<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately, I think keynote gold is dead. Short of running it in an old dos or windows95 emulator, in 15 minute demo mode, I don’t think keynote gold will be returning any time soon.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:damien@daygar.plus.com">Damien Garwood</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, July 21, 2019 04:18<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:dectalk@bluegrasspals.com">dectalk@bluegrasspals.com</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [DECtalk] Intelligibility/Listenability criteria</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Don,</p><p class=MsoNormal>Here are my criteria:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1. Understandability</p><p class=MsoNormal>As a screen reader user who has to listen to speech synthesis on a </p><p class=MsoNormal>constant basis while using a computer, understandability is first and </p><p class=MsoNormal>foremost. If the synthesiser can't be understood, then you're not going </p><p class=MsoNormal>to get the feedback you need. In my opinion, ESpeak ticks every box, </p><p class=MsoNormal>except this, so I can't use it.</p><p class=MsoNormal>2. Responsiveness. Again, because the speech is reading everything for </p><p class=MsoNormal>me, I don't want a synthesiser that acts sluggishly with any kind of </p><p class=MsoNormal>latency, whether that be a second, or 50 milliseconds, whether through </p><p class=MsoNormal>lack of performance optimisation or through audio silence. When I press </p><p class=MsoNormal>a key, I want instant feedback. This automatically rules out most </p><p class=MsoNormal>natural-sounding synthesisers.</p><p class=MsoNormal>3. Accuracy: It needs to be able to read text accurately for the </p><p class=MsoNormal>language it is designed for. It's not enough simply to have a phonetics </p><p class=MsoNormal>dictionary, but it also needs to be able to distinguish between words </p><p class=MsoNormal>(Present noun versus present verb, for instance).</p><p class=MsoNormal>4. Flexibility: The voice timbres should be available to the user, and </p><p class=MsoNormal>for the most part should adjust smoothly to the change. This is </p><p class=MsoNormal>important if a user has specialist needs and cannot use the synth in its </p><p class=MsoNormal>default state. Speed and pitch are definitely a must. Again, this rules </p><p class=MsoNormal>out natural synths, since due to the nature of recorded samples they </p><p class=MsoNormal>start to begin to sound unnatural if you attempt to adjust the speed and </p><p class=MsoNormal>pitch. The bigger the change, the more unnatural.</p><p class=MsoNormal>Like Jason, I also prefer formant synths. My favourite by far is </p><p class=MsoNormal>Keynote, which to me is the most understandable, but I do love DECTalk </p><p class=MsoNormal>for its flexibility. I also like Eloquence and the synthetic version of </p><p class=MsoNormal>Orpheus.</p><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,</p><p class=MsoNormal>Damien.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 21/07/2019 05:53 am, Don wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Hi,</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> Perhaps a bit off-topic for this list... if so, my apologies.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> I'm looking for opinions as to how one evaluates the "effectiveness"</p><p class=MsoNormal>> of a particular synthesizer. Said another way, how one decides that</p><p class=MsoNormal>> synthesizer A is "better" than synthesizer B. Ideally, criteria that</p><p class=MsoNormal>> would allow you to rank a set of them!</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> I've been auditioning various synthesis devices and techniques</p><p class=MsoNormal>> to try to come to my own conclusions on this. Then, hopefully,</p><p class=MsoNormal>> work backwards to come up with some objective criteria by which</p><p class=MsoNormal>> they could each be "scored" (even if that was done using bogus</p><p class=MsoNormal>> rating units).</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> "Intelligibility" is, of course, the prime issue. "Listenability"</p><p class=MsoNormal>> coming into play for any prolonged use. Finally, "naturalness"</p><p class=MsoNormal>> when it comes to extended use.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> For example, the old Votrax units were intelligible -- once you</p><p class=MsoNormal>> learned their "accent". But, listenability was rather poor... you</p><p class=MsoNormal>> quickly developed ear fatigue. And, the idea of naturalness was</p><p class=MsoNormal>> never even considered!</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> With gobs of resources (hardware, software, processing power), you</p><p class=MsoNormal>> can achieve quite acceptable results. This seems to be the approach</p><p class=MsoNormal>> most "modern" synthesizers -- and techniques -- adopt. The real problem</p><p class=MsoNormal>> lies with limited resources attempting to handle unconstrained input.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> (If you know what you're going to be asked to speak, it's really easy to</p><p class=MsoNormal>> come up with a good presentation!)</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> Limiting the user's exposure to the synthetic voice can reduce ear fatigue.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> So, dealing with it for 10 minutes might be tolerable while 2 hours</p><p class=MsoNormal>> would be torture.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> But, having to face the prospect of completely unconstrained input can</p><p class=MsoNormal>> tax even that brief usage. "Dr. Jones' car -- bearing the license plate</p><p class=MsoNormal>> FTDKTR -- has been parked in front of his house on Jones Dr. since 12:34A</p><p class=MsoNormal>> this morning when his Polish butler finished polishing it." Imagine you</p><p class=MsoNormal>> have no other way of inspecting the input text...</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> So, what makes a synthesizer "tolerable" or "intolerable"? What is the</p><p class=MsoNormal>> "threshold of pain" when it comes to tolerating an underperforming</p><p class=MsoNormal>> synthesizer?</p><p class=MsoNormal>> _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Dectalk mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Dectalk@bluegrasspals.com</p><p class=MsoNormal>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>Dectalk mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>Dectalk@bluegrasspals.com</p><p class=MsoNormal>http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>