3 ms·
Recording at a low (but still intelligible) bitrate and uploading it when connected to power would be pretty easy on the battery.
by mikeash 9y ago
Recording at a low (but still intelligible) bitrate and uploading it when connected to power would be pretty easy on the battery.
- kbenson 9y agoI'm not familiar with the current state of the art in speech recognition, is there a low bitrate which is still intelligible to speech recognition engines, or is this still a domain that the human brain has enough of an advantage?
- ryanplant-au 9y agoWhat do you consider to be low? Anecdotally, the Google app on my phone almost perfectly recognised, played over speakers, this fairly rapid dialogue between two people encoded as 6 Kbit/sec Opus. https://ryanplant.net/love.wav https://ryanplant.net/love.wav Its only mistake was missing the "you" in "you want to be." Codec2 remains fairly clear down to human ears down to 2.4 Kbit/sec but I had no luck getting it recognised, even with much simpler and clearer samples. This individual anecdote tells you nothing about the state of the art, but I wanted to note it anyway because I was astonished at how well 6 Kbit/sec is handled.
- oneweekwonder 9y agoI'm aware I don't know what I'm talking about. But the love.wav gives a bit rate of 768kbps, 6 sec of audio at 571 KB storage size. Another poster also did the math on 5.6 kbit/s (700 bytes/s). > 5.6 * 60 * 60 / 1024 / 8 = 2.4609375 MB/hr But should that 5.6 not be 768 to get love.wav voice quality? What am I missing like a moron? Thanks for the example and anecdote, something to actually grasp in trying to understand the problem.
- mikeash 9y agoThe wav file is decompressed, so you can’t just look at the size of the file.
- oneweekwonder 9y agoI'm not looking at the file size. I'm looking at the kbps the os reported for the wave file, which is 768kbps. Where 6 Kbit/sec mentioned.
- mikeash 9y agoThe reported kbps is just the file size divided by the duration.