Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. This is Robert Lamb and Hey it's Saturday. It's time to venture into the vault once more for one of our core episodes from the past. This is going to be The Machine Speaks, Originally published on six twenty nine, twenty twenty three. We really hope you enjoy this one. It's a journey through everything from ancient tales of artifice and wizardry to the early breakthroughs in speech synthesis technology. Let's dive right in.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. This is Robert Lamb and Hey it's Saturday. It's time to venture into the vault once more for one of our core episodes from the past. This is going to be The Machine Speaks, Originally published on six twenty nine, twenty twenty three. We really hope you enjoy this one. It's a journey through everything from ancient tales of artifice and wizardry to the early breakthroughs in speech synthesis technology. Let's dive right in.

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert.

Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick, and today we're going to be talking about some early voice synthesis machines. Rob I actually got interested in this topic because last week, when we were watching the Weird House Cinema movie The Black Hole, I was thinking about Roddy McDowell's voice when he's doing a voice for the robot character who shares a lot of proverbs with the human characters. And I kept listening to his line delivery and I couldn't decide if he was trying to do quote robot voice or not. He seemed to kind of dip in and out of it. You know what I mean when I say robot voice, where a character's playing a robot and they say things like this, Well.

Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick, and today we're going to be talking about some early voice synthesis machines. Rob I actually got interested in this topic because last week, when we were watching the Weird House Cinema movie The Black Hole, I was thinking about Roddy McDowell's voice when he's doing a voice for the robot character who shares a lot of proverbs with the human characters. And I kept listening to his line delivery and I couldn't decide if he was trying to do quote robot voice or not. He seemed to kind of dip in and out of it. You know what I mean when I say robot voice, where a character's playing a robot and they say things like this, Well.

Of course I know what you are talking about, Joe.

Of course I know what you are talking about, Joe.

I got kind of interested in the history of robot voice. I was like, where does that come from? And I was digging around a little. I'm sure there is a good answer on that, but I don't know. My short search didn't really turn up anything interesting, but it did lead me indirectly to what we're talking about today, which is, of course, we have the voice synthesis systems that that are largely digital today. Before that, you had a lot of electrical and electro mechanical systems for synthesizing human voices. But actually there is an even earlier generation, which are the purely mechanical voice synthesizers before electricity even came into the picture. And that is what really stole my heart, especially one particular machine of this type that I'm going to talk about in the second half of this episode.

I got kind of interested in the history of robot voice. I was like, where does that come from? And I was digging around a little. I'm sure there is a good answer on that, but I don't know. My short search didn't really turn up anything interesting, but it did lead me indirectly to what we're talking about today, which is, of course, we have the voice synthesis systems that that are largely digital today. Before that, you had a lot of electrical and electro mechanical systems for synthesizing human voices. But actually there is an even earlier generation, which are the purely mechanical voice synthesizers before electricity even came into the picture. And that is what really stole my heart, especially one particular machine of this type that I'm going to talk about in the second half of this episode.

I think, yeah, this is a fascinating topic, in part because look at it. Look at where we are now, right it's easy today in our Internet age for just the average Internet user to engage with various chatbots and generative AI, text to speech and so forth. And so we're able to interact with an artifact, a thing that reflects human will, that has been designed to do key and telling things that have long been the hallmarks of human activity, artistic generation, creative writing and conversation, or especially speech. And of course it's you know, it's easy nowadays to do that, right, to transform into audible or even video content what is either written by human or or created with some sort of a chat bot machine. And the results may be amusing, they may may be disastrous. But we're in this age where the idea of the machine speaking is not in and of itself groundbreaking, or at least if it is groundbreaking, or if it's amazing, it's that it's a lower level of amazement compared to previous ages.

I think, yeah, this is a fascinating topic, in part because look at it. Look at where we are now, right it's easy today in our Internet age for just the average Internet user to engage with various chatbots and generative AI, text to speech and so forth. And so we're able to interact with an artifact, a thing that reflects human will, that has been designed to do key and telling things that have long been the hallmarks of human activity, artistic generation, creative writing and conversation, or especially speech. And of course it's you know, it's easy nowadays to do that, right, to transform into audible or even video content what is either written by human or or created with some sort of a chat bot machine. And the results may be amusing, they may may be disastrous. But we're in this age where the idea of the machine speaking is not in and of itself groundbreaking, or at least if it is groundbreaking, or if it's amazing, it's that it's a lower level of amazement compared to previous ages.

Well, as you say, it's very integrated into modern technology. So there's you know, Siri and Alexa, all these like home devices that speak, GPS devices for the car, you know, that speak to you, but almost all of them are still the subject of amusement if you actually pay attention to what the voice sounds like, you know, like reading emotions into the voice that's telling you what to do as you're driving. That always makes me laugh because it always seems a little bit annoyed.

Well, as you say, it's very integrated into modern technology. So there's you know, Siri and Alexa, all these like home devices that speak, GPS devices for the car, you know, that speak to you, but almost all of them are still the subject of amusement if you actually pay attention to what the voice sounds like, you know, like reading emotions into the voice that's telling you what to do as you're driving. That always makes me laugh because it always seems a little bit annoyed.

Yeah, yeah, what's series whole deal that sort of thing, right? You know. The other interesting angle on all of this is that are modern technological advancements here, or even some of the historic technological advancements like they are kind of the echo of a more ancient longing for this sort of thing. It connects to something that's just fascinated us for a long time, the idea generally of non human entities engaging in speech. And you could you could go absolutely wild chasing down the various divisions of this, right, the various myths, legends, and traditions concerning the speech of animals, plants, inorganic materials, supernatural entities, you know, voices seemingly internal but also external to our individual experience.

Yeah, yeah, what's series whole deal that sort of thing, right? You know. The other interesting angle on all of this is that are modern technological advancements here, or even some of the historic technological advancements like they are kind of the echo of a more ancient longing for this sort of thing. It connects to something that's just fascinated us for a long time, the idea generally of non human entities engaging in speech. And you could you could go absolutely wild chasing down the various divisions of this, right, the various myths, legends, and traditions concerning the speech of animals, plants, inorganic materials, supernatural entities, you know, voices seemingly internal but also external to our individual experience.

Though I would say there is an interesting thing about machines or human or automata or human artifacts in general when compared to imagining an animal speaker or any other usually not speaking things starting to speak, which is, if you're talking about a machine that does it. That means somebody has to make that machine and somebody has to work that machine, and it kind of reminds me of the idea of grammar in language. You know, the interesting thing about grammar is that when we use language, we all use grammar, so we have an intuitive grasp of the rules of grammar, but without serious study, people can't actually tell you what those rules are. And so, like, you know, that had to be in a sense a science to back engineer the rules of grammar that we use intuitively to like make them systematic and you know, actually discover what those rules are. The same thing could be said about the phonetic rules that produce the intelligible speech. We can all do it if we can speak, but we don't necessarily understand what the individual physical properties of a word are, and so we wouldn't necessarily know how to make that same word come out of a machine.

Though I would say there is an interesting thing about machines or human or automata or human artifacts in general when compared to imagining an animal speaker or any other usually not speaking things starting to speak, which is, if you're talking about a machine that does it. That means somebody has to make that machine and somebody has to work that machine, and it kind of reminds me of the idea of grammar in language. You know, the interesting thing about grammar is that when we use language, we all use grammar, so we have an intuitive grasp of the rules of grammar, but without serious study, people can't actually tell you what those rules are. And so, like, you know, that had to be in a sense a science to back engineer the rules of grammar that we use intuitively to like make them systematic and you know, actually discover what those rules are. The same thing could be said about the phonetic rules that produce the intelligible speech. We can all do it if we can speak, but we don't necessarily understand what the individual physical properties of a word are, and so we wouldn't necessarily know how to make that same word come out of a machine.

