|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: There *is* hope for a cleaner spoken voicefont.There *is* hope for a cleaner spoken voicefont.
From: Christi Alice Scarborough <christi_at_chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:10:22 +0100 Two pieces of good news wrt the spoken voicefont. I've been mailed offlist by someone who has tried Nero 6's Noise Reduction on the samples, and the results are, if not quite perfect, pretty good. There doesn't seem to be any way to automate this process though. Also, I've faked up a "poor woman's pre-amp setup" using a Realistic 33-9031 500 ohm dynamic microphone connected up to my ageing (12 year old!) stereo's mic input and headphones output connected to the sound card's line in. This does, as others have suggested, produce a much cleaner sound, Given the clipping present in the first voicefont, my instinct tells me that it would be worth re-recording. It might even be possible not to have to hand clip the samples this time, which is more time consuming than the recording and, it appears, not done very well by me. Also, if I'm going to do this properly, I should probably invest in a mic pre-amp. (They're a not too unreasonable 20 pounds or so from Richer Sounds.) I'm pretty certain the samples weren't as badly clipped in the initial WAVs as they sound on the Jukebox. Could the MP3 encoding process have caused greater clipping? Does the JB definitely play the whole sample? Finally, are there enough potential users of the spoken voicefont that it's worth me putting in another day or so's effort on re-doing it? I'll not be doing anything to it for a week or so anyway, since I'm currently working on the manual for 2.3. Thanks, Christi _______________________________________________ http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox Received on 2004-06-14 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |