[DECtalk] DECtalk TTS licensing

[Karen Lewellen]

speaking personally?
Yes I do believe a set of voices, clear easy to understand voices should 
apply to everything I do with my computer...after all one does not get a 
different set of ears or a brain to read email,  research the net, shop, 
read a book.
Nor does one get a different set of eyes for a different task.
the *major* problem with  your method for the end user is that quality and 
consistency  across activity, having to configure things over and over 
again leads to poor performance.
with my  dectalk talk, I can choose from 9 voices, one for the main stuff 
and one for alerts, and just. get. to. work.
My hands stay on the  keyboard, and i know that the voices will provide 
consistent information no matter what I am doing, like the human body 
actually  works.
I say please give this gift back to end users who are not programmers, and 
who   just want to  have  base line quality and consistency.
..and communication.  after all there is a reason why dectalk remained the 
synthesis for Stephen Hawking.
Being understood as well as flawless understanding.


On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Don wrote:

> On 8/30/2021 6:06 AM, Devin Prater wrote:
>>  I mean, there is ESpeak.
>
> There are *lots* of (FOSS/exposed) synthesizers out there,
> if you are looking to incorporate one into a product (and
> likely need to work with sources)!
>
> It's an ancient technology that has been replicated by many
> people in many different ways over the past 4 decades (longer
> if you want to look at cruder synthesis technologies).  You
> just have to decide what features you want *in* the synthesizer
> and what resources you have to devote to it.
>
> ["Making noises" that sound like bits of speech is relatively easy]
>
> DECtalk made sense in the 80's -- when resources were scarce
> and the synthesizer had to be a "bag" that was bolted onto
> an existing product/system.  It was a "one-size-fits-all",
> standalone solution to "converting text into speech".  But,
> *it* had no idea what purpose it was serving in any particular
> application.  So, it could never adjust its approach to
> synthesis to match the expectations made of it.
>
> Nowadays, one would *integrate* the synthesizer into the
> product/system to improve performance, intelligibility, etc.
>
> Do you really think ONE set of synthesis rules should apply to:
> - reading your email
> - reading a URL
> - reading a password
> - reading a web page
> - reading a novel
> - reading a child's book
> - reading stock tickers/quotes
> - reading picture captions
>
> A synthesizer should understand context; HOW it is being used
> AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.  If you push that responsibility into
> the application that is driving the synthesizer, then much
> of the value of the "TTS as black box" disappears -- you're
> doing the work *for* it!
>
> Why not just implement a "LETTER-to-speech" synthesizer?  And,
> *spell* everything, out loud (Ans:  because, while it could
> TRULY be "one-size-fits-all" -- because it pushes all of the
> real work into the listener's brain -- it would be incredibly
> unuseful)
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
>