Yeah, there are all these things that you have to deconstruct before you can attempt to reproduce it artificially. And we see that time and time again with in robotics, for example. You know, things that we take for granted concerning human movement, just about anything else you could imagine it becomes so much more difficult to try and reproduce that you've got to understand what it actually is on an entirely new level.

Yeah, there are all these things that you have to deconstruct before you can attempt to reproduce it artificially. And we see that time and time again with in robotics, for example. You know, things that we take for granted concerning human movement, just about anything else you could imagine it becomes so much more difficult to try and reproduce that you've got to understand what it actually is on an entirely new level.

First, Now, I am to understand that before anybody actually made a machine that could approximate or synthesize a human voice and produce intelligible speech, people were thinking about this as a concept.

First, Now, I am to understand that before anybody actually made a machine that could approximate or synthesize a human voice and produce intelligible speech, people were thinking about this as a concept.

Yeah yeah, and this is not surprising. You know, this is kind of the meat of science fiction. Right before we can do it, we dream of it one way or another, no matter what our exact grasp of science happens to be. It always reminds me of that line in William Gibson's Neuromancer where the character has made a deal, a pact with a powerful AI, and it's pointed out like, this is the sort of thing that in you know, centuries ago, people only dreamed of making a deal with a devil, and now we've made it possible through our ingenuity and invention.

Yeah yeah, and this is not surprising. You know, this is kind of the meat of science fiction. Right before we can do it, we dream of it one way or another, no matter what our exact grasp of science happens to be. It always reminds me of that line in William Gibson's Neuromancer where the character has made a deal, a pact with a powerful AI, and it's pointed out like, this is the sort of thing that in you know, centuries ago, people only dreamed of making a deal with a devil, and now we've made it possible through our ingenuity and invention.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Yeah, so so yeah. Narrowing down here into generally the realm of alleged human creations that through at least partial technology, but also sometimes wizardry and alchemy and other things that are kind of like you know, bunched in there together with with actual technology to create some sort of a device capable of speech. And then there are some also some related things that are tied in there as well. And a lot of it comes down to the idea of a head, an artificial head that speaks.

Yeah, so so yeah. Narrowing down here into generally the realm of alleged human creations that through at least partial technology, but also sometimes wizardry and alchemy and other things that are kind of like you know, bunched in there together with with actual technology to create some sort of a device capable of speech. And then there are some also some related things that are tied in there as well. And a lot of it comes down to the idea of a head, an artificial head that speaks.

I found something so loaded and revealing about that. As a fact, the history of these machines, so many of them had fa whether real or imagined, These machines, so many of them early on had heads or faces, so like it wouldn't just be a speaker like you would have today, that's you know, it's just a mechanical device for making the sound. It's like that the presence of a head or a face was considered important or at least desirable.

I found something so loaded and revealing about that. As a fact, the history of these machines, so many of them had fa whether real or imagined, These machines, so many of them early on had heads or faces, so like it wouldn't just be a speaker like you would have today, that's you know, it's just a mechanical device for making the sound. It's like that the presence of a head or a face was considered important or at least desirable.

Yeah, and I wondered to what extent part of it is just an echo of these earlier ideas. So going to run through a few of these here. One of the most famous, mainly from a literary tradition, as we'll discuss here, is the idea of the brazen head. And ultimately I guess there's more than one brazen head. We can say brazen heads artificial heads that could speak. There's a basically a lot of these stories concerned thirteenth century English philosopher and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon, who's come up on the show before, though this particular version of the story doesn't seem to emerge until the sixteenth century, and it does so within the works of contemporary drama.

Yeah, and I wondered to what extent part of it is just an echo of these earlier ideas. So going to run through a few of these here. One of the most famous, mainly from a literary tradition, as we'll discuss here, is the idea of the brazen head. And ultimately I guess there's more than one brazen head. We can say brazen heads artificial heads that could speak. There's a basically a lot of these stories concerned thirteenth century English philosopher and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon, who's come up on the show before, though this particular version of the story doesn't seem to emerge until the sixteenth century, and it does so within the works of contemporary drama.

I think we talked about Roger Bacon at length in an episode we did about the invention of fireworks, which may come back and feature again in the feed soon.

I think we talked about Roger Bacon at length in an episode we did about the invention of fireworks, which may come back and feature again in the feed soon.

Yeah, yeah, I believe you're right. Yeah. I think Bacon did come up in that he had a reputation as not only a very learned man in both natural philosophy and theology, and I should drive home definitely existed. I don't think there's any doubt that there was a Roger Bacon. But then there are all these other stories that he was also potentially a wizard who was capable of producing fabulous automata, either through amazing feats of clockwork ingenuity that I think many would say was ultimately, you know, impossible during his time period, or failing that, he was into alchemy and of course dark dank necromancy.

Yeah, yeah, I believe you're right. Yeah. I think Bacon did come up in that he had a reputation as not only a very learned man in both natural philosophy and theology, and I should drive home definitely existed. I don't think there's any doubt that there was a Roger Bacon. But then there are all these other stories that he was also potentially a wizard who was capable of producing fabulous automata, either through amazing feats of clockwork ingenuity that I think many would say was ultimately, you know, impossible during his time period, or failing that, he was into alchemy and of course dark dank necromancy.

I think the way I conceive of Roger Bacon is that he of course was a real figure. He was of great intellectual note and significance, but much about his sort of general reputation is kind of legendary, if that makes sense. I mean, there are many things we know about him that are true, but there's also just sort of an aura or a vibe about him that is not really based in reality.

I think the way I conceive of Roger Bacon is that he of course was a real figure. He was of great intellectual note and significance, but much about his sort of general reputation is kind of legendary, if that makes sense. I mean, there are many things we know about him that are true, but there's also just sort of an aura or a vibe about him that is not really based in reality.

Yeah, I mean, he becomes a character in literature, especially in these accounts, so you can you can sort of look at the different phases like historic individual ideas and you know, misunderstandings have said real life individual and then eventually that echoes into the fictional version of the person.

Yeah, I mean, he becomes a character in literature, especially in these accounts, so you can you can sort of look at the different phases like historic individual ideas and you know, misunderstandings have said real life individual and then eventually that echoes into the fictional version of the person.

Which that's the more like wizard version.

Which that's the more like wizard version.

Yeah, yeah, And so there are a few different examples of this. This was like a popular motif for a while. There's a sixteenth century prose romance titled the Famous History of Friar Bacon, and it tells of Bacon trying to give a replica of a human head speech and having to call in the devil for help. Cool. Other versions of this tale describe it as an artificial head given life by demons, which was capable of spontaneous speech and of course telling the future I mean, what else would you tell right right? Robert Greene's sixteen thirty play Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay mentions this several times, citing quote Bacon's necromatic skill and heads of Brass that quote can utter any voice. The idea that's exploring both of these works is that Bacon wished to build a wall of brass around Britain with the help of the Brazen Head. He fails and the head explodes.

Yeah, yeah, And so there are a few different examples of this. This was like a popular motif for a while. There's a sixteenth century prose romance titled the Famous History of Friar Bacon, and it tells of Bacon trying to give a replica of a human head speech and having to call in the devil for help. Cool. Other versions of this tale describe it as an artificial head given life by demons, which was capable of spontaneous speech and of course telling the future I mean, what else would you tell right right? Robert Greene's sixteen thirty play Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay mentions this several times, citing quote Bacon's necromatic skill and heads of Brass that quote can utter any voice. The idea that's exploring both of these works is that Bacon wished to build a wall of brass around Britain with the help of the Brazen Head. He fails and the head explodes.

Why have I never heard this side? It as like an early science fiction tale.

Why have I never heard this side? It as like an early science fiction tale.

I don't know. I'm probably not doing due diligence on exactly what happens and everything, at least like saying, well, in Star Wars, the bad guys make one planet to blow up another planet, and then the planet they may blows up. You know, That's that's really skipping over a lot of the nuance. And so I think there's there's inevitably more nuance here, but I just I didn't get into it. Okay, So this idea of the satanic brasshead of Roger Bacon persists despite the fact that there's no indication that anything like this even created purely through technology and not Satanic wizardry was part of Bacon's world. He was interested in optics and certainly various instruments scientific instruments of brass of the day. But there's no indication that he ever built an artificial head and tried to get it to speak.

I don't know. I'm probably not doing due diligence on exactly what happens and everything, at least like saying, well, in Star Wars, the bad guys make one planet to blow up another planet, and then the planet they may blows up. You know, That's that's really skipping over a lot of the nuance. And so I think there's there's inevitably more nuance here, but I just I didn't get into it. Okay, So this idea of the satanic brasshead of Roger Bacon persists despite the fact that there's no indication that anything like this even created purely through technology and not Satanic wizardry was part of Bacon's world. He was interested in optics and certainly various instruments scientific instruments of brass of the day. But there's no indication that he ever built an artificial head and tried to get it to speak.

Okay, so this is part of the wizard aura, not part of his biography.

Okay, so this is part of the wizard aura, not part of his biography.

Right though, you know, we have to drive home to is it possible that Roger Bacon, as a hobby did what he could to create you know, I mean it's possible, it's not. You know, I don't think he would have gotten to speak. But there are various sort of ways you could interpret this as having some basis in reality that doesn't involve magic or superscience of the day. Okay, Now, I went to my bookshelf and I pulled off my dusty copy of Brewer's Dictionary Phrase and Fable. It provides a little more insight on the legend. Quote. It was said if Bacon heard it speak, he would succeed in his projects, if not, he would fail. His familiar mile was set to watch, and while Bacon slept, the head spoke thrice. Time is half an hour later, it said, time was in another half hour, it said times past fell down and was broken to atoms to atoms to atoms. Yes, surely Adams means something different here, Adams rights been discovered at the time. I think it just means like small parts or something.

Right though, you know, we have to drive home to is it possible that Roger Bacon, as a hobby did what he could to create you know, I mean it's possible, it's not. You know, I don't think he would have gotten to speak. But there are various sort of ways you could interpret this as having some basis in reality that doesn't involve magic or superscience of the day. Okay, Now, I went to my bookshelf and I pulled off my dusty copy of Brewer's Dictionary Phrase and Fable. It provides a little more insight on the legend. Quote. It was said if Bacon heard it speak, he would succeed in his projects, if not, he would fail. His familiar mile was set to watch, and while Bacon slept, the head spoke thrice. Time is half an hour later, it said, time was in another half hour, it said times past fell down and was broken to atoms to atoms to atoms. Yes, surely Adams means something different here, Adams rights been discovered at the time. I think it just means like small parts or something.

Yeah, yes, yeah, that would be hilarious if it was literally broken to atoms.

Yeah, yes, yeah, that would be hilarious if it was literally broken to atoms.

Yeah. So I don't know if it if it works though, it sounds like it's kind of an alarm clock that explodes.

Yeah. So I don't know if it if it works though, it sounds like it's kind of an alarm clock that explodes.

Well, but I don't understand the difference between time was and times pasted. They're both past tens.

Well, but I don't understand the difference between time was and times pasted. They're both past tens.

Hm m. That's a good point. Time is, time was times past. It seems like you would want the president there somewhere, but yeah, that's that's that's what it allegedly said. And you'll you'll find woodcuts that that have this this motif on them as well.

Hm m. That's a good point. Time is, time was times past. It seems like you would want the president there somewhere, but yeah, that's that's that's what it allegedly said. And you'll you'll find woodcuts that that have this this motif on them as well.

Like it would it made more sense if it said the three things where time will be, time is, time was, but this seems more like time is, time was, time was was.

Like it would it made more sense if it said the three things where time will be, time is, time was, but this seems more like time is, time was, time was was.

Now. Brewers notes that reference to the references to the Brazen Head are just common in literature, appearing frequently in early romances but with Eastern origins, though it doesn't get into that a lot elsewhere in the volume. It's also noted that artificial heads that speak occur elsewhere as well. And some of these are brazen heads, and some of these are other things, but they're kind of I think it's important to run through briefly some of these examples because they kind of paint a picture of not only some of these other ideas of artificial heads speaking and telling the future, but related non technological non artifacts that kind of help inform what we think technology can do. Okay, okay, So one of them is a brazen head in the possession of Pope Sylvester the Second in the tenth century, which he also constructed, and misinterpretations of its utterances could prove disastrous.

Now. Brewers notes that reference to the references to the Brazen Head are just common in literature, appearing frequently in early romances but with Eastern origins, though it doesn't get into that a lot elsewhere in the volume. It's also noted that artificial heads that speak occur elsewhere as well. And some of these are brazen heads, and some of these are other things, but they're kind of I think it's important to run through briefly some of these examples because they kind of paint a picture of not only some of these other ideas of artificial heads speaking and telling the future, but related non technological non artifacts that kind of help inform what we think technology can do. Okay, okay, So one of them is a brazen head in the possession of Pope Sylvester the Second in the tenth century, which he also constructed, and misinterpretations of its utterances could prove disastrous.

Oh, is this also believed to be Satanic in some way?

Oh, is this also believed to be Satanic in some way?

I didn't go too deep on Satanic implications, but possibly, I.

I didn't go too deep on Satanic implications, but possibly, I.

Guess it would depend on if this legend is associated with pro Pope Sylvester or anti Pope Sylvester sources.

Guess it would depend on if this legend is associated with pro Pope Sylvester or anti Pope Sylvester sources.

Right, right, But you can definitely see that they're in the head itself, regardless of what's supposed to be powering it. Like this, it ties into two oracular traditions. You know, the idea that here is this thing that can give you cryptic wisdom if you have the wisdom to decipher what it's telling you. Another example that's brought up in Brewers is or the Colossi of Memnon, which we did at least a whole I don't know, I can't remember as one episode or multiple episodes, but we discussed this on stuff to blow your mind. This is a fascinating topic in and of itself.

Right, right, But you can definitely see that they're in the head itself, regardless of what's supposed to be powering it. Like this, it ties into two oracular traditions. You know, the idea that here is this thing that can give you cryptic wisdom if you have the wisdom to decipher what it's telling you. Another example that's brought up in Brewers is or the Colossi of Memnon, which we did at least a whole I don't know, I can't remember as one episode or multiple episodes, but we discussed this on stuff to blow your mind. This is a fascinating topic in and of itself.

This was basically, I think a statue or a pair of statues, part of sort of a ruins complex that was famous during in Roman Egypt as basically because it would make sounds, and there were different theories about how it made sounds and why.

This was basically, I think a statue or a pair of statues, part of sort of a ruins complex that was famous during in Roman Egypt as basically because it would make sounds, and there were different theories about how it made sounds and why.

Yeah, yeah, it seems like I think some said it was capable of speech, but generally it's described as singing or some sort of a note. And as we discussed, while there are some I think unlikely theories regarding the use of some sort of intentional sound generating device or devices, it seems like a more likely explanation would have to do with peculiarities of the stone as it heated in the sun and then cooled at night. Anyway, go back and listen to that episode if you want to know about them. They have a pretty fascinating history.

