home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30 / NN_1992_30.iso / spool / comp / sys / amiga / multimed / 1579 next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-11  |  3.1 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!barrett
  2. From: barrett@astro.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
  4. Subject: Re: C= : Where's the Speech?
  5. Message-ID: <57432@dime.cs.umass.edu>
  6. Date: 11 Dec 92 17:32:24 GMT
  7. References: <1992Dec9.173644.1772@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> <Bz09KH.HDp@news.iastate.edu> <Bz1v4z.4qI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> <Bz276t.n1x@news.iastate.edu>
  8. Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
  9. Reply-To: barrett@astro.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
  10. Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
  11. Organization: BLAZEMONGER INCORPORATED
  12. Lines: 52
  13.  
  14.  
  15. [Followups are to c.s.a.advocacy.]
  16.  
  17. >>In article <Bz09KH.HDp@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
  18. >>>   Why would a DSP be necessary for something as simple as speech synthesis?
  19.  
  20.     Good speech synthesis is *not* simple.  You don't know what you are
  21. talking about.  The synthesized speech from personal computers would never
  22. fool anyone into thinking it was a real person talking.  Maybe that's
  23. because it's HARD to create convincing computer voices, eh?  (Digital
  24. sampling doesn't count.)
  25.  
  26. >In article <Bz1v4z.4qI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> pejanes@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Peter Janes) writes:
  27. >>At a recent U of W users group meeting, a Commodore rep hinted that an
  28. >>improved in-house version is being written--one that may take advantage of
  29. >>a (then-unannounced) DSP card.
  30.  
  31. In article <Bz276t.n1x@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
  32. >   I still think that would be a stupid move.  That would mean that only a 
  33. >tiny number of Amigas with a DSP would be supported with speech...
  34.  
  35.     Marc once again has jumped to an illogical conclusion based on his
  36. own paranoia and fantasies.  (No surprise.)  Just because speech synthesis
  37. may "take advantage of... a DSP card" doesn't mean that it won't work on
  38. a stock Amiga, idiot.
  39.  
  40. >With 2.0.4, the speech capability even on an A500 or A1000 is already quite
  41. >good.  The improvements in moving to a DSP would not be all that great; 
  42.  
  43.     Marc, you clearly know absolutely nothing about speech synthesis.
  44. Don't you think that having over 250 times the sample resolution and
  45. who-knows-how-many-times the processing power will make a difference?!?
  46. Have you ever compared an Ensoniq Mirage with an EPS-16+?  The difference
  47. is *staggering*.
  48.  
  49. >...the speech libraries could be written something like the math libraries;
  50. >if enhanced hardware is present, software supporting the enhanced hardware
  51. >would be automatically kicked in.
  52.  
  53.     The first intelligent thing you've said all day.  Your paranoid
  54. conclusion that a DSP would be required is total speculation.  It's
  55. what is known as a "straw man" argument.  If you build up something out
  56. of nothing, it's easy to kick it down.
  57.  
  58.     Followups are to c.s.a.advocacy.
  59.  
  60.                                                         Dan
  61.  
  62.  //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
  63. | Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
  64. | University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA  01003  --  barrett@cs.umass.edu |
  65.  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
  66.