[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:16:04 -0600
The one noaa uses here is from the realspeak family of voices, I think they
used to be called speechify. His name is Tom, and he is very good.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Ring" <ring.richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
> Actually, the noaa weather in Des Moines Iowa is incredibly good speech.
> Not the DECtalk speech, but they are using another synthesizer which is
> surprisingly good.
> I mean, I know it isn't a human voice, but if I'm not paying strict
> attention, I can forget that it is fake.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:28 PM
> To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
>
>
> Hi Sandy and list:
>
> NOAA Weather has different voices in different areas, but I haven't
> found
> one yet that didn't mangle names of towns and other things. Honestly the
>
> things that some people will accept are astounding.
>
> We don't have such a service in New Zealand, but there are a few feeds
> on
> the net if you look around a bit, so we can certainly tune in, sort of,
> here
> and there.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy Licht" <slicht@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:18 AM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
>
>
> >I wish we could use the voices NOAA weather radio has.
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:51 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
> >>Considering the time period which is historically known as the dark
> >>ages, I sincerely doubt if the Doubletalk chip was available then.
> >>I don't mind if improvements are made in speech, but please, don't use
> >>Keynote, and don't use AT&T natural voices.
> >>I am currently testing a piece of software that APH sells that
> features
> >>the AT&T Natural voices, and that speech is extremely difficult for me
> >>to become accustomed to.
> >>Although the overall sound of many individual words is more human
> than,
> >>say, Eloquence or the Doubletalk, the inflection/rhythm is quite
> >>strange. The speech sounds as if digitized words are being patched
> >>together so as to create the illusion of human sounding speech.
> >>It doesn't work.
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick and Pauline
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:34 PM
> >>To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > Sandy Licht
> > Phone: 409-898-8218
> > Jeremiah 29:11 - 14A
> > 11For I know the plans I have for you," says the LORD. "They
> > are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a
> hope.
> > 12In those days when you pray, I will listen. 13If you look for me in
> > earnest,
> > you will find me when you seek me. 14I will be found by you," says the
>
> > LORD...
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
