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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 >
