Researchers Restore the First Recording of Computer-Generated Music (bbc.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Restore the First Recording of Computer-Generated Music (bbc.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday October 3, 2016 @10:00PM from the beep-boop dept.

BoxRec writes: Alan Turing was part of a team who created the earliest known recording of music produced by a computer. It starts with a few bars of God Save the Queen, a snippet of Baa Baa Black Sheep and then Glenn Miller's swing hit In The Mood. The recording was captured by the BBC in the Autumn of 1951 on a 12-inch (30.5cm) acetate disc. But when Professor Jack Copeland of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch and composer Jason Long discovered the disc, the audio on the disc had been distorted. In a blog post for the British Library, Copeland and Long said it "gave at best only a rough impression of how the computer sounded." BBC News reports: "By analyzing the recording, Copeland and Long realized it was playing at the wrong speed, possibly as a result of the recorder's turntable running too quickly as the acetate was cut. As they knew the notes the computer was actually capable of playing, the pair were able to calculate exactly by how much the recording needed to be speeded up in order to exactly match the sound made by the Ferranti Mark 1. They also removed extraneous noise from the recording -- though not the engineer's voice. 'It was a beautiful moment when we first heard the true sound of Turing's computer,' Copeland and Long wrote. Now anyone can hear it in all its somewhat ramshackle glory."

127 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Viol8 · 2016-10-03 22:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

She sounds like she's enjoying herself. and has a lovely voice. Who says woman are kept out of computing by men? They were some of the early pioneers.
1. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-03 22:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why are the people most likely to complain about "SJW" also the most likely to drag up this sort of topic at every available opportunity? It's almost like you're on the warpath, fighting about some sort of social issue.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
2. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Psychotria · 2016-10-03 23:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  She sounds like she's enjoying herself. and has a lovely voice. Who says woman are kept out of computing by men? They were some of the early pioneers.
  They did mention her name... Nemone Metaxas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemone)
3. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-03 23:02 · Score: 2
  
