Comments on the Text to Speech "algorithm"
kenny at hittsjunk.net
Sun Feb 28 00:23:27 CET 2010
Hi. That would probably be ok for reading books, but it
would suck for a screen reader. One reason I haven't
used Cepstral Swift much even though I own several voices, is it's not
responsive enough for daily screen reading.
The file access alone for so many mp3s would be aweful.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:47:13PM +0100, marc wrote:
> I made this remark at the http://rmll.info last summer in Nantes.
> I you have Text to Speech (TTS), the "old" way is to invent some
> mathematical function and to generate a "sound" which is "close" (in
> Hausdorf distance?) to the spoken words.
> But these mathematical formulas date from times when computers
> didn't have the possibilities to contain about 60.000 MP3s from a
> human speaker. If we could organise it that way, the concatanation
> of the words would be better than the mathematical contruction. And
> if you learned how to make a higher sound at the end of a question,
> you should be able to adapt the mp3 too.
> Problem is: we will have to throw away a lot of work by
> mathematicians... Mathematicians never had patents (the Greek would
> be rich ;-). But we throw away a lot of stuff in computer science
> What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go!
> 700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk
> 300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages.tk
> Speechd mailing list
> Speechd at lists.freebsoft.org
More information about the Speechd