[DECtalk] Some DECtalk history and what I think we can and can't reasonably do

Wed Aug 3 18:34:32 EDT 2011

Okay I got the feedback I need that was just the very first rough cut after
I figured out the major differences between the 4.3 samples sent me and the
present.
Just seeing know emerge a is from my synthesizer and emerge b is from the
original 4.3 file sent me.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Grote <musicalman1 at comcast.net>wrote:

> **
> Yes, they definitely sound pretty good. The only problems i can even think
> of is the second one just sounds a bit too crisp for my taste, and the way
> it combines test and of, sounds like tessof. Other than that, I like it.
> definitely a new sound but does remind of the old.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* ebruckert Bruckert <edbruckert at gmail.com>
> *To:* DECtalk Discussions <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [DECtalk] Some DECtalk history and what I think we can and
> can't reasonably do
>
> Okay as an update listen to the to wave files separately not back-and-forth
> listen to one we waited a few minutes listen to the other. See if you agree
> were getting closer, one of course is what you sent me
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, ebruckert Bruckert <edbruckert at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> agreed
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Alex H. <linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> I, too, hope that HLsyn eventually will be a viable option and we could
>>> use the old method or HLsyn if we wanted, maybe for reading long texts and
>>> so on. It's a great idea and theory but just isn't mature enough at this
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/3/2011 1:13 PM, ebruckert Bruckert wrote:
>>>
>>> There's always two sides to a coin, if DECtalk hadn't been purchased it
>>> would have died. And since there was no money from anyone to work on
>>> handicapped applications, we had to do what our customers want it or go
>>> home. I recognize that the HLsyn work did not yield the hoped-for results
>>> and perhaps someday it can with what we learned in our failures. But it was
>>> a decision based on the best knowledge we had at the time and in fact also
>>> with Dennis Klatt's work. The problems that occurred with the HL sin version
>>> aren't of any interest to me because the version put out was in early one
>>> and it's not the right time to pursue trying to perfect HLsyn. S
>>> On all I can do is my best.
>>>    As to the person that mentioned the idea of putting meaning into the
>>> text. DECtalk actually has the ability to do some marketing and adjustment
>>> to train achieve that by hand. Automating the system to do that is deal
>>> beyond our knowledge and capability. Understanding what is being conveyed is
>>> extremely extremely difficult for a computer. A simple example;"You did
>>> that." Depending on which word you emphasize most there are three different
>>> ways of saying this very simple sentence with dramatically different
>>> meanings.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Alex H. <linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, to us,, we never really heard later versions of DT, only the
>>> classics from the 90's, so forgive us if we compare the new attempts to
>>> prior versions - it's not like we have a huge library of source code to just
>>> browse at will and endless samples of every version.... so... yeah.
>>>
>>> Wanna know what's been wrong with the samples and attempts posted to this
>>> list a few months ago for the sapi dectalk? I'll tell you.
>>>
>>> The voices were clipping and squawking, and all the voices sounded like
>>> they had a speech problem. Perfect Paul wasn't perfect as most of us have
>>> heard before. The voices themselves sound not like DECTalk at all, they also
>>> drop out in volume, just like a human cuz it's using HLsyn to make it sound
>>> more natural.
>>> I've heard DT 4.2cd, 4.3, 4.4, 4.61, 4.62 and 4.64. But since you've
>>> pointed out before that version numbers don't matter to speak, is this even
>>> important anyway or are we just listening to the same code with minor tweaks
>>> to get the various versions we know?
>>>
>>> Disable HLsyn in the new product, and it'll suck less. I like forment
>>> based synths, not ones that try and sound human, because I and others are
>>> used to classic forment non-HLsyn versions of DECTalk. True that HLsyn is
>>> still formant but it's trying to sound real and have human articulation, and
>>> knowing that I can understand why this version sounds different. It's just
>>> not what we're used to, that's all. Some Joe Blow off the street who has
>>> never heard synthesized speech can't understand Eloquence from DECTalk from
