I am using Jaws with Eloquence, and In the menu Options/Basics/Voices/Global adjustment, I have set the rate to 64%.
This is because english is not my native language, but maybe other users use a higher rate.
Octavian----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Stefik" <stefika@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:03 AM Subject: Re: Free TTS engines
People talk quite a bit about how fast they have the TTS engines going. Would anyone mind posting a couple soundfiles of your screenreader reading computer code at your "usual" pace? I'm curious how fast folks typically have it going. I suspect that, in our pilot studies, we have the TTS engine going way slower than you folks do. Andreas On Dec 21, 2007 2:38 PM, tribble <lauraeaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Should have read ahead -- thanks Lloyd and all. I agree. --le ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Rasmussen" <lras@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:41 PM Subject: RE: Free TTS engines Natural Voices, VoiceText, Loquento and other modern synthesizers areconcatenative, requiring speech segments to be looked up, best match found,then interpolated in order to be modeled on a particular human voice and sound natural. To adjust their speed, you have to do some moreinterpolation and matching, as you do for time-scale modification of naturalspeech, and this begins to get rough and less intelligible as you go to twice normal speed or faster. The older synthesizers, such as DecTalk, Eloquence and the SSI263 speech chip used by Artic, Braille 'n Speak, Votrax, Accent, etc. are formantsynthesizers. They work on a vocal tract model, and the parameters can bevaried systematically to alter the speed without creating quite as muchdistortion or losing consonants. Of course they don't sound as natural, but this is mostly a hindrance to people who don't spend days and days listeningto them, for whom speed is more valuable than naturalness. The otheradvantage of the vocal-tract synthesizers is that they don't require as muchdata to be handled, so they work better for echoing individual keystrokes than the ponderous concatenative synthesizers. Even on modern computers, these speed and responsiveness issues are important. Lloyd Rasmussen, Kensington, Maryland Home: http://lras.home.sprynet.com Work: http://www.loc.gov/nls > -----Original Message----- > From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind- > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Stefik > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:34 PM > To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Free TTS engines > > Peter says: > > > I have several of these voices. > > Wonderful sound for reading but to slow for use in a Gui. > > I say > > You talking about the AT &T ones? Can't you just speed them up? I know > that, on windows at least, there is a slider bar you can adjust. Maybe > you mean something else, though. Might not be true for every OS, or > every voice though. I readily admit I'm not an expert on such things. > > Inthane says: >> I have used the AT&T voices and find them to be the best of the TTS > voices > that I have herd, (well, except for there attempt to make one sound > like a> Scotsman, ouch! LOL), > > I say > > lol, yaa the Scotsman is hilarious. Well, I guess it's a tough > decision on what to get. > > Thanks for the thoughts, all. > > Andreas > __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind__________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
