Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?












5















I had my first programming experience in the late 80s / early 90s on a Schneider (Amstrad) CPC 464 in Basic.



I remember that when a program was running, depending on the current workload of the processor you could hear a faint buzzing sound from the integrated speakers.



Especially when an empty for loop was running (like for i = 1 to 500 : next) which was regularly used to get short waiting times (as there was no sleep command IIRC), you could hear this buzzing which gradually changed its frequency during the loop.



My question is: Was this a feature (as an audible feedback that the computer was working) or a consequence from insufficient decoupling of circuits?










share|improve this question







New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

    – void_ptr
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

    – forest
    4 hours ago













  • @void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

    – Bob Jarvis
    1 hour ago
















5















I had my first programming experience in the late 80s / early 90s on a Schneider (Amstrad) CPC 464 in Basic.



I remember that when a program was running, depending on the current workload of the processor you could hear a faint buzzing sound from the integrated speakers.



Especially when an empty for loop was running (like for i = 1 to 500 : next) which was regularly used to get short waiting times (as there was no sleep command IIRC), you could hear this buzzing which gradually changed its frequency during the loop.



My question is: Was this a feature (as an audible feedback that the computer was working) or a consequence from insufficient decoupling of circuits?










share|improve this question







New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

    – void_ptr
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

    – forest
    4 hours ago













  • @void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

    – Bob Jarvis
    1 hour ago














5












5








5








I had my first programming experience in the late 80s / early 90s on a Schneider (Amstrad) CPC 464 in Basic.



I remember that when a program was running, depending on the current workload of the processor you could hear a faint buzzing sound from the integrated speakers.



Especially when an empty for loop was running (like for i = 1 to 500 : next) which was regularly used to get short waiting times (as there was no sleep command IIRC), you could hear this buzzing which gradually changed its frequency during the loop.



My question is: Was this a feature (as an audible feedback that the computer was working) or a consequence from insufficient decoupling of circuits?










share|improve this question







New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I had my first programming experience in the late 80s / early 90s on a Schneider (Amstrad) CPC 464 in Basic.



I remember that when a program was running, depending on the current workload of the processor you could hear a faint buzzing sound from the integrated speakers.



Especially when an empty for loop was running (like for i = 1 to 500 : next) which was regularly used to get short waiting times (as there was no sleep command IIRC), you could hear this buzzing which gradually changed its frequency during the loop.



My question is: Was this a feature (as an audible feedback that the computer was working) or a consequence from insufficient decoupling of circuits?







cpc464






share|improve this question







New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 13 hours ago









elzellelzell

1262




1262




New contributor




elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






elzell is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

    – void_ptr
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

    – forest
    4 hours ago













  • @void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

    – Bob Jarvis
    1 hour ago














  • 1





    True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

    – void_ptr
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

    – forest
    4 hours ago













  • @void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

    – Bob Jarvis
    1 hour ago








1




1





True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

– void_ptr
5 hours ago





True story, I was writing some 3D graphics code on Sinclair PC200, and could hear the loop skipping triangles or processing them. That guided my optimization efforts for a more efficient hash.

– void_ptr
5 hours ago




1




1





@void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

– forest
4 hours ago







@void_ptr On my (comparatively) modern laptop, I can tell the difference between scrolling up and down on a page, creating a tarball vs creating a compressed tarball, and encrypting with AES128 vs AES256, entirely by the sound it makes. From an information security perspective, this is a nightmare...

– forest
4 hours ago















@void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

– Bob Jarvis
1 hour ago





@void_ptr - the real trick is to be able to smell the triangles. :-)

– Bob Jarvis
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8














There seems to be a slight misunderstanding: The CPU in a computer is (almost) never doing nothing (excluding power save states which was largely unknown at times the Amstrad was en vogue). So there's no such thing as "workload of a processor" going up or down - The CPU in an Amstrad is constantly running at 4 MHz, constantly under the same workload. If there's nothing do do, like executing a BASIC program), the CPU is, well, busy idling around at the same speed with the same "workload".



What you possibly can hear, however, is the CPU repeatedly doing the same thing, like operating in tight loops that can, through electrical or mechanical interference (with the monitor or audio signal, for example), create audible frequencies that you may hear. That was definitely not an intended feature.



Operators of mainframes sometimes could hear whether their machines were running properly (or had crashed) by listening to the interference noise they produced, sometimes even tried to amplify the noise. (See this book, page 161ff)



You were experiencing some similar effect.



Today, the sound of historic computers operating can even be marketed as art.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    ...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

    – Solomon Slow
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    "Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

    – Mark
    7 hours ago













  • Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

    – tofro
    6 hours ago








  • 1





    Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

    – Matthew Barber
    5 hours ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






elzell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9634%2fwhy-could-you-hear-an-amstrad-cpc-working%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8














There seems to be a slight misunderstanding: The CPU in a computer is (almost) never doing nothing (excluding power save states which was largely unknown at times the Amstrad was en vogue). So there's no such thing as "workload of a processor" going up or down - The CPU in an Amstrad is constantly running at 4 MHz, constantly under the same workload. If there's nothing do do, like executing a BASIC program), the CPU is, well, busy idling around at the same speed with the same "workload".



What you possibly can hear, however, is the CPU repeatedly doing the same thing, like operating in tight loops that can, through electrical or mechanical interference (with the monitor or audio signal, for example), create audible frequencies that you may hear. That was definitely not an intended feature.