>>> Espeak anyways, so this point of understanding speech is a moot one.  They'd
>>> be better off using Cepstral or some human-sampled synths and wasting their
>>> hard drive space. This is being targeted at a relatively small group of
>>> people who have used DECTalk before and like it, so i think we're safe
>>> there. I'd consider giving HLsyn another shot if it was completed. But as
>>> always, corporate America screws everyone over in the end, and that was the
>>> case with Dectalk. So much so, that Fonix wanted to make FonixTalk and
>>> specificly try and make it sound human. The result sucks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>> On 8/3/2011 11:17 AM, ebruckert Bruckert wrote:
>>>
>>>    First of all let me make you aware that I use DragonDictate, as I
>>> can't see very well and proofreading is quite painful so you'll have to
>>> forgive and interpret from mistakes the DragonDictate may make. It
>>>    I was taught about form and speech synthesis by Dennis Klatt, and by
>>> reading but before my involvement with him I knew next to nothing. One of
>>> the questions in the early days was could you achieve higher intelligibility
>>> by super articulation and do better than natural speech. What testing
>>> revealed was really two things. At normal speaking rates the answer always
>>> seem to be that the closer you matched to real speech the better the
>>> intelligibility at higher speaking rates above that which humans could
>>> normally achieve things were little different and I'm not going to go into
>>> the specifics of what we did to make things better at high speed other than
>>> to say they were based on knowledge of speech perception.
>>>      The second thing we learned is that listening to a synthesizer has a
>>> very fast but steep learning curve. Somewhat analogous to learning to
>>> understand a person with a strong dialect or speech impediment. One of the
>>> problems we encountered is that people often preferred the version they were
>>> used to over any succeeding version. But actual tests did not support the
>>> preference.
>>>      One example is the way tilt was done inside DECtalk. The original
>>> mechanism was a crude approximation of spectral tilt. Dennis before he died
>>> developed a much more accurate (meaning matching human production) tilt
>>> filter that was not able to be incorporated to a later date. As a point of
>>> interest Dennis was so dedicated that he last modified the DECtalk code 3
>>> days before he passed away. So the spectral tilt was changed and this
>>> changed what you might consider the tone control on an old radio or record
>>> player. That is just one of many reasons why DECtalk change slightly over
>>> the years.
>>>       The 5.0 DECtalk Incorporated the work of Prof. Ken Stevens who was
>>> Dennis is blessed MIT and close friend. The 5.0 code unfortunately did not
>>> yield the expected results, but we did learn a lot from the attempt. This
>>>        there are even some changes to DECtalk that would change the way
>>> it sounds from any particular version, such as Intonation that I am
>>> unwilling to revert because I know for a fact that they caused loss of
>>> information. So my goal is very simple I am working to create a very
>>> functional intelligible DECtalk to put back out, I am unwilling to try and
>>> make it sound exactly like any given person wants to. I have been through
>>> this before and the year is very sensitive and if you directly comparing two
>>> versions side-by-side you not testing anything but whether did the same and
>>> that is an exercise in futility. T
>>>
>>> Any specific issues I can address. Secondly as a word of warning to
>>> listeners providing feedback. The other thing we've learned is that
>>> listeners are excellent at deciding that something is not right, but are
>>> absolutely terrible at exactly pinpointing the problem. The reason for this
>>> is quite simple people judge the output as speech which it only kinda is, by
>>> this I mean that a synthesizer can make mistakes that humans cannot possibly
>>> do and as a consequence can't possibly recognize. An example of this is that
>>> after so many years of working with it I have learned to hear a foreman
>>> that's moving too rapidly, but most people cannot hear it. This is because
>>> to make life easy we try to lead nor stuff that's not important in our
>>> language, such as the nasal lifestyles in French or the retro flex ours in
>>> American English which is Sheehan have a heckuva time hearing.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing listDECtalk at bluegrasspals.comhttp://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing listDECtalk at bluegrasspals.comhttp://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20110803/32482809/attachment.html>