Re:Google claims near-human accuracy at imitating a person s...
by allan_s on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @05:15PM
(#16018511)
I know nothing in text to speech, so maybe my question is stupid, but I've always wondered if somebody tried to produce "natural" sound by modelizing the air through a human mouth+throat+nose, so that your would have the "naturalness" of the voice (especially if you add the dynamics part, like air volume in the lungs that force you to pause, time it takes to reposition the tongue/mouth between two sounds) , or if it's actually more complicated than that/too ressource heavy/too hard to modelize etc.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google claims near-human accuracy at imitating a person s...
by jug on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @07:52PM
(#16019441)
This would be a start... ;) https://dood.al/pinktrombone/
Re:Google claims near-human accuracy at imitating a person s...
by ewrcoffee on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @06:08PM
(#16018895)
I think the point of machine learning is that such detailed models do not need to be explicitly modeled, but as some implicit layers to learn.
Re:Google claims near-human accuracy at imitating a person s...
by rspeer on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @10:50PM
(#16020187)
It's better to have the right explicit features in your model than implicit ones. It's just harder to know how to make those features, and to know that they're right, which is part of the appeal of implicit features.