I'm not sure where the exact place to put this is, so if need be you can move to the proper forum. As an owner of many models of weatheradios through the years, I've always thought that it was a lot better with the human voices than computerized. Most NOAA channels have pretty much gotten better as far as human sounding, but a few are still off. What do you guys think? Better with human voice, or with the current computerized voices they have now?<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by JoeyDee_WOGL on 10/12/05 06:08 PM.</FONT></P>
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NOAA Weatherradio...
- Thread starter JoeyDee_WOGL
- Start date
E
eGillCVI
Guest
It was always better with the human voice. But why would they keep paying people to be the voice of these stations when they could make a huge one-time investment in this computerized system which will pay for itself over time?
If they made money off the stations somehow, then I could argue for keeping the humans...but even then I'd lose the argument. Commercial stations have been chucking their personalities in favor of computers for years and years!
> I'm not sure where the exact place to put this is, so if
> need be you can move to the proper forum. As an owner of
> many models of weatheradios through the years, I've always
> thought that it was a lot better with the human voices than
> computerized. Most NOAA channels have pretty much gotten
> better as far as human sounding, but a few are still off.
> What do you guys think? Better with human voice, or with the
> current computerized voices they have now?
>
If they made money off the stations somehow, then I could argue for keeping the humans...but even then I'd lose the argument. Commercial stations have been chucking their personalities in favor of computers for years and years!
> I'm not sure where the exact place to put this is, so if
> need be you can move to the proper forum. As an owner of
> many models of weatheradios through the years, I've always
> thought that it was a lot better with the human voices than
> computerized. Most NOAA channels have pretty much gotten
> better as far as human sounding, but a few are still off.
> What do you guys think? Better with human voice, or with the
> current computerized voices they have now?
>
B
BobAltimari
Guest
> It was always better with the human voice. But why would
> they keep paying people to be the voice of these stations
> when they could make a huge one-time investment in this
> computerized system which will pay for itself over time?
>
Good point (Don't tell Eg we agree on something). Let's see....they went from 24/7 staffing to a computer voice, with the "head meteorologist" relegated to Legal ID's and special announcements (such as the annual open house). I'd say there's some cash savings there.
> If they made money off the stations somehow, then I could
> argue for keeping the humans...but even then I'd lose the
> argument. Commercial stations have been chucking their
> personalities in favor of computers for years and years!
And don't be surprised if they take a cue from NOAA weather radio for the air talent in the (near) future.
BTW, as someone invited to the sessions to vote for the new voices, I guess you can blame me.....but, trust me, these were the best voices. Well, except for "Perfect Paul", who we UNANIMOUSLY voted down, but he is still on there giving time checks.
>
> > I'm not sure where the exact place to put this is, so if
> > need be you can move to the proper forum. As an owner of
> > many models of weatheradios through the years, I've always
>
> > thought that it was a lot better with the human voices
> than
> > computerized. Most NOAA channels have pretty much gotten
> > better as far as human sounding, but a few are still off.
> > What do you guys think? Better with human voice, or with
> the
> > current computerized voices they have now?
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
I've done it all...HOO HOO...tell 'em, Fred!
FOX News Alert: YOU SUCK!!! Ya like apples?</P>
> they keep paying people to be the voice of these stations
> when they could make a huge one-time investment in this
> computerized system which will pay for itself over time?
>
Good point (Don't tell Eg we agree on something). Let's see....they went from 24/7 staffing to a computer voice, with the "head meteorologist" relegated to Legal ID's and special announcements (such as the annual open house). I'd say there's some cash savings there.
> If they made money off the stations somehow, then I could
> argue for keeping the humans...but even then I'd lose the
> argument. Commercial stations have been chucking their
> personalities in favor of computers for years and years!
And don't be surprised if they take a cue from NOAA weather radio for the air talent in the (near) future.
BTW, as someone invited to the sessions to vote for the new voices, I guess you can blame me.....but, trust me, these were the best voices. Well, except for "Perfect Paul", who we UNANIMOUSLY voted down, but he is still on there giving time checks.
>
> > I'm not sure where the exact place to put this is, so if
> > need be you can move to the proper forum. As an owner of
> > many models of weatheradios through the years, I've always
>
> > thought that it was a lot better with the human voices
> than
> > computerized. Most NOAA channels have pretty much gotten
> > better as far as human sounding, but a few are still off.
> > What do you guys think? Better with human voice, or with
> the
> > current computerized voices they have now?
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
I've done it all...HOO HOO...tell 'em, Fred!
FOX News Alert: YOU SUCK!!! Ya like apples?</P>
K
KML0224
Guest
Re: NOAA Weather Radio
Here in greater Hartford, CT, our NOAA Weather Radio station transmits from West Peak in Meriden, CT (15 miles south-southwest of Hartford). There's a male computer voice, the same one you probably hear on Philly's station. Occasionally, there's a female voice which pops up on our station that will say things like "Long Island Sound forecast..." or "Coastal waters from Chatham, MA to Watch Hill, RI, out to 1,000 fathoms...". As a gag, I pretend that these two voices are "husband" and "wife". Imagine the posibilities!
P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station transmit from? My Walkman seems to get the best signal near City Hall and heading east down Market towards the Gallery Mall and the Greyhound/Peter Pan bus terminal.
Here in greater Hartford, CT, our NOAA Weather Radio station transmits from West Peak in Meriden, CT (15 miles south-southwest of Hartford). There's a male computer voice, the same one you probably hear on Philly's station. Occasionally, there's a female voice which pops up on our station that will say things like "Long Island Sound forecast..." or "Coastal waters from Chatham, MA to Watch Hill, RI, out to 1,000 fathoms...". As a gag, I pretend that these two voices are "husband" and "wife". Imagine the posibilities!
