This is a cool page. I like the interactive synthesizer, but the unvoiced noise is too sharp. It sounds like white noise rather than pink noise or similar which would be more accurate to how humans sound
Voder Speech Synthesizer
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: Voder Speech Synthesizer
#42What is the best available open source option today for TTS?
Re: Voder Speech Synthesizer
#43Re: Voder Speech Synthesizer
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't hear much difference in the Studio voice: https://cloud.google.com/text-to-speech/docs/wavenet I'm fairly sure I couldn't tell Studio voices and real people apart in a blind test.
It would be a good test. I don't think they are yet indistinguishable, for what it's worth.
I don’t think they’ll ever get undistinguishable because humans have variability. Too much consistency and it starts having an artificial smell. Look at ChatGPT for example, you could read a perfectly writen answer and yet kind of sense it was written by ChatGPT..
Re: Voder Speech Synthesizer
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a fork with few more features, it might even work on your phone browser: https://jmiskovic.github.io/voicebox
Unfortunately this webapp (along with the original Pink Trombone) produces super glitchy audio and consumes 95% of CPU on my Chrome v114.0.5735.198 running on Ubuntu 22.04 (which is running on my Thinkpad X220)
That's rather strange. The graphics part is lightweight (pre-rendering the background and then drawing few shapes), but if you could shrink the browser to very small dimensions and test we could eliminate this one.
The audio part is bit more involved. The vocal tract is simulated in segments, each segment receiving, filtering and reflecting the soundwave energy. The algorithm is computationally heavy, but it ran well on my mediocre smartphone.
Maybe if stuttering is detected it could lower the number of tract segments, which also lowers the quality. Increasing the buffer size would probably also help with glitches but I don't think it would solve the high CPU utilization.
Re: Voder Speech Synthesizer
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd expect self driving cars to have much better sensors and reaction times than we do, and as a consequence not needing to choose between those risks and actually carrying people from one point to another. But they will probably be way slower than people on streets that are just at the side of sidewalks and full of pedestrians.
> I'd expect self driving cars to have much better sensors and reaction times than we do That is never going to happen.
Words like "good", "better" and "should" always carry freight that's often worth unpacking. Here, "better" really needs a definition.
A CCD is better than human eyes inasmuch as it captures a field rather than a narrow focus, with fuzzy periphery, that must be pointed at an object to resolve it.
I'm sure we could find metrics where a 360-degree lidar is better than human eyes.
It's disingenuous to pretend that sensor quality is the whole story, of course.
Human drivers have notoriously variable reflexes. I once rear-ended someone because I was inattentive. I assert that the current gen has better reflexes than some percentile of real-world meat-drivers, and I suspect that the percentile is higher than 90. Human reflexes simply aren't that quick without significant priming.