[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:20:40 -0600
The problem with eloquence is that it's software speech which means you need
a few more things then you would by sticking with the doubletalk synth.
First a more powerful processor, and second, an operating system for the
speech to work with. Most likely that would result in a higher cost unit, in
which case I'd say, by all means stick with doubletalk.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bennett" <david382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
> Just remember that the better the speech, the higher will be the cost.
I'd
> love to have eloquence, but it's one of the more costly ways to go.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sue" <sjfryer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:19 PM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
>
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I'm with you, mate. I think Eloquence would be a great idea.
> >
> > Sue.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:35 AM
> > Subject: [bookport] speech
> >
> >
> >> Since we're talking about the new unit, speech might be worth
discussing.
> >> My
> >> vote would be for doubletalk or eloquence. Of course, everyone has
their
> >> favorites, and there's no way you're going to please everyone, but
that's
> >> my
> >> vote. Perhaps the new units could have 2 speech engines like the
> >> braillenotes do
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
