From: shogun@tension.UUCP (Jay Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
Subject: Re: C= : Where's the Speech?
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:28:57 EST
Organization: High Tension BBS

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.
==============================================================================
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.multimedia:1607 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:31740