pkahn@meridian.ads.com (Phil Kahn) (11/19/88)
The addition of textually generated speech can greatly enhance some interfaces and programs. MacinTalk (from APDA) provides such a facility. Yet, Apple doesn't support this code, there are several known and long existing bugs (e.g., after opening and closing the driver, beep sounds and other sounds don't work; the sound driver apparently being closed or something like that), interfaces are hard to come by since it isn't supported, the clarity of speech could be improved, and a more complete exceptions file isn't distributed. Why doesn't/won't Apple support this useful and potentially important tool? Make it sound better, fix known bugs, document better, and provide interfaces to most popular languages. Apple even throws in the disclaimer that MacinTalk may not be compatible with future releases. Why? It could be done through standard sound drivers to maintain future compatability, right? So what's the problem. We're onlyy talking about a half a man-year of someone's time at Apple to make this a powerful, extensible, and extremely useful tool to the developer and user community. All in favor, deluge this net with support mail!! All opposed, explain yourselves! phil...
mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (11/19/88)
In article <6135@zodiac.UUCP> pkahn@ads.com (Phil Kahn) writes: >The addition of textually generated speech can greatly enhance some >interfaces and programs. MacinTalk (from APDA) provides such a >facility. Yet, Apple doesn't support this code... I am in favor of supporting this useful tool. I think it should be a part of the OS. Apple is in the position to create a truely multimedia machine if they provide the same support for sounds,animation, and voice, as they do for bitmaps,buttons, and text. It seems that treating all the objects in a uniform manner will increase their usage in NOVEL applications. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "X is just raster-op on wheels" - Bill Joy, January 1987
michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) (11/20/88)
In article <6135@zodiac.UUCP> pkahn@ads.com (Phil Kahn) writes: >All in favor, deluge this net with support mail!! All opposed, >explain yourselves! OK. MacinTalk speaks Metallic American. I find it difficult enough to follow phoneme synthesisers anyway but it adds insult to injury by using a foreign accent. I can't make it speak with a New Zealand accent because it doesn't have some of the phonemes we use in its set. I much prefer full waveform synthesis which is a great deal more comprehensible: all you need is Farallons excellent MacRecorder to make 'snd ' resources and away you go. At 7.5kHz sampling you use a fair bit of memory, but surely this is becoming less important as the megabit DRAMs ramp up and hard disk capacities increase... -- "Where now are those who in times past have opposed the Group of Seventeen?" Michael Hamel.
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (11/20/88)
Here's yet another "YES" vote for official MacinTalk support. -Ted
twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (11/22/88)
I would very much like to see voice capability on My Mac but I am not sure
that MacIntalk is what I really want. It is the best that I have seen
so far but...
It only speaks American English
It is a pain to get it to say something different. There was an application
came out around '85, SmartTalk{?}. It would read text files. Unfortunatly,
it was not easy to understand.
The voice is very metallic.
What I would like to see....
CDEV system application.
Run same language as the System
Read text files
be able to read user generated scripts triggered by the system or other
applications {ie user defined audio dialog boxes}
be easily understandable by someon who is near-by but not paying any
attention to the computer.
Oh yes, I want it to run on my 128K Mac under system 1.1 ;*)
TeriAnn
" Triumph The Glory Still Exists"jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (11/22/88)
Dear Phil - The reason that Apple Computer does not support MacinTalk, is because we do not have the sources to MacinTalk. MacinTalk was done by a third party back when the Macintosh was only a gleam in Steve Job's eye. When the Macintosh SE and II were under development, we worked to hack the binary of MacinTalk - done by the great Paul Mercer before he joined Apple - so that it would work on the Macintosh SE and Macintosh II. Though we are not supporting MacinTalk, we are looking at supplying speech on the Macintosh. A number of possibilities are under investigation. Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Tools & Languages Product Management 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-973-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto) (11/22/88)
In article <20983@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > The reason that Apple Computer does not support MacinTalk, is because >we do not have the sources to MacinTalk. MacinTalk was done by a third >party back when the Macintosh was only a gleam in Steve Job's eye. >[...] > Though we are not supporting MacinTalk, we are looking at supplying >speech on the Macintosh. A number of possibilities are under investigation. I hope that the new speech drivers, if you decide to implement them, sound better than MacinTalk. I have no idea what the inherent limitations of this type of thing are, but it *is* kind of a bummer that speech off my Mac II sounds the same as the speech off a Mac 128, which sounds the same as a $10 Speak and Spell. -Sho
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (11/22/88)