  I have no idea where that notion comes from, I don't know anyone who keeps women out of computing. They are not very numerous, yes, but my guess would be that they're over at the biology, medicine, architecture and pharmatech fields where you have a lot of women and a decreasing number of male students.
  Guess what: People study what they're interested in. Who would have thought.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Then why do we need special programs to bring women into STEM?
5. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-03 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Guess what: People study what they're interested in.
  In other news, Humons are also completely solitary creatures and are not affected by their social environment.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  and has a lovely voice.
  Of course, they all have lovely voices.
  (Do you know how pathetic you sound, btw?)
7. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  Sexist! Sexist!
8. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by NotAPK · 2016-10-04 00:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nemone was born in 1973 and this recording was made in 1951.
9. Re: Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because it breeds the same problems as any monoculture: insularity, lack of variation, reinforcement of unhealthy traits.
10. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  Without wishing to comment _at all_ on whether computing is gender based.
  The woman's voice is likely that of the Children's Hour presenter.
  (sorry about reading the article :-) )
11. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  I have no idea. To keep SJWs occupied with something so they think they're relevant?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, there's a lot of social pressure out there that tells women that they make great doctors and pharma researchers.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Put it on the label pile back there, I think there's still some room next to the "pinko commie" and "fascist" ones.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re: Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:48 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  Then we should also force 50% of marriages to be gay, right?
15. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  So... are you telling me she invented time travel too?
16. Re: Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  Then we should also force 50% of marriages to be gay, right?
  Shhh ... don't give the SJW's ideas
17. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dave420 · 2016-10-04 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Your point only makes sense if you assume nothing has changed in the last ~50 years. Instead of asking questions which have already been answered, why don't you read the many reports describing precisely why some people believe women are being put off working in this sector? Your post has all the hallmarks of a sincere post, but the very fact you are posting it destroys the veneer of your objectivity. Plus you are talking about a single recording engineer. Just one. Amazing.
18. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by guruevi · 2016-10-04 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the early computer programmers were women. Women got out of the computing world when it became more time consuming, abstracted and complex.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
19. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Calydor · 2016-10-04 01:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not at all! ... But she's going to.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
20. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  That would explain that false data in the system. They have to cover their tracks.
21. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you disputing that humans and their wants and desires are affected by their social environment?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
22. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Psychotria · 2016-10-04 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  The recording (from TFA) that I listened to was certainly not from 1951. The computer generated music from the start was but that's all.
23. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dbIII · 2016-10-04 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's a very obvious trend.
  When I studied engineering as an undergraduate in the 1980s one of the highlights of the computer science subjects (apart from very easy credits) was that we got to meet girls. Even with quite a few of the 90+% male demographic of engineering students sneaking in the CS subjects most of them still had very close to 50% females enrolled. They were most definitely interested in I.T.
  These days I see more women working in mines, chemical plants, power stations, oil refineries and foundries than in I.T. Even underground mines less than a decade after women were allowed to work there at all.
  An incredibly obvious trend.
  Reader, if you can't see it I really have more questions about you and why you are saying it has not happened than anything else because it is so obvious.
  I probably have to be as blunt as to suggest to people here that they should be considering this issue in terms of reality instead of pushing some political barrow based on nonsense.
24. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by gsslay · 2016-10-04 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hush now with your blatantly obvious facts. You're interrupting the flow of the irrelevant argument.
25. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by TheRaven64 · 2016-10-04 01:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I don't know anyone who keeps women out of computing
  I do. One of my colleagues ran a masterclass for 16-year-old children to study some computer science. The first year he ran it, he got over 90% boys. He asked the schools why this was and heard, from multiple teachers 'girls can't code'. The second year he said that the schools could send up to two students, but they had to send at least one girl if they sent anyone. Almost all of the schools still managed to send two students and there was no drop in quality.
  Another of my students, on receiving her offer to study computer science here, was told by one of her teachers 'oh, you probably weren't one of the best applicants, just one of the best girls' (as the person who reviewed her application, I can confirm that this was not the case).
  Do you honestly think that this kind of stated opinion from authority figures has no impact on teenage boys and girls?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
26. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by gsslay · 2016-10-04 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  "She" is a member of the BBC staff who was there to do the recording for the "Children's Hour" radio programme. Mostly likely a professional broadcaster with a trained voice and an easy familiarity with the process.
  You're falling into the trap of assuming that broadcasting of the time was like modern day. 1951 did not put microphones under the noses of common people, who then responded naturally to such an alien object. The microphone was the property of the broadcaster, and she did the talking. You didn't speak until you were addressed, and then, petrified at the very idea and no idea how one addressed the nation , you sounded like a stilted idiot.
27. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by goose-incarnated · 2016-10-04 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  Why are the people most likely to complain about "SJW" also the most likely to drag up this sort of topic at every available opportunity?>
  --
  I started watching "Tropes Versus Women in Video Games" recently due to the persistent lies about fraud. It's terrific!
  Why are you complaining? With your sig you bring up this sort of topic in every post you make. That's more than slightly hypocritical.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
28. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you complaining?
  Who says I'm complaining? Personally, I think it's entertaining, and informative because it is excellent at highlighting people who have silly opinions. Feel free to make some equivalent remark to "touche", "right back at ya", or "that's you that is bruv innit".
  With your sig you bring up this sort of topic in every post you make.
  lol, yes that's totally what sigs do. You know you can disable viewing of sigs and many people do because they're always broadly irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do realise there's a difference between actively posting on a topic and having a passive .sig that appears only to those who opt in, right?
  Anyway, how exactly is me watching a series of videos, which are well produced an thoghtfully bring up interesting points about video games and media, related to this?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
29. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Because after spending millions of dollars on programs getting women into STEM, the pay gap means that all the employers will still save money and come out ahead.
  Cue hordes of anti-SJWs insisting that there is no pay gap because if there was, companies would be trying to get more women into STEM.
30. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by NotAPK · 2016-10-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, this is the recording from TFA that I listened to. While I'm a little tired today and may have failed to comprehend the article correctly, my understanding is that this recording is from 1951 and has been restored by the authors of TFA.
  Is there another audio file to listen to?
31. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying all women are by definition so insecure that they succumb to any and all peer pressure?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
32. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I'm apparently very dense and stupid, because I fail to see something as "obvious". It must be obviously obvious, if you have to mention it being obvious so many times.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  And how are we going to change this by forcing women into STEM fields?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Cue hordes of anti-SJWs insisting that there is no pay gap because if there was, companies would be trying to get more women into STEM.
  Considering that a lot of those programs are backed by corporations, I'd guess you're onto something...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Oh hi Mr. Move the goalposts.
  Up thread, you said this:
  I have no idea where that notion comes from, I don't know anyone who keeps women out of computing.
  Now, of course instead of saying "oh thanks, now I do know", smoothly move the goalposts to "oh this won't help". Of course, by the next thread, you'll be back to your original claim.
  Thing is I know you're impervious to evidence because, you still haven't said anything like "looks like I was wrong" after claiming Sarkeesian fraudlently underdelivered when instead she rather heavily overdelivered. Your claim is right here for all to see:
  https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
  No, instead when presented with something which goes against your view, you just double down and strenuously deny the evidence before your eyes.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
36. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying all women are by definition so insecure that they succumb to any and all peer pressure?
  You are the one claiming people are immune to social influences.
  You being trivially and obviously wrong on that point in no way implies that some super extreme opposite is true. The fact that you think that indicates that you are very, very dim.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
37. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by tlhIngan · 2016-10-04 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's a very obvious trend.
  When I studied engineering as an undergraduate in the 1980s one of the highlights of the computer science subjects (apart from very easy credits) was that we got to meet girls. Even with quite a few of the 90+% male demographic of engineering students sneaking in the CS subjects most of them still had very close to 50% females enrolled. They were most definitely interested in I.T.
  These days I see more women working in mines, chemical plants, power stations, oil refineries and foundries than in I.T. Even underground mines less than a decade after women were allowed to work there at all.
  An incredibly obvious trend.
  Reader, if you can't see it I really have more questions about you and why you are saying it has not happened than anything else because it is so obvious.
  I probably have to be as blunt as to suggest to people here that they should be considering this issue in terms of reality instead of pushing some political barrow based on nonsense.
  Flag as Inappropriate
  You might actually be able to blame this on Nintendo and the Video Game Crash. If you remember the advertising back then for video games, it was a family gathered around the console playing games, including moms, dads, sons and daughters. It was a fairly inclusive mix.
  But then the crash happened. Then Nintendo. And part of the problem is many retailers had given up on videogames - being burned so completely thoroughly during the crash that they wrote off pretty much everything video games (and dumped it all in a landfill in New Mexico, etc. etc. etc).
  But Nintendo was doing well with their Famicom, and wanted to bring it to the US. But retailers were shy about videogames. In a brilliant marketing move, Nintendo rebranded it not as a videogame console, but as a toy. The next step was what kind of toy - was it for boys, or was it for girls? Remember, the toy stores were (and still are) segregated - you had boys toys on one side, girls toys on another and neither the twain shall meet. Additionally, no one made toys for both sexes - it was either for boys, or girls.
  Nintendo chose to market the NES as a boy's toy, and from then, it's likely the cast has been set that video games are a boy's business. And by extension, computers. Hell, you see the same thing today - people still believe that videogames are for kids - despite adults being the largest gaming segment. And yes, the attitude that only boys play videogames still persists, despite the actual game playing population to be about even.
38. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  The beginning of that sounds more like a stepper motor. When it gets to the the next tune it sounds more like a conventional square-wave pc-beeper tone just with a fair bit more bass.
39. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  and transparent aluminum.
40. Re: Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Because STEM is famous for it's history of sexism and atrocious behavior on the part of way too many men in power for way too long?
  Or is obvious truth to obvious for you?
41. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  >>Women got out of the computing world when it became more time consuming, abstracted and complex.
  Simplistic revisionism.
42. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh hi, it's my biggest fan again, I was already worried for a moment that you didn't write for a week, how're you doing?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Obviously" is usually used when something is anything but obvious but the person using it wants to create the impression that you're a fool if you don't share their opinion, so excuse me if I react in my usual self and claim that your claim is anything but obvious and I'm too stupid to see how it is obvious, so I guess to make the idiot over here understand what's so obvious to everyone, you'd actually have to explain the obvious.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
44. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by jez9999 · 2016-10-04 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  We don't.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
45. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dbIII · 2016-10-04 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  With respect, it's so fucking obvious that anyone who has been in I.T. who has not noticed it is not paying much attention to the world around them. In one introductory IPv6 thing I went to there were over fifty guys and the only woman in the room was from a vendor and not a participant. That's how fucking obvious it is.
46. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by BoogieChile · 2016-10-04 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  It took a while to figure out where you'd gotten to, but the TFA you found yourself on is not the TFA.
  Your TFA is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme... - It's a podcast linked to from the first actual TFA at http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi....
  On the page for that podcast, one of the guest speakers is
  > Nemone Metaxas is the presenter of BBC 6 Music's ‘Nemone's Electric Ladyland’
  Not the engineer on the original recording.
47. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  let me get this straight: are you actually arguing that humans are immune to social influences?
  That's what I claimed was obvious.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
48. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I also claim that it really it's obvious that saying one thing is false does not imply that a super extreme version of its polar opposite is true. And yes I further claim that if you don't find that obvious then yes you are actually too stupid to have anything remotely resembling a productive conversation with.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
49. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not arguing that humans are immune to social influences, I am saying that I do not believe that women are so insecure that they allow those social influences to dictate their life. Because we all are subject to social influence, and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not, and this is simply something I do most decidedly NOT consider obvious.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
50. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  So what's obvious is that a lot more men are in IT than women. Yes, this is true. What is debatable is the reason. Your claim, if I got you right, is that there is some sort of boys club with a no-girls-allowed sign on the front door is going on. My claim is that women prefer to go into other fields because you can see the exact opposite in areas like biology, medicine and pharmacy.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
51. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because we all are subject to social influence,
  Well done! Gold star!
  and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not
  No, my argument is that you're an idiot because you keep making stuff up to support your point.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
52. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I bite. What did I make up?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
53. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dbIII · 2016-10-04 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  What is incredibly obvious is that it has gone from a field where there were once around the same number of women to men to an almost absolute sausage fest while most other professions have gone the other way. It's pretty damned close to a " boys club with a no-girls-allowed sign on the front door" in a lot of places which is very strange.
  
