Andy - shows how the memory plays tricks. I had always understood that the early recording was made at the Royal Albert Hall, not Crystal Palace, but if it's on a dedicated Crystal Palace page then maybe I'm wrong on this count. The playback quality is not simply the deterioration of the materials, but of the recording methods. Things needed to be close to the microphone to have a decent quality of playback because of the diaphragm that was used as the microphone, so it would never have been very good. I have an extensive collection of pre-electric 78s, and the quality of large ensembles is always very limited in tonal range.
History does indeed claim that Edison was the first to record sound with the MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nursery rhyme but, like many things, history often lies. Edison is credited with several things that someone else did first.
This story about the recordings made in soot on sheets of paper is still intriguing me. If it's a spoof - why? It's not exactly a clever one, and it didn't happen on April 1st. I just think it's all unlikely but I really want it to be true. I suppose it could easily have been established earlier on that pressure from a diaphragm could possibly record sound but no one had the method of using it. Maybe a modern parallel would be cryogenic suspension?
PHILIP
History does indeed claim that Edison was the first to record sound with the MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nursery rhyme but, like many things, history often lies. Edison is credited with several things that someone else did first.
This story about the recordings made in soot on sheets of paper is still intriguing me. If it's a spoof - why? It's not exactly a clever one, and it didn't happen on April 1st. I just think it's all unlikely but I really want it to be true. I suppose it could easily have been established earlier on that pressure from a diaphragm could possibly record sound but no one had the method of using it. Maybe a modern parallel would be cryogenic suspension?
PHILIP
Comment