[DECtalk] More Gnuspeech demos added

[Alex H.]

I noticed it pronounced Debian wrong. It should be debbian.

[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-basic_defs.en.html#s-pronunciation



On 10/23/15, Carlos Fernandez via Dectalk <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com> wrote:
> I believe the problems with understanding the speech are somewhat
> related to the technical input, but not entirely. I'm sorry, but I don't
> agree about the flawless pronunciation. In terms of badly mangling the
> order of phonemes, you're right, the system manages to avoid that very
> well. However, the system's intelligibility is harmed by several
> problems in its processing:
> 1. The accent is all wrong. The way the word is spoken often badly
> accents and thus is very unnatural, even if the pronunciation is correct.
> 2. Bad phonemes for various letters make it very strange. Some are OK,
> but several more are simply cringeworthy.
> We will start with L and R, which unnecessarily add prior vowels. For
> example, take the word "work". In English, it is of course pronounced
> almost entirely without vowel, as W, R, K, with the R elongated as is
> typical with -er and -or, -ir, and -ur in some cases. If the system was
> too literal, it might pronounce the O, making something like woark.
> However, GNUSpeech generates a sound like wairk, which I'm assuming is a
> representation of an -er phoneme that is being improperly rendered as
> first -e and afterword -r.
>      After this, we have a problem that arises when a C is used with
> it's softer (similar to S) sound and, to a lesser extent, the actual S
> itself. This always sounds less like a standard S and lacking in
> high-frequency noise. It is thus a transitional case between the S and
> TH (in English). It is much closer to the correct version, and maybe it
> has something to do with the frequency of audio being used, but it
> sounds to me when I am not focusing on the sounds individually like the
> voice has a slight lisp, which does not make it easier to understand.
> 3. The voice seems hesitant on beginning to speak another word, but
> quickly builds up steam while crossing the word, such that, to me, the
> word is begun slowly but babbled out quickly. This creates a jerky
> aspect that is a bit difficult to handle. I am very used to using
> high-speed synthesizers, but they at least stay at one speed. Sometimes
> the voice will continue at its previous speed if the words are in the
> same sentence, but sometimes not.
>
> You mentioned DecTalk, Eloquence, and eSpeak in the failure to pronounce
> section, so I decided to try these on the same passage (I didn't make it
> all the way through, of course, but quite a ways in).
> Eloquence mispronounced one word, and it was copyleft. As this is more
> of a play on words than an actual dictionary term, I understand and
> accept this as a less-seen word, especially in the 1990s.
> eSpeak pronounced everything impeccably. I could not find a single
> error. It even pronounced GNU the way I do, with the G enunciated. I did
> not regard the silencing of the G for other synthesizers as an error, as
> a word gnu exists with this silent letter. The sound quality may not be
> everyone's cup of tea, but the pronunciation is clearly not lacking.
> Dectalk had a few words that were not quite mispronounced as
> misaccented. It was understandable completely through my section despite
> minor glitches that might make it slightly less desirable.
> All three, in other words, could be listened to naturally and understood
> completely, which I do not find true of GNUSpeech at this time.
>
>
> On NeXT, it is true that OS X was mostly based on the NextSTEP Operating
> System, but it has been independent of that original codebase and
> updated by apple for sixteen years. Programs that functioned for
> NextSTEP do not compile and work on OS X; the operating systems are
> similar but very different. Therefore, when the page says that the NeXT
> version is complete but the Linux one is not and gives information about
> obtaining a computer on which to run the original 1990s versions of
> NextSTEP, I do worry slightly on the logic behind this. This also leads
> me to wonder from where the 1990s code was received, as it doesn't
> purport to be from NeXT but some other company, and how (and indeed
> whether) the project got the rights to use it. As OSX and Linux are my
> most frequently-used operating systems, I have downloaded the code and
> will further investigate.
> Here are some quotes about NextSTEP that induced my questions. I have
> bracketed some notes inside these as well:
> "gnuspeech is currently fully available as a NextSTEP 3.x version in the
> SVN repository along with the Gnu/Linux/GNUStep version, which is
> incomplete though functional."
> "The original NeXT User and Developer Kits are complete, but do not run
> under OS X or under GNUStep on GNU/Linux. They also suffer from the
> limitations of a slow machine, so that shorter TRM lengths (< ~15 cm)
> cannot be used in real time, though the software synthesis option allows
> this restriction to be avoided."
> "In fact, you can use these passwords [why are there passwords at all?
> Maybe this is a NeXT thing?]. But you need a NeXT computer, of
> course—try [a commercial company, linked here, that sells vintage NeXT
> computers and copies of the software. They recommend the latest version,
> 3.3, in order to avoid Y2K bugs.] if you'd like one.
>
> Carlos
> On 10/23/2015 09:42, Tony Baechler via Dectalk wrote:
>> For your amusement and interest, I've added two more mp3 Gnuspeech
>> demos, including one of the female voice.  As always, comments
>> appreciated.
>>
>> http://classicradio.us/iso/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>