#cylinders — Public Fediverse posts on home.social

Georgiana Brummell @[email protected] · 2025-11-04 · 06:01 UTC

*I'm saying we, since I would need to work with an expert. I am not only totally blind (who knows if this would be accessible), but I know nothing about this sort of thing.*
To make a very long story short, I am aware that there is severe frequency loss in acoustic recordings. That is why they sound so tinny, even when compared to the earliest electrics. Some voices are affected more than others, but even the ones with the best recordings still experience some of it. With the advances in technology at our disposal in 2025, however, I am wondering if it would be possible to attempt to restore some of those frequencies. Ideally, it might sound like something from the 1940's, but I doubt that is possible, at least with the earlier records, so at least the 1920's or 1930's would be great.

The thing is, I don't know exactly what is lost. So my idea is to record a modern singer (with at least a somewhat similar voice to the original) on period equipment and digitally symultaneously. In this way, we would have the live singer, plus two very different recordings. We could then compare the live, electric, and acoustic versions with a device or software that measures frequencies. Once we have determined what is lost, we could then try to restore the actual records in question.

If we were doing this with a cylinder machine, it would be very easy. Not only can one literally still record at the Edison Museum, but there are people today who record in wax with both real machines and reproductions, including commercially! However, the first singer whom I have in mind for this, Francesco Tamagno, recorded on disks, which complicates everything. I was very familiar with cylinder recording prior to designing this project, though I had never done it myself, but I knew absolutely nothing about 78s. Then, I learned.

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/making-gramophone-records

As I was saying, it is beyond complicated! Even if we took a chance and recorded the wax master and then used it for playback, skipping the step of actually making a shellac record, there is still the issue of finding recording equipment from Tamagno's time, which is ridiculously rare and doubtlessly too expensive for most people to consider buying. You might ask why we couldn't just use a cylinder machine, since they were certainly around in 1903. The problem is that their frequency loss was different from shellac records, so it would ruin the experiment if the difference was significant. Is it? Can anyone tell me? Do we even need to make a modern recording, or is technology good enough that we can simply add in the frequences from previous knowledge? If this can be perfected, or at least made feasible, there are hundreds of singers whose voices can finally be let out of the can, at least a little, and made to sound more life-like! Many of these didn't live to see electric recordings. I'm sure everyone would jump on this if I said Enrico Caruso was on the list, for example. But he, too, recorded on disks. I wonder if we can skip the recording experiment and use a singer, such as Tito Schipa (my personal favourite), whose recordings span both the acoustic and electric eras, from 1913 to 1964, as a control and gauge the frequency loss that way.

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera #production #project #recording #records #restoration #science #SoundRestoration #technology

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera

Georgiana Brummell @[email protected] · 2025-11-04 · 06:01 UTC

*I'm saying we, since I would need to work with an expert. I am not only totally blind (who knows if this would be accessible), but I know nothing about this sort of thing.*
To make a very long story short, I am aware that there is severe frequency loss in acoustic recordings. That is why they sound so tinny, even when compared to the earliest electrics. Some voices are affected more than others, but even the ones with the best recordings still experience some of it. With the advances in technology at our disposal in 2025, however, I am wondering if it would be possible to attempt to restore some of those frequencies. Ideally, it might sound like something from the 1940's, but I doubt that is possible, at least with the earlier records, so at least the 1920's or 1930's would be great.

The thing is, I don't know exactly what is lost. So my idea is to record a modern singer (with at least a somewhat similar voice to the original) on period equipment and digitally symultaneously. In this way, we would have the live singer, plus two very different recordings. We could then compare the live, electric, and acoustic versions with a device or software that measures frequencies. Once we have determined what is lost, we could then try to restore the actual records in question.

If we were doing this with a cylinder machine, it would be very easy. Not only can one literally still record at the Edison Museum, but there are people today who record in wax with both real machines and reproductions, including commercially! However, the first singer whom I have in mind for this, Francesco Tamagno, recorded on disks, which complicates everything. I was very familiar with cylinder recording prior to designing this project, though I had never done it myself, but I knew absolutely nothing about 78s. Then, I learned.