Operators of mainframes sometimes could hear whether their machines were running properly (or had crashed) by listening to the interference noise they produced, sometimes even tried to amplify the noise. (See this book, page 161ff)



You were experiencing some similar effect.



Today, the sound of historic computers operating can even be marketed as art.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    ...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

    – Solomon Slow
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    "Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

    – Mark
    7 hours ago













  • Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

    – tofro
    6 hours ago








  • 1





    Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

    – Matthew Barber
    5 hours ago
















8














There seems to be a slight misunderstanding: The CPU in a computer is (almost) never doing nothing (excluding power save states which was largely unknown at times the Amstrad was en vogue). So there's no such thing as "workload of a processor" going up or down - The CPU in an Amstrad is constantly running at 4 MHz, constantly under the same workload. If there's nothing do do, like executing a BASIC program), the CPU is, well, busy idling around at the same speed with the same "workload".



What you possibly can hear, however, is the CPU repeatedly doing the same thing, like operating in tight loops that can, through electrical or mechanical interference (with the monitor or audio signal, for example), create audible frequencies that you may hear. That was definitely not an intended feature.



Operators of mainframes sometimes could hear whether their machines were running properly (or had crashed) by listening to the interference noise they produced, sometimes even tried to amplify the noise. (See this book, page 161ff)



You were experiencing some similar effect.



Today, the sound of historic computers operating can even be marketed as art.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    ...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

    – Solomon Slow
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    "Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

    – Mark
    7 hours ago













  • Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

    – tofro
    6 hours ago








  • 1





    Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

    – Matthew Barber
    5 hours ago














8












8








8







There seems to be a slight misunderstanding: The CPU in a computer is (almost) never doing nothing (excluding power save states which was largely unknown at times the Amstrad was en vogue). So there's no such thing as "workload of a processor" going up or down - The CPU in an Amstrad is constantly running at 4 MHz, constantly under the same workload. If there's nothing do do, like executing a BASIC program), the CPU is, well, busy idling around at the same speed with the same "workload".



What you possibly can hear, however, is the CPU repeatedly doing the same thing, like operating in tight loops that can, through electrical or mechanical interference (with the monitor or audio signal, for example), create audible frequencies that you may hear. That was definitely not an intended feature.



Operators of mainframes sometimes could hear whether their machines were running properly (or had crashed) by listening to the interference noise they produced, sometimes even tried to amplify the noise. (See this book, page 161ff)



You were experiencing some similar effect.



Today, the sound of historic computers operating can even be marketed as art.






share|improve this answer















There seems to be a slight misunderstanding: The CPU in a computer is (almost) never doing nothing (excluding power save states which was largely unknown at times the Amstrad was en vogue). So there's no such thing as "workload of a processor" going up or down - The CPU in an Amstrad is constantly running at 4 MHz, constantly under the same workload. If there's nothing do do, like executing a BASIC program), the CPU is, well, busy idling around at the same speed with the same "workload".



What you possibly can hear, however, is the CPU repeatedly doing the same thing, like operating in tight loops that can, through electrical or mechanical interference (with the monitor or audio signal, for example), create audible frequencies that you may hear. That was definitely not an intended feature.



Operators of mainframes sometimes could hear whether their machines were running properly (or had crashed) by listening to the interference noise they produced, sometimes even tried to amplify the noise. (See this book, page 161ff)



You were experiencing some similar effect.



Today, the sound of historic computers operating can even be marketed as art.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 10 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









tofrotofro

16.6k33493




16.6k33493








  • 3





    ...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

    – Solomon Slow
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    "Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

    – Mark
    7 hours ago













  • Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

    – tofro
    6 hours ago








  • 1





    Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

    – Matthew Barber
    5 hours ago














  • 3





    ...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

    – Solomon Slow
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    "Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

    – Mark
    7 hours ago













  • Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

    – tofro
    6 hours ago








  • 1





    Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

    – Matthew Barber
    5 hours ago








3




3





...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago





...or, by placing a cheap AM radio near the CPU. I knew a guy in college who programmed his Altair 8800 to play recognizable tunes through a nearby AM radio. Computers back in the day did not exactly comply with FCC regulations.

– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago




1




1





"Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

– Mark
7 hours ago







"Workload" certainly is meaningful, even in the days of the Amstrad. If you're just executing a sequence of nops, that means a whole lot of CPU circuits are sitting there idle, not drawing significant power. (An empty loop in BASIC is very much not a case of the CPU being idle, though.)

– Mark
7 hours ago















Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

– tofro
6 hours ago







Even if that is not a "normal" use case, I pretty much doubt a Z80 on NOPs draws significantly less current than when executing any other instruction. Have you got proof of that? Pretty much the only circuit not required for NOPs is the ALU - And my guess would be that is not responsible for the most significant power consumption. A Z80 in HALT state might have a measurable difference in current draw, but most probably NOPs will not lower that.

– tofro
6 hours ago






1




1





Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

– Matthew Barber
5 hours ago





Even a halted Z80 will run through the refresh cycle, so it's still doing something. Most likely it's only going to be certain instruction patterns that cause a resonance in an audible range, and I'd suspect that the traces on the board act as the transmitters rather than the CPU itself.

– Matthew Barber
5 hours ago










elzell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















elzell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













elzell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












elzell is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9634%2fwhy-could-you-hear-an-amstrad-cpc-working%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Masuk log Menu navigasi

Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области