[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Walt Smith" <walt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:22:30 -0500
As someone else pointed out, the first thing that needs to be done is to
distinguish between pure hardware speech synthesis and software synthesis.
The former is easy, relatively inexpensive, and doesn't use much power. The
latter is vastly more complex to implement, especially on a device with
limited storage and processor speed. As I said yesterday, cost is one
criterion, but simplicity is another: the more complicated you make
something, the more likely it is to fail or, at least, have problems. With
this as a criterion, hardware synthesis trumps software synthesis every
time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick and Pauline" <daltontwo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
Hi All,
Considering the improvements that have been made in synthesized speech in
the last few years, it would be a shame for the American Printinghouse to
saddle us with an antiquated system like Doubletalk. It simply doesn't meet
acceptable standards as a speech system any longer. People I have talked
with have held back from buying a Bookport because they have little
tolerance for Doubletalk. To package an up to date product like the new
Bookport with yesterday's technology makes no sense at all to me. For those
who want to remain in the dark ages, you can keep what you have become
accustomed to, but please don't try to hold back the rest of us who hope for
something better.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
> 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:
