The talking machine of the XVIII century was able to laugh, cry and sing arias. Isn't that a phonograph?
In the history of the phonograph Edison there was an unexpected crack. For almost a century and a half it was believed that it was he who was the first to create a machine that could write and reproduce the human voice. But the historian of the sound Patrick Fyster offered another candidate: the German speaker of the 1780’s, which could have appeared almost a hundred years before the famous Edison demonstration.
On December 7, 1877, Thomas Edison joined the editorial office of Scientific American in New York and put a metal device on the table. Several employees gathered around, the inventor turned the pen, and the device spoke in his voice. The car greeted and said a short phrase. For people accustomed to mechanical automata, but not to record live speech, it seemed almost impossible.
Two weeks later, the magazine described the demonstration in detail and printed the diagram of the device. Edison called his invention a phonograph. After the publication, his name quickly became known to the general public, and the phonograph was entrenched in history as the first machine that not only simulated speech, but recorded and reproduced a human voice.
Fiester doubted this version more than 20 years ago. He studied the old German article of the early 20th century about mechanical devices that synthesized individual sounds of speech, but did not write down a voice. The text mentioned a man named Mueller, who in the 1780’s showed the public a talking car. The author of the article considered the device an obvious deception, but the description hooked Fiester: the device was not very similar to the usual womb-wheeler.
Over the years, the historian found new traces of Mueller and his car. Among them was a book of 1788, when the device was shown in Erlangen. In two eyewitness accounts, important details coincided. The device occupied about 3.5 feet wide and 2.5 feet in height, that is, about 1.1 meters by 0.76 meters. On the sides there were two human figures in full size, male and female. Each figure held his hand on a locker with 34 speech mechanisms similar to organ pipes. Inside were also levers, rollers, cylinders, clockwork and 10 furs.
But the sources were confused. Some described a complex acoustic apparatus, others talked about a puppet who allegedly talked to the hall. In January, Fiester found an explanation for this confusion: in Germany in the 1780’s, there were two Muellers, and both showed talking machines. One of them, Laurentius Mueller, did use the talking doll, and this case was described as a deception. Another, Georg Theodore Jacob Müller, was interested in medicine and mechanics, and his device looked much more serious.
Of particular importance for Fiesther was the testimony of physicist Johann Tobias Mayer. According to his description, the sound passed from the top of the car through the tubes, then through the hands of two figures fell to their mouths. Thanks to this, the device gave different male and female voices. Meyer did not consider speech perfect, but noted that without pieces the sound became clearer: if the listener put his ear to the hole from above, the words differed better.
The repertoire of the car was unusually wide. She could answer 12 riddles, reproduce excerpts from books, laugh, cry, imitate kisses and perform arias with a man and a female voice. Later, Edison's phonograph was able to do it all by recording and replaying voice. The question is whether Mueller could find an early mechanical way to achieve a similar effect.
Contemporaries almost did not allow such an opportunity. At the end of the 18th century, talking automatas were often perceived as tricks, not as real devices for recording sound. According to Fyster, many believed in advance that no machine could do what was attributed to the apparatus of Georg Theodore Jacob Mueller.
Two details make you take more attention to this story. The first is related to the artificial ear. Mueller mentioned that his device used a mechanism similar to a human eardrum. In the 1780’s, such artificial ears were used as auditory devices: they collected sound vibrations from the air. In theory, such a node could become part of the recording system.
The second detail is even more interesting. When the audience uttered three or four words in the ear of one of the figures, after a while they heard the same words with their own voice. The usual echo does not explain this effect. For the sound to return with a latency sufficient for a clear repetition of a few words, a much larger amount of space would be needed inside the cabinet. If the witnesses were not mistaken and it was not in the unrest, Müller could use an unknown mechanical way to write and reproduce a short sound.
Even skeptics recognize the value of this find. Northwestern University media historian Jacob Smith believes that even in the event of a deception, Fiester’s work expands the idea of how people imagined talking machines long before Edison. History shows not only a possible technical trace, but also a cultural readiness to believe in a mechanical voice.
Fister has already participated in a revision of the history of early recording. In 2008, he and his colleagues showed that the phono-autograph of the late 1850s was probably the first to capture sound on paper. This device, created by the French typist, directed oscillations from an artificial ear to a stylus that drew lines on smoked paper. Later, the researchers were able to digitally turn such lines into audible record of a human voice.
Edison’s phonograph worked on a close physical basis, but with an important difference. Sound oscillations forced the needle to vibrate and cut the tracks on a strip of tin foil or paper with a wax coating. When the needle again passed through the grooves, the device reproduced the recorded sound. It was the possibility of replaying the replay that made the phonograph a revolutionary device for its time.
Smith notes that students in recording history classes are often surprised by the simplicity of an early phonograph. From a technical point of view, the device looked not like a fantastic electric machine, but as a relatively simple mechanic that could in principle be invented earlier.
So far, the evidence is not enough. The apparatus of Georg Theodore Jacob Muller has not been preserved, and the descriptions of the XVIII century do not allow us to unequivocally understand whether it was an early phonograph, a skillful acoustic machine or a well-defined trick. Fiester believes the version of the mechanical recording intriguing, but is still unproven. He continues to look for footprints in Germany, where new documents about the car may be preserved, which may have been talking almost a century before Edison.
