3 ms·
Given Adobe demonstrated technology to convert text into somebodies voice based upon a few samples and make that person sound like they can say whatever you wan
by Zenst 10y ago
Given Adobe demonstrated technology to convert text into somebodies voice based upon a few samples and make that person sound like they can say whatever you want to type. Are we not eventually going to use that approach for the optimum voice compression and just send text which is converted into voice. Given most phone conversations are with people already spoken to then that would certainly be a solution for low-bandwidth voice comms, or at least an approach more viable today than previously.
But low bandwidth voice comm research is useful on many levels, one aspect is that it tends to push latency down and in some area's that gets more and more important.
- userbinator 10y agoAre we not eventually going to use that approach for the optimum voice compression and just send text which is converted into voice. That's basically dictionary compression, except in this case the dictionary might need to be extremely large.
- wongarsu 10y agoEven if we assume that somehow the text-to-speech model for the sender is already cached at the recipient, you still have to encode that "text" in a format that can both deal with sentences whose pronouncation can't be deduced from regular written english (is "I read a lot" present or past tense?), and at least a decent amount of intonation and pauses of the original speech. You could probably use a phoenetic alphabet with intonation data. That also completely solves the problem of words that are not in the system's dictionary. You still loose a lot of character (by not transfering breathing, laughter etc.), but you don't get much of that in these ultra-low bandwith codecs anyway.
- BuuQu9hu 10y agoGot a link to that research? Sounds like doing key verification over the phone just became a bad idea.
- Zenst 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJksour9Ifw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJksour9Ifw