  As a profession we must have really fucked something up very badly to drive all those women away.
54. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 23:10 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe unlike men, women noticed that there's way more money to be made in medicine, pharmacy and biotech?
  Since it must have been before I studied IT, when was it around the same number of women and men that studied information technology?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
55. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I bite. What did I make up?
  You know that bit where I quoted you and then you accused you ofmaking stuff up?
  I wonder if that could be it. Nah too obvious.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
56. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-04 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Would you please stop making vague suggestions and allegations? I'm tired of guessing what you might want to say, that game gets really old really fast. Yes, I understand, it's an easy way of "arguing" by making your opponent argue for both sides, but aside of lazy it's also dishonest.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
57. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-04 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  You said this:
  and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not
  That's called "making shit up", because I very specifically didn't make any argument about men versus women.
  I'm tired of guessing what you might want to say,
  Yeah I know right? I just use regular conversational English with good quoting and it's just *so* confusing.
  it's also dishonest.
  Says the man who made up a bunch of lies about Sarkeesian. I don't think I'll be taking your opinion on what constitutes "honesty" any time soon.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
58. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-05 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  I said that because you fail to provide any direct, resilient argument. All I get from you is hints, allegations and weasel words. So ffs, could you please make your argument?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
59. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-05 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  All I get from you is hints, allegations and weasel words
  I don't think it's possible to state it any more clearly than I already did, but whatever, I'll bite and state it again.
  You said this:
  and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not
  That is 100% an invention of yours. I claimed no such thing as is very clear from my writing. You are simply inventing stuff and claiming I said it.
  This is ver dishonest behaviour. It is of course exactly what I'd expect from someone caught red-handed inventing claims of fraud about Anita Sarkeesian.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
60. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-05 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is what I deduced from the vague hints you dropped that doubles as arguments for you. I will not make this mistake again. From now on, I'll simply wait for you to say something worth while.
  I guess this alone will pretty much end any kind of conversation between us. Farewell.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
61. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-05 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is what I deduced from the vague hints you dropped that doubles as arguments for you. ... because explicitly giving the quote where I was accusing you of making things up is a hint now, is it?
  Anyway, I notice that you haven't actually denied that you simple invented an argument and ascribed it to me. Since you're (a) no longer asserting it and (b) never actually concede even when persented with overwhelming evidence, I shall take that to be a tacit admission of guilt on your part.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
62. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever. I now know how to deal with you. What I "admit" is that I fell for your trick. Well played. But you know, fool me once and all that shit. Enjoy your "victory".
  Personally, I'll just let whoever happens to read this be the judge.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
63. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-05 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  What I "admit" is that I fell for your trick.
  No trick. You flat-out invented arguments I made. You then played very dumb (something I would like to note you seem phenomenally good at) when I challenged you on it.
  You haven't actually denied simply inventing that argument.
  I take that to be an admission that you did.
  There are three likely outcomes here.
  1. You play dumb
  2. You re-assert your claim, and will weasel out of any direct challenge I make for you to provide evidence.
  3. You'll simply deny doing it even though I already provided the quote where you did.
  PS, you're exceptionally predictable.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
64. Re: Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-05 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  That has already been invented.
65. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dbIII · 2016-10-05 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  My post that mentioned the 1980s is above.
  That's back when there were almost no female engineering students at the university I attended (nine out of more than three hundred first year students) and slightly more than 50% female students in the first year computer science subjects. Data entry and even typists were still a big thing back then but those women I mentioned were going on to a degree course with C programming, operating system design and the works.
  It's really funny that some of the young men today who are doing what grandpa would call "womens work" keep going on about how women are not suitable for the profession.
  
