home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!tension!shogun
- From: shogun@tension.UUCP (Jay Brown)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
- Subject: Re: C= : Where's the Speech?
- References: <Bz48IL.2su@news.iastate.edu>
- Message-ID: <shogun.09gw@tension.UUCP>
- Date: 12 Dec 92 08:28:57 EST
- Organization: High Tension BBS
- Lines: 101
-
- In article <Bz48IL.2su@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
- writes:
- >In article <57432@dime.cs.umass.edu> barrett@astro.cs.umass.edu (Daniel
- Barrett)
- > writes:
- >>
- >>[Followups are to c.s.a.advocacy.]
- >>
- >>>>In article <Bz09KH.HDp@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N.
- Barrett
- >) writes:
- >>>>> Why would a DSP be necessary for something as simple as speech
- synthesis?
- >
- >>
- >> Good speech synthesis is *not* simple. You don't know what you are
- >>talking about. The synthesized speech from personal computers would never
- >>fool anyone into thinking it was a real person talking. Maybe that's
- >>because it's HARD to create convincing computer voices, eh? (Digital
- >>sampling doesn't count.)
- >>
- >>>In article <Bz1v4z.4qI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
- pejanes@undergrad.math.wat
- >erloo.edu (Peter Janes) writes:
- >>>>At a recent U of W users group meeting, a Commodore rep hinted that an
- >>>>improved in-house version is being written--one that may take advantage of
- >>>>a (then-unannounced) DSP card.
- >>
- >>In article <Bz276t.n1x@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N.
- Barrett)
- >writes:
- >>> I still think that would be a stupid move. That would mean that only a
- >>>tiny number of Amigas with a DSP would be supported with speech...
- >>
- >> Marc once again has jumped to an illogical conclusion based on his
- >>own paranoia and fantasies. (No surprise.) Just because speech synthesis
- >>may "take advantage of... a DSP card" doesn't mean that it won't work on
- >>a stock Amiga, idiot.
- >
- > Then why has Commodore removed the speech capability completely from
- >AmigaOS 2.1 and AmigaOS 3.0? The OS additions to support the DSP are not
- >planned until AmigaOS 3.1. Logically, if routines were planned to support
- >speech with both a DSP and the standard hardware, they would not have changed
- >anything with respect to the existing routines until AmigaOS 3.1. That they
- >removed it sooner seems to support the idea that from now on speech will only
- >be supported with a DSP.
- >
- >>>With 2.0.4, the speech capability even on an A500 or A1000 is already quite
- >>>good. The improvements in moving to a DSP would not be all that great;
- >>
- >> Marc, you clearly know absolutely nothing about speech synthesis.
- >>Don't you think that having over 250 times the sample resolution and
- >>who-knows-how-many-times the processing power will make a difference?!?
- >>Have you ever compared an Ensoniq Mirage with an EPS-16+? The difference
- >>is *staggering*.
- >
- > Your problem is that you pay too much attention to raw numbers, and too
- >little attention to reality. Sure, a DSP can blow away the standard hardware
- >in creating speech, ON PAPER. Run the standard 2.0 'say' program sometime
- >(you may have to reinstall the 2.0.4 speech libraries to do it), and listen to
- >how good the speech is. Sure, it is fairly obviously a computer, but it is
- >also quite good and VERY understandable. With some tweeks (using
- >SpeechToy 2.0), the speech can be made even better.
- >
- > In other words, the speech is good enough already that I just don't see all
- >that much room for improvement. You can install an array of DSPs or even an
- >array of Crays all dedicated to doing speech synthesis, and the speech would
- >not be improved all that much.
- >
- >>>...the speech libraries could be written something like the math libraries;
- >>>if enhanced hardware is present, software supporting the enhanced hardware
- >>>would be automatically kicked in.
- >>
- >> The first intelligent thing you've said all day. Your paranoid
- >>conclusion that a DSP would be required is total speculation. It's
- >>what is known as a "straw man" argument. If you build up something out
- >>of nothing, it's easy to kick it down.
- >
- > Kick it down if you want, but it is the most reasonable explanation to date
- >for why Commodore did not bother updating their licesnse to keep the speech
- >synthesis libraries in AmigaOS 2.1 and 3.0.
- >
- >> //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- >>| Dan Barrett -- Dept of Computer Science, Lederle Graduate Research Center |
- >>| University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 -- barrett@cs.umass.edu |
- >> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
- >
- >---
- >| Marc Barrett -MB- | email: barrett@iastate.edu
- >--------------------------------------------------
- I havce no idea how you think that the speech capability in Amiga dos
- 10-2.04 is that good. It sounds exactly like MacinTalk for the Mac which goes
- back to 85'-85'. The speech that I have heard is not even better than the
- standard pc speaker. In fact, I've heard programmed speech out of the poc
- speaker that blows away cbm speech.
- Jay Brown
-
- ==============================================================================
- IBM MAKES IT IN BULK...MACINTOSH MAKES IT POPULAR, BUT ONLY AMIGA MAKES IT
- POSSIBLE.
- ==============================================================================
-