In the history of the phonograph Edison there was an unexpected crack. For almost a century and a half it was believed that it was he who was the first to create a machine that could write and reproduce the human voice. But the historian of the sound Patrick Fyster offered another candidate: the German speaker of the 1780’s, which could have appeared almost a hundred years before the famous Edison demonstration.
On December 7, 1877, Thomas Edison joined the editorial office of Scientific American in New York and put a metal device on the table. Several employees gathered around, the inventor turned the pen, and the device spoke in his voice. The car greeted and said a short phrase. For people accustomed to mechanical automata, but not to record live speech, it seemed almost impossible.
Two weeks later, the magazine described the demonstration in detail and printed the diagram of the device. Edison called his invention a phonograph. After the publication, his name quickly became known to the general public, and the phonograph was entrenched in history as the first machine that not only simulated speech, but recorded and reproduced a human voice.
Fiester doubted this version more than 20 years ago. He studied the old German article of the early 20th century about mechanical devices that synthesized individual sounds of speech, but did not write down a voice. The text mentioned a man named Mueller, who in the 1780’s showed the public a talking car. The author of the article considered the device an obvious deception, but the description hooked Fiester: the device was not very similar to the usual womb-wheeler.
Over the years, the historian found new traces of Mueller and his car. Among them was a book of 1788, when the device was shown in Erlangen. In two eyewitness accounts, important details coincided. The device occupied about 3.5 feet wide and 2.5 feet in height, that is, about 1.1 meters by 0.76 meters. On the sides there were two human figures in full size, male and female. Each figure held his hand on a locker with 34 speech mechanisms similar to organ pipes. Inside were also levers, rollers, cylinders, clockwork and 10 furs.
But the sources were confused. Some described a complex acoustic apparatus, others talked about a puppet who allegedly talked to the hall. In January, Fiester found an explanation for this confusion: in Germany in the 1780’s, there were two Muellers, and both showed talking machines. One of them, Laurentius Mueller, did use the talking doll, and this case was described as a deception. Another, Georg Theodore Jacob Müller, was interested in medicine and mechanics, and his device looked much more serious.
Of particular importance for Fiesther was the testimony of physicist Johann Tobias Mayer. According to his description, the sound passed from the top of the car through the tubes, then through the hands of two figures fell to their mouths. Thanks to this, the device gave different male and female voices. Meyer did not consider speech perfect, but noted that without pieces the sound became clearer: if the listener put his ear to the hole from above, the words differed better.
The repertoire of the car was unusually wide. She could answer 12 riddles, reproduce excerpts from books, laugh, cry, imitate kisses and perform arias with a man and a female voice. Later, Edison's phonograph was able to do it all by recording and replaying voice. The question is whether Mueller could find an early mechanical way to achieve a similar effect.
Contemporaries almost did not allow such an opportunity. At the end of the 18th century, talking automatas were often perceived as tricks, not as real devices for recording sound. According to Fyster, many believed in advance that no machine could do what was attributed to the apparatus of Georg Theodore Jacob Mueller.
Two details make you take more attention to this story. The first is related to the artificial ear. Mueller mentioned that his device used a mechanism similar to a human eardrum. In the 1780’s, such artificial ears were used as auditory devices: they collected sound vibrations from the air. In theory, such a node could become part of the recording system.
The second detail is even more interesting. When the audience uttered three or four words in the ear of one of the figures, after a while they heard the same words with their own voice. The usual echo does not explain this effect. For the sound to return with a latency sufficient for a clear repetition of a few words, a much larger amount of space would be needed inside the cabinet. If the witnesses were not mistaken and it was not in the unrest, Müller could use an unknown mechanical way to write and reproduce a short sound.
Even skeptics recognize the value of this find. Northwestern University media historian Jacob Smith believes that even in the event of a deception, Fiester’s work expands the idea of how people imagined talking machines long before Edison. History shows not only a possible technical trace, but also a cultural readiness to believe in a mechanical voice.
Fister has already participated in a revision of the history of early recording. In 2008, he and his colleagues showed that the phono-autograph of the late 1850s was probably the first to capture sound on paper. This device, created by the French typist, directed oscillations from an artificial ear to a stylus that drew lines on smoked paper. Later, the researchers were able to digitally turn such lines into audible record of a human voice.
Edison’s phonograph worked on a close physical basis, but with an important difference. Sound oscillations forced the needle to vibrate and cut the tracks on a strip of tin foil or paper with a wax coating. When the needle again passed through the grooves, the device reproduced the recorded sound. It was the possibility of replaying the replay that made the phonograph a revolutionary device for its time.
Smith notes that students in recording history classes are often surprised by the simplicity of an early phonograph. From a technical point of view, the device looked not like a fantastic electric machine, but as a relatively simple mechanic that could in principle be invented earlier.
So far, the evidence is not enough. The apparatus of Georg Theodore Jacob Muller has not been preserved, and the descriptions of the XVIII century do not allow us to unequivocally understand whether it was an early phonograph, a skillful acoustic machine or a well-defined trick. Fiester believes the version of the mechanical recording intriguing, but is still unproven. He continues to look for footprints in Germany, where new documents about the car may be preserved, which may have been talking almost a century before Edison.