In article <6135@zodiac.UUCP> pkahn@ads.com (Phil Kahn) writes: >All in favor, deluge this net with support mail!! All opposed, >explain yourselves! > >phil... OK - Here's my 2 cents worth. I'm in favor of Macintalk support. I'd think it could help the visually impaired as an alternative to close view. I suppose I couldn't use it in the office because we only have cubicles. But where you have real offices and at home, you could do some neat things. How about learning another language? How about time notes in Comment telling you when to go to your meeting? Shirley Kehr
macman@ethz.UUCP (Danny Schwendener) (11/23/88)
In article <19258@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: >>[...] Yet, Apple doesn't support this code... > >I am in favor of supporting this useful tool. I think it should be a >part of the OS. MacinTalk is, like many first hour Apple programs, a third pardy product. Although a source code license and a maintenance contract had been proposed by the contracting firm, Apple finally decided against it because the two parties couldn't agree on the price. Apple does not, as far as I know of, plan to change its mind, nor does the creator of MacinTalk. I agree this is sad, especially because the contract broke up before the other planned language interfaces (french, spanish, german and italian) were implemented, making that great tool unuseable in almost all nonamerican countries. -- Danny Disclaimer: I have no relations with Apple or the creator of MacinTalk besides the E-mail and phone calls we exchange. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mail : Danny Schwendener, ETH Macintosh Support | | Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-8092 Zuerich | | Bitnet : macman@czheth5a UUCP : {cernvax,mcvax}ethz!macman | | Internet: macman@ifi.ethz.ch Voice : yodel three times | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (11/23/88)
In article <71150@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: ... >OK - Here's my 2 cents worth. I'm in favor of Macintalk support. ... >things. How about learning another language? How about time notes in ... >Shirley Kehr Speach synthesis tools are very bad for learning languages. Macintalk is currently specific to English, and even at that would be a VERY bad example for how to speak English. Somehow speaking English the way Macintalk does does not seem very desirable for a human. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or hscfvax!lloyd!kent
jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) (11/24/88)
In article <71150@felix.UUCP>, kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: > OK - Here's my 2 cents worth. I'm in favor of Macintalk support. ... > But where you have real offices and at home, you could do some neat > things. How about learning another language? Seconded. I'm working on a language-teaching program, and I'd like to have it speak the words. OK, I guess Macintalk is dead (and anyway, it's nowhere near the quality I want). Is any other speech-synthesizing software available for the Mac? How difficult is it to do? > > Shirley Kehr -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -- Marcel Marceau
g-verbru@rocky.cs.wisc.edu.CS.WISC.EDU (Rob Verbrugghe) (11/27/88)
In article <265@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >Speach synthesis tools are very bad for learning languages. Macintalk >is currently specific to English, and even at that would be a VERY bad >example for how to speak English. Somehow speaking English the way >Macintalk does does not seem very desirable for a human. >Kent Borg >kent@lloyd.uucp Well the PLATO education system pioneered at the University of Illinois uses a speach synthesis system for teaching languages. (French, Spanish and Esperanto to name a few) I'm not certain if they are still using it, but it seemed to work pretty well. Of course it is lightyears ahead of Macintalk. I don't think it is wise to write an idea off if the available (cheap) technology doesn't exist yet. In fact a lot of excellent lessons can be learned about computers in education from the PLATO system. (I didn't learn them, because like too many undergraduates I was trying to avoid any learning at the time.) CDC bought PLATO back in 68 (69?) with thoughts of owning the endall education system (that ran on thier hardware). Well they plowed millions of dollars into the system and haven't made a profit yet, but there are several million dollars worth of ideas, just laying around for someone to pick up and use. I'm surprized that no one thought to look there. (Maybe they did and didn't like what they saw) Well that's my $.02 Rob Verbrugghe (Illinois Alum -- and still going to school)
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (11/28/88)
In article <71150@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >OK - Here's my 2 cents worth. I'm in favor of Macintalk support. > >I suppose I couldn't use it in the office because we only have cubicles. >But where you have real offices and at home, you could do some neat >things. How about learning another language? How about time notes in >Comment telling you when to go to your meeting? Interesting comment: Awhile ago, I talked to someone at InBox about possibly using MacinTalk as a means of notifying people when they receive mail. The InBox person said that it had been considered but was eventually thrown out because they didn't feel that Corporate America could handle a computer that talked to you. Besides, what about confidential messages? Picture this: You are in your office and you and The Boss are seriously discussing a project that could mean millions of dollars to your company. Suddenly your Macintosh pipes up: "You have just received mail from your snookums about kinky sex tonight." As for supporting it, well, I remember an old saying that said something like, "All things come easy to those who don't have to do them." --- "Wouldn't you agree?" Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (11/28/88)
