SAM (Atari 8bit Speech Synth) vs Speech! (on Amstrad CPC)

[BSC]

Well, 8-Bit Sample Playing is something the CPC can do since ever. And since 30 years codes use it. They call it the printer port, all you need is a Digiblaster (parts are 1 Euro). And adding a Digiblaster is as easy as adding a cable to some computer anyway. Or a 2nd joystick.

And now: Shitstorm on! 

Over the decades I learnt that you find some peculiar kind of amusement in derailing threads and topics and in mildly trolling around, but maybe that's a thing you'd like to reconsider, given that you are not 20 anymore, but most probably approaching the 50s. That said, let me respond to your message at hand:

The Digiblaster is a hardware add-on. Yes, many things become possible if you extend the possibilities of a CPC by adding hardware, but this thread has been about software-based solution from the start. I'd appreciate if you appreciated that and sticked to the reference frame stipulated by the initial post / topic of this thread. Kthxbye!

[GUNHED]

Of course I was aware that I can't post in a thread where BSC is posting too, without getting some offensive text. Well, I got used to it. A big forum must be able to withstand that kind of members. So we do. But let's talk about important things now...

Yes, this thread is about software speech synthesis. However it would be useful to consider cheap hardware add ons too. 

The basic principle of the Digiblaster is to send an 8 bit value to an port / connector of a computer and there this 8 bit value goes into an D/A converter. The most easy thing back in the day was a combination of resistors, but also since a long time we can use a cheap chip to to the DA conversion.

The great thing is: That kind of DA sample playback can be done on probably nearly all computers.

Of course it's not needed it a particular system has a sound chip being able to play 8 bit samples (disregarding the speed thing right now).

Furthermore it should be doable to get more than 4 bit resolution with the PSG just by (and this is very time consuming!) using the regular sound channels and add up their current values. In this case it's a prerequisite to be able to measure the real-life outcome of the sound channel. Because theory and real-life are different, there is a lag ('mechanical' reasons).

[zhulien]

Actually I didn't think that SAM was using samples until some replies suggested it might be.

[eto]

SAM does not use samples but requires sample-replay routines. 

It transfers text into phonemes and for each phoneme it uses a simple formula to "produce" the volume-values on the fly which are sent to the sample-replay hardware. It will even work on speaker sound but of course it will benefit from more powerful hardware. 

A bit of explanation about the formula can be found here:
https://github.com/s-macke/SAM#final-output

[BSC]

Yes, this thread is about software speech synthesis. However it would be useful to consider cheap hardware add ons too.

Yes, it's true that hardware add-ons can also be a useful and cost-effective option for speech synthesis. The Digiblaster, as you mentioned, is a good example of such hardware.

However, it's important to note that while such hardware add-ons can offer a quick and easy way to achieve speech synthesis, they may not always be the most flexible or versatile option. For example, they may have limited capabilities in terms of the types of speech they can produce, or they may not integrate easily with certain software or platforms.

In contrast, software-based speech synthesis solutions can offer more flexibility and control over the speech output, as well as the ability to integrate with a wider range of systems and applications. Additionally, advances in technology have led to the development of more sophisticated software-based solutions that can produce higher-quality speech output.

That being said, hardware add-ons can still be a viable option in certain situations, particularly for those who are on a tight budget or who require a simple and straightforward solution. It's all about finding the right tool for the job, based on your specific needs and constraints.

[ZbyniuR]

It's not the point how many bits we have. Point is we need someone who can translate MOS program from C64, or Atari8 or Apple2 and put it to Z80 +AY, for CPC, MSX and ZX owner. Without programer we have shity Speach like old crow, and doesn't matter how many zilions bits or Covoxs we have. 

And one more. If it will work only with digiblaster, then owner of other machines will say, they have AY and they don't use it, it must be shity sound chip. So I say, fuck it digiblaster, it should work od AY.

First film (with Atari) in this topic have quite poor sound. I always had feeling SAM sound better than Say in Amiga, and Say sound like this:

[ZbyniuR]

Few other examples old talking computers:

Old Mac

Apple II - start at 3:20

C64 - twice

and Amiga.

[GUNHED]

@BSC : Yes, of course you're right about software being more flexible and versatile. Sure, software can do pretty much everything. 

@ZbyniuR : Well, you presented lots of videos for lots of computers - but for the CPC. Youtube has vids for the CPC too. (I don't paste them here, because my selection could be biased). 

[ComSoft6128]

French program from 1987

[Prodatron]

Isn't that the Amsoft Speech engine?
I ported this to SymbOS and it sounds exactly the same.

[ComSoft6128]

It sounds to me like the Speech! program by Superior Software but could just as easily be the Amsoft program.

[GUNHED]

Can you point me to the sources of the Amsoft version please? 
Time to compare the phonemes.