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. Greg 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
