[DECtalk] Some DECtalk history and what I think we can and can't reasonably do
FRIDO ORDEMANN
enablerehab at verizon.net
Thu Aug 4 07:46:36 EDT 2011
i can't tell the difference when listening as Ed suggests - excellent!
thanks, Ed
________________________________
From: Alex H. <linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com>
To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
Sent: Wed, August 3, 2011 4:34:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] Some DECtalk history and what I think we can and can't
reasonably do
Agreed. This new sample rules. It's pretty darn close to the original and
has its own coolness..
alex
On 8/3/2011 4:09 PM, jake mcmahan wrote:
On 8/3/2011 3:42 PM, ebruckert Bruckert wrote:
>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 list
>>>>>>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com http://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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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
>>
Ed, good mighty lord, you're doing exelent dude.
_______________________________________________ DECtalk mailing list
DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
--
Sent via Thunderbird.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20110804/2c618b6a/attachment.html>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list