Re: Progress on soundblaster driver and comparison on dectalk versus doubletalk

["Alan Gordon" <ag3p@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg,

One report I got from someone here, unfortunately I forget who, was that 
doubletalk is supposed to go up to 400 wpm.  I wonder if the technician 
had it set correctly when he played it for you or if there was something 
wrong?

The other thing is, you said that you were wondering about a win 95 
driver for software dectalk.  I am wondering what you are referring to 
by this.  From what I have read on the internet it seems there are a few 
different software only synthesizers that were written by DEC:
1. The emacspeak web sites refer to something called software dectalk 
which runs only on a DEC alpha workstation.  Is this what you are 
referring to?
2.  DEC has written software drivers for software only speech synthesis 
to run under Win 95.  DEC calls this software Access 32.  I think that 
this is sold only bundeled with other packages like win 95 screen 
readers.  However, they do have a demo package which lets you type in 
text or open a text file and have access 32 read it.  This is on their 
web site.  
3. Text Assist I believe was also written by DEC.  This runs under win 
95 and can be accessed as a speech synthesizer by screen reading 
programs.  Text assist is also software only, but I believe it requires 
a true sound blaster sound card as the sound device.  I have been trying 
to get text assist but have not been able to so far.  I read that 
creative labs used to package it with the sound blaster cards, but they 
did not package it when I bought my sound blaster, and I don't think 
that anyone is retailing it right now.

You referred to the question of writing a win 95 driver for dectalk.  
Could you have meant writing a win 95 version of emacspeak?  Is there 
already a port of emacspeak to win 95?  To me it seems like that is what 
we need since we already have text assist and access 32 software only 
speech synthesizers for win 95.

ag3p@xxxxxxxxxxx

>From priestdo@xxxxxxxxxxx Sun Jan  4 02:50:42 1998
>Received: from cssun1 (cssun1.vassar.edu) by cs.vassar.edu 
(4.1/SMI-4.1)
>	id AA04932; Sun, 4 Jan 98 05:38:40 EST
>Received: by cssun1 (4.1) id AA13641; Sun, 4 Jan 98 05:39:06 EST
>Date: Sun, 4 Jan 98 05:39:06 EST
>Message-Id: <9801041039.AA13641@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Greg E. Priest-Dorman" <priestdo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>To: emacspeak@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Progress on soundblaster driver and comparison on dectalk
>    versus doubletalk
>In-Reply-To: Dave Hunt's message of 4 January 1998 00:27:43 -0500
>References: <19980104045143.13373.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>	<199801040527.AAA00154@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under Emacs 19.34.1
>
>
>Dave says:
>
>...  I'm running an LT at an estimated rate of 450 words per
>minute...
>
>What are you doing to get that rate?  When I spoke with the doubletalk
>technician a few weeks back, he played it at "top speed" and it was
>slower than a dectalk set at 350 wpm.  Since I use my dectalk in the
>420 - 480, I would be very interested if the doubeltalk can be
>modified to get 450 words per minute.
>
>Has anyone used the PC software dectalk?  Any idea how it measures up?  
If
>it is up to the task, then that would be an insentive to get a win95
>driver writen for it to go with emacspeak.  That would make emacspeak
>available to a larger audiance.  I could see public libraries putting
>it on their machines for folks to use - if they could run it under
>win95 and not have to shell out for another piece of hardware.  - just
>a late night thought.
>
>Greg
>
>--
> Greg Priest-Dorman
> priestdo@xxxxxxxxxxx      NO SOLICITING
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com