On 27 August 2010 04:48, mzatanoskas <[email protected]> wrote: > I've only just got around to testing Google's automatic text to > speech, and to be honest I'm a little disappointed by how machine-like > and 1990s it still sounds. As I said I've been using this text to > speech site (http://www.oddcast.com/home/demos/tts/ > tts_tran_example.php?sitepal), which really sounds very good, so I > thought the technology had improved much more than it has.
Yes I've been using that oddcast demo for a while for Chinese, French and the occasional hilarious obscenities in English (try the "Fiona (Scotland)" voice) - it seems to have been running for at least 6 months. The first I heard of Google's TTS was in this thread, so I tested out the Chinese version and was also disappointed. It does seem to convey the tonal sounds pretty accurately, but it sounds like an electronic sewer grate. Other TTS systems I've tried are far more convincing, even the built-in Apple English one and the old Bell labs/IBM demos for Chinese. Given the relative goodness of competing systems, surely Google's attempt will improve dramatically. > I'm guessing the site I'm using is not algorithmic text to speech but > uses recorded human voices. I don't know if they have an API which > would enable a plugin to be written for them as well, but I thought > I'd mention the site for those interested. > > What do you language learners think? Impressed? Not impressed? (the > text to speech functionality that is, not the translation which is > still very dubious apart from the simplest of sentences) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
