[DECtalk] new to the list

[Nick G]

Corine,
One of the things that made the older versions of DECtalk a good thing for 
every day listeners is that it was steady, clear, and concise.  DECtalk 
wouldn't often do what wasn't expected of it, a lot of the best formant 
synthesizers were like that.  Concatonates, I think that's what they're 
called, tend to do strange things.  A perfect example is when AT&T Mike 
actually would get all excited every time he said Walls.  Crazy stuff!
Thanks,
nick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> Hi Nick,
> Having been around DECtalk for a long time, my ears always perk up when
> someone says that most users prefer DECtalk for every day listening. Of
> course I believe you, but a lot of marketing and engineering folks say 
> "so,
> where's the reference paper on that?" when I say I've heard that users
> prefer DECtalk. Has anyone ever seen one?
> OR -- maybe the more important question -- can you describe WHY you prefer
> DECtalk over NaturalVoices (you mean the ATT system, right? Not a natural
> human....?) - what listening conditions - or how listeners react
> differently?
> corine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
> [mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Nick G
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:04 PM
> To: DECtalk Discussions
> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
> Corine,
> If you are looking to get the sighted market on to it, and don't care 
> about
> response time, then the natural voices is good.  However, most of us 
> prefer
> things like DECtalk 4.40 for every day listening.
> Thanks,
> nick
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
> To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>> Personally I would like
>> to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
>> already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
>> software with good speech quality.
>>
>> What programmable features would you like to see in an "easily
>> programmable
>> software" version?
>> And, does "good speech quality" mean: 1. one of the older DECtalks (like
>> 4.40 or 4.3, NOT the new 5.0), or 2. some other kind of synthesizer, like
>> ATT Natural Voices?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
>> [mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Tony Baechler
>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22 AM
>> To: DECtalk Discussions
>> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>>
>> Hi.  I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here.  First, the
>> point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the source
>> isn't easily apparent.  If it was possible to just randomly
>> disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD, Linux or any
>> other open source project.  I could just take the Windows kernel,
>> crack it, invent my own version and release it as the free kernel or
>> something.  It obviously doesn't work that way.  Also, remember a
>> previous discussion about emulating the Echo on the Apple II?  The
>> problem is the same in both cases.  The Echo is a chip on a card that
>> goes into the computer.  The DEC-Talk is a separate
>> computer.  According to the manual, it has its own
>> microprocessor.  So, even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
>> them much good.  It's a nice thought though.  Considering that it
>> keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have the
>> 4.40 source, or won't release it if they do.  Personally I would like
>> to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
>> already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
>> software with good speech quality.  I'm not interested in what's
>> already out there for free, it all sounds like crap and won't sing
>> very well if at all.
>>
>> At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
>>>I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code.  If the only
>>>copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send the drive in to a
>>>data recovery company if they still have it, but those places are
>> expensive.
>>>I mean, with the move from Digital to Force and then from Force to Fonix,
>>>you'd think somebody somewhere would have something laying around.  I 
>>>have
>>>the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as well as the DECtalk PC
>> drivers
>>>which as I understand it actually contain the DECtalk code which is 
>>>loaded
>>>onto the board at startup.  And of course the 4.3 demo is available at 
>>>the
>>>archive.  I don't know how to disassemble the software, but bet the right
>>>person who knew what they were doing could do it and create machine code
>>>from which new equivalent source code for the lost versions could be
>>>recreated.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>