Re: Hey andy t (speech recognition)

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote in message
news:270920090547306350%. ..
>
> Hey Andrew, a top-of-the-line speech app like
> Dragon NaturallySpeaking can keep up with a
> fast talker speaking at 603 wpm, like in this
> video clip.
>
> Notice the computer in the background changing
> that fast talking to text.
>
> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9133107326478615205&hl=en#>

Hey Mark Conrad!

Very impressive, but nowhere in that clip does it mention or show they are
using Dragon Naturally Speaking for the experiment. They were using a much,
more sophisticated, speech recognition, machine device in a laboratory.
This was under controlled conditions, specifically designed for that type of
experiment and speed.

No one on this earth could understand a word she says at that speed and that
would include speech apps like Dragon and WSR, which, if she dictated like
that to any of those apps, there would be untold mistakes and most of it
would come out like gobbledygook. You would probably be spending most of
your time correcting every word in that particular citation. I am guessing
that the equipment they were using in that lab for that experiment is in the
hundreds of thousands if not more. In any case, the equipment was way over
our heads and a little bit more expensive than even Dragon Medical.

If you also listen to the narrator, he mentions that she can speak around
600 wpm. He then goes on to say that this is 10 times faster than the
average person does. So going on that assumption, my reckoning is the
average person dictates or speaks at 60 wpm.

The narrator also mentions that when she reads out the Gettysburg Address,
she is six times faster than Abraham Lincoln was, who by all accounts, must
have been a faster speaker than the average person. Once again, by my
reckoning, that still just comes out at 100 wpm.

Having said that, she is an exception to the cause and after all, she is the
fastest speaker in the world. Thanks for pointing it out though Mark. It
was very interesting and fascinating to watch but you really have not proved
anything by pointing out that clip. Nice try though.

As I said before Mark, I already have Dragon 10 (which someone bought for
me) and I do use it now and again but the fact remains, I have got so used
to using WSR that I always go back to what I know best and which suits my
needs more satisfactorily. By doing this, I have found that I am much
faster, not only with dictation but also with the 'commands' side as well,
compared to Dragon.

I can whizz around the computer at a reasonable speed because, I am not some
part timer like you, who only uses it to perform meaningless tests and then
reverts to typing because he cannot be bothered to use it all the time as I
do. For me, it is a lot more than a hobby because I USE IT ALL THE TIME.

I have found so many different useful commands, macros and stuff that I
didn't even know about in the last year, just by asking in the WSR Website
and experts like Brad T, Rob chambers and Marty. There is no need for me at
the moment to change and learn a completely different set of speech
recognition instructions, commands etc.

> Only reason I mention this is because you
> let it slip in one of your old posts that you
> dictate at 20 to 30 wpm.
> (average speed including time correcting text)

You misunderstood in that post, or perhaps I did not make myself clear. I
got that information from a Website from someone who was a beginner and had
just started using it with no training at all. He mentioned that he got 20
to 30 words per minute and asked 'was this the norm'. Many people answered
who had been using it a lot longer and some of them were getting between
140-160 wpm.

Do you really think I would bother if all I could dictate were 20 to 30
words a minute? I decided to try an experiment of my own, so I timed myself
deliberately. This post has taken me about 35-37 minutes to dictate and
that includes all punctuation, moving the paragraphs about to where I want
them, cutting in with my text, looking up and putting in the URL's, looking
up old posts and sorting out what I needed, then placing them in this post
and finally, correction. I had about four corrections and two of them were
homonyms. Count the number of words I have dictated in this post and work
it out for yourself.

You know how long I have been using WSR now, you were there, right at the
beginning of when I started using speech recognition altogether. Back then,
I was dictating using WSR with my laptops, integral microphone and I hardly
knew anything about using it then.

If I wanted to and I have tried this, if I speak with something written down
on paper, so I do not need to think about what I am going to say, (I read
out a letter without looking at the screen). I got up to 140-150 wpm, which
included punctuation, no pauses in between and correcting two mistakes.
Sometimes, when I tried, I could do a little more at a push but I cannot,
literally speak any faster than that, nor can most people which is why I do
not believe your claims because they are utterly ridiculous.

If I tried to speak any faster, what I was trying to say would not make any
sense. As I said before, perhaps I am not a fast speaker, but it is fast
enough for me and definitely much faster than most typists can type.
Besides, I have told you, I do not dictate that way anyway. It is not
written down for me in the first place because I like to think as to what I
want to say.

