SP0256 dictionary?
Hi all,
Does anybody know of a "dictionary" of allophones for the SP0256 speech
processor? It would be something like a list of words and the allophones
required to say the word. There is a small one in the Archer (Radio Shack)
data sheet, but I don't I think I ever found any words I needed in it
(except for numbers and letters). If such a dictionary doesn't exit, maybe
I'll start one. Any interest? Any contributions?
Thanks,
Danny
Does anybody know of a "dictionary" of allophones for the SP0256 speech
processor? It would be something like a list of words and the allophones
required to say the word. There is a small one in the Archer (Radio Shack)
data sheet, but I don't I think I ever found any words I needed in it
(except for numbers and letters). If such a dictionary doesn't exit, maybe
I'll start one. Any interest? Any contributions?
Thanks,
Danny
Comments
>Does anybody know of a "dictionary" of allophones for the SP0256 speech
>processor? It would be something like a list of words and the allophones
>required to say the word. There is a small one in the Archer (Radio Shack)
>data sheet, but I don't I think I ever found any words I needed in it
>(except for numbers and letters). If such a dictionary doesn't exit, maybe
>I'll start one. Any interest? Any contributions?
Tables 5 & 6 of the data sheet contain a complete dictionary of allophone
sounds with example words. I think you want a dictionary of words with
corresponding allophones. The latter is (IMHO) easier to make up as needed
than to make up on speculation.
The ideal approach (again IMHO) is to put a CT5256A-AL2 chip in front of
the SP0256-AL2 and feed it with plain ASCII text. In general, it requires
more bytes to store the allophone addresses than to store the ASCII text of
a given word, thus making this approach more efficient. Of course, the
CT5256A-AL2 chip could be a bit hard to get these days if you don't already
have one.
One of these days I'm going to build up an ASCII talker from the chips I
have... one of these days...
Jim H
writes:
the dictionary except lend moral support. ·I would be interested in your
progress it seems to me if someone could reverse engineer this chip there
would be a great market for it considering the demand.
Stay tuned...we (Parallax) have teamed up with Quadravox to create a speech
synthesizer module for the BOE-Bot (will make an OEM version available next)
that will allow you to speak in male or female voices (based on chip set).
The key difference is that this module uses diphones (over 1200) sampled from
actual human speech. ·What this means is that the synthesized speech is far
more natural sounding than the old SP0256-AL2. ·Since the unit works with
allophones to create the speech, you can easily port your SP0256-AL2 programs
to the new device. ·It connects to the Stamp through a simple serial
connection and includes an onboard amplifier.
The module is in testing now and will probably be reading in about two months.
-- Jon Williams
-- Applications Engineer, Parallax[/font]
going to sit down and figure out all the words I think I would ever need,
just enter them as I have a need to make a new one. I've heard of the
CT5256A-AL2, but, uh, wouldn't that be cheating? [noparse]:)[/noparse]
> >Does anybody know of a "dictionary" of allophones for the SP0256 speech
> >processor? It would be something like a list of words and the allophones
> >required to say the word. There is a small one in the Archer (Radio
Shack)
> >data sheet, but I don't I think I ever found any words I needed in it
> >(except for numbers and letters). If such a dictionary doesn't exit,
maybe
> >I'll start one. Any interest? Any contributions?
>
> Tables 5 & 6 of the data sheet contain a complete dictionary of allophone
> sounds with example words. I think you want a dictionary of words with
> corresponding allophones. The latter is (IMHO) easier to make up as
needed
> than to make up on speculation.
>
> The ideal approach (again IMHO) is to put a CT5256A-AL2 chip in front of
> the SP0256-AL2 and feed it with plain ASCII text. In general, it requires
> more bytes to store the allophone addresses than to store the ASCII text
of
> a given word, thus making this approach more efficient. Of course, the
> CT5256A-AL2 chip could be a bit hard to get these days if you don't
already
> have one.
