Hello, Eric Scheibler, on Fri 13 Jan 2017 13:04:24 +0100, wrote: > Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> schrieb am 12.01.2017, 3:50 +0100: > >Samuel Thibault, on Thu 12 Jan 2017 03:27:24 +0100, wrote: > >> I'm very surprised to see this 200 value, which means 200ms, while > >> studies have shown that "interactivity" is usually seen bad by humans > >> beyond 100ms. > >> > >> One thing we can do for Stretch is to reduce this value to something > >> acceptable. A low value make espeak-ng more CPU-intensive, but that > >> shouldn't be too harmful. > > > >I have uploaded a -6 version with 50ms as default. I couldn't notice > >a difference between 50ms and 20ms or 10ms, while being much less > >CPU-intensive, and that seems coherent with the result of the studies :) > > Installed version 1.49.0+dfsg-6. The delay/overlapping is still there.
Ok. I believe this is another issue, which I'll talk about espeakup too. > I'am not absolutely sure about that. Could you upload a new version with a > default value of 20 or > even 10 ms just for testing purposes? I have uploaded packages on https://people.debian.org/~sthibault/tmp/ which use the value from the ESPEAK_NG_BUFLEN environment variable, i.e. you run ESPEAK_NG_BUFLEN=10 brltty -s es blabla... to set to 10ms. I don't think it will change much the feeling you have. More to come in a further mail. > In general espeak-ng is much more responsive than the old espeak package I believe that's actually the culprit of the problem, more in the coming mail :) > and without the overlapping it would make for a much better user > experience. Good :) Samuel
