Allen wrote: Patrick says: "We do not possess any document in which Edison explains the circumstances under which he thought his keyboard telephone might be used, or what its practical benefits might be." And yet also: "Edison's notebook entries of 26 May 1877 show that he was then already eager to build both a speech recorder and a speech generator," So I am confused. Is there a reason why this May 26th document was not quoted (in the article), regarding such a 'recorder'? And what was the actual imagined method of "recording"? >>>> There is a device at Greenfield Village here in Michigan that is a pair of flat copper discs -- square -- on paired turntables. This is an Edison device which I believe Gelatt cited as an intermediary one on the way to the phonograph. It was designed to pick up telegraph signals and to etch them into the first copper disc. Then it would engrave the same signal to the second, which would send the second message out after a certain period of time. I assume the discs were removable, though they are screwed down with large brass bulbs. I would love to know if this device makes any audible sound, and of course, what the messages are on the discs. I would be very happy to suggest that the First Sounds group should investigate it -- I can take you right to the thing. In any event, the point is that this device might well have been one of the steps TAE took in building "a speech recorder and a speech generator;" and might partly explain why he thought that the two things were necessarily separate entities. David N. "Uncle Dave" Lewis Assistant Editor, Classical Macrovision Solutions Corporation www.macrovision.com www.allmusic.com www.allmovie.com www.allgame.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Earliest recorded sound update on NPR In a message dated 6/2/2009 1:55:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: (reply below) ----- as Patrick Feaster has very convincingly argued (Spring 2007, ARSC), Edison's intention was originally to write speech by actuating keys, but he stumbled upon the logical possibility of playback of a recording. "Speech Acoustics and the Keyboard Telephone: Rethinking Edison's Discovery of the Phonograph Principle," ARSC Journal 38:1 (Spring 2007), 10-43. I argue that, contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, the phonograph actually originated in 1877 as a byproduct of Thomas Edison's unsuccessful plan to build a "keyboard talking telegraph," an instrument that would have allowed users to "play" individual speech sounds over a telephone line rather than speaking them into a mouthpiece." If you read his article, you would have to work hard to argue against his conclusions." --------------------------- Patrick has very kindly sent me a pdf version of his 2007article on Speech Acoustics, and it is indeed a wonderful overview of that annus mirabilis (1877). I would not so much argue "against" his conclusions, as to, ahem, amplify upon them. Much thanks, PF. The rhetorical device on which this re-interpretation hangs is a cited comment that TAE made in 1889, that a "reliable account" had not yet (then) been given of the discovery of the phonograph principle. One wonders what exactly would pass such a test, in his (TAE's) eyes? And for what reason would he himself, in his many interviews (1877-1880), leave out Patrick's conclusion that the idea was (strictly?) a result of his work on the "keyboard telegraph"? TAE certainly had many opportunities, then and later, to correct the "record" and preserve for posterity the 'true' story. But he never did this (apparently). Is there thus some "secret" (or unknown) version? Patrick mentions an interesting US patent, 474,230 (which contains material that was preserved (or paralleled) in Brit pat 2909). But 474,230 was only part of 2909, and the US application was "divided" (in 1877), finally yielding also 474,231 and 474,232. The former was executed on July 9th. Interestingly, it took 15 years to nurse the American version(s) thru the patent system, and those 3 were not granted until 1892. It would be very helpful to acquire the contents of their Patent Wrappers (contents) from the National Archives, as the preserved correspondence and adjustments would reveal what caused the conflicting issues (and long delay). Brit Pat 2909 had its own share of problems for Edison, as it started out as a telephone patent when it was filed, but was wrongheadedly used by Edison to introduce his tinfoil phonograph (in England) during its period of application (fig. 29 added). Eventually (1882), this attempt was disavowed by him, and the phonographic portion was removed. One could lose US protection if one filed for the same patent in another country first, even as an afterthought in a different patent. It was a fine art to get the procedures exactly correct. #2909's belated use for protecting the phonograph was a lawyer's blunder, and Edison himself admitted it could never be "made right" because of the Dec 24th addition. I do not know what year Edison first went to Washington DC, where Scott's Phonoautograph (Koenig model) was on Display (and had been since 1866). It is still there today, 145 years after it was bought for 500 francs. As far as I recall, Edison never mentions, in real time, his view of it (visual or in abstract thought), before 1877. I think he did see it during his Wash trip in April of 1878, where he must have been surprised at how close others (Scott & Koenig) had come to his "baby". But he and Scott were worlds apart in their approach to sound; Scott had no interest in preserving vertical vibrations, and no oscillations that were not distinctly visual, although Edison would mention lateral recording in his famous patent, 200,521. And no one was much interested in Thomas Young's work of 1806, which recorded the vibrations, in wax, of a tuning fork stylus on a drum. Young could have played back the first recorded sound - a tuning fork! Ironically, such a device (diapason tracing) appears even on Scott's 1860 effort. I see little doubt as to the origins of Edison's phonograph, as arising directly from TAE's work with the telephone. Nor should one omit the contextual influence of the telegraph and its various 'repeaters.' Telephones were still quite expensive and could only be rented in 1877. One of Edison's anticipated uses for his recorder was to save messages intended for recipients who still did not own one - they could visit a central office and play back what they missed (for a fee) when the call came in. This must have seemed a good idea at the time, but it was also Edison's later insight that people would never sit in a darkened room with strangers to watch flickering lights. Patrick says: "We do not possess any document in which Edison explains the circumstances under which he thought his keyboard telephone might be used, or what its practical benefits might be." And yet also: "Edison's notebook entries of 26 May 1877 show that he was then already eager to build both a speech recorder and a speech generator," So I am confused. Is there a reason why this May 26th document was not quoted (in the article), regarding such a 'recorder'? And what was the actual imagined method of "recording"? It is a fascinating enterprise to fathom how things get invented (logically) - we have the enormous advantage of hindsight, looking at the larger "flow" of ideas, and of course, where things "end up." But I would even argue that the phonograph was invented "too soon" - after all, it would be another 10 years before the culture would figure out (and apply) what to do with it. I wish we knew more about the "Halloo" device (made by Batchelor?), supposedly built before the first (rotating) tinfoil model. This "sliderule" contraption of wood used paraffined paper, left over from telegraph and condenser use. It was only pictured, in the Scientific American, a year later (Aug 1878). Certainly by July 1877, Edison had absorbed (and said so) the basic insight that the human voice, in its totality, could be saved like a photograph, to be preserved and recreated after its subject had left the room. I still like that pivotal July 18th date, as a defined Eureka moment. The various experiments that attracted Edison's acoustic interest in 1877, in retrospect, look like so many 'detours' until he got it right. But after all, Scott's machine had been widely pictured AND published in many Physics texts (USA, England, Germany, Italy), ever since 1860, and even at International Expositions (e.g. 1862). Why did NO ONE get inspired by the device to save and recreate sound from those carbonized tracings? It is one thing to look forward in time, another to look back. In retrospect, we can agree with the Wizard that all the savants in the world clearly overlooked how close Scott had come. It was easy for Edison to say so, since he had won the prize. Allen