Yeah, yeah, it seems like I think some said it was capable of speech, but generally it's described as singing or some sort of a note. And as we discussed, while there are some I think unlikely theories regarding the use of some sort of intentional sound generating device or devices, it seems like a more likely explanation would have to do with peculiarities of the stone as it heated in the sun and then cooled at night. Anyway, go back and listen to that episode if you want to know about them. They have a pretty fascinating history.

We'll remember better in the original.

We'll remember better in the original.

Yes, there's the head of Orpheus at Lesbos, predicting the doom and death of Cyrus the Great. However, I believe this is generally thought to be the actual head of the hero Orpheus, after he was torn apart by the main ads of Dionysus during a bacchanalia for the sin of worshiping Apollo or having worshiped Apollo. I'm not sure what the exact charge was, but still a prophetic, disembodied head that still continues to speak. Brewers also mentions the head of Minos brought by Odin to Scandinavia, which I didn't know what to make of this, because Minos is of course the mythical king of Crete that we've discussed on the show before as well. I think the actual figure in reference here might be Nimir, the god of wisdom that is beheaded in the Aservaniir War. Odin claims this head and it continues to speak secret wisdom. Again, this is another one that's not a mechanical head. It's the head of an actual defeated divine being that continues to live on and to speak. There are tales of Albertus Magnus having an earthen head, which during the thirteenth century was said to speak and move until Thomas Aquinas breaks sit by accident, and Magnus says, there goes the labor of thirty years, because now it's broken. So I don't know what to make of that one either completely. But again we see this motif of a fabulous artificial head that speaks, that manages to break one way or another, either something fails, somebody knocks it over, or you know, it explodes after you hit this nooze alarm twice. Then there's Alexander's statue of Ascalapius, the Greek god of medicine, that was said to speak, but Lucian wrote that the sounds came via a concealed man who spoke through tubes. So here's an example of some sort of of a creation. I guess it depends on you look at either a statue that isn't intended to speak, or through supernatural machinations speaks, But according to Lucian, it's in neither of those. It's just tubes and some guy like hiding in the bushes speaking through the tubes, which is still clever and still technological, but is trickery.

Yes, there's the head of Orpheus at Lesbos, predicting the doom and death of Cyrus the Great. However, I believe this is generally thought to be the actual head of the hero Orpheus, after he was torn apart by the main ads of Dionysus during a bacchanalia for the sin of worshiping Apollo or having worshiped Apollo. I'm not sure what the exact charge was, but still a prophetic, disembodied head that still continues to speak. Brewers also mentions the head of Minos brought by Odin to Scandinavia, which I didn't know what to make of this, because Minos is of course the mythical king of Crete that we've discussed on the show before as well. I think the actual figure in reference here might be Nimir, the god of wisdom that is beheaded in the Aservaniir War. Odin claims this head and it continues to speak secret wisdom. Again, this is another one that's not a mechanical head. It's the head of an actual defeated divine being that continues to live on and to speak. There are tales of Albertus Magnus having an earthen head, which during the thirteenth century was said to speak and move until Thomas Aquinas breaks sit by accident, and Magnus says, there goes the labor of thirty years, because now it's broken. So I don't know what to make of that one either completely. But again we see this motif of a fabulous artificial head that speaks, that manages to break one way or another, either something fails, somebody knocks it over, or you know, it explodes after you hit this nooze alarm twice. Then there's Alexander's statue of Ascalapius, the Greek god of medicine, that was said to speak, but Lucian wrote that the sounds came via a concealed man who spoke through tubes. So here's an example of some sort of of a creation. I guess it depends on you look at either a statue that isn't intended to speak, or through supernatural machinations speaks, But according to Lucian, it's in neither of those. It's just tubes and some guy like hiding in the bushes speaking through the tubes, which is still clever and still technological, but is trickery.

Nonetheless, I think the Lucian you're alluding to there is Lucian of Samosada.

Nonetheless, I think the Lucian you're alluding to there is Lucian of Samosada.

Is that right? I believe so, yes, yeah, this.

Is that right? I believe so, yes, yeah, this.

Is like this was an ancient satirist from Syria who is quite hilarious and was kind of a skeptic debunker of the of like the second century CE, which is sort of strange, but he was in that mold and he made like vicious mockery of people of all sorts and different philosophies and stuff, and also wrote a satire that some people have considered one of the earliest forms of science fiction.

Is like this was an ancient satirist from Syria who is quite hilarious and was kind of a skeptic debunker of the of like the second century CE, which is sort of strange, but he was in that mold and he made like vicious mockery of people of all sorts and different philosophies and stuff, and also wrote a satire that some people have considered one of the earliest forms of science fiction.

Now this also reminds me this is not I mean, I guess it memory series. Maybe it did speak, But there was of course the man faced Serpent God Glicon of the second century that is often held up as being a hoax, like it was actually a puppet according to commentators. But I've always wondered what to make of that, because it kind of if someone is performing puppetry and people are having an emotional or even religious reaction to it, it kind of depends how it's presented. Right, are you presenting Glican the man face serpent as like, this is it? This is an actual man face serpent God, Come take a look that it's life. Is proof that he is real? Or is it something else? Is it more like performance or is it more like reinterpretation? You know, because you have plenty of examples where people will carry out performances in which people dress as divine and semi divine figures. It's not supposed to be like, look at the proof here, here is this hero on the stage. This means God is real. Funny enough.

Now this also reminds me this is not I mean, I guess it memory series. Maybe it did speak, But there was of course the man faced Serpent God Glicon of the second century that is often held up as being a hoax, like it was actually a puppet according to commentators. But I've always wondered what to make of that, because it kind of if someone is performing puppetry and people are having an emotional or even religious reaction to it, it kind of depends how it's presented. Right, are you presenting Glican the man face serpent as like, this is it? This is an actual man face serpent God, Come take a look that it's life. Is proof that he is real? Or is it something else? Is it more like performance or is it more like reinterpretation? You know, because you have plenty of examples where people will carry out performances in which people dress as divine and semi divine figures. It's not supposed to be like, look at the proof here, here is this hero on the stage. This means God is real. Funny enough.

I think Glicon was also written about by Lucian of some Asada. But I guess the crucial question is like is there an attempt at trickery or not? Like do you want the audience to believe there is not somebody behind the mask?

I think Glicon was also written about by Lucian of some Asada. But I guess the crucial question is like is there an attempt at trickery or not? Like do you want the audience to believe there is not somebody behind the mask?

Right? And you know that's interesting because that still kind of applies to a lot of what's going on in the world today with things like like chat box and so forth. And you know, this idea that if we know what is coming out of the box, what is coming out of the artificial head? And you know, we how are we interpreting it? And are we thinking there is something there that is not. So it's like, on what level is there trickery, and then there is like interpretation of the trickery and so forth. But at any rate, I think, you know, some of these examples they proved that well before people could make any kind of a mechanical thing, be it a head or not ahead that could speak, we were still capable of dreaming about it. And I think there's ample evidence that long before anyone attempted to make a head that could talk through mechanical means, individuals sought and sometimes found a voice emerging from disembodied heads, either real ones the you know, the the remains of human beings or other animals, or or likenesses of human heads, either attached or detached from statues, and so forth. And I think there's room between trickery and belief for the suspension of belief and ritual as well to take into account.

