software speech for speakup

[Victor Tsaran]

Shon, if you hear somewhere of a good text-based audio multitracking
software, give us all a loud buzz!
Vic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Oliver" <shauno at goanna.net.au>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: software speech for speakup


> I think I'd have to agree with both kirk and kerry on this 1.
> While I enjoy the processing power of my pentium 200, I still feel as if a
> processor that is at least 4-5 times faster if thatfor audio work. but, if
> linux had a half decent audio multitracking program I'd probably not have
> need for a pentium 3 or faster.
> but having said that, I suggest that you go back to school and redo your
> calculations. my pentium 200 is considerably faster than my 486 but not
> that fast.
> and as for software speech, the load that a decent software synth places
> on a cpu ain't worth the clock cycles as far as I'm concerned. not on a
> desk top anyway.
>
>
> Shaun..
> "We realise we have a problem with communication. However, we're not going
> to discuss it with our staff."
> EMAIL: shauno at goanna.net.au ICQ: 76958435
> YAHOO ID: blindman01_2000 IRC NICK/SERVER: |3|1ndm4n on #aussiefriends on
> www.jong.com:6667
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Kirk Wood wrote:
>
> > > How much is "a great deal" exactly..? software speech was possible on
my
> > > old 386 and even the most low-end pentium runs 50 times the speed of
that!
> > > tts takes only a tiny fraction of the CPU power required for speech
> > > recongition or a winmodem.
> >
> > While Kerry already pointed out some other simplifications, this is an
> > very gross example. First, the math is wrong on. Few of us can afford a
> > machine with the 1.2 GHz machine to get 50 times the clock speed of a 25
> > MHz machine from the 486 days. But there are other factors like the fact
> > that doubling the clock speed doesn't yeild a machine twice as fast. In
> > fact, the high end machine today is not even 10 times as fast as the 486
> > of yesteryear. This is not saying anything for those poor soulds who are
> > still chugging along on old hardware since it is cheaper to keep what
you
> > have then buy new.
> >
> > As for the amount of processor time eaten by the winmodem, I don't think
> > it is eating nearly as much as you seem to think. Certainly downloading
a
> > file using a winmodem doesn't slow the system down as much as any
software
> > speech I have yet to see on the winblows machines. And yes, I have some
> > experiance to see both.
> >
> > Finally, perhaps you should also learn to hit the reply instead of reply
> > to all.
> >
> > =======
> > Kirk Wood
> > Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net
> >
> > Nothing is hard if you know the answer or are used to doing it.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>