| ??? 01/23/09 10:05 Read: times |
#161704 - synthetic speech in itself harder to understand Responding to: ???'s previous message |
No, I was obviously talking about the pronounciation, and the modulation of the speech - not the quality of the amplifier/loudspeaker and the general installation of the message system. Text2speech can't can't beat a clear-spoken human being, and the readability difference will increase the more surrounding noice there is.
Synthetic speech works best at home, for example if someone is listening to the morning paper and can stay focused on what is said. But in a PA system, you normally don't have any history - no expected context and you don't have time to get used to the synthetic voice before the message has ended. Remember that we pick up quite a lot of hints from pitch changes in the sentences - for example if it was a question or not. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| RS 232 based text2speech Modules | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unheppy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unhappy reasons | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Amount of material or update frequency? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thats reverberation Vs pronunciation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not the issue here? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| synthetic speech in itself harder to understand | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Synthesis vs construction? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Prerecorded words/sentences works quite well | 01/01/70 00:00 |