3 ms·
A robotic, explicitly non-natural voice would be perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, in many situations[...]it'd be enough is the speech if easy to recogn
by userbinator 1y ago
A robotic, explicitly non-natural voice would be perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, in many situations[...]it'd be enough is the speech if easy to recognize.
We've had formant synths for several decades, and they're perfectly understandable and require a tiny amount of computing power, but people tend not to want to listen to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Automatic_Mouth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Automatic_Mouth
https://simulationcorner.net/index.php?page=sam https://simulationcorner.net/index.php?page=sam (try it yourself to hear what it sounds like)
- saretup 1y agoWell, this one is a bit too jarring to the ears.
- rixed 1y agoBut there is no latency, as opposed to KittenTTS, so it certainly has its applications too.
- cess11 1y agoTry this demo, which has more knobs: https://discordier.github.io/sam/ https://discordier.github.io/sam/
- actionfromafar 1y agoI think it's charming
- miki123211 1y agoSAM and the way it works is not what people typically associate with the term "formant synthesizer." DECtalk[1,2] would be a much better example, that's as formant as you get. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECtalk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECtalk [2] https://webspeak.terminal.ink https://webspeak.terminal.ink
- tapper 1y agoYeah blind people love eloquence
- boobsbr 1y agoHuh, now I know what Airdorf used in Faith: Unholy Trinity.