Right? And you know that's interesting because that still kind of applies to a lot of what's going on in the world today with things like like chat box and so forth. And you know, this idea that if we know what is coming out of the box, what is coming out of the artificial head? And you know, we how are we interpreting it? And are we thinking there is something there that is not. So it's like, on what level is there trickery, and then there is like interpretation of the trickery and so forth. But at any rate, I think, you know, some of these examples they proved that well before people could make any kind of a mechanical thing, be it a head or not ahead that could speak, we were still capable of dreaming about it. And I think there's ample evidence that long before anyone attempted to make a head that could talk through mechanical means, individuals sought and sometimes found a voice emerging from disembodied heads, either real ones the you know, the the remains of human beings or other animals, or or likenesses of human heads, either attached or detached from statues, and so forth. And I think there's room between trickery and belief for the suspension of belief and ritual as well to take into account.

But of course, later on people would end up building real, operable machines that were at least attempting to produce speech that could be understood by humans.

But of course, later on people would end up building real, operable machines that were at least attempting to produce speech that could be understood by humans.

That's right, And this is where we get more into the deconstruction of what human speech is, which in and of itself is a whole subject, but there are key moments where we see some major advancements being made here. So another major entry to discuss in all of this is the work of German born Russian doctor, physicist and engineer Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein, who lives seventeen twenty three through seventeen ninety five. So he was a man of various including the use of electricity and medicine, and at the Saint Petersburg Science Academy at one point offered a prize for advancements made in researching the mechanisms behind the vowels AEI, O, and you in human speech. So in seventeen seventy nine he presented his vowel organ to the university. The vowel organ consisted of a series of resonators that produced vowel like sounds on a constant pitch when excited by a read. I found some illustrations of these basic resonators via the UCL Psychology and Language Sciences Department. Here I also found a website linked at this website where you can find instructions for how to make your own resonators out of plumbing supplies, which I found rather insightful. I did not attempt it, but if you're into plumbing supplies and vowel sounds, it seems like a natural craft choice.

That's right, And this is where we get more into the deconstruction of what human speech is, which in and of itself is a whole subject, but there are key moments where we see some major advancements being made here. So another major entry to discuss in all of this is the work of German born Russian doctor, physicist and engineer Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein, who lives seventeen twenty three through seventeen ninety five. So he was a man of various including the use of electricity and medicine, and at the Saint Petersburg Science Academy at one point offered a prize for advancements made in researching the mechanisms behind the vowels AEI, O, and you in human speech. So in seventeen seventy nine he presented his vowel organ to the university. The vowel organ consisted of a series of resonators that produced vowel like sounds on a constant pitch when excited by a read. I found some illustrations of these basic resonators via the UCL Psychology and Language Sciences Department. Here I also found a website linked at this website where you can find instructions for how to make your own resonators out of plumbing supplies, which I found rather insightful. I did not attempt it, but if you're into plumbing supplies and vowel sounds, it seems like a natural craft choice.

But the key insight being here that by changing the shape of a physical resonating cavity, you can change the sound of the vowel produced.

But the key insight being here that by changing the shape of a physical resonating cavity, you can change the sound of the vowel produced.

Right right. Another take on this. I was reading the BBC Future article The Machines That Learned to Listen by Kadia Musfych, and it describes these as resonance tubes connected to organ pipes. So you know, this is not to say that we have this is not on this like the same level as some sort of imaginary brazen head that's going to speak of its own and spout out, spit out wisdom for you to interpret. This is about just figuring out, you know, how these vowel sounds are produced and reproducing them through a basic mechanical system. Musvich also points out a few other key individuals in the advancement of this technology. There's Wolfgang von Kimplin in Vienna, who created a similar acoustic mechanical speech machine about ten years after Kratzenstein. And then she also mentions English inventor Charles Wheatstone, who would improve on this in the early nineteenth century.

Right right. Another take on this. I was reading the BBC Future article The Machines That Learned to Listen by Kadia Musfych, and it describes these as resonance tubes connected to organ pipes. So you know, this is not to say that we have this is not on this like the same level as some sort of imaginary brazen head that's going to speak of its own and spout out, spit out wisdom for you to interpret. This is about just figuring out, you know, how these vowel sounds are produced and reproducing them through a basic mechanical system. Musvich also points out a few other key individuals in the advancement of this technology. There's Wolfgang von Kimplin in Vienna, who created a similar acoustic mechanical speech machine about ten years after Kratzenstein. And then she also mentions English inventor Charles Wheatstone, who would improve on this in the early nineteenth century.

Charles Wheatstone. I'm going to mention him again in a minute, but he's also notable because he was one of the inventors of the first commercially successful form of the telegraph. So we talked about him in our episode on your mention of the telegraph. But when it comes to the one you mentioned before, that von Kemplan's machine, this is interesting because I read that while this machine was allegedly real, it was a real attempt to make a machine that would speak. Von Kemplan is now known for essentially being a hoaxer because he tried to create other automata, including a chess playing automaton that was actually a hoax. It had a human inside it doing the moves, so it was a fake robot.

Charles Wheatstone. I'm going to mention him again in a minute, but he's also notable because he was one of the inventors of the first commercially successful form of the telegraph. So we talked about him in our episode on your mention of the telegraph. But when it comes to the one you mentioned before, that von Kemplan's machine, this is interesting because I read that while this machine was allegedly real, it was a real attempt to make a machine that would speak. Von Kemplan is now known for essentially being a hoaxer because he tried to create other automata, including a chess playing automaton that was actually a hoax. It had a human inside it doing the moves, so it was a fake robot.

Though as a fake still really impressive. It's interesting where you get in like what sometimes you're wondering. You have to wonder what the line knows between, you know, the actual technological innovation and trickery. I mean, obviously it's deception, and if you have a secret chamber in which there's a whole person doing stuff, you know, that's a real red flag there as well. But still the trickery is pretty ingenious too.

Though as a fake still really impressive. It's interesting where you get in like what sometimes you're wondering. You have to wonder what the line knows between, you know, the actual technological innovation and trickery. I mean, obviously it's deception, and if you have a secret chamber in which there's a whole person doing stuff, you know, that's a real red flag there as well. But still the trickery is pretty ingenious too.

Yeah, well, yeah, I mean it takes skill to be a good magician.

Yeah, well, yeah, I mean it takes skill to be a good magician.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, this brings us to the example that I was really excited to talk about in today's episode, which is the speaking machine of a nineteenth century inventor named Joseph Fober. So one of my main sources here is just generally a good source on the history of speech synthesis and talking machines. It was a book chapter in the Rutledge Handbook of Phonetics from twenty nineteen by an author named Brad H. Story, who is part of the faculty of the Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences at the University of Arizona. And Story, in this chapter traces the history of speech synthesis from the mechanical methods of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to the digital techniques of the present. So it's the whole sort of modern arc of these machines. But the thing I really want to focus in on here now is this machine that I mentioned a minute ago, by the nineteenth century German inventor Joseph Fober. This features heavily at the beginning of stories chapter here. So this machine was at various different times called the Marvelous Talking Machine. You got a hyphen between talking machine and also the euphonia from the Greek meaning good sound or sweet sound. We'll see about that as we as we go on. Robi included one illustration of the machine for you to look at here. I think this may have been from some kind of promotional material when this machine was featured in an exhibit that I'll describe in a bit.

Anyway, this brings us to the example that I was really excited to talk about in today's episode, which is the speaking machine of a nineteenth century inventor named Joseph Fober. So one of my main sources here is just generally a good source on the history of speech synthesis and talking machines. It was a book chapter in the Rutledge Handbook of Phonetics from twenty nineteen by an author named Brad H. Story, who is part of the faculty of the Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences at the University of Arizona. And Story, in this chapter traces the history of speech synthesis from the mechanical methods of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to the digital techniques of the present. So it's the whole sort of modern arc of these machines. But the thing I really want to focus in on here now is this machine that I mentioned a minute ago, by the nineteenth century German inventor Joseph Fober. This features heavily at the beginning of stories chapter here. So this machine was at various different times called the Marvelous Talking Machine. You got a hyphen between talking machine and also the euphonia from the Greek meaning good sound or sweet sound. We'll see about that as we as we go on. Robi included one illustration of the machine for you to look at here. I think this may have been from some kind of promotional material when this machine was featured in an exhibit that I'll describe in a bit.

