Earliest Known Sound Recordings Revealed

Good point Carl

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 @ Jun 08, 2009 13:12:15 PM

Interesting, but moot.

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 @ Jun 05, 2009 12:01:45 PM

Nonsense?

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 @ Jun 04, 2009 13:56:26 PM

Begrudging acknowledgements

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 @ Jun 04, 2009 04:17:38 AM

Concept is key, but substantiating is essential in invention

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 @ Jun 03, 2009 10:34:58 AM

Mere hindsight

Léon Scott wouldn't pass the laugh test as the inventor of the phonograph. He never intended his recordings to be played, and apparently did not realize that was even possible until Edison invented the phonograph. It is merely an attempt to re-write history in hindsight.

James Fox of PA @ Jun 03, 2009 07:42:50 AM

Concept

Edison was an extremely hard working and organized man who brought much to life. Nevertheless, it is clear that concept is the ultimate genius, and precept application the ultimate winner. It is somewhat sad that true creativity, wonderment, peaceful ponder take a back seat to the physical manifesters with the inside track. The French were highly conceptual, and have created much. Another example of credit mislaid is the Father of Relativity, Henri Poincarre. Indeed, Descartes, Pascal, Sartre and Camus are further examples of fine conceptual brilliance. Finally, Lorentz (Lorentz Transformation) worked all the equation strings toward quantification of relativity. Indeed, he did more than help Einstein toward his work end; yet, the last, and quite frankly, the least of the three, stole the show...

S. Croly of NY @ Jun 03, 2009 03:07:09 AM

it's all about semmantics

The arguement here is the same as: did Columbus discover America or conquer it. How can someone discover something that has already been discovered? When you find occuppied land and overtake/slaughter its inhabitants, its called conquer not discovery. Unfortunately, history taught in school credit Columbus for discovering the western world lands. I am not saying he didn't find it, but he certainly was not the first to discover it. Who did what first and for what purpose is all relative and a matter of semmantics for the history books.

christine of CT @ Jun 03, 2009 02:42:20 AM