This commentary discusses and contextualizes Hahnel and Martensen's analysis of Edison's recordings and correspondence, situating their study within some of the work done on the diffusion of innovations, and some other work on the history of recording. Their findings–that the mechanical limitations of recording possibly contributed to Edison's distaste for vocal vibrato–is mirrored in much of the work on early instrumental recordings, but whereas the effect for instrumental recordings was an increased vibrato, the solution for vocal recordings was the opposite.

中文翻译：

---

《影响机器：评论》（Hähneland Martensen）（2019）

这篇评论讨论了Hahnel和Martensen对Edison的唱片和书信的分析，并将其背景化，将他们的研究放在一些创新传播的工作中，以及在唱片历史上的其他工作中。他们的发现-录音的机械局限性可能会导致爱迪生对声音颤音的厌恶-在早期的乐器录音的许多工作中都得到了反映，但是，虽然乐器录音的效果是增加了颤音，但是录音的解决方案却相反。