[bookport] Re: Synthesizers
- From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:46:22 -0500
Given what you say below, then it seems to me that, unless it can be shown that
the battery drain is less for a software-based synthesizer than it is for the
chip, you should stick with what you have now, as it has the
least negative impact on the device's functionality and also possibly cost as
well.
Mary
>There would be more of a RAM requirement. The battery drain issue is
>one that we still need to measure.
>>>> maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:41:29 PM >>>
>Larry,
>Of the synthesizers mentioned, I much prefer the doubletalk, and that
>includes over keynote, which, while phonemically accurate, sounds so
>mechanical as to put me completely off. I have access to software
>dectalk
>and to via voice and eloquence, but still prefer triple talk pci. Other
>than the subjective quality, what are the other considerations? I've
>always heard that the disadvantage to things like dectalk software or
>eloquence
>is that they do require memory, whereas the speech chip, being self
>contained, does not. I would think that the responsiveness of the bp
>would be negatively affected with a software synthesizer. That is
>certainly the
>case with my pc, which has plenty of ram and a 2.2ghz processor. And
>what about battery drain? Would the present chip drain more or less from
>the battery?
>Mary
Other related posts:
