evaluation_of_speech_synthesizers
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
evaluation_of_speech_synthesizers [2013/11/13 19:42] – laurent | evaluation_of_speech_synthesizers [2023/04/25 16:52] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| | [[http:// | | | [[http:// | ||
| | [[http:// | | | [[http:// | ||
- | | | [[http:// | + | | | [[http:// |
| | [[http:// | | | [[http:// | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
\\ | \\ | ||
==== Conclusions: | ==== Conclusions: | ||
- | "eSpeak" | + | **eSpeak** topped the ranking: GPL, many languages, |
Its only flaw is its very low quality. In practice, this raises the problem of understanding. | Its only flaw is its very low quality. In practice, this raises the problem of understanding. | ||
- | It still remains that we have to integrate default, | + | It still remains that we have to integrate default, |
- | Then comes "MBrola", although it is not free software, it is freely redistributable for non commercial projects, free, available in many languages and it is especially good in terms of understanding. | + | Then comes **MBrola**, although it is not free software |
We need to be able to use it. | We need to be able to use it. | ||
- | " | + | **Pico SVOX** |
evaluation_of_speech_synthesizers.1384371770.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/04/25 16:52 (external edit)