[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:05:46 -0600
I would hardly consider doubletalk to be obsolete technology. As far as I
know, it's the only synth that can be included in just about any device
since it's just a chip set. It's not quite as human sounding as something
like natural voices would be, but speech engines like that require much more
resources.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick and Pauline" <daltontwo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:34 PM
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:
