Earliest Known Sound Recordings Revealed

Reader Comments
Back to article

There seems to be alot of misinformation being passed around by commentators that do not understand how sound recording works, or even what it is. The most basic definition of a sound recording is capturing a sound wave and storing the information (its amplitude as a function of time). It doesn't matter what the medium of storage is or if it can be played back. In this case, the medium of storage was a piece of paper and there is no known device that can "play" a piece of paper back in real time. However, that doesn't somehow make it any less valid of a recording. In fact, this day in age with computers, somebody could invent a device that could play that piece of paper back in real time.
This is not a hoax. This is not an attempt to re-write history. You do not need to have a playback device to record something. Sheet music is not a form of audio recording, it is written musical instructions. Have any of you even heard the recording? Scott de Martinville deserves credit where credit is due.

Matt of PA 11:38PM August 26, 2010

Margaret the Skeptic: yeah, and I am STILL not convinced, as you probably are not, that the world is round and that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Dockta D

Dockta D of DE 1:12PM June 02, 2010

Why doesn't anyone see that this is a hoax? Several years ago someone presented an "authentic" recording of Chopin playing the Minute Waltz with a similar technology. This turned out to be an April Fool's joke. It's funny how everyone just accepts these "discoveries" with no proof at all. Show me the paper!

Margaret Gunning of AR 12:38PM April 06, 2010

Technique Computer,enterprise sir appropriate point official expensive grant general reflect matter little hard track spirit vision reform hide century no concerned concern exercise hospital appointment ground let credit deal pool cos commission impact income ago fly completely quick base collect detail refuse in ordinary also raise surprise child increasingly study object president remind device knee vote video in off agency estimate support odd interested obvious left listen unlikely magazine an night protection practical threaten class test plan ourselves risk dream freedom lot threaten basis other growth building

Standardencourage of 9:34AM December 09, 2009

To Carl of CO:
Sheet music is not audio recording. In order for audio recording to take place, something must convert sound waves into another medium. Sheet music is just information.
Just as this post is not an audio recording of my voice.

Chad of NC 11:50AM October 07, 2009

I always wondered how technological advances were covered as far as media back then. For someone who was in the field, do you think it would have been possible for a technician who was interested in a topic to find information on new technology?

Patrick of KY 1:12PM June 08, 2009

They both did invent a form of recording. Edison also made it in a form that was also playable too. Without the ability to play it, it's only half done. There is a big difference between an conceptual and a practical invention .
Technically; sheet music is also a form of audio recording, it's just not as precise on playback and you need more equipment and people to play it back. Consider a orchestra and the singers. In term of optics the image is getting clearer.
Another point to consider is this. Was it parallel development? We forget that in those days global communication was almost a fantasy.
In newer terms it reminds me of the was between BETA and VHS formats for video recording. Both did similar things, but in the end VHS gained dominance just like Blu-Ray and over HD-DVD.

Carl of CO 12:01PM June 05, 2009

Nonsense? Maybe you should research the definition of the word sound. Sound comes from a movement of air molecules that causes a vibration in your ear. I never denied that it is a recording, so is a written account of information, but does it move air molecules?
If I move a pencil to record information, can that information in turn move the pencil? Also, there is a difference between a phonautograph and a phonograph. Edison invented the latter of the 2. Leon Scott invented the former. And of course Edison wouldn't care. He made his money, and besides that HE'S DEAD.

Patrick of KY 1:56PM June 04, 2009

Some of the comments here are a little begrudging I think. No one has claimed Léon Scott invented the phonograph, and to claim that it isn't recorded sound unless it can be played back is plainly nonsense. It is a record of a wave form, a real event ... it's a recording. I doubt Edison would care one way or the other so long as he had the patent.

Tony 4:17AM June 04, 2009

To me recorded sound is only what is audible. Having sound that could be played back seems like it would be essential in proving that the device actually worked. Until this article I always thought that the phonautograph was an early failed attempt at recording. I never knew he had any other purpose in mind. On the premise that he intended it to be used as a kind of "sheet music," it was still an unsuccessful invention. The important thing to me is that Leon Scott planted the seeds for the idea of recording. Conceptual credit is due for Leon Scott. Knowing that in my mind, I am still happy with giving Edison the credit for creating the device that recorded and played back the sound. Still though, "If a dream is a task that can be achieved in one's lifetime, one doesn't dream big enough." Dizzying commentary isn't it? :)

Patrick Hairston of KY 10:34AM June 03, 2009