[DECtalk] DECtalk TTS licensing

Karen Lewellen klewellen at shellworld.net
Tue Aug 31 19:19:55 EDT 2021 

much as I just said to Chime, who I believe actually has a dectalk USB, 
one 
must choose to know something is possible.
I respect that your situation made it needful to upgrade to 
windows...still I have never needed to follow you.
All of my computers, including the one I am using right now, which is hmm 
a couple of  years old now,  <pandemic> have both USB and serial 
connectors, with 
companies like newegg still selling motherboards that have the the ports.
Add that the freecycle movement world wide keeps  machines that may be 
quite fast and capable, and yes have both USB and serial ports  out of 
landfills.
many a Linux machine exists for those users by tapping into this hardware 
resource.
Granted my computers are tools not toys, with my investing in having 
custom built
  computers for my needs, which would not be possible if the hardware did 
not  exist.
I even use DOS, via USB, to preform backups, and I mean pure DOS, not 
under a windows machine.
The freedos project, which I do not use myself, works quite well on modern 
hardware as you define it.
And, if your concern is communication, and you do not want to find a 
machine with the ports, why not the cards that have cereal ports on them? 
No USB to Serial adapter needed then

I could go one and on.  Speaking personally part of the I must use windows 
thing was tied to peer pressure speaking personally, that and resource 
pressure.

One company dominating the resources, representing that to be say a good 
Blind person, whatever that means, you must use this technology..and 
lets just bypass the end user and sell to rehab instead etc.
To answer your curious question, I have never been a user of Vocal eyes, 
although i have a copy, one of asap too, which by the way exists as apart 
of one dosbox project I understand.  Goodness, you can still buy pkzip 
for DOS from the company, which would not be the case if it were not 
making money.
Sorry, instead I have used business vision from arctic for decades now.  I 
use it currently with the reading edge, providing both ocr and  speech 
synthesis for a screen reader.
Speaking personally Vocal eyes  provided far more layers than I desired, 
tired it a month or so back when my edge needed a headphone jack 
replacement, then what I have with business vision, which also came with a 
windvision edition for windows.
I have a couple of extra copies,  one of which is installed on my DOS 
laptop,  a Yamaha thinkpad.
My main computer runs ms dos 7.1 with an insane amount of memory, much more 
than the assumed limits for DOS.
Kare


  On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Blake Roberts via Dectalk wrote:

> Karen,
> I interpret Don's comment about hardware synthesizers posing a potential 
> "problem" to mean methods for connecting to a modern computer became 
> antiquated years ago. Don, if I am not understanding your point sufficiently, 
> my apologies.
>
>
> Two hardware speech synthesizer examples from my own life: I used the DOS 
> operating system until 2002, when circumstances required me to update to 
> Windows. My Doubletalk PC ISA card from RC Systems was disposed of years ago 
> because ISA card slots had already become antiquated technology at that point 
> in time. Serial ports were not far behind in becoming antiques as I recall.
>
>
> I still have a Braille Lite Millenium notetaker which has a TrippleTalk 
> hardware speech synthesizer built-in. TrippleTalk was essentially DoubleTalk 
> with a few extra voices. Although the Braille lite still works, the computer 
> I have used for the past 11 years does not have a serial port to use with the 
> Braille Lite's serial port cable. While I know that USB to serial port cables 
> can be purchased online, I'm not sure the dinosaur named Braille Lite 
> Millenium would connect to my computer or talk with my Windows screen reader. 
> Why? Because it uses old connection technology.
>
>
> I still have a desire to get a DecTalk Express speech synthesizer someday if 
> I can. But at the same time, I have concerns about how usable it would be 
> from a connection standpoint.
>
>
> Curiosity question: Are you still using Vocal Eyes on a DOS computer? I can 
> see from your email address that you apparently use a shell account. I have 
> not used a shell account for 19 years, but I do recall shellworld was/is a 
> shell account provider.
>
>
>
> Blake
>
>
>
>
> On 8/31/2021 4:38 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>  On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Don wrote:
>> >  You could have used a Votrax in the late 70's.  Or, DECtalk in the
>> >  early 80's.  But, both would have been *hardware* synthesizers...
>> >  boxes that sat next to your computer.
>>  ..and this is a problem why exactly?
>>  granted, I am not a Linux user, for many reasons, one of which is because
>>  no driver exists for the dectalk hardware I am using with my machine right
>>  now.
>>  I have an associate here in Toronto who builds dectalk USB boxes in his
>>  basement, for about $50, and he is a Linux person.
>>  Please do not confuse what may not have been tried by yourself personally
>>  as impossible for others.
>> 
>> 
>> >  Getting text into them would have been the problem.  But, then again,
>> >  all that was available at that time were CP/M machines and early PCs.
>>  I am not sure I follow this at all.
>>  I began using speech in 1988, when I got my first computer and
>>  synthesizer, which was an Internal card.  The technology had been around
>>  long before I got mine, so much so that Telesensory systems <spelling> 
>>  had representatives around the country, who came to your house and trained
>>  you to use their screen reader programs.
>>  I know dectalk internal cards existed in the 90s, although I did not start
>>  using  any tool of theirs until  mid decade.
>>  So, what any of what you are claiming has to do with the reality of
>>  computing escapes me.
>>  even IBM  had a talking structure of sorts at that time, no windows
>>  required.
>> 
>> 
>> >  I'm not sure you realize just how many choices have already been
>> >  made for you!  And, how intimidated you would be if they had
>> >  been available for you to muck with.
>>  Are you kidding?  One of the things I can personally say as someone using
>>  computers, with the same operating system, since 1988, is the last thing I
>>  desire is someone who does not know my needs making decisions for me.
>>  What is intelligently done, in every screen reading program I have used
>>  regularly is  a bit of consistency.
>>  There may be config files that the screen reader program developer feels
>>  may be useful.  However there are also choices as to if you need load
>>  them, ways to create our own, and best of all a detailed manual, both on
>>  board and in external form that guides you to the process.
>>  There are many disappointing things about Linux, but one of them is the
>>  lack of  consistency.
>>  Still, speaking personally, Linux seems to me to be a developers operating
>>  system, not an end users one.
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> >  How large is the speaker's *head*?  How many formants?  What
>> >  frequencies, bandwidths and gains for each?  How do they
>> >  change, over time, for each "phoneme"?
>>  Speaking personally, that I do not have  such choices is precicisily why,
>>  that and there are few consistencies, quality consistencies in how Linux
>>  make these decisions are why I
>>  am likely never going to be a Linux user.
>>  And pronunciations varied, even with DOS screen readers...certainly with
>>  tts tools.
>>  A simple example, I have a friend who uses her Kindle to read fanfiction,
>>  and TTS..which cannot even say the names of characters  properly.
>>  My dectalk  and my computer gets it correct.
>> 
>> > 
>> >  How long a pause between words?  For each comma encountered? Period?
>> >  Other punctuation?
>>  That is decided by the content, not the developer.
>> 
>> > 
>> >  How do I pronounce 1234?  1,234?  2021?  9/1/2021?
>> >
>>  A quality screen reader leaves that to the end user, because different
>>  individual
>>   life situations impact how one desires numbers be announced, and dates.
>>  You do not make that decision for the user if building a quality product,
>>  there may be a default, but that default can be changed.
>>  Linux likely does not trust its end users, because, again speaking
>>  personally, Linux is  for programmers who may build things for people,
>>  not for  individuals.
>> > >   of
>> > >   dictionaries made it an `extremely wonderful experience. DecTalk 
>> > >  came with
>> > >   my
>> > >   first pc in 1994. I listen to it more hours each day than any1 
>> > >  including
>> > >   my
>> > >   Wife, so it better be enjoyable. The thing about choices, its your 
>> > >  choice
>> > >   to
>> > >   make them or accept the defalts.
>>
>>  And everyone should, regardless of system, have that flexibility..I am
>>  thankful every single day, several hours a day, that  I still have those
>>  dectalk rich vibrant quality choices, even though I was never a vocal eyes
>>  user.  having a solid consistent computer floor a screen reader that
>>  reliably gives you, and only you, what you need, providing the ability for
>>  you to choose what that means, so you know when there is a problem, and
>>  when there is not?
>>
>>  Mercy if I had a dollar for every time someone unaware of how good
>>  adaptive technology should function, tell me the problem is my screen
>>  reader when it was not, I would be Oprah Winfrey.
>>
>>  Karen
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Dectalk mailing list
>>  Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>  https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>

More information about the Dectalk mailing list