a bit of trivia I found interesting

Gregory Nowak greg at romuald.net.eu.org
Wed Dec 18 21:49:36 EST 2002

Actually, I personally think that the accent sounds like crap, and the bns sounds wonderful. Whenever I listen to the accent, I can't help the notion that it is better suited for speaking French instead of English.

I have known for a while that the bns used the si 263 chip. I had also suspected that the accent used the same speech chip as the bns because of how they both sounded on head phones, but wasn't absolutely sure.

What I think makes the difference is how the chip is controlled by the software.


On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 07:55:53PM -0600, Adam Myrow wrote:
> I was just looking through files on my computer and stumbled over a README
> file from an old shareware DOS screen reader called TinyTalk.  The part
> that I found interesting is that it listed several synthesizers that
> existed around 1994 and what chipset they used.  It mentioned that the
> Braille 'N Speak line as well as the Accent line both use a chip called
> the SSI263.  I found this interesting because the Braille 'N Speak sounds
> like crap, has terrible pronunciation, and practically no inflection.
> The Accent still sounds very mechanical, but has a lot more inflection,
> and its pronunciation is 10 times better than the Braille 'N Speak line.
> Apparently, this chipset wasn't the only piece required to produce speech.
> So, anybody know what makes such a radical difference?  I know this isn't
> directly Linux related, but I figured a lot of the list members have been
> using computers for a long time and might know what makes the difference
> or where I may find such information.
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

More information about the Speakup mailing list