>
> Jim H
>Yep, I want a dictionary of words with corresponding allophones. I wasn't
>going to sit down and figure out all the words I think I would ever need,
>just enter them as I have a need to make a new one. I've heard of the
>CT5256A-AL2, but, uh, wouldn't that be cheating? [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Could be... ;-) But there's also something to be said for a simple serial
interface vs having to send a 6-bit address plus control signals. You
could cut the number of pins required for control by using a shift register
though. With the CT chip you can buffer ASCII data externally by adding
some RAM and get on about your business while the chip speaks from the
buffer vs having to send it allophone addresses word by word in "real
time." And ASCII usually uses less bytes of limited program space than the
bytes needed for corresponding allophone addresses. There's an advantage
to directly manipulating allophone addresses though. You can improve on
the pronunciation over what you get with the CT chip. As I recall the
device I built years ago (BIG mistake selling it) it was maybe 90% accurate
on pronunciation. Almost always understandable, but with a mechanical
sound and a somewhat "Russian" accent. You can improve pronunciation of
selected words when using the CT chip by spelling them creatively. With
allophones sent direct to the SP chip you are in total control. Nothing
corrects the mechanical sound. You pays your money and you makes your
choice so to speak.
When I had a working device I made from these two chips I drove it from a
PC parallel port, but the schematics provided with the data sheets also
show a serial interface. I have one chipset left and keep threatening to
build another talker. Maybe this is the year...
Jim H
the dictionary except lend moral support. I would be interested in your
progress it seems to me if someone could reverse engineer this chip there
would be a great market for it considering the demand.
RB
Original Message
From: "Danny Gaudenti" <gaudent@q...>
To: <basicstamps@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] SP0256 dictionary?
> Hi all,
>
> Does anybody know of a "dictionary" of allophones for the SP0256 speech
> processor? It would be something like a list of words and the allophones
> required to say the word. There is a small one in the Archer (Radio
Shack)
> data sheet, but I don't I think I ever found any words I needed in it
> (except for numbers and letters). If such a dictionary doesn't exit,
maybe
> I'll start one. Any interest? Any contributions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Danny
>
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed with. Text in the Subject
and Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
and (as you mention) you have complete control over what is said. I'm happy
with the sound of the SP0256. I don't want a human voice, I want a robot
voice.
> Could be... ;-) But there's also something to be said for a simple serial
> interface vs having to send a 6-bit address plus control signals. You
> could cut the number of pins required for control by using a shift
register
> though. With the CT chip you can buffer ASCII data externally by adding
> some RAM and get on about your business while the chip speaks from the
> buffer vs having to send it allophone addresses word by word in "real
> time." And ASCII usually uses less bytes of limited program space than
the
> bytes needed for corresponding allophone addresses. There's an advantage
> to directly manipulating allophone addresses though. You can improve on
> the pronunciation over what you get with the CT chip. As I recall the
> device I built years ago (BIG mistake selling it) it was maybe 90%
accurate
> on pronunciation. Almost always understandable, but with a mechanical
> sound and a somewhat "Russian" accent. You can improve pronunciation of
> selected words when using the CT chip by spelling them creatively. With
> allophones sent direct to the SP chip you are in total control. Nothing
> corrects the mechanical sound. You pays your money and you makes your
> choice so to speak.
>
> When I had a working device I made from these two chips I drove it from a
> PC parallel port, but the schematics provided with the data sheets also
> show a serial interface. I have one chipset left and keep threatening to
> build another talker. Maybe this is the year...
>
> Jim H
get one ?
I heard some samples and I have to agree that I'd rather have this robot voice
than any human voice .. it just sounds cool [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Original Message
From: Danny Gaudenti [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=GwLEnY-lnG-yJ1RB0Bg7e4tKqihBIi89jhBRbQJ5FN_hoqcTQrIdO9DVIIX5UvGIlifT_1YkC6TttQ]gaudent@q...[/url
Sent: woensdag 6 juni 2001 5:07
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] SP0256 dictionary?
