[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Walt Smith" <walt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:59:02 -0500
This really is the bottom line and I fully agree. Discussions about speech
synthesis almost always turn into religious wars--they're like stereo
speakers and the reason that there are so many choices is identical to the
reason there are so many stereo speaker brands and designs--use is totally
subjective and there's no single solution that'll please everyone, let alone
a majority.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Toews" <DogRiver@xxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
There's no way to please everybody on the speech issue. And there's also,
it would seem, no choice that would please a majority. I have no speech
preference. I've gotten used to the DoubleTalk, I've gotten used to the
DECTalk, I could get used to AT&T, I've gotten used to the Echo, Artic,
the old Braille 'n Speak, as long as it talks and I have a while to get
used to it, fine.
Bruce
--
Bruce Toews
E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: DogRiver@xxxxxxxx
Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net
Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Mike Arrigo wrote:
> Yep, speech is very subjective, in my opinion, dectalk would be the worst
> choice.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris G" <chrisg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:19 PM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
>
>
>> How about decTalk?
>> i know speech is very subjective.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris G <chrisg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:51:46 -0600
>> "Richard Ring" <ring.richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 2.21.03
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
