[DECtalk] Some DECtalk history and what I think we can and can't reasonably do
Alex H.
linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com
Thu Aug 4 20:54:37 EDT 2011
can't you get the samples forom the list they're attached to ethe other
emaisl
On 8/4/2011 8:43 PM, Brandon Misch wrote:
> is there a way i can hear the samples?
>
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Alex H. wrote:
>
>> My idea is to just do a last bit of tweakage on the voices as far as
>> formant parameters go, then do a initial release. It need not sound
>> like a particular version, just loads better than that Hlsyn stuff
>> from before The current version sounds like maybe a 4.5 or 4.6x
>> version, and that is totally fine to me. It's DECTalk and it's
>> sounding unique, crisp and clear. As Raymond pointed out, there's a
>> bit of word running together, such as "test of" but othr than that,
>> things are looking up for DECTalk. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 8/4/2011 1:31 PM, ebruckert Bruckert wrote:
>>> Here is my plan we need to now enter a release cycle where Corine
>>> and I now carefully to the voices on the new synthesizer bass and
>>> come out the first release. I'm unwilling to try to make an exact
>>> match before we do a first release. There are many reasons for this
>>> and the real issue is this is the way to really start. After the
>>> initial release then we worry about other details where we have to
>>> look for consensus on what people would like a like. Also in many
>>> areas the rules are highly interactive so a change may fix the exact
>>> problem you're trying to fix, but have unintended side effects. Also
>>> there's issues like shutter priority be to provide a way to better
>>> control the synthesizer by getting around blocked commands by the
>>> screen reader application. I will update the file system and get
>>> started with corine hopefully tomorrow. Today I'm sick as a dog so I
>>> don't want to do anything when I can barely think. And I am willing
>>> to continue for free to try and please the users as long as there is
>>> interest.
>>> For myself I can say I've listened to DECtalk so much, that I'm
>>> quite happy with the version we have right now.
>>> As a point of interest what I think I have learned so far is that
>>> the single biggest issue was spectral tilt, when we incorporated
>>> change made by Dennis which from a speech standpoint is more correct
>>> meaning more natural in a spectral range. But from the overwhelming
>>> reaction we have anecdotal proof that this spectral shape is better
>>> for users. This is actually not terribly surprising because on the
>>> other side of the coin we lack the higher formants because for
>>> compute and other reasons it was impossible to add these to the
>>> synthesizer. At this point theoretically we could add them in but
>>> it's is fairly large effort because we'd have to go from integer
>>> arithmetic to floating point for the vocal track as were presently
>>> at the limit of what we can do with 16-bit integers.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, FRIDO ORDEMANN
>>> <enablerehab at verizon.net <mailto:enablerehab at verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> i can't tell the difference when listening as Ed suggests -
>>> excellent!
>>> thanks, Ed
>>>
>>> *From:* Alex H. <linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com>>
>>> *To:* dectalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto: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 <mailto:edbruckert at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> agreed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Alex H.
>>>>> <linuxx64.bashsh at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>>>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>>>> <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>>> <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto: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 <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto:DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via Thunderbird.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com <mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20110804/d81cc424/attachment.html>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list