From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mta2.math.wisc.edu (mta2.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.82]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A83910BC5 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:22:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mta2.math.wisc.edu Received: from mta2.math.wisc.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta2.math.wisc.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DPSJToX+1z+0 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta2.math.wisc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta2.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1115380060 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ulam.math.wisc.edu (ulam.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.245]) by mta2.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from vv507j (vv507j.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ulam.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E92A2BD96 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <036f01c8e5bd$10ef5880$4ba65c90@vv507j> From: "John Heim" To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." References: <4879E36B.6010408@brailcom.org> Subject: Re: status of speakup support for espeak Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:22:43 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- > It would be great if somebody who thinks that Festival > is actually worse than eSpeak in quality of speech > could try to elaborate more about the reasons. We might > then try to discover if these reasons are real or if > they are of user preference or if it is even possible > to fix them with a slight fix in the configuration. > I think such an effort would be very useful. To discover > the possible traps as well as to get more light on this > discussion which, I admit, seems always very strange > to me. All help appreciated. > For me it was entirely about response time. Festival was just too slow. Key echo was impossible. Espeak worked really well in that regard.