From: "Kerry Hoath" <kerry@gotss.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: status of speakup support for espeak
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:19:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000b01c8e4f3$78af0120$2518a8c0@bouncy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4879E36B.6010408@brailcom.org>
Original text removed.
Firstly let us sort out what people mean by quality.
Sounds better verses sounds nicer? Nicer by whose definition?
I personally find the festival voices bloody awful and the internation
unpleasant.
At high speeds they become unintelligible and they take a lot of processer
time to synthesize speech.
This is only my personal preference however. I don't want my computer to
sound like a person;
after all it is my computer synthesizing speech, not my wife reading to me
;-)
I don't want my computer sounding like the star trek computer;
as the star trek computer takes all day to say what it means.
Human speech is hard to understand at speeds >400 words per minute;
synthesized speech such as that found in espeak seems to work far better at
these speeds.
I have the same complaint regarding apple's voices;
they sound natural but are barely understandable at high speeds and perform
sluggishly.
I am a long time user of hardware speech; accent, artic transport,
doubletalk etc.
I find software speech performs sluggishly in comparison especially a system
like festival that seems loaded down with so much extra functionality.
Certainly, festival is a flexible and configurable system;
but I have no desire to learn scheme to read my mail,
and the disk space footprint for festival is quite large. The higher quality
the voices; the more disk space used and the more data needs to go to the
soundcard.
Just because I have a 2ghz processer does not mean I want to use a lion's
share of it to synthesize speech.
I tend to find the lag time between an application sending speech to the
synthesizer setup and the
speech beeing synthesized annoying on most systems,
Jaws, Windoweyes and hardware speech responding as fast as i'd like.
I find espeak responds quickly, and the speech is tolerable to listen to
once you get used to it.
Initially the default british english has far too much top end for my ears
to handle, and it is so very loud.
As someone who has used the echo gp and old school speech;
I am perhaps more tollerant than most regarding quality.
I'd much rather use espeak on the mac rather than the slow built-in voices
such as fred and alex.
Cepstral sounds nice; but still takes an inordinate amount of time to
synthesize.
we're working at getting hardware speech on the mac, and think that it
will greatly increase the responsiveness of voiceover.
Our doubletalk box will have open specs and will work on USB and serial,
making
it an alternative for modern hardware speech.
Regards, Kerry.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~ UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
Hynek Hanke
` eSpeak and Festival Jonathan Duddington
` synthesizers (was: Re: eSpeak and Festival) Hynek Hanke
` Kerry Hoath [this message]
` status of speakup support for espeak John Heim
` Hynek Hanke
` Willem van der Walt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
DON.RAIKES
` Samuel Thibault
` DON.RAIKES
` Samuel Thibault
` William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209
` Kristoffer Gustafsson
` DON.RAIKES
` Kristoffer Gustafsson
` Steve Holmes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000b01c8e4f3$78af0120$2518a8c0@bouncy' \
--to=kerry@gotss.net \
--cc=speakup@braille.uwo.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).