Now look at this video, which is a bit more realistic AND TRUE. The man
with the beard is using DNS. He has to SPEAK CLEARLY and mentions he gets
150 wpm and you will notice he had some corrections proving it is not 100%
accurate. No app is, despite your false claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PgLQWeGoXs

I can get 150 wpm with WSR. This includes all punctuation, no pauses and
minimal corrections, no problem at all.

These, are some of the WSR commands that can be used. Notice how fast this
guy is. That is how fast I get around my computer if I want to with no
problems at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJyqvcAXe0

> IMO, most of the benefits of using a speech app
> disappear for normal users if the average speed
> of dictation falls below that of a normal typist,
> say at 45 wpm for example.

I totally agree with you above, that is why I use WSR and my dictation speed
is over three times that amount if I wish it to be. (Once again, see above).
:-))

These are just some of the corrections I made to a couple of your last
posts, just to point out and show once again, what a real, dumb MF, you
really are!

> Now Andrew, you poor confused useless soul, you
> probably do not know the definition of a list.

Yes I do, you don't.

Have a look at these you imbecile.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/list.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/list
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/list_1?view=uk

List: noun - A series of related words, names, numbers or other items that
are arranged in order, ONE AFTER THE OTHER

List: transitive verb - To arrange a series of related words, names, numbers
or other items that are arranged in order, ONE AFTER THE OTHER

Consistantly, grammer, Vitrolic, mistakingly, Dispite, embarassed,
repititions, preceeding.- Spelling mistakes - All dictated by Dragon
Naturally Speaking Medical.^A LIST: A series of related words, names, numbers or other items that are
arranged in order, ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

You show me where it is written in stone, that a list has to be a series of
words one underneath the other?

You posted this:

> list (noun)
> -------
> A number of connected items or names written or printed
> consecutively, *typically one below the other*.

Now you show me the URL where it says the wording you posted above between
the two asterisks, regarding the definition of list.

Consecutively, yes, but that does not necessarily mean typically one below
the other. All it means is ONE AFTER THE OTHER. Let's see you wriggle out
of that one Mr. Harry Houdini, O slippery one.

> I better offer to look over your shoulder and guide you

No thanks. I do not need any illiterate, imbecile dragging me down. As for
dumb as a rock, how do you feel now you useless cretin.

> to understand the definition of a list, being you are
> still as dumb as a rock.

If I am as dumb as a rock, where does that put you? Probably in with the
single celled pond life.

> > You have been told repeatedly by me that I _never_ use
> > Dragon to write these usenet posts.
^
Um, Usenet should be capitalised, as it is a NAME of a system for
distributing articles of news.
Tut, tut!

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/usenet.html

> > You have been told repeatedly by me that I _never_ use
> > Dragon to write these usenet posts.

No one uses Dragon to *write* per se, as you have incorrectly put above. It
is impossible to use Dragon to write. You can *dictate* using Dragon, but
you definitely cannot write using Dragon. Does your brain hurt?

> > You have been told repeatedly by me that I _never_ use
> > Dragon to write these usenet posts.

Then, by your own admission above, it really shows what an illiterate cretin
you really are. Didn't do very well at school with English, did you. I bet
you heard the words 'Must do better' quite a few times when you were at
school. Now you are eighty odd and you are STILL just as illiterate!

Come to think of it, why do you not use Dragon to dictate your Usenet posts?
You would think as you profess that; if it were as fast as you say it is and
illiterate as you are, it would make more sense to dictate your posts would
it not.

> > You have been told repeatedly by me that I _never_ use
> > Dragon to write these usenet posts.

And you have been told repeatedly by me that it CAN and HAS happened, to me,
or I must have the only version of Dragon 10 that spelt *embarrassed* with
one 'r' and I have found some mistakes came up in WSR as well, when
dictation to the screen took place.

In each app, I have had to correct spelling mistakes made by dictation
myself, so they are now spelt properly when I dictate that word to the
screen. There have been others, I have had to correct, on BOTH speech apps.

I guess when you think about is logically, all these speech apps are
programmed by human beings. The one thing we know about human beings, is
that they are fallible and prone to HUMAN ERROR.

When you think of the thousands and thousands of words that are put into
these programmes, it is not surprising that there is the odd word that is
spelt wrong. Fortunately, it can easily be put right by the user but I
stress, it CAN happen and HAS happened, to me. I have no reason to lie.