I love it in part because right there is this angelic human face like right there on the machine, seemingly as decoration or maybe tribute. I'm not sure, but I'm not sure if it's actually necessary to the mechanics of the device.

I love it in part because right there is this angelic human face like right there on the machine, seemingly as decoration or maybe tribute. I'm not sure, but I'm not sure if it's actually necessary to the mechanics of the device.

Here, I think it sort of is. I'll explain so. Story introduces Fober's machine through the eyes of another inventor and scientist of the day named Joseph Henry. A different Joseph, a researcher on electromagnetic induction and also the inaugural secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry encountered Fober's Marvelous Talking Machine at a private exhibition in Philadelphia on December twentieth, eighteen forty five, and he described the demonstration in a letter to a colleague named H. M. Alexander. So we have contemporaneous notes on what it was doing and what it looked like in this private demonstration. So here's how it worked. It was controlled by an operator via a mainly by foot pedals and a keyboard, essentially just like an organ, like a chamber organ, and in fact the device could in some ways be considered a modified organ. So you had a foot pedal that operated a bellows and that would supply airflow to the whole system, and the bellows pumped air through an artificial larynx that had vocal cords that were in this source said to be made of rubber and these so this artificial glottis or artificial vocal cords would vibrate to produce the fundamental sound of the machine's voice when air was flowing through them. And then you had sixteen keys on the keyboard which were connected by strings and levers to the various components that controlled the shaping of that sound of that, you know, the resonating sound from that airflow through the glottis into speech. One of the interesting things is, as we've been saying, this device actually had a face, so the face was made of carved wood, essentially a large doll head, but it had a hinged jaw, so maybe you should think of it more like a ventriloquist dummy. You're loving this, aren't you, Yeah, Night of the Living dummy. But it can actually speak, And so inside the dummy's mouth there was an ivory tongue that could be moved around inside the oral cavity to control the shape of the resonating chamber. And by controlling these different elements like the mouth and the tongue and all that with the keys on the keyboard, it quote imposed time varying changes to the air cavity appropriate for generating apparently convincing renditions of connected speech. So it may not have sounded perfect or even pleasant, but apparently people in the room could understand what the machine was saying when Fober operated it.

Here, I think it sort of is. I'll explain so. Story introduces Fober's machine through the eyes of another inventor and scientist of the day named Joseph Henry. A different Joseph, a researcher on electromagnetic induction and also the inaugural secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry encountered Fober's Marvelous Talking Machine at a private exhibition in Philadelphia on December twentieth, eighteen forty five, and he described the demonstration in a letter to a colleague named H. M. Alexander. So we have contemporaneous notes on what it was doing and what it looked like in this private demonstration. So here's how it worked. It was controlled by an operator via a mainly by foot pedals and a keyboard, essentially just like an organ, like a chamber organ, and in fact the device could in some ways be considered a modified organ. So you had a foot pedal that operated a bellows and that would supply airflow to the whole system, and the bellows pumped air through an artificial larynx that had vocal cords that were in this source said to be made of rubber and these so this artificial glottis or artificial vocal cords would vibrate to produce the fundamental sound of the machine's voice when air was flowing through them. And then you had sixteen keys on the keyboard which were connected by strings and levers to the various components that controlled the shaping of that sound of that, you know, the resonating sound from that airflow through the glottis into speech. One of the interesting things is, as we've been saying, this device actually had a face, so the face was made of carved wood, essentially a large doll head, but it had a hinged jaw, so maybe you should think of it more like a ventriloquist dummy. You're loving this, aren't you, Yeah, Night of the Living dummy. But it can actually speak, And so inside the dummy's mouth there was an ivory tongue that could be moved around inside the oral cavity to control the shape of the resonating chamber. And by controlling these different elements like the mouth and the tongue and all that with the keys on the keyboard, it quote imposed time varying changes to the air cavity appropriate for generating apparently convincing renditions of connected speech. So it may not have sounded perfect or even pleasant, but apparently people in the room could understand what the machine was saying when Fober operated it.

So this is.

So this is.

Eighteen forty five and the machine is speaking intelligible words. Henry in this letter compares it favorably to a different talking machine, one he had seen years before. This was one of the ones you mentioned, Rob, the one built by the English scientist and inventor Charles Wheatstone. Again, the telegraph guy Wheatstone's talking machine was capable of being understood for the set of words it could produce, but Fober's machine was far superior because its speech repertoire was infinitely variable, so he could speak whole sentences, and those sentences could contain any words and any sounds you wanted, as long as they were in one of the covered languages. Obviously it couldn't do, you know, like tonal languages or like speak Mandarin or something, but it seems like mainly it was speaking German and English. It was said at the time that it could speak any European language. Now, I think one thing that's really worth noting here is that if you imagine how a machine like this would work, the success of the performance would depend heavily on the skill of the operator, since the speech patterns are not like programmed, and you know, it's not sort of expressed automatically, but expressed in real time by the player operating the bellows and the keys. And I think also there were some screws and stuff that would manipulate pitch and things like that, So you have to play this just like you would play a musical instrument. So different players using the same machine would probably produce fairly different sounding speech, even if they had memorized which keys corresponded to which phonetic units. So nobody I've read says this, but you know, I'm kind of picturing Fober as a sort of phantom of the opera at the at the organ keyboard. You know, he's not just like pressing the keys, but giving a real passionate and dramatic performance when somebody sells it. Ye yeah, make it say Como tale vu or whatever. It also sang songs, by the way. I'll get into that in a minute. But I was wondering, what what did what did people asking, you know, what's the equivalent in eighteen forty five of yelling out, you know, play Freebird? And I was thinking, maybe it's people are yelling for Tipicanu and Tyler too.

Eighteen forty five and the machine is speaking intelligible words. Henry in this letter compares it favorably to a different talking machine, one he had seen years before. This was one of the ones you mentioned, Rob, the one built by the English scientist and inventor Charles Wheatstone. Again, the telegraph guy Wheatstone's talking machine was capable of being understood for the set of words it could produce, but Fober's machine was far superior because its speech repertoire was infinitely variable, so he could speak whole sentences, and those sentences could contain any words and any sounds you wanted, as long as they were in one of the covered languages. Obviously it couldn't do, you know, like tonal languages or like speak Mandarin or something, but it seems like mainly it was speaking German and English. It was said at the time that it could speak any European language. Now, I think one thing that's really worth noting here is that if you imagine how a machine like this would work, the success of the performance would depend heavily on the skill of the operator, since the speech patterns are not like programmed, and you know, it's not sort of expressed automatically, but expressed in real time by the player operating the bellows and the keys. And I think also there were some screws and stuff that would manipulate pitch and things like that, So you have to play this just like you would play a musical instrument. So different players using the same machine would probably produce fairly different sounding speech, even if they had memorized which keys corresponded to which phonetic units. So nobody I've read says this, but you know, I'm kind of picturing Fober as a sort of phantom of the opera at the at the organ keyboard. You know, he's not just like pressing the keys, but giving a real passionate and dramatic performance when somebody sells it. Ye yeah, make it say Como tale vu or whatever. It also sang songs, by the way. I'll get into that in a minute. But I was wondering, what what did what did people asking, you know, what's the equivalent in eighteen forty five of yelling out, you know, play Freebird? And I was thinking, maybe it's people are yelling for Tipicanu and Tyler too.

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.

