost, to mask rumble, and a modest treble cut, to alleviate mis-tracking on playback and avoid cutting head burnout.

If I don't hear objections, I'll put in something like this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage Dave (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a misconception. You have this exactly backwards. Several references in the RIAA equalization article, including one that YOU added, disagree with you. Bass is cut during recording to avoid wide excursions. Treble is boosted during recording and cut during playback to reduce groove noise, which is mostly high frequencies.

Re "magnetic pickups' output rises with frequency", you are missing the point that the cutting head, being also a magnetic transducer but of the opposite "direction", has the opposite characteristic to the pickup: the cutter's output, that is its excursions, diminish with rising frequency. Thus the cutter and pickup cancel each other in this regard, so the playback curve does not have to compensate for that property of the pickup. It is left for the playback curve to invert the recording curve, which is what it does. The Stereophile article, referenced in RIAA equalization, describes this.

You'll need to provide several very authoritative references, not just your own interpretation, if you expect to make such changes and not have them reverted. Jeh (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Jeh is correct. Vintage Dave is exactly backwards. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

5-inch albums?

So someone puts out a 5-inch vinyl record, and someone else thinks that's an album, so now the LP format includes 5-inch singles? Seriously? This article is about the LP, please leave it about the LP. If there are albums that have been released over multiple 7-inch records, so what? It's irrelevant. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We must separate LP from Album, LP≠Album, there are other types released on LP, such as Mini-Albums and, yes, singles. LP is only a vinyl format, not a type of release, Albums are released sometimes on EPs. We should keep this article only about the physical LP vinyl and this LP vinyl is sometimes released on 7" and 5" and it has nothing to do with type of this release. I know that 12 and 10" are common, but 7 and 5" LPs exist and are worth of mention that such things are available.. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no 5" LP format. It's just nonsense. --Michig (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Michig. There is no LP on smaller format than 10 inches. In fact, 10 inches is long out of date. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting wikipedia: "Long play: LP record, a vinyl record that spins at 33⅓ rpm"

10" is not out of use, recent example of 10" LP: [1]

5" LP: [2]

LP generally si a 33rpm record, so this means every vinyl that rotates at 33rpm is an LP, no matter how silly it loks with small diameter, as 5"LP playes LONGer than 5"EP, or 5"SP.

A selection of 5" Vinyl LPs: [3]

33rpm is synonymous to LP, as LP is a 33rpm record, as written in wikipedia.

Thus, to have the most complete information on Wikipedia it must be noted that there exist other non-standard LP sizes.

83.13.239.255 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your link to a notional 10" LP says "single". Your link to a notional 5" LP says "single". The single format is not an LP format.

The 33.33 rpm speed plus a long playing time determines the LP format. Tiny records that spin at 33.33 are not LPs. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir, a single is a release type, not a physical format of a data carrier, an LP can be a single. Single is not a format, but a type of a release, the same as Album and Mini-Album, while LP is a kind of vinyl, like a CD and DVD are types of optical discs.

There you go with a 7" LP:

http://www.discogs.com/Judas-Priest-Judas-Priest/release/1883889

Explicitely written on cover 33rpm Long Play, All 33rpm vinyls are Long Plays, this is how Columbia created, patented and introduced this format in 1948, no matter if this is 16", or 5" vinyl, if it is 33rppm it is LP record, the same goes with other speeds, 45rpm is Extended Play and 78rpm is standard Play.

SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Some 33.33 rpm singles were cut, notably the 1949 "Columbia Microgroove" series.[4] As well, some novelty recordings were pressed as 33.33 rpm singles through the '60s and '70s. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So, sir, you admit that there are singles pressed on LP vinyls in existance? Then there might be also singles pressed on 5" LPs, hey, there are, Therion's Les Sucettes, so please add 7" and 5" to the article next to 12" and 10", because I have just proven that these are diameters used for LP records, rare, but used. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A "single" is the intent to produce one song on one side of a disc. The technical format does not matter as much as the intent. If the single has a slower speed or a larger size, it is still a single. A single is not an LP. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said multiple times, Single is a term describing the content of music release, a Single can be LP, if it is released on a 33rpm vinyl, no matter what size. A Long lay vinyl is a 33rpm disc, as created by Columbia Records and 7" and 5" LP discs are in use, not as common as 12", or 10" but they are still Lpng Play record, if they were 45rpm they would be EPs, if they were 78rpm they would be SPs.

SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is not going to make it true. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given you a plysical example of 7" LP, that has explicitely written on sleve LONG PLAY, how hard is to understand, that columbia records designed the Long Play format to play on 33rpm, and not to have one diameter? Therefore all vinyls playing on 33rpm are Long Plays, as for 5" I OWN 5" 33rpm vinyl, if it is 33rpm, then it is LP, I own 10" 78rpms, but they are Standard Plays, they have even written on the sleeve "78 rpm standard play", the terms LP, EP and SP are from the middle of 20th century and were made to describe one of 3 binyl types wach with attributed certain speed, then some moron started using these terms to describe the length content of release and they became incorrect synonyms of Album, Mini-Album and Single. This discussion is over, I gave example of 7" LP, so add it to Size inthe infobox, or i will have to do it.

SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your original research. Wikipedia text should be composed by referring to published accounts, not by investigating the matter yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, another 7" LP, I see no reason why 7" and 5" shouldn't be put as diameter, LP itself is a 33rpm vinyl, or the best option would be to remove the Diameter section in infobox at all, as LPs exist in variety of sizes from 16" to 5".

SF 83.13.239.255 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.discogs.com/release/6161107

I'm happy to keep learning about your finds, but the article cannot host your original research. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree 83.13 is bringing up some interesting discs, but I'm throwing what little weight I have behind Michig and Binksternet, they are correct. A single by definition is not an LP record. 83.13 is incorrect, they did not market the 1949 7" 33rpm as "long plays", they marketed them as "microgroove". Also, 16" 33rpm records are not called LP by any collector that I know, and I have known and corresponded with hundreds in my 30+ years of collecting. They are "electrical transcriptions". Although except for a few experimental discs all are 33rpm, most are not microgroove. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)