SWEET JABBERING JESUS ON SPEED! The BBC has an imbecile on staff!

In this article—

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3917849.stm

an idiot named Maggie Shiels makes herself look like a total loser, & the editorial staff of the BBC joins in singing the Dimwit Chorus. :smack:

She says that two California scientists have perfected a technique of salvaging old wax cylinder records so that early recordings can be preserved. So far, so good.

And then…she says we will be able to hear the voice of Abraham Lincoln. :dubious:

The phonograph was patented in 1877. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 !!

SOME FUCKING TRICK, YOU SQUIRRELLY BUCKET OF UNDERDEVELOPED HORSE CRAP!!

I am so fucking impressed that it’s a miracle that I just don’t piss myself!!

You drunken,flea-colony shithead!
You can’t use a computer?
You can’t use an encyclopedia?
You can’t read?
A brainless, sensesless inkstained, scribbling bucket of horse cum!

EEEAARRH!

Cannot…handle rage/frustration…brain overload…YERRR-AAARRRRRGGGG!!

People were making wax recordings long before the phonograph was patented, and there is a persistent rumor (I don’t think it’s ever been proven) that Lincoln made one.

The First Recorders

From here.

The idea that squiggles on carbon-black as recorded by Edouard-Leon Scott de Martinville could be somehow used today to hear the actual sound of anyone whom he recorded(including Abe) is preposterous.
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/scott.html

Your cite proves nothing except that Scott was (unsurprisingly) unable to develop a method of playback. Today, we have computers which could do the job easily. Whether the carbon-black squiggles accurately recorded the sound is questionable, granted, but I have no doubt that they could be used to produce sound from the images.

Not so. While such squiggles couldn’t be played back at the time of recording, the visual representation of the waveform, photographed or scanned and analyzed by the proper audio software, could yield a playable computer .wav file.

Can you read an article?
Can you use google?

From the article in question:

Unconfirmed rumours abound that Abraham Lincoln even made a recording during the Civil War in 1863.

From another article by somebody else about the same event:

For years, a rumor has titillated enthusiasts of phonograph history – the rumor that Abraham Lincoln himself made a sound recording.

Indeed, it is known that in 1857, a French scientist named Leon Scott invented a proto-phonograph that recorded, but could not play back, sounds. According to the Lincoln rumor, the 16th president spoke into a similar device in 1863. However, Lincoln fans shouldn’t get too excited: For now, there’s absolutely no proof that Lincoln actually took time off during the Civil War to speak into anyone’s recording device, experts say.

Wipe the froth off your chin, Bosda.

So, can we see a retraction of your knee from your chin, Bosda?

I gotta ask. If it couldn’t play back, how did they know it recorded anything?

If the impressions had any variation at all from straight-lines, something was recorded.

I remember reading, somewhere, a long while back, talk of being able to ‘read’ the surface features of ancient clay pots; IF the pots were formed on a wheel and IF the surface was marked with a tool and IF the surface texture was suitable, the tool might have recorded the sound vibrations in the surface of the clay.

Probably too fanciful though; I suspect in reality the signal-to-noise ratio would be stupidly impossible.

I don’t need to retract anything.
In fact, I extend my Giant Love Salami for you to suck on!

An “unconfirmed rumor” of a “possible recording” that “cannot be played back”?
If you’ll buy that, you might be interested in this 100% Loch Ness Monster Leather Jacket. Sure, it says it’s PVC, but that’s just to fool Them. The Man. :wally

Can anybody provide a cite that the rumor pre-dated Lincoln’s death? Rumors about Lincoln flew thick & fast after his death. :dubious:
The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Illinois would have his daily appointment books.
Cite? :dubious:

BTW–the new process only works on wax cylinders & conventional disk records. No evidence that it would decode the mythical Lincoln recording.

not only do you need a retraction of your knee from your chin, but also a stick from your ass, apparently.

OK, it’s more than likely false that there is a recording of Lincoln. But you’re whole proff of your ire in the OP was that since the phonograph was patented after he died, he couldn’t possibly have recorded his voice. That has been shown to be incorrect. It’s possible that he could have.

You sir, are an idiot.

I would just like to draw your attention to the actual phrasing of the article:

Emphasis mine. The article went on to make it plain that it was reporting a rumour, so I really don’t see what your problem is. It’s just adding interest to the story; it’s not misleading, assuming you do more than read the first paragraph. I also don’t see what the relevance of when the rumour started is. You do realise it’s a popular science article, and not a historical research paper, right?

Thing is, I generally think that the Beeb science reporting is dreadful (notably, someone needs to tattoo “correlation is not causation” on their foreheads), but there really isn’t much of a problem with this article.

None of those “recording” machines seem to have worked worth a damn, samclem’s cite makes that clear. There was no replay. The only thing it could do was register sound, and make a visual record of its variations. A record of questionable worth and doubtful accuracy, I might add.

If I am an idiot {a rather fanciful view, given the evidence marshalled against you}, I am still superior to a feces-flinging cretin, such as yourself TwistofFate. Your DNA is no more organized than a bowl of popcorn, you jackass. You have pinioned primates emerging from your anal oriface with dreadful clockwork regularity, your Momma might have provided the aforementioned Nessie pelt, and posting shitfaced would markedly improve your writing style.

You also have cooties. :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

Blow it out your hole you attention whoring idiot.

You are jumping out with unsubstantiated conjecture that is contradicted by the facts, again. Vitaliy Fadeyev and Carl Haber have been in the news on several occasions, recently*, describing their work. Basically, they use a visual image of the wax cylinder to determine how the needle moved during the recording, then use software to clean up the sounds. Any process that is based on an image of a physical mark can certainly be modified to “read” an ink line as easily as a groove.

And what does the technology in the article do, if not extract a visual record of audio information for playback on modern devices?

Oh, that’s right, that is what it does.