[bookport] Re: speech
- From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:21:19 -0600
My guess is people will purchase the bookport no matter what speech it
has. After all, we all own it now and the speech that is used may not
be our favorite, but it is the most economical and most flexible, I am
guessing, or Larry and APH wouldn't have used it. So, give me whatever
you've got Larry, and I be happy as a clam. Now that's a very good
question. How do we know that clams are always happy anyway. And they
don't even have speech.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walt Smith
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:59 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: speech
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:
