4 ms·
I wouldn't blame the audio quality. It is more about different humans have different kinds of accent which makes the same word sound differently. Considering th
by rajeshp1986 10y ago
I wouldn't blame the audio quality. It is more about different humans have different kinds of accent which makes the same word sound differently. Considering the different accents, I would say 6% error rate is pretty good compared where we started.
- aswanson 10y agoWhy shouldn't the audio quality factor in? Isn't it easier to understand 44.1 Khz 16 bit CD quality audio than 8khz 8 bit pcm (phone data).
- rhizome 10y agoIt might be, but the resource demands of higher fidelity acoustic models slows processing down. 44.1/16 has an order of magnitude greater bitrate than 8/8.
- dharma1 10y agoI guess the point of this particular data set is to check performance on low quality phone audio
- rhizome 10y agoThe base product use case has been to handle phone fidelity for many years. Think: legal dictation, retail digital recording hardware (phones), and medical transcription. Speech-to-text for recordings fed by a Telefunken U-47 is highly niche. :)
- dharma1 10y agoheh. It's not so much because of the microphones that the data sets are THAT narrow band - it's more phone bandwidth limitations. Even the cheapest electret and MEMS mics have pretty good freq response, far beyond 4khz (nyquist 8khz) this data set uses. Now that bandwidth is becoming less of an issue, we will be getting less shitty sounding, wider bandwidth phone audio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_audio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_audio Though if I had it my way, U87 or U47, or hey even SM7B would be mandatory for all speech recordings :)