  Maybe unlike men, women noticed that there's way more money to be made in medicine, pharmacy and biotech?
  That's been discussed in many places (especially here) at length over the years and IMHO is very unlikely to be the cause especially since the decline coincided with increased opportunites to make money in I.T.
  I think we've fucked up in a variety of different ways. One of many examples - the "permanent crunch time" attitude in many places is pretty hostile to anyone who wants something in life outside of work, and while medicine has that to an even greater extent it is almost always limited to doctors in their first couple of years. In I.T. we expect allnighters from long serving staff sometimes due to nothing more than far too common scheduling fuckups.
66. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Opportunist · 2016-10-05 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Permanent crunch is not really an issue in most of Europe (mostly due to labour laws not allowing it), at least in IT, it IS though a reality for doctors. And not just in the first few years. So if anything, this is the exact opposite over here and yet the same effect can be observed, so I doubt it's a matter of work time.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
67. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by dbIII · 2016-10-06 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose that's one thing out of the many changes that can't be blamed so easily then.
  The boys club where the members may as well be clones is something I have seen most in some places that spectacularly imploded around 2000 due to a "tight focus" - as in they had big ideas but not enough spread of skills to actually get shit done. Some of those places were like locker rooms full of whiny teenage virgins who felt entitled to a supermodel. I made sure my girlfriend of the time never went near those guys (no princess, she was in road construction) and can see how places like those would be incredibly hostile to anyone female, black or just different to them.
  Anyway I've certainly noticed the trend and a lot of statistics have been published. As a profession we are driving the women away more with each year. Monocultures really suck when you are doing things for entire populations and can lead to making what can look like newbie mistakes. Having a widespread group can prevent your product having a name that is slang for something very bad, or a similar failure that looks obvious to others.
68. Re:Shame it doesn't mention the engineers name by Coren22 · 2016-10-14 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that several times in this string you have been asked what your argument is. You didn't actually come out and say anything, you just claim vaguely that somehow women succumb to social pressures to not go into the job fields they want to, you were then asked to prove it. You are asserting that women are too weak to go into the fields they want to, and need help for some reason. Feel free to back up your statement with some kind of facts, instead of using someone's attempt to figure out what you are trying to say against them.
  
