I wonder if one of the reasons Hawking was so tied to that specific voice and hardware was so that there could be a way to verify that a recording was actually him. If nobody else had that hardware and software combo, it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to put words into his mouth.
With that in mind, it was nice to read that the original CallText boards as well as the emulator are with the family. That should provide the security to ensure that nobody can impersonate him in the future.
He was so tied to that specific voice, because that was his voice. If someone told you that today, you get a completely new voice, would you? It just so happens that this particular synthetic voice was attached to an extremely popular person, and it was his identifying trait.
Lots of people do. Politicians are well known for changing their speech later in life in order to convey a different feeling, usually "confident and statesman-like".
Personally I modify my speech by context, just as I modify my writing. When I'm "home" (where I grew up, my parent's house) I emphasise my accent a little more, just as I use local slang.
Some people, subconsciously echo a speaking-partners accent - changing the tone, timbre, inflections, and such between conversations.
But yes, you're right that voice was strongly linked to his identity as is often the case for prolific public speakers.
Hmm, I'd recognise the change in slang as form of code-switching, but the change in tone/accent I didn't think was part of that specifically as it's within the same language.
If using a different accent (different range of frequency, different speed, different tone) isn't changing one's voice then I'm not sure what really counts? At this point it sounds like you're trying to use a non-physics based concept for voice [the parameters of sound produced by vocalisation].
The movie "Do I Sound Gay" has an interesting take on this kind of thing. There's a stereotype of the "gay voice" (a bit higher-pitch, with sibilance on the "s"es, commonly incorrectly called a lisp). The 'intensity' of the voice-modifications depends largely on one's social environment. I don't remember the movie using the term "code-switching", but it certainly did seem like the same thing. I notice this myself - if I'm with other gay men I do usually adopt a bit of a changed speech-pattern totally unconsciously.
Speech is so nuanced; it really seems true that 80% of what you say has little to do with the words themselves.
English word choice is confusing here because voice can be "the style of speech/writing".
By changing [style of] their speech I mean the frequency, timbre, intonations, accent, nasality, etc., and NOT words, or content (which obviously can also be changed).
There are often key elements that match based on morphology of the vocal apparatus, but if I speak like a toff with a cold vs. a barrel-chested Nor'n Irelander there's little ID left.
Good mimics, those who have radio/TV shows for example, can if they choose leave nothing for a normal listener to distinguish their speech from that of the subject of their mimicry. Impressionists tend to charicateur their subjects somewhat, however.
In UK it used to be relatively common to have a "telephone choice" that would sometimes confuse even close acquaintances in to thinking you were someone else.
Another common example is when taking different languages one has a different voice.
Can't it? I have no idea but if you can train to speak in a different voice, how is that not changing your voice? Maybe I won't be able to speak like someone of the opposite gender because I don't have vocal chords like that, but learning to speak like someone with a similar body should be doable, no? Or can speech recognition systems really pick this out somehow and is there really the concept of a unique voice to a person?
Actually, though, the voice was a standard, default part of the DECTalk system, called "Perfect Paul". There were a few other options. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pewe2gPDk4
In general, there's no security to be had in unique the sound of someone's voice. It is too easy to impersonate.
> it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to put words into his mouth.
You can copy normal voices, you can copy his voice and you can fully impersonate people and even create fake videos.
If security was his intent, he should have used cryptographic signatures for his texts or voice recordings, but even that can be compromised.
I think he just liked his voice and wanted it to be unique. It's understandable and most people would do the same.
I know of one other commercial synthesizer based on the Klatt model, DECtalk. (In fact, DECtalk is the product that Dennis Klatt went on to create after his research at MIT.) I wonder if DECtalk is close enough that it would fool most people. Here's a clip I made with DECtalk 4.50 (the last good version of that synth IMO, from the 90s):
With that in mind, it was nice to read that the original CallText boards as well as the emulator are with the family. That should provide the security to ensure that nobody can impersonate him in the future.