In article <193@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: >OK, I guess Macintalk is dead (and anyway, it's nowhere >near the quality I want). Is any other speech-synthesizing >software available for the Mac? How difficult is it to do? I remember a program called "SmoothTalker" many years back that ran on my 128K Macintosh and spoke much better than MacinTalk. The company even offered to license it to anyone who was interested. I only know of one company that used it. They make some software for kids to learn new words or something similar. For some reason, the name First Byte Software comes to my mind, but don't quote me on that. Take a look in Icon Review, if such a thing still exists, under educational or children's software. --- "You dropped a bomb on me..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) (11/30/88)
In article <11197@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) writes: >In article <193@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: >>OK, I guess Macintalk is dead (and anyway, it's nowhere >>near the quality I want). Is any other speech-synthesizing >>software available for the Mac? How difficult is it to do? >I remember a program called "SmoothTalker" many years back... I listened to SmoothTalker once, and found it to be most irritating. I much preferred the honest 'computerese' of Macintalk. Smoothtalker's accent was very, umm, ingratiating (??) sounding. About as much fun to listen to for extended periods of time as baby talk (snookums). Made me want to club it in the face! It also had only one inflection pattern. Start high and proceed low through the sentence, with a few slight wobbles near the end (kind of like when you run out of breath at the end of a sentence). Gack. Gave the word 'smooth' a bad name. Anybody else have this reaction to it? +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC Systems Corp. ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!iscuva!jimc ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (11/30/88)
In article <2183@iscuva.ISCS.COM> jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) writes: |In article <11197@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) writes: |>In article <193@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: |>>OK, I guess Macintalk is dead (and anyway, it's nowhere |>>near the quality I want). Is any other speech-synthesizing |>>software available for the Mac? How difficult is it to do? | |>I remember a program called "SmoothTalker" many years back... | |I listened to SmoothTalker once, and found it to be most irritating. I |much preferred the honest 'computerese' of Macintalk. . . . I heard SmoothTalker (demo and as released) a long time ago and my impression was then that it used Macintalk, and mostly provided a convenient interface to it from Text files and to the exception mechanism. They may have redone the speech part and / or the translator part for themselves, but my impression from that early demo was that it was still MacinTalk at heart. [I don't suppose anyone form First Byte is here and would care to comment ...] /JBL UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (12/01/88)
In article <870264@hpcilzb.HP.COM>, tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: > > Here's yet another "YES" vote for official MacinTalk support. > > -Ted Here is a "NO" vote for Macintalk, it sounds terrible, and would never be easy to use..High quality, low sampling digital speech is much prefered.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-Sysop FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division
ksr@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kenneth S Redler) (12/01/88)
In article <2183@iscuva.ISCS.COM> jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) writes: |In article <11197@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) writes: ||I remember a program called "SmoothTalker" many years back... | |I listened to SmoothTalker once, and found it to be most irritating. I |much preferred the honest 'computerese' of Macintalk. Smoothtalker's |accent was very, umm, ingratiating (??) sounding. About as much fun to |listen to for extended periods of time as baby talk (snookums). Made |me want to club it in the face! It also had only one inflection |pattern. Start high and proceed low through the sentence, with a few |slight wobbles near the end (kind of like when you run out of breath at |the end of a sentence). Gack. Gave the word 'smooth' a bad name. |Anybody else have this reaction to it? | Yes. It also seemed to lack the same "future" features as Macintalk, such as the female voice; these teasers were present in the menus, but grayed out. I found the speech patterns...well...plaintive. -Ken ================================================================================ Ken Redler ksr@eleazar.dartmouth.edu ================================================================================
suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) (12/10/88)
>Here is a "NO" vote for Macintalk, it sounds terrible, and would never >be easy to use..High quality, low sampling digital speech is much prefered.. I have a sampler. It was somewhat expensive. I have megabytes of stuff sampled. I don't have everything I want sampled. If my programs want to talk, they should be able to talk. They should be able to do so without regard to what has been sampled for them. There is an "eliza" port that optionally speaks everything. It also speaks everything that the user types. You can't do that with sampled sound. A sampler will not replace Macintalk (or the other way around). If Macintalk is low quality (it is), it should be improved. There is probably a market for such a thing. If such a thing were available, I'd buy it to put into my own commercial products (that needed such a thing). Stephen.