  In other news, Humons are also completely solitary creatures and are not affected by their social environment.
  So, you are saying that women are incapable of deciding what they want, and are instead pigeonholed by society? You are being asked direct questions, and instead of answering, you attack the asker. Are women too weak to decide on their own, or are they equal to men and therefore don't need any help deciding?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Sounds pretty good by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-10-03 22:13 · Score: 2

I was expecting a simple sine wave or harsh square wave sound, but the sound is surprisingly pleasant. It sounds like someone practising the cello.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
1. Re:Sounds pretty good by jellomizer · 2016-10-03 22:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Computers at the time used many analog parts. The Cello sound is because of the burst of power to create the note causing an attack sound. Similarly how the string is pulled a bit further by the bow until its tension outstrips the friction from the bow and starts to vibrate. combined with the sawtooth wave which is similar to a string instrument or a brass horn.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 22:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's because it was recorded on an acetate disc. If it were an mp3, it would sound as harsh as you expected.
3. Re:Sounds pretty good by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-03 23:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I was expecting a simple sine wave or harsh square wave sound, but the sound is surprisingly pleasant
  Indeed it is! I did a stream rip and looked at the waveforms. Nothing especially obvious springs to mind. There's probably a deep analoge hack using valves now long lost to the midsts of time to make a digitally controlled oscillator with 1 pentode, 3 condensors and a bit of string.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  Sawtooth wave.
  I expect the recording and the clearing up fucked with things considerably.
5. Re:Sounds pretty good by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-03 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sawtooth wave.
  Based on your suggestion, I tried generating a sawtooth and it sounded too harsh. I also tried a triangular wave and that sounded too close to a sine wave.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Also, computers back then were all vacuum tube. This gives the bits a warmer sound.
7. Re: Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  Acetate discs were capable of good fidelity. Haven't you listened to any recordings from the '50s?
8. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  The machine most likely did not generate a pure sawtooth, sine, or triangle waveform. What about a reverse exponential attack and a reverse exponential decay? That way you get a sharp transition upward and a sharp transition downward, but the overall tone should sound a bit more 'soft' towards the end of the attack and the end of the decay.
9. Re: Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  Acetate discs were capable of good fidelity.
  You're preaching to the choir. With MP3s, the only recording we would have today would be just ones and zeros. Where's the nuance in that?
10. Re:Sounds pretty good by zifn4b · 2016-10-04 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  combined with the sawtooth wave which is similar to a string instrument or a brass horn.
  POKE 54276, 33
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
11. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're using the words wrong. Sawtooth, sine, and triangle are waveforms. "Attack" and "decay" (and "sustain" and "release") are used to describe the envelope which modulates a waveform. Humans don't hear waveforms. The human ear works as a frequency analyzer. The different waveforms have different harmonics. It's those harmonics that make tones with the same base frequency sound different.
12. Re: Sounds pretty good by Yvan256 · 2016-10-04 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, with MP3 we only have approximations of ones and zeroes.
13. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  mists, not midsts.
14. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Humans don't hear waveforms
  If that were true, we wouldn't be able to hear a pure sine wave - which we are. Otherwise you are correct.
  Arguably learning the patterns of harmonics could allow one to reliably differentiate between a pure sawtooth, sine, triangle or square wave and thus enable one to very specifically "hear waveforms" in those contexts.
15. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  If that were true, we wouldn't be able to hear a pure sine wave
  No, that's not what that means. The waveform is not the wave. You don't hear the waveform (or "time domain" representation of the signal). Deducing the waveform from what you hear is not the same as actually hearing the waveform. I can create waves with very different waveforms that you can't distinguish at all, simply by introducing time domain differences which only cause frequency domain differences that you can't hear. Humans do not hear waveforms.
16. Re:Sounds pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  i was expecting some sort of riaa lawsuit.
17. Re:Sounds pretty good by TheSync · 2016-10-04 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  For the Commodore PET:
  POKE 59467,16 (turn on port for sound output use 0 to turn it off*)
  POKE 59466,octave (octave number, see below)
  POKE 59464,frequency (0 for no sound)
18. Re:Sounds pretty good by onepoint · 2016-10-04 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  it was a rather lovely sound. Did enjoy the pun of "warmer". The laughter and when she said "machine" were the parts that made the discovery of the audio feel like I was there ( I can recall making audio with a TRS-80 at radio shack in 1981 or 82 with friends and that was considered amazing )
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
19. Re:Sounds pretty good by onepoint · 2016-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Holy Cow, I never thought I would see that code in my life again 1979 ish i think is when I saw my first PET, but I was Radio Shack tandy user until my c-64 that I still swear I paid 895.00 with all the options ( i still see 595.00 as the price quoted in wiki but 895 is what I can recall )
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
thank you by Guignol · 2016-10-03 22:41 · Score: 1

