Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!ox.com!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
From: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: artic vs vocalize
Message-ID: <18875@bunker.isc-br.com>
Date: 19 Apr 91 20:19:01 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:115/778.1 - COPH-2 (BGMS), Chicago IL
Lines: 19
Approved: wtm@bunker.hcap.fidonet.org

Index Number: 15052

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

 WW> level are numerous.  Again, despite the fact they are based upon the
 WW> same chip, and this is admittedly something that is sort of in the ears
 WW> of the beholder, I find the Soundingboard speech more understandible
 WW> than that of the Artic board.  Not immensely of course, but since you

The quality of the speech from an SSI263 chip is highly dependent on the
software driver.  The 263 has a rather large combination of (dynamically
variable) settings to control such things as intonation and the transitions
from phoneme to phoneme; a driver that uses these settings intelligently will
produce much better speech than one that just sets them once and leaves them
alone.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org