[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 21:24:16 EDT 2011
k i'll put some in my fileupyours account later
On 8/4/2011 9:03 PM, Brandon Misch wrote:
> i would but i don't see the attachments anymore.
>
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Alex H. wrote:
>
>> 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 <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/20110804/25ced4a9/attachment.html>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list