Bruce, the point is, that "human sounding" voice, one of the worse human sounding voices ever deviced, for memory intensive apps are the Samantha and Tom voices, just a huge let down compared to almost any synthesizer, e.g. Dectalk, DoubleTalk, even Keynote, it is the worse in "human qualities." I don't know which the pocket uses regarding it's OS and that is probably why the Tom and Samantha voices, it is just unfortunate that they could not put in a DoubleTalk chip into the unit and re-direct the text to it rather than all the space for the human recorded speech as in the Stream or Pocket. I agree with many on this list and other lists that those voices are the worse Human sounding speech synthesizers there are, even the Cepstral voices are better than Samantha and Tom voices. If Eloquence was available as software speech, why not use that or make it a choice? Because of the OS involved, Eloquence isn't written for it, I know, that is why I ask why not just pop in a DoubleTalk chip, and not use that awful speech. :) Practical is, what practical does, and that kind of practical means a higher learning curve for listening to text, higher learning than using a DoubleTalk chip since most of us are more familiar with that.
Gotta go eat lunch and pray with our pastor first. Curtis Delzer. HS. on Tuesday 2/9/2010 01:04 PM, Bruce Toews said:
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. > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >
