4 ms·

good point, will add this information. in short, german and english, because those are the languages i am comfortable with. i hope to find native speakers contr

by ftreml 7y ago

good point, will add this information. in short, german and english, because those are the languages i am comfortable with. i hope to find native speakers contributing more languages. deepspeech was evaluated, but right now kaldi provides better performance, thats why we stick to kaldi by default.

magicalhippo 7y ago
> deepspeech was evaluated, but right now kaldi provides better performance Was this before the streaming API was added to DeepSpeech? I recently did some testing with it, and it provides text within ~100ms of last audio block on my PC. edit: that is, the most significant latency I had was from having to wait a bit to detect end of speech.
- ftreml 7y ago
  with "performance" i meant the error rate, not the speed. speed was not a criteria for us, so we didnt evaluate it. i read that deepspeech is way quicker in training phase as it is smarter in using gpu computing power.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    Ahh gotcha. Yes I got rather poor "hit rate" until I made my own language model. Fortunately for me I only needed it for command recognition, so the process was quite quick, and results were very good. No need to retrain the net.
    - ftreml 7y ago
      we used a context-free data set, augmented with additional domain-specific sound samples and it worked out fine, although the additiinal samples made nearly no difference
StudentStuff 7y ago
Mozilla DeepSpeech has seen significant improvements in the quality of results it provides (and RAM/CPU usage) since early December, the accuracy of transcriptions has substantially improved in our testing.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  Can you provide some quantifiable results, like word error rate or something? Do you think it is better than what Kaldi offers currently? (In terms of accuracy, not in terms of computational performance.)
  - StudentStuff 7y ago
    Every release mentions the word error rate, its interesting to watch the WER improve over time: https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases

by ftreml 7y ago

magicalhippo 7y ago

> deepspeech was evaluated, but right now kaldi provides better performance Was this before the streaming API was added to DeepSpeech? I recently did some testing with it, and it provides text within ~100ms of last audio block on my PC. edit: that is, the most significant latency I had was from having to wait a bit to detect end of speech.

ftreml 7y ago
with "performance" i meant the error rate, not the speed. speed was not a criteria for us, so we didnt evaluate it. i read that deepspeech is way quicker in training phase as it is smarter in using gpu computing power.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  Ahh gotcha. Yes I got rather poor "hit rate" until I made my own language model. Fortunately for me I only needed it for command recognition, so the process was quite quick, and results were very good. No need to retrain the net.
  - ftreml 7y ago
    we used a context-free data set, augmented with additional domain-specific sound samples and it worked out fine, although the additiinal samples made nearly no difference

StudentStuff 7y ago

Mozilla DeepSpeech has seen significant improvements in the quality of results it provides (and RAM/CPU usage) since early December, the accuracy of transcriptions has substantially improved in our testing.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
Can you provide some quantifiable results, like word error rate or something? Do you think it is better than what Kaldi offers currently? (In terms of accuracy, not in terms of computational performance.)
- StudentStuff 7y ago
  Every release mentions the word error rate, its interesting to watch the WER improve over time: https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases