-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:39:35PM +0100, Jonathan Duddington wrote: > I wonder whether anyone uses any of the English voice variants other > than the standard? Feel free to experiment with attributes in the > espeak-data/voices files, as described in docs/voices.html, and let > me know if anyone comes up with a good sounding variant. > When I was setting up espeak, I passed the file names in espeak-data/voices/ along with the -v flag to the speak binary. While I could tell that the voices were different, I didn't notice much of a difference, and decided to stick with the standard voice. The standard voice isn't bad, I again suggested more voices as having general potential for espeak's improvement, and not as an implication that the standard voice, or the other voices for that matter were unsatisfactory. > That's an easy one! Here's a modified espeak-data/en-dict file (for > eSpeak version 1.11) that says "one-hundred-sixty-eight". Is that how > you say it, or is it just for convenience with being shorter? > Thanks, that's more like what I'm used to listening. I usually say it as one-sixty-eight, and I might say it sometimes as one-hundred-sixty-eight. I've never said it before though as one-hundred-and-sixty-eight. However, most, if not all synths I've used over the years say full numbers as one-hundred-sixty-eight, so that's what I've become used to listening. Greg - -- web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc skype: gregn1 (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) - -- Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager at EU.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE656x7s9z/XlyUyARAvBLAJ9oHTxPWWmizyLC4TtlDvEKxPP+7QCeLi0K gJ8TXaxDmdIy0AaUDlpVwmg= =Cl1C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
