From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1GLL1r-0003D7-00 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:38:55 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060907143824.LYTT21457.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:38:24 -0400 Received: from lnx2.holmesgrown.com ([70.162.12.128]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id KSeR1V00b2lltDi0000000 Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:38:25 -0400 Received: from lnx3.holmesgrown.com ([192.168.1.5] ident=mail) by lnx2.holmesgrown.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1GLL1K-000339-00 for speakup@braille.uwo.ca; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:38:22 -0700 Received: from steve by lnx3.holmesgrown.com with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GLL1M-0001C1-Mo for speakup@braille.uwo.ca; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:38:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 07:38:24 -0700 From: Steve Holmes To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: Re: New Speech?? Message-ID: <20060907143822.GF4371@lnx3.holmesgrown.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." References: <20060906030801.GA26279@omnibase.migliorelli.org> <4e6228872ajsd@clara.co.uk> <00fe01c6d288$dd81e2e0$4ba65c90@vv507j> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00fe01c6d288$dd81e2e0$4ba65c90@vv507j> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: "Steve Holmes,,," X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8rc1 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: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:38:56 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 When I first used Espeak, I really wondered what I might be getting into. It sounded awkward but now I'm so used to it that I think little of the slight British accent applied to some words and all that. I now run it about as fast as it will go:). On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:21:09AM -0500, John Heim wrote: > > I'd be interested to hear how it compares with a modern commercial > > synth for someone with hearing difficulties, for the purpose of > > intelligibility. Its speech isn't as natural as the commercial synths > > of course, but that's not necessarily the same as intelligibility. > > > That's a good point. In fact, I was thinking about that on the bus on the > way home last night. Somebody told me that they'd heard the new voice for > Voiceover for the Mac and it sounded very human. It blew him away, he said. > But that guy isn't blind. > > That's what got me thinking. 80% of the time I use JAWS and Windows. The > other 20 is speakup and a hardware synth. The default JAWS voice is quite > nasally. You can select voices that sound more natural but they're not as > clear. > > In fact, when people want to make sure they're understood, they usually > speak in an unnatural tone. So I take it that you wrote espeak with > intelligibility in mind rather than trying to make it sound "real". If so, > you've done a good job. > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > - -- HolmesGrown Solutions The best solutions for the best price! http://holmesgrown.ld.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFAC7eWSjv55S0LfERA1vZAJ9e5fdEramxayt+Lrp6EOHaYedBNQCgrR7S kkjUljpQEs8sOfujxC0x3do= =lVuk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----