thanks BoxRec, thanks slashdot
how else would I get those news ?
Inspiring, wonderful, thank you again
That must be old news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 22:41 · Score: 0

Apparently that article was written back when it was still acceptable to require the Flash plugin in order to play audio or video on a web page.
1. Re:That must be old news by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently that article was written back when it was still acceptable to require the Flash plugin in order to play audio or video on a web page.
  http://blogs.bl.uk/files/first-recorded-computer-music---copeland-long-restoration.mp3
2. Re:That must be old news by DrXym · 2016-10-04 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  The stupid part is the BBC doesn't use Flash for mobile devices. They don't need Flash on the desktop either.
No one cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-03 22:43 · Score: 0, Insightful

Only LUDDITES care about LUDDITE computer-generated LUDDITE music. Modern app appers only listen to appy app music!
Apps!
Luckily for us.... by m.alessandrini · 2016-10-03 22:44 · Score: 1

... they didn't hide it as deeply as the bloggers did with the link in the article.
1. Re:Luckily for us.... by Opportunist · 2016-10-03 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Even more lucky, they didn't bother to burden it with DRM that we'd first of all have to hack to hear it because there is no player in existence anymore, only to be arrested right afterwards.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
what did they use for an output device? by v1 · 2016-10-03 23:59 · Score: 0

It has that sort of sound quality you hear from people trying to recreate the Imperial March using floppy disk drives or printer carriages. Does anyone know what they were using for an actual sound output device? Was it a speaker or something else? Maybe like the floppy drive players it was something mechanical the computer could control that was being repurposed?

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:what did they use for an output device? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  It was a speaker. From the last link in the summary:
  "The Manchester computer had a special instruction that caused the loudspeaker—Turing called it the 'hooter'—to emit a short pulse of sound, lasting a tiny fraction of a second. Turing said this sounded like 'something between a tap, a click, and a thump'. Executing the instruction over and over again resulted in this 'click' being produced repeatedly, on every fourth tick of the computer's internal clock: tick tick tick click, tick tick tick click. Repeating the instruction enough times like this caused the human ear to hear not discrete clicks but a steady note, in fact the note C6, two octaves above middle C."
  Reading's real hard, I know, but give it a try sometime.
Not Well Tempered by grumling · 2016-10-04 00:50 · Score: 2

Interesting how out of tune many of the notes sound. I wonder if that's due to not having fine enough control over the oscillator or because the programmer didn't understand tempering?

