Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices


Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
 

I'm at 90, and friends and family think it's strange. It's my way of staying as competitive as I can. I'll never keep up with a sighted reader, but I've been using compressed speech since 1973.

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:46 AM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

I won't quote, but that makes sense. I knew the 40 was a percentage, but did not know what the 84 was. When put that way, that's not all that fast. My husband can't understand a thing JAWS said. I guess one has to train oneself for listening intake.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 10:40 AM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

Carolyn, 40 is a percentage. I think 84 represents words per minute, but don't quote me on that one.

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:17 AM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

I like to clip along at about 40 with 84; not sure what those numbers exactly mean, but I guess I am just used to reading fast with Reid. Russell sounds like he has a mouth full of chew tobacco.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 8:16 AM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

The difference between the two is just 4 units--65 to 69.
Within the male-female parameters, most can be made to sound virtually identical by adjusting the pitch. The one exception is Bobby; that little twit needs to be slapped upside the head, then left alone. Who in the name of reason would want to listen to that all day!

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:24 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

I finally found them. Probably I'll go back to Reid, but I'm trying Glenn. I keep mine set pretty fast, so the higher pitched ones sounded like they'd be harder to understand.
Thanks for getting me there.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Maria Campbell
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:38 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer voices

Insert J, then to voice adjustment.


Maria Campbell
lucky1@gmail.com

Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries.
Without them, humanity cannot survive.
--Dalai Lama

On 10/31/2016 8:18 PM, Carolyn Arnold wrote:
I tried that and got to the same place I have gotten in
other places.
I am trying to get to the choices of like Reid and
Samantha, thanks.

Bye for now,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Alan
Robbins
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:12 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer
voices

Carolyn

Ctrl + jaws key + s

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On
Behalf Of
Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:36 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer
voices

Maria, which command to you give to get to the voice
choices? I've
done it in the past, but can't remember where it is and
not getting
there tonight, thanks.

Bye for now,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On
Behalf Of
Maria Campbell
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 7:18 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer
voices

Eloquence rocks! There's nothing better.


Maria Campbell
lucky1@gmail.com

Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries.
Without them, humanity cannot survive.
--Dalai Lama

On 10/31/2016 7:16 PM, Carolyn Arnold wrote:
I vote for Eloquence.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Alan
Robbins
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:55 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer
voices
Dennis,

As nice as the new voices are, each time new ones appear
I
give a
listen but after using eloquence for so many years, hard
to give it up
Al

-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On
Behalf Of
dennis
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:18 PM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: Re: Old vocalizer voices versus new vocalizer
voices
they still seam to pronounce things the same and sound
pritty much the same to me. this is why i use elliquence.
i have
shelly sounding as human as possible.

On 10/31/2016 4:55 PM, Soronel Haetir wrote:
I still prefer RSD Emily, but that has significant
problems under
jaws 18, particularly involving left quote (U+201c),
right quote
(U+201d) and apostrophe (U+2019 IIRC) characters.

On 10/31/16, Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D.
<kramlinger.keith@mayo.edu> wrote:
Hi,

I know there's a lot of subjectivity in voice
preferences, but I'm
curious if any can describe general aspects of how the
new Vocalizer
voices are different from the ones previously
available.

Thanks in advance, Keith






















Join main@jfw.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.