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/making-gramophone-records

As I was saying, it is beyond complicated! Even if we took a chance and recorded the wax master and then used it for playback, skipping the step of actually making a shellac record, there is still the issue of finding recording equipment from Tamagno's time, which is ridiculously rare and doubtlessly too expensive for most people to consider buying. You might ask why we couldn't just use a cylinder machine, since they were certainly around in 1903. The problem is that their frequency loss was different from shellac records, so it would ruin the experiment if the difference was significant. Is it? Can anyone tell me? Do we even need to make a modern recording, or is technology good enough that we can simply add in the frequences from previous knowledge? If this can be perfected, or at least made feasible, there are hundreds of singers whose voices can finally be let out of the can, at least a little, and made to sound more life-like! Many of these didn't live to see electric recordings. I'm sure everyone would jump on this if I said Enrico Caruso was on the list, for example. But he, too, recorded on disks. I wonder if we can skip the recording experiment and use a singer, such as Tito Schipa (my personal favourite), whose recordings span both the acoustic and electric eras, from 1913 to 1964, as a control and gauge the frequency loss that way. If we wanted someone who recorded earlier, we could try someone like Alessandro Bonci or Mattia Battistini, but both only made it to the 1920's.

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera #production #project #recording #records #restoration #science #SoundRestoration #technology

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera

Georgiana Brummell @[email protected] · 2025-11-04 · 06:01 UTC

*I'm saying we, since I would need to work with an expert. I am not only totally blind (who knows if this would be accessible), but I know nothing about this sort of thing.*
To make a very long story short, I am aware that there is severe frequency loss in acoustic recordings. That is why they sound so tinny, even when compared to the earliest electrics. Some voices are affected more than others, but even the ones with the best recordings still experience some of it. With the advances in technology at our disposal in 2025, however, I am wondering if it would be possible to attempt to restore some of those frequencies. Ideally, it might sound like something from the 1940's, but I doubt that is possible, at least with the earlier records, so at least the 1920's or 1930's would be great.

The thing is, I don't know exactly what is lost. So my idea is to record a modern singer (with at least a somewhat similar voice to the original) on period equipment and digitally symultaneously. In this way, we would have the live singer, plus two very different recordings. We could then compare the live, electric, and acoustic versions with a device or software that measures frequencies. Once we have determined what is lost, we could then try to restore the actual records in question.

If we were doing this with a cylinder machine, it would be very easy. Not only can one literally still record at the Edison Museum, but there are people today who record in wax with both real machines and reproductions, including commercially! However, the first singer whom I have in mind for this, Francesco Tamagno, recorded on disks, which complicates everything. I was very familiar with cylinder recording prior to designing this project, though I had never done it myself, but I knew absolutely nothing about 78s. Then, I learned.

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/making-gramophone-records

As I was saying, it is beyond complicated! Even if we took a chance and recorded the wax master and then used it for playback, skipping the step of actually making a shellac record, there is still the issue of finding recording equipment from Tamagno's time, which is ridiculously rare and doubtlessly too expensive for most people to consider buying. You might ask why we couldn't just use a cylinder machine, since they were certainly around in 1903. The problem is that their frequency loss was different from shellac records, so it would ruin the experiment if the difference was significant. Is it? Can anyone tell me? Do we even need to make a modern recording, or is technology good enough that we can simply add in the frequences from previous knowledge? If this can be perfected, or at least made feasible, there are hundreds of singers whose voices can finally be let out of the can, at least a little, and made to sound more life-like! Many of these didn't live to see electric recordings. I'm sure everyone would jump on this if I said Enrico Caruso was on the list, for example. But he, too, recorded on disks. I wonder if we can skip the recording experiment and use a singer, such as Tito Schipa (my personal favourite), whose recordings span both the acoustic and electric eras, from 1913 to 1964, as a control and gauge the frequency loss that way. If we wanted someone who recorded earlier, we could try someone like Alessandro Bonci or Mattia Battistini, but both only made it to the 1920's.

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera #production #project #recording #records #restoration #science #SoundRestoration #technology

#technology #soundrestoration #science #restoration #records #recording

Georgiana Brummell @[email protected] · 2025-11-04 · 06:01 UTC

*I'm saying we, since I would need to work with an expert. I am not only totally blind (who knows if this would be accessible), but I know nothing about this sort of thing.*
To make a very long story short, I am aware that there is severe frequency loss in acoustic recordings. That is why they sound so tinny, even when compared to the earliest electrics. Some voices are affected more than others, but even the ones with the best recordings still experience some of it. With the advances in technology at our disposal in 2025, however, I am wondering if it would be possible to attempt to restore some of those frequencies. Ideally, it might sound like something from the 1940's, but I doubt that is possible, at least with the earlier records, so at least the 1920's or 1930's would be great.