So an interesting detail that story includes in this chapter is that this was not the first time Fober had built a talking machine. In fact, this was not the first time Fober had built this exact talking machine. There was an earlier version of it that was destroyed by Fober himself. Quote in a bout of depression and intoxication. I should say that nearly every source I read on Fober mentions something about him being disheveled or even haunted, obsessed with his machine, and generally emotionally unwell or at the very least having a really rough time a lot of the time. Multiple writers describe him in terms containing a lot of pity. But so, it took Fober apparently twenty years to perfect the first version of the machine, the one that he drunkenly destroyed, but he was able to recreate the second version within a year of that. And this kind of suggests to me the possibility that the original creation of the machine may have really been a project of fundamental research about phonetics more than it was about engineering. And so once he had the knowledge in hand of how each sound was produced, like what the shape of the oral cavity, you know, how that corresponded to the sounds, recreating the machine itself might have been a relatively simple proposition. Is really what you needed was the knowledge about how phonetics correspond to physical shapes.

So an interesting detail that story includes in this chapter is that this was not the first time Fober had built a talking machine. In fact, this was not the first time Fober had built this exact talking machine. There was an earlier version of it that was destroyed by Fober himself. Quote in a bout of depression and intoxication. I should say that nearly every source I read on Fober mentions something about him being disheveled or even haunted, obsessed with his machine, and generally emotionally unwell or at the very least having a really rough time a lot of the time. Multiple writers describe him in terms containing a lot of pity. But so, it took Fober apparently twenty years to perfect the first version of the machine, the one that he drunkenly destroyed, but he was able to recreate the second version within a year of that. And this kind of suggests to me the possibility that the original creation of the machine may have really been a project of fundamental research about phonetics more than it was about engineering. And so once he had the knowledge in hand of how each sound was produced, like what the shape of the oral cavity, you know, how that corresponded to the sounds, recreating the machine itself might have been a relatively simple proposition. Is really what you needed was the knowledge about how phonetics correspond to physical shapes.

Yeah, And if he had that, and certainly if he had notes on the matter and his designs recorded, it would be easier to come back and reproduce that. Yeah.

Yeah, And if he had that, and certainly if he had notes on the matter and his designs recorded, it would be easier to come back and reproduce that. Yeah.

So Joseph Henry's letter about Fober's talking machine demonstration. It also includes speculation about the uses to which a machine like this could be put. One interesting idea he has is, what if you could take a spoken message at one location and code that spoken message into inputs on this keyboard on this machine, and then, through electromagnetic means, transmit those keystrokes across wires to a totally separate second location, and then those electrical signals could operate the speech organs of the doll faced machine. In the second location. You would essentially be transmitting speech itself across great distance. Notable that Henry's idea here is roughly thirty years before Alexander Graham Bell demonstrates the principle of the telephone. But there is a very important difference, which is that while Bell's telephone and these are stories words here quote transmitted an electrical analog of the speech pressure wave. Henry's description alluded to representing speech in compressed form based on slowly varying movements of the operator's hands, fingers, and feet as they formed the keystroke sequences required to produce an utterance, a signal processing technique that would not be implemented into telephone transmission systems for nearly another century. So the interesting thing about Henry here is that he's not just imagining converting the sound of a voice into an impulse that travels along the wire. He's imagining a coding process. It's put into code for the transmission and then decoded by the machine at the other end.

So Joseph Henry's letter about Fober's talking machine demonstration. It also includes speculation about the uses to which a machine like this could be put. One interesting idea he has is, what if you could take a spoken message at one location and code that spoken message into inputs on this keyboard on this machine, and then, through electromagnetic means, transmit those keystrokes across wires to a totally separate second location, and then those electrical signals could operate the speech organs of the doll faced machine. In the second location. You would essentially be transmitting speech itself across great distance. Notable that Henry's idea here is roughly thirty years before Alexander Graham Bell demonstrates the principle of the telephone. But there is a very important difference, which is that while Bell's telephone and these are stories words here quote transmitted an electrical analog of the speech pressure wave. Henry's description alluded to representing speech in compressed form based on slowly varying movements of the operator's hands, fingers, and feet as they formed the keystroke sequences required to produce an utterance, a signal processing technique that would not be implemented into telephone transmission systems for nearly another century. So the interesting thing about Henry here is that he's not just imagining converting the sound of a voice into an impulse that travels along the wire. He's imagining a coding process. It's put into code for the transmission and then decoded by the machine at the other end.

I can't help but try to imagine this alternate past in which instead of early telephones, people all had this weird cherub head mounted on the wall that then speaks to you in this I'm assumed slightly haunting voice. Oh.

I can't help but try to imagine this alternate past in which instead of early telephones, people all had this weird cherub head mounted on the wall that then speaks to you in this I'm assumed slightly haunting voice. Oh.

I'll get to the haunting voice in a second, but anyway, story flags it as historically significant that this one invention had both succeeded in producing generally intelligible synthetic speech to people in the room with it, and it had inspired at least one onlooker to start considering ideas for the electrical transmission of low bandwidth speech from one place to another. But neither of these possibilities really went anywhere. Henry did not devote any more effort to musing about the electrical transmission, and Fober's machine ended up being a circus side show almost literally. So after this, Fober needed money, and beginning in eighteen forty six, to get money, he signed on to demonstrate his machine for P. T. Barnum. Gotta have something for everybody, even people who want a talking doll head operated by a disheveled German organ master. So Fober committed to exhibit the marvelous Speaking Machine for Barnum at the Egyptian Hall in London. This was like a general exhibition hall in Piccadilly which hosted all kinds of shows, but I think, especially in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it was known for showing like a lot of Mountebanks and fraudulent spiritualist demonstrators. Yeah, I'll reveal to you that you're actually a reincarnation of Cleopatra.

I'll get to the haunting voice in a second, but anyway, story flags it as historically significant that this one invention had both succeeded in producing generally intelligible synthetic speech to people in the room with it, and it had inspired at least one onlooker to start considering ideas for the electrical transmission of low bandwidth speech from one place to another. But neither of these possibilities really went anywhere. Henry did not devote any more effort to musing about the electrical transmission, and Fober's machine ended up being a circus side show almost literally. So after this, Fober needed money, and beginning in eighteen forty six, to get money, he signed on to demonstrate his machine for P. T. Barnum. Gotta have something for everybody, even people who want a talking doll head operated by a disheveled German organ master. So Fober committed to exhibit the marvelous Speaking Machine for Barnum at the Egyptian Hall in London. This was like a general exhibition hall in Piccadilly which hosted all kinds of shows, but I think, especially in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it was known for showing like a lot of Mountebanks and fraudulent spiritualist demonstrators. Yeah, I'll reveal to you that you're actually a reincarnation of Cleopatra.

Lucky you.

Lucky you.

But by noting that that's just a random thing, I'm not trying to cast dispersions on Fober because I want to stress that it seems totally clear that Fober was no con artist. As best we can tell, his machine really did work, and when played correctly, it did really speak original sentences that people could, for the most part understand. Though, one thing that emerges from reading descriptions of this is that coding intelligible information and sounding like speech are two completely different things. So it seems that a lot of people could tell what the machine was saying, but still they were not very impressed by what they heard. And I found a spectacularly evocative description of what the machine was like are recorded in a book called Instruments and the Imagination by Thomas L. Hankins and Robert J. Silverman, Princeton University Press, nineteen ninety nine. But the main thing here is that they're quoting a person who saw the machine in person in eighteen forty six, I believe, and then wrote about it in a memoir. But generally the authors here they note that there were like some satirical articles making reference to Faber's machine, suggesting, for example, that it could be used to replace the speaker of the House of Commons. Yuk yah, those wacky politicians. But then they well, they do kind of make a funny point. Actually, they say, like you could just program it to say order order at ten minute intervals.

