Digitalker, SP0256,and SC-01 speech chips (was Re: Digitalker Information)
steven.alan.canning at verizon.net
Sun Feb 3 15:54:32 CST 2008
The SP0256 had the best sounding speech I think ( it uses twice as many
speech sounds ( 128 allophones ? ) as the SC-01 only had 64 phonemes )).
The SC-01 is very easy to use ( it was used in the Heathkit Hero Robots )
but sounds very robotic and " nasal ". Heathkit Robots did have some songs
( like " Daisy " that HAL sang in 2001 ) but it sings as well as William
Shatner .... All depends on what you are looking for; quality or easy to
Best regards, Steven
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:23:09PM +0000, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> > On 31/01/2008 16:27, Jim Brain wrote:
> > >On a related topic, someone is offering to trade me some GI SP0256-AL2
> > >ICs for equipment here.
> > I always wanted to build a SC-01 or SP0256 phenome-based
> > >system to compare. Does anyone have experience in one or the other and
> > >can relate whether it's worth it to get an SP0256
> > The SP0256 sounds very robotic compared to the NS and Texas devices.
> > The SC-01 is reputedly better (variable pitch, for one thing) but I've
> > not got much experience of either.
> Amazingly enough, I happen to have all three sets here with me, the
> Digitalker (which I'm just learning about), the SP0256, which I've heard
> of, but never heard, and the SC-01, which I probably know the most about.
> I have an SC-01 in my RB5X robot here, and at home, in my Gorf arcade
> machine. The SC-01 is versatile enough that there's code for the RB5X
> to have it try and sing. I can't say that it's wonderful, but it does
> I will have to snarf a copy of those Digitalker docs when the our sat
> comes up. The board I have here, built around 1990, uses the original
> speech chip, but the ROM data is on a single, modern JEDEC EPROM, not
> a pair of smaller, cross-selected Nat-Semi ROMs. I'll have to do a bit
> of fiddling with the board itself - its CPU is an 8031, but the CPU
> crystal was broken off before I got the board. I was going to try 8MHz
> first, but it could be faster, I suppose. Assuming it's not some oddball
> frequency (the board has no serial comms, IIRC), I was thinking 8Mhz,
> 12Mhz, or 16Mhz.
More information about the cctech