[DECtalk] new to the list

Jayson Smith ratguy at bellsouth.net
Wed Mar 1 18:24:31 EST 2006 

Hi,
Yes, that's what Tell Me used to use, and also that's what the old Graffiti
Chat system used.
Jayson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Harding" <bharding at doorpi.net>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> The weird thing is that I absolutely can't stand AT&T speech. I think that
> is the one the Tellme system used to use when they did have extensions.
Most
> hardware synths that were ever probably out were used by blind people with
> screen readers. I'd see little else to use them for besides singing. It'd
be
> neat to see a CD out with Dec Talk used as a voice, even mixed with real
> singers. I bet they come in handy when a person doesn't have backup
singers.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GUI Access" <guiaccess at covad.net>
> To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:58 PM
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk

More information about the Dectalk mailing list