I'd rather just stay with the SP0256 because it's cheaper, less hardware,
and (as you mention) you have complete control over what is said. I'm happy
with the sound of the SP0256. I don't want a human voice, I want a robot
voice.
> Could be... ;-) But there's also something to be said for a simple serial
> interface vs having to send a 6-bit address plus control signals. You
> could cut the number of pins required for control by using a shift
register
> though. With the CT chip you can buffer ASCII data externally by adding
> some RAM and get on about your business while the chip speaks from the
> buffer vs having to send it allophone addresses word by word in "real
> time." And ASCII usually uses less bytes of limited program space than
the
> bytes needed for corresponding allophone addresses. There's an advantage
> to directly manipulating allophone addresses though. You can improve on
> the pronunciation over what you get with the CT chip. As I recall the
> device I built years ago (BIG mistake selling it) it was maybe 90%
accurate
> on pronunciation. Almost always understandable, but with a mechanical
> sound and a somewhat "Russian" accent. You can improve pronunciation of
> selected words when using the CT chip by spelling them creatively. With
> allophones sent direct to the SP chip you are in total control. Nothing
> corrects the mechanical sound. You pays your money and you makes your
> choice so to speak.
>
> When I had a working device I made from these two chips I drove it from a
> PC parallel port, but the schematics provided with the data sheets also
> show a serial interface. I have one chipset left and keep threatening to
> build another talker. Maybe this is the year...
>
> Jim H
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed with. Text in the Subject and
Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>Just wish I could find one,... any of you that sell a SP0256 ? or know
>where to get one ?
>I heard some samples and I have to agree that I'd rather have this robot
>voice than any human voice .. it just sounds cool [noparse]:)[/noparse]
No idea where to get parts these days, but for those who have them and need
the data sheets, Radio Shack lists the SP0256 and CTS256A in its online
product manuals. You can get data sheets online or via FAXBack.
http://www.radioshack.com/searchplus.asp
Jim H
other chips that provide this functionality?
Kevin
gaudent@Q... wrote:
>
> There are 10 for sale on eBay right now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1243222450
>
> >Just wish I could find one,... any of you that sell a SP0256 ? or know where
> to get one ?
> >I heard some samples and I have to agree that I'd rather have this robot
voice
> than any human voice .. it just sounds cool [noparse]:)[/noparse]
> >
> >
Original Message
> >From: Danny Gaudenti [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=BX970nmX18_lIzfBD4dRcxHSvGcWYr7joR4t0o0SMhnHR1RkQDgXKcH0_DifpAb8hP0s0qlndssY]gaudent@q...[/url
> >Sent: woensdag 6 juni 2001 5:07
> >To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] SP0256 dictionary?
> >
> >
> >I'd rather just stay with the SP0256 because it's cheaper, less hardware,
> >and (as you mention) you have complete control over what is said. I'm happy
>
> >with the sound of the SP0256. I don't want a human voice, I want a robot
> >voice.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
> basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> from the same email address that you subscribed with. Text in the Subject and
Body of the message will be ignored.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1243222450
>Just wish I could find one,... any of you that sell a SP0256 ? or know where
to get one ?
>I heard some samples and I have to agree that I'd rather have this robot voice
than any human voice .. it just sounds cool [noparse]:)[/noparse]
>
>
Original Message
>From: Danny Gaudenti [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=QnEQDr7NSagNxX5n4VJVn9v7KF6QICDeKFP4utp6aNpH5YInleiiNzpL4CAexBlSIGs_nkCfcQ]gaudent@q...[/url
>Sent: woensdag 6 juni 2001 5:07
>To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] SP0256 dictionary?
>
>
>I'd rather just stay with the SP0256 because it's cheaper, less hardware,
>and (as you mention) you have complete control over what is said. I'm happy
>with the sound of the SP0256. I don't want a human voice, I want a robot
>voice.