The thing is, I don't know exactly what is lost. So my idea is to record a modern singer (with at least a somewhat similar voice to the original) on period equipment and digitally symultaneously. In this way, we would have the live singer, plus two very different recordings. We could then compare the live, electric, and acoustic versions with a device or software that measures frequencies. Once we have determined what is lost, we could then try to restore the actual records in question.

If we were doing this with a cylinder machine, it would be very easy. Not only can one literally still record at the Edison Museum, but there are people today who record in wax with both real machines and reproductions, including commercially! However, the first singer whom I have in mind for this, Francesco Tamagno, recorded on disks, which complicates everything. I was very familiar with cylinder recording prior to designing this project, though I had never done it myself, but I knew absolutely nothing about 78s. Then, I learned.

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/making-gramophone-records

As I was saying, it is beyond complicated! Even if we took a chance and recorded the wax master and then used it for playback, skipping the step of actually making a shellac record, there is still the issue of finding recording equipment from Tamagno's time, which is ridiculously rare and doubtlessly too expensive for most people to consider buying. You might ask why we couldn't just use a cylinder machine, since they were certainly around in 1903. The problem is that their frequency loss was different from shellac records, so it would ruin the experiment if the difference was significant. Is it? Can anyone tell me? Do we even need to make a modern recording, or is technology good enough that we can simply add in the frequences from previous knowledge? If this can be perfected, or at least made feasible, there are hundreds of singers whose voices can finally be let out of the can, at least a little, and made to sound more life-like! Many of these didn't live to see electric recordings. I'm sure everyone would jump on this if I said Enrico Caruso was on the list, for example. But he, too, recorded on disks. I wonder if we can skip the recording experiment and use a singer, such as Tito Schipa (my personal favourite), whose recordings span both the acoustic and electric eras, from 1913 to 1964, as a control and gauge the frequency loss that way. If we wanted someone who recorded earlier, we could try someone like Alessandro Bonci or Mattia Battistini, but both only made it to the 1920's.

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera #production #project #recording #records #restoration #science #SoundRestoration #technology

#78s #acoustic #cylinders #electric #music #opera

AccordionBruce @[email protected] · 2025-05-31 · 18:12 UTC

@timbray
Going back to #Cylinders would also solve this

#cylinders

Douglas E. Welch @[email protected] · 2025-05-16 · 20:54 UTC

Download 10,000 of the First Recordings of Music Ever Made, Courtesy of the University of California-Santa Barbara via Open Culture [Shared]

Long before vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs and MP3s came along, people first experienced audio recordings through another medium — through cylinders made of tin foil, wax and plastic. In recent years, we’ve featured cylinder recordings from the 19th century that allow you to hear the voices of Leo Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Walt Whitman, Otto von Bismarck and other historic figures. Those recordings were originally recorded and played on a cylinder phonograph invented by Thomas Edison in 1877. But those were obviously just a handful of the cylinder recordings produced at the beginning of the recorded sound era.

https://welchwrite.com/blog/2025/05/16/download-10000-of-the-first-recordings-of-music-ever-made-courtesy-of-the-university-of-california-santa-barbara-via-open-culture-shared/

#recording #history #cylinders #edison #archive #first #shared

#recording #history #cylinders #edison #archive #first

The Krononaut Moon Project 🌑 @[email protected] · 2025-01-24 · 15:22 UTC

#TimeTravelAuthors & #SciFi fans know that various styles of #gyrosocopic devices have stood in for #TimeMachines going all the way back to #HGWells's original 'The Time Machine' of 1895 (see 'Contact' movie of 1997). #Quantum #physicists have proposed colossal rotating #cylinders, and other #theories employing #wormholes — macro to micro — again, #spinning #mechanical #systems. @KronoMoon remains open to all manner of #TimeTravel approaches, including via #quantum #signals or #consciousness.

#timetravelauthors #scifi #gyrosocopic #timemachines #hgwells #quantum

Bagolina @[email protected] · 2024-11-15 · 07:12 UTC

https://blogs.bl.uk/sound-and-vision/2024/11/sound-archive-acquires-new-technology-for-digitising-wax-cylinders.html
#Soundarchive acquires new technology for #digitising wax #cylinders
#archivessonored
#cylindres
We’re delighted to announce that the sound archive now has the privilege of housing one of only two Endpoint cylinder replay machines in Europe, expanding our capabilities for preserving historical audio recordings in the #UK.
#soundrecordings
#britishlibrary

#soundarchive #digitising #cylinders #archivessonored #cylindres #uk