P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station transmit from? My Walkman seems to get the best signal near City Hall and heading east down Market towards the Gallery Mall and the Greyhound/Peter Pan bus terminal.
>
> BTW, as someone invited to the sessions to vote for the new
> voices, I guess you can blame me.....but, trust me, these
> were the best voices. Well, except for "Perfect Paul", who
> we UNANIMOUSLY voted down, but he is still on there giving
> time checks.
>
I believe "Paul" still does weather forecasts as well on 162.550 in NYC.
> BTW, as someone invited to the sessions to vote for the new
> voices, I guess you can blame me.....but, trust me, these
> were the best voices. Well, except for "Perfect Paul", who
> we UNANIMOUSLY voted down, but he is still on there giving
> time checks.
>
I believe "Paul" still does weather forecasts as well on 162.550 in NYC.
C
crisisbroadcast
Guest
Re: NOAA Weather Radio
> P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station
> transmit from? My Walkman seems to get the best signal near
> City Hall and heading east down Market towards the Gallery
> Mall and the Greyhound/Peter Pan bus terminal.
It wouldn't transmit from the Weather Service in Mount Holly, would it?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station
> transmit from? My Walkman seems to get the best signal near
> City Hall and heading east down Market towards the Gallery
> Mall and the Greyhound/Peter Pan bus terminal.
It wouldn't transmit from the Weather Service in Mount Holly, would it?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
E
elevator_opratr
Guest
Re: NOAA Weather Radio
I'm not a huge fan of the automated voice either, but besides saving money, it actually could be a live-saving measure.
Imagine a tornado is heading for a certain town within 5 minutes. It takes precious time to print out a report, go into a studio, record it, and then cue it for airplay.
A computer can see the warning and within seconds turn it into an automated-voice broadcast. For this reason, I support the use of the computer voices.
I'm not a huge fan of the automated voice either, but besides saving money, it actually could be a live-saving measure.
Imagine a tornado is heading for a certain town within 5 minutes. It takes precious time to print out a report, go into a studio, record it, and then cue it for airplay.
A computer can see the warning and within seconds turn it into an automated-voice broadcast. For this reason, I support the use of the computer voices.
W
westlife
Guest
Re: NOAA Weatherradio... try them on your PC!
> I believe "Paul" still does weather forecasts as well on
> 162.550 in NYC.
Perfect Paul still does portions of the weather broadcasts on NYC's 162.55. The new male and female voices do most of the weather announcements, though. However, Paul also does anything which does not change on a day-to-day basis, such as the station ID and time checks. And NYC's 162.55 was not the first to use the new voices. I remember hearing them on 162.45 from Howell, NJ quite a while before they were first heard on 162.55.
Perfect Paul does have very good and very consistent pronunciation and cadence -- that's probably why they call him "Perfect". However, he could never be mistaken for anything other than a synthesized voice. The new male and female voices are much more natural-sounding, however, they both tend to jumble the words together at time, and have trouble pronouncing some words correctly.
You can test out the new voices yourself on this site -- the ones NOAA uses are "Mike" and "Crystal":
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html>http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html</a>
There's also "Rich" (a "black" male with a deep voice), Lauren (a young female who sounds a bit like Avril Lavigne), and "Claire" (an older woman who sounds like Florence Henderson). The UK English voices are also fun to try if you want a British accent -- "Charles" sounds like a snooty old butler (perhaps they should've called him "Jeeves"!), while "Audrey" is a more contemporary female British voice.
<P ID="signature">______________
"This is the New York Emergency Broadcast System satellite channel. They took the crosstown bus."</P>
> I believe "Paul" still does weather forecasts as well on
> 162.550 in NYC.
Perfect Paul still does portions of the weather broadcasts on NYC's 162.55. The new male and female voices do most of the weather announcements, though. However, Paul also does anything which does not change on a day-to-day basis, such as the station ID and time checks. And NYC's 162.55 was not the first to use the new voices. I remember hearing them on 162.45 from Howell, NJ quite a while before they were first heard on 162.55.
Perfect Paul does have very good and very consistent pronunciation and cadence -- that's probably why they call him "Perfect". However, he could never be mistaken for anything other than a synthesized voice. The new male and female voices are much more natural-sounding, however, they both tend to jumble the words together at time, and have trouble pronouncing some words correctly.
You can test out the new voices yourself on this site -- the ones NOAA uses are "Mike" and "Crystal":
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html>http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html</a>
There's also "Rich" (a "black" male with a deep voice), Lauren (a young female who sounds a bit like Avril Lavigne), and "Claire" (an older woman who sounds like Florence Henderson). The UK English voices are also fun to try if you want a British accent -- "Charles" sounds like a snooty old butler (perhaps they should've called him "Jeeves"!), while "Audrey" is a more contemporary female British voice.
<P ID="signature">______________
"This is the New York Emergency Broadcast System satellite channel. They took the crosstown bus."</P>
D
dvarp
Guest
Re: NOAA Weather Radio
> P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station
> transmit from?
Roxborough, or at least the PA transportation map that shows their xmtr says so.
And yeah, I agree the automation was a good idea. Lets NOAA put its effort into weather rather than studio work.
Matt Mitchell
(has two SAABs equipped with WB radio standard)
> P.S. Where does the Philly NOAA Weather Radio station
> transmit from?
Roxborough, or at least the PA transportation map that shows their xmtr says so.
And yeah, I agree the automation was a good idea. Lets NOAA put its effort into weather rather than studio work.
Matt Mitchell
(has two SAABs equipped with WB radio standard)
- Status