[DECtalk] sapi dectalk

Sat Jan 29 17:33:25 EST 2011

will there be a part 2 to this? and does 4.64 really sound like that? 

On Jan 29, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Alex H. wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> My little skit for DT vs Fonixtalk is here:
> http://filesmelt.com/dl/DECTalk_Vs._FonixTalk_Part_1_Talking_.mp3
> I don't have a file of 4.61 but there are plenty of them floating
> around in the archive. I do have the demo but haven't bothered making
> any demos with it because it's so froggy and non-dectalk-ish.
> 
> I know the version of DT used in Mobile speak is 4.6.3, not 4.6.4, but
> they sound almost identical. I do hope the SAPI version is modded
> slightly to be a bit more lively, because as you can hear of my demo
> of 4.6.4 in the link above it's able to sound lively. I hoe also that
> we can customize parameters with it, such as breathyness, inflection,
> and frication and aspiration gains, etc.
> 
> hth,
> Alex
> 
> On 1/29/11, Brandon Misch <bmisch2002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> i got it working back then too.
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Pitermach wrote:
>> 
>>> I remember getting, off some random person's ftp site, dectalk access 32
>>> v4.6. now the file dates were at around 2004. Many people tolled me this
>>> would work on vista, so not exactly keen on trying it I eventually did,
>>> only to find it sounded perfectly normal. While if I would run dt on my
>>> nokia phone with ms I would get that crappy voice you just mentioned, I'd
>>> say we agreed with each other at this point. smile.
>>> BTW, ever heard that 4.64 sing? well, it isn't any better than talking.
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dectalk at aol.com
>>> To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:12 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] sapi dectalk
>>> 
>>> I got an e-mail saying it was 4.64.  I wish it would have been anything
>>> before that.
>>> 
>>> 4.64 actually tells me nothing.  See, I have 4.64 in my devices.  One is
>>> fine, the other I swear can't be 4.64 because it acts weird.  The device
>>> company claims they can't touch Dectalk because they have a contract and
>>> they say both versions are the same.  I laugh because if you do them side
>>> by side with a voice string, and have them read the very same things, like
>>> if you have something that is an entire paragraph long, the newer 4.64 has
>>> a glitch where if you put in a rest, like [_<500>] or whatever, about 3
>>> sentences later the voice just totally drops in pitch for like 2 words.
>>> It sounds horrible!  There are other differences as well.
>>> 
>>> So I'm totally holding my breathe because from what I know, it's a gamble.
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking the device company tampered with Dectalk even though they are
>>> contracted not to.  If I'm right, this 4.64 version should be great!  But
>>> there is no way of knowing.  And yes, my new device with 4.64 sounds
>>> depressed.  The company swears up and down that they didn't touch anything
>>> and it's all in my head.  (Right)  I know my stuff and believe me, one of
>>> the 4.64's is not 4.64.
>>> 
>>> I really wish it would have been any version before 4.64 because now I
>>> gotta wait and hope it's the true 4.64 that does not sound depressed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> SNOOPI BOTTEN
>>> 
>>> In a message dated 1/29/2011 9:02:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> pitermach at gmail.comwrites:
>>> Hi, I''m excited and all, but I havea question. WIll this sound like the
>>> dt in window-eyes or access32, oriw ill it be that sucky one, say, code
>>> factory uses? I'm asking because the ladder is unbearable for me. Dennis,
>>> for instance, who's on e of my favourite voices now doesn't have that much
>>> intonation, all the voices sound like they're depressed or something. If
>>> it'll sound like that, then no matter how tempting it'd be to have dt in
>>> klango or nvda I'll probably pass up on it.
>>> -----------------
>>> Peter Mahach
>>> |pitermach at gmail.com
>>> msn: pitermach00 at hotmail.com
>>> skype (not very often): pitermach
>>> twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pitermach
>>> webpage: http://pmsworld.weisi4u.de/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5266 (20100709) __________
>>> 
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>> 
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5266 (20100709) __________
>>> 
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>> 
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5266 (20100709) __________
>>> 
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>> 
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5266 (20100709) __________
>>> 
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>> 
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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