A little reality check might perhaps be beneficial at this point.
APH, when it comes to book readers, is not in the hardware design
business. What they do, and they do it incredibly well, is take
preexisting hardware and write firmware for it. In the case of the Book
Port, there were a few key layout changes, but for all intents and
purpose, the inner workings of the unit were a Book Courier, and APH was
marvelously able to write their own firmware for it.
In the case of the Book Port Plus, the guts of the unit is a PlexTalk
Pocket. This is no secret, APH has been very straightforward about that.
APH as again rewritten the firmware, and I have absolutely no doubt that
it will be favulous.
The DoubleTalk is a hardware-based synthesizer. That means it has a
physical chip. It's not just a program that runs in a unit, it is an
actual chip that takes up space, runs, etc. So if the PlexTalk currently
doesn't have a DoubleTalk, APH isn't jgoing to be able to write a
DoubleTalk program. They would have to be able to physically alter the
unit by putting in a brand new chip.
As developers, companies like APH just can't win. When the Book Port was
in production, there was a great deal of complaining that APH didn't
have one of the more "human"-sounding voices in it. Now that the new
unit will, people are complaining just as much because it's not the old
Double-Talk. Why these companies even bother trying to please people is
an absolute mystery to me. It's got to be one of the most thankless jobs
on the planet: you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I
assure you that if APH had found a way to have a DoubleTalk chip
installed, assuming that the chip is still even being made and will be
in the future as the new unit progresses, the outcry would have been
just as strong. They simply can't win no matter what they decide, so
they had to make the decision that made the most sense to them.
Bruce
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:50:43 -0700, "Rik James" <rixmix2009@xxxxxxxxx>
said:
Hello, fellow Book Port teleporters.
I have to chime in briefly.
Just to say I also was disappointed to learn of the new Book Port's
voices.
It is not just that I do not like the sound of Sam and Tom.
It is litterally that I cannot understand them. Several of the characters
and words spoken are just not intelligible to my old ears.
I have stated on this list before my Book Port has changed my life and
been
one of the finest devices among so very many that I have purchased over
the
years.
I did purchase and like my Victor Stream, but I use it for much of the
mp3
audio and Daisy formatted mp3 audio stuff I read. And while I can and do
use
it a little using the voices, I just do not enjoy the reading using of
the
text to speech voices, for reasons I cited earlier.
I don't yet know if I will purchase the new Book Port.
But it is not in its favor to learn that the device will have those mealy
mouth type of voices.
I am not trying to be insulting or critical. But it is just true, I just
plain can't understand them enough to suit my own needs.
Meanwhile I am using My Book Port, and trying to treat it with kid
gloves,
so very fearful for when I again wear out the buttons and it is rendered
no
longer so useful, knowing that I cannot be any longer repaired by APH.
I hope to hear in the future the option to have the Double Talk voice in
the
new Book Port.
I know you developers have many things to consider about it. I just am
chiming in as one of the consumers who wants the good stuff. I will
purchase
a new Book Port, if I feel I can get my value from it as I have from my
original unit.
Thanks.
Rik James
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Curtis Delzer" <curtis@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:34 AM
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bookport] Re: new book port
> Well, I am not truly convinced that DoubleTalk chip would double the
> price. "human" like, as you say, depends on the OS in the machine, and
> if
> it were a DoubleTalk chip, it could be used for all text and the
> interface
> too it wouldn't be memory specific. With the particular OS, as I think
> it
> is in the particular BP plus, the there is limited speech facilities
> available for it, and this one is the Samantha and Tom voices, and
> probably the UK Daniel as well. As I say, why oh why not spend the
> extra
> fifty bux and use a double talk chip for text reading and file name
> reading, etc.
> Double Talk speech is a hall mark of Book Port so it should be
> incorporated into the plus unit, because it truly is less memory
> intensive
> than any "human" speech, and is just better than those smoky voices,
> both
> will get cancer in a few months, the way they sound. :) <grin>
>
>
> Curtis Delzer.
> HS.
>
> on Tuesday 2/9/2010 12:06 PM, Martin Courcelles said:
>>Because they sound human?
>>Don't get me wrong, I like the old DoubleTalk, but why not use
>>financially
>>viable text-to-speech, instead of using the DoubleTalk hardware speech
>>which would double the price.
>>I do wish that they could crank up the audio bitrate however. It would
>>make them sound a bit clearer. I have the same pet peeve with the
>>other
>>players on the market. Right now, the voices sound like they have a
>>smoke
>>in their mouth.
>>
>>On 2/9/2010 12:11 PM, Curtis Delzer wrote:
>>>Oh please, why the Samantha, Tom, etc. voices? PLEASE! Why not just
>>>remain with DoubleTalk voice instead, it's better than that!
>>>DoubleTalk
>>>is designed with Text in mind, has been for many years and you could
>>>then
>>>also make the device an external USB supported synthesizer with just
>>>some
>>>additional configuration. Even then a dictionary for words could be
>>>added
>>>with double-tap keystrokes for changing pronunciation of mispronounced
>>>words, etc. Is memory considerations why those voices were chosen?
>>>There
>>>are just so many better choices than these voices!
>>>
>>>
>>>Curtis Delzer.
>>>HS.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 100209-1, 02/09/2010
Tested on: 2/9/2010 2:15:38 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
