[DECtalk] new to the list

Wed Mar 1 01:33:34 EST 2006

Hi,
I agree with everything you've said.  I use Perfect Paul on a DECtalk
Express running the 4.2CD firmware every day.  I use it to read books, in
DOS using ASAP since I can set the intonation [:dv pr] and [:dv sr] commands
which JFW won't let me do.  One thing though.  I just love going to a
web-based demo of a so-called natural synthesizer and feeding it nonsense
words.  Things like, say, siofdsosiojfodsjovcffbzxmbmcx.  I just love seeing
how different synths handle those words.
Jayson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "GUI Access" <guiaccess at covad.net>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list

> >Hi Nick,
> >Having been around DECtalk for a long time, my ears always perk up when
> >someone says that most users prefer DECtalk for every day listening. Of
> >course I believe you, but a lot of marketing and engineering folks say
"so,
> >where's the reference paper on that?" when I say I've heard that users
> >prefer DECtalk. Has anyone ever seen one?
>
>
> I've written one.  I can't share it for a number of reasons but my
> studies (of at least 77 participants) clearly show that formant
> speech like DECtalk is always preferred by screen reader users.
>
>
> >
> >OR -- maybe the more important question -- can you describe WHY you
prefer
> >DECtalk over NaturalVoices (you mean the ATT system, right? Not a natural
> >human....?) - what listening conditions - or how listeners react
> >differently?
>
>
> Natural-sounding voices introduce a variable into the listening
> equation known as audio fatigue.  While the voices themselves sound
> very natural and pleasant in short bursts (one to two sentences),
> longer passages will begin to reveal certain audio artifacts
> (warbles, over and under emphasis, improper pitch contour, and
> different pronunciations of the same word depending on adjacent
> words).
>
> All of these add up to audio fatigue and end up making the "natural"
> speech very frustrating for users.
>
> What formant speech lacks in naturalness it more than makes up for in
> intelligibility.  A good formant synthesizer (like DECtalk) will
> pronounce things the same way at 500 words-per-minute as it does at
> 200 words-per-minute.  Furthermore, words don't have different
> pronunciations depending on adjacent words (excluding homographs, of
> course).
>
> Corporate marketing and the speech industry is not pushing formant
> speech because they don't believe this is what users want.  The
> appeal of demoing a human-sounding text-to-speech system is very sexy
> from a marketing perspective.  A formant speech system has no similar
> appeal, unfortunately.
>
> One need only look as far as the "advancements" in DECtalk over the
> past five years.  In an attempt to make DECtalk sound more "natural,"
> Force Computers and Fonix have both butchered a perfectly good
> formant text-to-speech synthesizer.  Development of advancements in
> formant TTS basically died with Dennis Klatt's passing; since then
> all companies have concentrated their efforts and R&D into improving
> the naturalness of speech.  As I illustrated earlier, this goal has
> yet to be met since audio fatigue is very real in AT&T Natural
> Voices--probably the most advanced natural-sounding TTS on the market
> today.
>
> GUI Access
>
>
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
> >[mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Nick G
> >Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:04 PM
> >To: DECtalk Discussions
> >Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >
> >Corine,
> >If you are looking to get the sighted market on to it, and don't care
about
> >response time, then the natural voices is good.  However, most of us
prefer
> >things like DECtalk 4.40 for every day listening.
> >Thanks,
> >nick
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
> >To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> >Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:44 AM
> >Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >
> >
> >>  Personally I would like
> >>  to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
> >>  already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
> >>  software with good speech quality.
> >>
> >>  What programmable features would you like to see in an "easily
> >>  programmable
> >>  software" version?
> >>  And, does "good speech quality" mean: 1. one of the older DECtalks
(like
> >>  4.40 or 4.3, NOT the new 5.0), or 2. some other kind of synthesizer,
like
> >>  ATT Natural Voices?
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
> >>  [mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Tony Baechler
> >>  Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22 AM
> >>  To: DECtalk Discussions
> >>  Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >  >
> >>  Hi.  I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here.  First, the
> >>  point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the source
> >>  isn't easily apparent.  If it was possible to just randomly
> >>  disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD, Linux or any
> >>  other open source project.  I could just take the Windows kernel,
> >>  crack it, invent my own version and release it as the free kernel or
> >>  something.  It obviously doesn't work that way.  Also, remember a
> >>  previous discussion about emulating the Echo on the Apple II?  The
> >>  problem is the same in both cases.  The Echo is a chip on a card that
> >>  goes into the computer.  The DEC-Talk is a separate
> >>  computer.  According to the manual, it has its own
> >>  microprocessor.  So, even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
> >>  them much good.  It's a nice thought though.  Considering that it
> >>  keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have the
> >>  4.40 source, or won't release it if they do.  Personally I would like
> >>  to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
> >>  already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
> >>  software with good speech quality.  I'm not interested in what's
> >>  already out there for free, it all sounds like crap and won't sing
> >>  very well if at all.
> >>
> >>  At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
> >>>I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code.  If the
only
> >>>copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send the drive in to
a
> >>>data recovery company if they still have it, but those places are
> >>  expensive.
> >>>I mean, with the move from Digital to Force and then from Force to
Fonix,
> >>>you'd think somebody somewhere would have something laying around.  I
have
> >>>the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as well as the DECtalk PC
> >>  drivers
> >>>which as I understand it actually contain the DECtalk code which is
loaded
> >>>onto the board at startup.  And of course the 4.3 demo is available at
the
> >>>archive.  I don't know how to disassemble the software, but bet the
right
> >>>person who knew what they were doing could do it and create machine
code
> >>>from which new equivalent source code for the lost versions could be
> >>>recreated.
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  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
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk