3 ms·

I agree but > voice recognition needs the full spectrum for accuracy do you have a source for this? Voice signals are conventionally low-bandwidth; 16kHz is

• baq 10y ago
  yeah, i can't hear anything past 13.5kHz and can understand speech just fine. can't imagine why a computer couldn't.
  • nullc 10y ago
    Opus works great for speech recognition but I wanted to point out how your argument doesn't support the conclusion logically. Lets imagine that human speech had a nearly unique property of having another whole copy of the speech in the form of ultrasonic overtones at 10x the normal frequency at a loud volume. You couldn't hear them and yet you hear speech fine. But a computer could make good use of the ultrasound portion-- and maybe understand speech much better than you as a result. This isn't how it works in reality, but it does show a flaw in your logic.
    • cyphar 10y ago
      The argument is that if a human brain can recognise speech accurately without needing your hypotehtical ultrasonic overtones, why would a computer need them? Not to mention that most mid-range microphones won't pick up such overtones anyway. There isn't a flaw in their logic, you're just arguing that there might be more information that a computer can use -- but the fact that we don't need it leads to the conclusion that a computer doesn't need it either.