--
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
1. Re:Not Well Tempered by Blaskowicz · 2016-10-04 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Even Nintendo's NES has out of tune notes due to tehcnical limitations. Game developers had a choice of using a few wrong tones here and there, or designing music around the missing notes. Surprising, but it was that way.
2. Re:Not Well Tempered by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not exactly sure that's correct.
3. Re:Not Well Tempered by Solandri · 2016-10-04 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, based on my experience as an amateur piano tuner, it sounds like whatever they were using as a resonator to generate the sound initially started at one frequency, then changed frequencies slightly as the sound decayed. I frequently run across piano strings which do the same thing on the crappier/older pianos. They're a PITA because they sound bad no matter how you tune them. If you tune the initial (attack) frequency right, the decay frequency is wrong. If you tune the decay frequency right, the attack frequency is wrong.
How wonderful that by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 01:07 · Score: 1

Flash is required for this. Oh, the irony.
1. Re:How wonderful that by jfdavis668 · 2016-10-04 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's the BBC. You're lucky they didn't use Quicktime.
2. Re: How wonderful that by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe in an Alanis Morissette kind of way.
Needs Flash to play? by grub · 2016-10-04 01:59 · Score: 1

It's saying I need Flash to play this. Really does seem like 1951.

--
Trolling is a art,
In The Mood by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 02:28 · Score: 0

Glenn Miller's "In The Mood" was the greatest song performed by a big band. It's also one of my all-time favorites. Glenn Miller, RIP.
Actually, it was God save the King by DigitAl56K · 2016-10-04 02:57 · Score: 1

The song would have been God save the King at the time, interesting to think that's how long ago it was made.
1. Re:Actually, it was God save the King by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Unless it was addressed to Turing.
Judging by your excitement, I'd have to agree. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 03:28 · Score: 0

You came so quickly, that you got first post.
You need to calm your hormones.
tnete are some SJWs that posit... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 03:47 · Score: 0

...that straight people are bigoted because they (men) won't take a dick up their ass or women won't lick other women. That's how warped their thinking is
All waveforms consist of sine waves by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 03:57 · Score: 0

It is the specific combination of fundamental + harmonics that determine the final waveform.
History almost lost by ripvlan · 2016-10-04 04:01 · Score: 1

It occurs to me that in order to restore this recording they needed to read the notes of several people. How much of today's content is "on the web" that will be lost? Blog posts on a platform that is being retired and shutdown.
Makes me think those printers that "print the web," the ones we scoffed at, might actually make sense.
1. Re:History almost lost by HBI · 2016-10-04 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that it was _much_ better sounding than any general purpose (ie, not an audio produce like a keyboard synthesizer) computer music I heard before about 1987, yes.
  That said, they didn't do much justice to "In the Mood". It really was a great tune and needs a proper brass band to do it right.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Bicycle built for Two by seven+of+five · 2016-10-04 04:20 · Score: 1

Another golden oldie that inspired Kubrick when he filmed the HAL9000 "lobotomy" scene in 2001.
1. Re: Bicycle built for Two by seven+of+five · 2016-10-04 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  https://youtu.be/ZFUVR-clo8g
Acetate?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 08:12 · Score: 0

Transcription disks are coated in lacquer. The author might as well have called it a wax disk if he was trying to pass on false information.
Re:Welcome to 1984... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 14:46 · Score: 0

Peeps are so dumb. Orwell wrote about machine made music and how people listened to that drivel. In 1984, people did not create music, machines did. Sound familiar?
Valves sound warmer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 20:11 · Score: 0

Valves always have and always will sound superior to transistors when it comes to reproducing or creating music.