But by noting that that's just a random thing, I'm not trying to cast dispersions on Fober because I want to stress that it seems totally clear that Fober was no con artist. As best we can tell, his machine really did work, and when played correctly, it did really speak original sentences that people could, for the most part understand. Though, one thing that emerges from reading descriptions of this is that coding intelligible information and sounding like speech are two completely different things. So it seems that a lot of people could tell what the machine was saying, but still they were not very impressed by what they heard. And I found a spectacularly evocative description of what the machine was like are recorded in a book called Instruments and the Imagination by Thomas L. Hankins and Robert J. Silverman, Princeton University Press, nineteen ninety nine. But the main thing here is that they're quoting a person who saw the machine in person in eighteen forty six, I believe, and then wrote about it in a memoir. But generally the authors here they note that there were like some satirical articles making reference to Faber's machine, suggesting, for example, that it could be used to replace the speaker of the House of Commons. Yuk yah, those wacky politicians. But then they well, they do kind of make a funny point. Actually, they say, like you could just program it to say order order at ten minute intervals.

Well that's pretty good, that's funny today.

Well that's pretty good, that's funny today.

Yeah. But anyway, then there's a part of the book where they're including this evocative written account which is from a London theater manager named John Hollingshead who saw this machine in person when he was nineteen years old and then wrote about it in a memoirs or some book. But anyway, this is hallings Head's account. The exhibitor, Professor Fober, was a sad faced man, dressed in respectable, well worn clothes that were soiled by contact with tools, wood and machinery. The room looked like a laboratory and workshop, which it was. The professor was not too clean, and his hair and beard sadly wanted the attention of a barber. I have no doubt that he slept in the same room as his figure, his scientific Frankenstein Monster.

Yeah. But anyway, then there's a part of the book where they're including this evocative written account which is from a London theater manager named John Hollingshead who saw this machine in person when he was nineteen years old and then wrote about it in a memoirs or some book. But anyway, this is hallings Head's account. The exhibitor, Professor Fober, was a sad faced man, dressed in respectable, well worn clothes that were soiled by contact with tools, wood and machinery. The room looked like a laboratory and workshop, which it was. The professor was not too clean, and his hair and beard sadly wanted the attention of a barber. I have no doubt that he slept in the same room as his figure, his scientific Frankenstein Monster.

Note.

Note.

I guess the novel would have only been a few decades old at this time.

I guess the novel would have only been a few decades old at this time.

Yeah, yeah, eighteen eighteen on Frankenstein there.

Yeah, yeah, eighteen eighteen on Frankenstein there.

Yeah, sorry going on with Halling's head, and I felt the secret influence of an idea that the two were destined to live and die together.

Yeah, sorry going on with Halling's head, and I felt the secret influence of an idea that the two were destined to live and die together.

Oh my god, this is those pretty strong words. Yes.

Oh my god, this is those pretty strong words. Yes.

The professor, with a slight German accent, put his wonderful toy in motion. He explained its action. It was not necessary to prove the absence of deception one keyboard touched by the professor, produced words which slowly and deliberately, in a hoarse, sepulchral voice, came from the mouth of the figure, as if from the depths of a tomb. It wanted little imagination to make the very few visitors believe that the figure contained an imprisoned human or half human being bound to speak slowly when tormented by the unseen power outside. No one thought for a moment that they were being fooled by a second edition of the Invisible Girl fraud. And by the way, the reference to the Invisible Girl fraud, I believe is about the many fake machines and fake automata that were actually worked by having a human hidden inside operating it. But going on, so Holling said, says, nobody thought that there was an invisible girl operating. This as clear, this is real. He goes on. There were truth, laborious invention, and good faith in every part of the melancholy room. As a crowning display, the head sang a sepulchral version of God Save the Queen, which suggested, inevitably, God save the inventor. This extraordinary effect was achieved by the professor working two keyboards, one for the words and one for the music. Never probably before or since, has the national anthem been so sung, sadder and wiser. I and the few visitors crept slowly from the place, leaving the Professor with his one and only treasure, his child of infinite labor and unmeasurable sorrow.

The professor, with a slight German accent, put his wonderful toy in motion. He explained its action. It was not necessary to prove the absence of deception one keyboard touched by the professor, produced words which slowly and deliberately, in a hoarse, sepulchral voice, came from the mouth of the figure, as if from the depths of a tomb. It wanted little imagination to make the very few visitors believe that the figure contained an imprisoned human or half human being bound to speak slowly when tormented by the unseen power outside. No one thought for a moment that they were being fooled by a second edition of the Invisible Girl fraud. And by the way, the reference to the Invisible Girl fraud, I believe is about the many fake machines and fake automata that were actually worked by having a human hidden inside operating it. But going on, so Holling said, says, nobody thought that there was an invisible girl operating. This as clear, this is real. He goes on. There were truth, laborious invention, and good faith in every part of the melancholy room. As a crowning display, the head sang a sepulchral version of God Save the Queen, which suggested, inevitably, God save the inventor. This extraordinary effect was achieved by the professor working two keyboards, one for the words and one for the music. Never probably before or since, has the national anthem been so sung, sadder and wiser. I and the few visitors crept slowly from the place, leaving the Professor with his one and only treasure, his child of infinite labor and unmeasurable sorrow.

Oh wow, that is a lot. I mean, obviously he lays it on really thick about the sadness of the inventor here. And then also there's the ideas like this was no hoax, this was real and it was depressing.

Oh wow, that is a lot. I mean, obviously he lays it on really thick about the sadness of the inventor here. And then also there's the ideas like this was no hoax, this was real and it was depressing.

Yeah, it's a weird mix of like like pity but real admiration, you know that, Like, there's something beautiful and honest and true about this machine and his devotion to it and the genius it took to create it. But also it makes everybody feel bad and nobody wants to look at it or listen to it, and everybody leaves feeling depressed. YEA, something about that struck me as actually quite poignant and meaningful. Maybe we can come back to that in a minute, but I did want to flag that there was one notable visitor who, coming back to the Invisible Girl suspicion, he did at first suspect fraud, and that was the Duke of Wellington. I was reading about this in a book called The Shows of London by Richard Daniel Atlick, and at Lick recounts that Wellington, when he first went to the demonstration, he was so impressed by Faber's speaking machine that he asked to be allowed to touch the keys with his own fingers, you know, so he could see that it was genuine. And then he did confirm that it was genuine, and then he insisted that he'd be taught how to use it. So Fober taught the Duke to play the machine in both German and English, and Wellington did get it like he could. He could make it speak sentences in German and English, and he was amazed, writing in the visitor's log of the exhibit that the speaking machine, or the Euphonia, was quote an extraordinary production of mechanical genius. Faber's machine also got rave reviews in The Times, in the Illustrated London News. A lot of people like looked at it and they thought that, like, yeah, this is a work of genius. It's incredible that he's done this. But at the same time, audiences really were not into it. Barnum himself noticed that Fober's machine was not attracting crowds, it was not selling tickets and not generating revenue, and so eventually he took Fober's machine out of the Egyptian Hall in Life, London and added it to a traveling exhibit that went around the English countryside doing performances. And from here Faber himself seems to kind of disappear from the historical record. Some sources indicate that he may have died by suicide during this period, though that isn't known for sure. But after historical sources stopped mentioning Faber himself, they still make references to his machine, reading from story here quote. Although his talking machine continued to make side show like appearances in Europe and North America over the next thirty years. It seems a relative, perhaps a niece or nephew, may have inherited the machine and performed with it to generate income.