>That is easy. Your own malformed sentence:
>Andrew carelessly posted:
>-----------------
>Consistantly, grammer, Vitrolic, mistakingly, Dispite, embarassed,
>repititions, preceeding.- Spelling mistakes - All dictated by Dragon
>Naturally Speaking Medical.
-----------------
>*ALL* those words in your malformed sentence can be looked up
>by anyone who has Dragon, and *ALL* those words will be
>missing from the Dragon vocabulary.
>It is therefore impossible for Dragon to generate "grammer"
>for example because "grammer" is *NOT* in its vocabulary.

It is not impossible for Dragon, or any speech app for that matter to
generate the odd word that is spelt incorrectly for the reason I explained
above. It has happened to me before my very eyes with Dragon and WSR, which
I had to correct so that it spelt the word correctly in the future. Why
would I lie about something that happened before my very eyes?

Perhaps I have the only copy of Dragon 10 that could not spell the word
*embarrassed* with two r's. To add to this, I tried it more than once to
see if it was a fluke and Dragon spelt it the same again, with only one 'r'.

>> Prove it!
>> You can't.

> I just did.

You have proved nothing and it is impossible for you to prove. We have only
your word for it. The so-called proof you are giving on the screen is in
your deranged head and not true.

> Again you are sloppy with your posting, the same as you were when
> you confused a sentence with a list.
> (comes from you being as dumb as a rock)
^
Already proved you wrong on that score. ('Gloat Gloat') :-) seems you are
the one that is confused. The old senile dementia is getting worse Mark.

> You failed to specify which "speed tests" you were referring to.

Any of your home, grown bull **** that you put on the screen and then tell
us how fast it took you to dictate.

Once again, the onus is on you to prove it and you cannot. This is the
simple truth.

> Being you failed to specify, I can only guess that you mean
> you do not believe anything I post about my experience with
> "Dragon speed tests".
> That is your choice, but it is a rather stupid choice.
> (comes from you being as dumb as a rock)

Why is it a stupid choice? Because YOU say, 'it is true'. Once again that
proves nothing and don't flatter yourself. I say prove it. You cannot.
They are just words that you have put on the screen and then said how fast
it took you to dictate. Anyone can do that.

So it is not a stupid choice, it is just the fact that you cannot prove it
and your mightier than thou arrogance and conceited lies are there to be
proved. I do not believe you. You have delusions of grandeur and coupled
with that, you cannot spell properly. It sort of takes away the moral high
ground from those claims of yours. :-)

> I have no reason for lying about such matters, because I am
> just as quick to point out Dragons flaws
> as anyone else here is.

You have every reason to lie and we STILL have only your word for your
ridiculous claims. You STILL have not proved anything!

> It does little good to dictate at 160wpm if the correction
> process drags the overall speed down to 40wpm.

I have told you how fast I can dictate if I wish. This includes all
punctuation and any correction needed. (See above). I find the correction
rate very low with WSR but then mine is properly trained. I am not just
talking about the preliminary training at the beginning, but several
documents put through the WSRToolkit's 'train from text' feature and then
dictated. Then, there are the many documents of mine that I have put
through the 'add from file' feature, which has boosted my particular
accuracy, no end and easily matches my Dragon 10.

>Might as well type it in and save all the money you
>would have wasted on speech recognition.

In your case, for your sake, I suggest you steer well clear of typing as you
obviously cannot spell properly. Try using it all the time as have I to
instead of dictating a couple of phrases and then reverting to typing being
the part timer you are.

>Might as well type it in and save all the money you
>would have wasted on speech recognition.

Ah, but you see dear fellow, firstly I have told you how fast I can dictate,
so your statement above falls flat in that department.

Secondly, WSR comes within a whole operating system, whether it be Windows
Vista or Windows 7 and it is STILL cheaper than Dragon Medical.

I believe I am getting very good value for my money as I can do just the
same with WSR as you can do with, what I believe to be, an overpriced piece
of software.

There is no way on this planet I would spend that amount of my own money on
a piece of speech recognition software, when I have it already in my OS.

As I have said before, in October, I will be obtaining Windows 7 and Dragon
Professional, but I will not be buying them with my own money. They will
both be free from a Charity. :-)

I will also be getting some free tutoring on the Dragon Professional.
Perhaps I may get into it a bit more, although it will mean learning
completely different commands and dictation protocol. We shall see.

As for your statements regarding microphones, I actually agree with some of
them.

I use the MD 431 ll. I use it in bed and the bed on its own, makes a
continuing buzzing sound to keep the mattress pumped up. Then I have the
television on in the background and I have the fan buzzing. It does not
affect my speech recognition's accuracy one jot.

Then as you say, in a different surrounding, it could act differently. So a
change of scenery. When I am in the dining room using it, I have the
television on, I have the patio doors open so you can hear the birds
singing. There are also background sounds; people mowing their lawn,
builders working, the washing machine going berserk in the kitchen next to
the dining room. The dog is barking in the background sometimes, it makes
no difference to the accuracy of that particular microphone.

Marti uses it as well apparently, at a busy trade fair where there are
noises coming from all sorts of directions in a vast expanse of space.
Apparently he uses it for demonstrations just because it is that type of
environment. Guess what. It works perfect there as well and picks up
hardly any background noise.

Don't take my word for it, read this.

http://www.mymsspeech.com/microphone...nnheiser_MD431

I listen to people who are an authority on the subject, not some wannabe.

The Buddy Desktop on the other hand, will pick up all the noises around me
and you need a fairly quiet environment for this microphone to be really
effective. The difference between this and the MD 431 ll, is staggeringly
noticeable.

The ME3 headset is far more noise cancelling than the Buddy and with this
microphone, I can also have the television and fan on and the bed noises are
not a problem. This is mainly because the microphone element is right by
the mouth. The sound meter with this and the MD 431 with all my appliances
on, does not even register when I am not saying anything.

Having said that, I have noticed a slightly better accuracy on dictation
with the MD 431 and it picks up the small words much easier than any other
microphone I have used. Words like 'a', 'an', 'and', 'the', 'there' and
'then' to name a few.

So you see, contrary to what you say, there ARE differences in accuracy with
different microphones in different environments and I have just given you
the differences between three, very different microphones.

andy t

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote in message
news:300920090015048432%. ..
> In article <>, andy t
> <none-> wrote:
>
>> And you have been told repeatedly by me that it CAN and HAS happened, to
>> me,
>> or I must have the only version of Dragon 10 that spelt *embarrassed*
>> with
>> one 'r' and I have found some mistakes came up in WSR as well, when
>> dictation to the screen took place.
>
> My, my, if you were not as dumb as a rock, you would
> have been able to figure out what had likely happened.

> Unlike the toy WSR that you run, Dragon is designed
> to be highly configurable.
>
> That means that built-in words can be *deleted*
> you imbecile, unlike the toy WSR where this
> is impossible.

So by your statement above, you admit it can happen. My point is proved.

WSR maybe a toy to you, probably because you do not know how to use it
properly, but it is a way of life for me because I USE IT ALL THE TIME! I
am not some wannabe, part timer like you!

> All your remaining lies will be handled in due course,
> one-by-one, as I do not want to become the blowhard
> that you are, with your scores of points which
> should be handled one a time, in separate posts.

Calm down Mark, we do not want you having a heart attack, especially at your
age, just because you have been proved wrong!

They are not lies. Any sensible person can see that, with the proof that I
put up. It is you that is in the lying department pretending that Dragon
can rattle out 600 words a minute by speaking like that lady does in the
video clip you posted LOL! That is just one of your lies.

Pretending that you knew the definition of the word *list* then hopelessly
trying to justify it without any proof! Another one of your lies. Shall I
go on?

You go ahead and handle what you like in separate posts, I really do not
care. You have obviously got too much time on your hands and have nothing
better to do.

I am done with answering and correcting the crap you come out with. I have
better things to spend my time on than to fuel a conversation with a sad
old, illiterate imbecile, such as you, who is beneath me.

So you go ahead and post your usual crap. Because without me answering and
correcting you, the sad old person that you are, will be talking to himself.
Still, I bet you are quite used to that anyway!

andy t

MWAHAHAHAHAHAH

INTERNET WAS INVENTED FOR MILITARY, ACDEMIA/RESEARCH, I MEQAN SMARTEST
PEOPLE ON EARTH.
IT WAS CREATED BY ENGINEERS AS USUAL.

AND THENB IT TURNED INTO A PORN SHOP AND MUTUAL INSULTS.
;LOOK AT YOURSELF MAN, LOOK AT YOUR WRITING.
YOU SAID AN INSULTING WORD FOR EVERY DOZEN OF NORMAL WORDS

YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
THE INSULTS LOSE SHOCKING VALUE, YOU DEVALUE.

SAY F WORD 100 TIMES AND F U BECOME "LOVE YOU".