- - - Can NS Pro do this?

47 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Conrad

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 12:23:22 AM10/16/05
to

Will the most recent version of Naturally Speaking Pro allow me to
merely speak in dictation, _without_ converting it to text?

The reason I want to do this, is because I want to record the audio
only in the form of an audio "WAV" file, on a very slow PC that does
not have the speed to properly handle speech dictation.

My aim is to then move the WAV file to a faster PC, and do the
conversion to text on the fast PC.

Possible?

Mark-

John Doe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 10:43:20 AM10/16/05
to
Mark Conrad <NoSpam...@invalid.com> wrote:

I think you could just dictate into sound recorder. I'm not sure
whether the speech recognition can handle input from a wave file,
but it probably can since it is able to translate from a recorder.
Speaking of... maybe you could use a compatible voice recorder.

Please report back on how things go, if you actually do any of the
experimentation you have talked about.

Mark Conrad

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 11:51:32 AM10/16/05
to
In article <Xns96F162E6D...@207.115.17.102>, John Doe
<jd...@usenet.love.invalid> wrote:

> I think you could just dictate into sound recorder.

Yes, I thought of that approach, however I hesitate to do it that way
for several reasons.

1) Recorder introduces another "layer" where its
(minor) distortion can enter the picture, as contrasted
with just dictating directly into the computer.

2) Present day digital recorders supported by Scansoft
are not as tiny and sexy as the older Sony model ICD-MS1
that they used to support years ago. I could literally put
that excellent recorder in my shirt pocket and have it
"disappear" there without hardly a trace. Quality and
sensitivety were excellent.

I have not really looked at all the features of the most recent version
of Dragon Naturally Speaking Pro, to see if what I want to do is
supported or not.

I know NS Pro supports delayed correction, and I _think_ it also
supports delayed conversion of audio input to text - - - but am not
certain about that.

Think I will try a quick email to Scansoft tech' support to try to
resolve that issue, one way or the other


> Please report back on how things go, if you actually do any
> of the experimentation you have talked about.

You bet, happy to do that.

If that feature is supported, it means that we could use a tiny
"pocket" PC and a good array microphone to record the initial wave
audio file - - - then later move the wave file into a bigger PC for
processing and correction.

Should result in higher quality results, than the recorder approach.

Mark-

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 2:26:54 PM10/16/05
to
John Doe wrote:

> I think you could just dictate into sound recorder.

Windows Sound Recorder has a limitation of only recording for 60
seconds. This limits its usefulness beyond a good way to test one's
microphone and sound card.

--
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
The best microphones for Speech Recognition
See us at: http://www.eMicrophones.com/index.asp
Read, "Key Steps to High Speech Recognition Accuracy" at:
http://www.emicrophones.com/docDetails.asp?DocumentID=38

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 2:32:04 PM10/16/05
to
Mark Conrad wrote:

> If that feature is supported, it means that we could use a tiny
> "pocket" PC and a good array microphone to record the initial wave
> audio file - - - then later move the wave file into a bigger PC for
> processing and correction.

There is no good array microphone for speech recognition. This is
because they try to bend the laws of physics and it just does not work
that way. This is because the further away you are from a microphone,
less pressure from your voice will be exerted on the microphone
element. Also, the more chance for background noise to enter the
microphone pickup pattern with enough pressure to cause extraneous
words to appear. That is why you do not see array microphones as a
generally accepted speech recognition device.

Mark Conrad

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 4:28:53 PM10/16/05
to
In article <1129487524.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Markoe <mma...@optonline.net> wrote:


Thanks for the rundown on array microphones, I will not waste my time
with them. Probably a good noise cancelling headset might be better.

Right now, I am using a Parrott VXI headset on both my PC and my Mac
with good results, but find it _very_ inconvenient not being able to
unplug that headset from its cord, at the headset end. Also, the
microphone is difficult to adjust for proper distance from the corner
of my mouth.

I really would appreciate your opinion on the present status of
wireless headsets, keeping in mind that my first priority is for
accuracy of dictated text in the very first "raw text" version of
dictated speech. (before correction)

In other words, _if_ a "wired" headset or microphone was even
slightly better as regards accuracy, I would prefer that instead of a
wireless headset.

(I do a lot of dictation of entire books, and hate the correction
operation)

That is the main reason I prefer using DNS Pro 8.1 and a PC for
dictation, rather than my main platform, which is a Mac with iListen.

The correction features seem to be more advanced with DNS Pro, and
there is less "pain" in the text correction process, at least in my
opinion.


One other thing, opinion wise of course :)

I wish Scansoft would throw more money at improving DNS Pro, such as
incorporating more Artificial Intellegence features into the handling
of speech homonyms, which neither Dragon or iListen is very good at
processing, at this moment in time.

MacSpeech's software "iListen" is making good strides in the accuracy
area, just as good as DNS Pro is IMO, so Scansoft is likely to lose
market share if they do not invest more actively in improving their
software.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Mark-

Joe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 6:20:27 PM10/16/05
to

Mark Conrad wrote:

> In article <1129487524.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Markoe <mma...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Conrad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If that feature is supported, it means that we could use a tiny
>>>"pocket" PC and a good array microphone to record the initial wave
>>>audio file - - - then later move the wave file into a bigger PC for
>>>processing and correction.
>>
>>There is no good array microphone for speech recognition. This is
>>because they try to bend the laws of physics and it just does not work
>>that way. This is because the further away you are from a microphone,
>>less pressure from your voice will be exerted on the microphone
>>element. Also, the more chance for background noise to enter the
>>microphone pickup pattern with enough pressure to cause extraneous
>>words to appear. That is why you do not see array microphones as a
>>generally accepted speech recognition device.
>>
>>--
>>Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
>>The best microphones for Speech Recognition
>>See us at: http://www.eMicrophones.com/index.asp
>>Read, "Key Steps to High Speech Recognition Accuracy" at:
>>http://www.emicrophones.com/docDetails.asp?DocumentID=38
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks for the rundown on array microphones, I will not waste my time
> with them. Probably a good noise cancelling headset might be better.
>


SNIP

>
> One other thing, opinion wise of course :)
>
> I wish Scansoft would throw more money at improving DNS Pro, such as
> incorporating more Artificial Intellegence features into the handling
> of speech homonyms, which neither Dragon or iListen is very good at
> processing, at this moment in time.
>
> MacSpeech's software "iListen" is making good strides in the accuracy
> area, just as good as DNS Pro is IMO, so Scansoft is likely to lose
> market share if they do not invest more actively in improving their
> software.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth.
>
> Mark-

Regarding Martin's comments concernig array microphones; he is
misleading you, whether from ignorance or commercial bias I don't know.
There are several examples of array microphone technology on the
market at this time. Consider all of the telematics applications out there.

My opinion on Scansoft is that they will be slow in makinging
improvements. It seems they have taken a page from the Bill Gates
handbook and let others do the work and buy or kill them. Just my opinion.

Joe

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 7:21:12 PM10/16/05
to
Joe wrote:

> Regarding Martin's comments concernig array microphones; he is
> misleading you, whether from ignorance or commercial bias I don't know.
> There are several examples of array microphone technology on the
> market at this time. Consider all of the telematics applications out there.

Considering you do not use a full name and do not reference your
expertise, your comments are "misleading." In terms telematics which
use constrained vocabulary speech recognition arrays sometimes work
just fine. A small constrained vocabulary is only looking for a very
limited number of possible responses, usually under 100. Dragon and IBM
ViaVoice word count is over one hundred thousand. The larger the
possibility of words to parse, the greater the necessity for untainted
acoustic information. Since this thread concerns large speaker
dependent vocabularies, you are incorrect. It would be a disservice and
misleading if someone were to purchase an array microphone (we have
them on our web site) whilst looking for the greatest accuracy with the
software being discussed.


> My opinion on Scansoft is that they will be slow in makinging
> improvements. It seems they have taken a page from the Bill Gates
> handbook and let others do the work and buy or kill them. Just my opinion.

Could it be that Speech Recognition is a complex technology and the
improvements you and others desire are just not feasible? As I have
been in the Speech Recognition field for 12 years, and have been
invited inside, I speak with knowledge and authority, not speculation.

Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.

Joe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 7:56:05 PM10/16/05
to

Martin Markoe wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>
>>Regarding Martin's comments concernig array microphones; he is
>>misleading you, whether from ignorance or commercial bias I don't know.
>> There are several examples of array microphone technology on the
>>market at this time. Consider all of the telematics applications out there.
>
>
> Considering you do not use a full name and do not reference your
> expertise, your comments are "misleading."

Joseph Hofffman Email address included in header.

In high technology since 1962, Univac, CDC, Alliant and Sun. I doubt
that you have any clue as to who the first three are/were.

I am in the business and my firm will me marketing products based on
array technology in the near future.

Your reference to "bending the laws of physics" was the misleading
point. You were, I have to assume, referring to the Inverse Square Law.
While that is true, perhaps you could explain array telescopes, array
radar systems or the military application of array microphones in ASW
work. These larger scale devices all use arrays to obtain higher
resolution and noise rejection.

In terms telematics which
> use constrained vocabulary speech recognition arrays sometimes work
> just fine. A small constrained vocabulary is only looking for a very
> limited number of possible responses, usually under 100. Dragon and IBM
> ViaVoice word count is over one hundred thousand. The larger the
> possibility of words to parse, the greater the necessity for untainted
> acoustic information.

Correct.


Since this thread concerns large speaker
> dependent vocabularies, you are incorrect.

It does not follow.

It would be a disservice and
> misleading if someone were to purchase an array microphone (we have
> them on our web site) whilst looking for the greatest accuracy with the
> software being discussed.
>

SPAM You do/did sell a low level device from Andrea. It happens to be
a fair device but is now several years behind the curve.

>
>>My opinion on Scansoft is that they will be slow in makinging
>>improvements. It seems they have taken a page from the Bill Gates
>>handbook and let others do the work and buy or kill them. Just my opinion.
>
>
> Could it be that Speech Recognition is a complex technology and the
> improvements you and others desire are just not feasible?

Wrong! Prima facie!

As I have
> been in the Speech Recognition field for 12 years, and have been
> invited inside, I speak with knowledge and authority, not speculation.

You MAY have been inside but I HAVE been and also speak from a position
of knowledge. More importantly I am not here touting my business. A
position which makes anything you say suspect, doesn't it.

As far as Scansoft goes, I am sure that the senior staff shared their
vision and direction and strategy for the company's development. If
they haven't, then you are also speculating. I simply put forward my
opinion, since I am not an insider, just a knowledgeable observer.

I have been watching this group for a long time and you have managed to
turn it into the eMicrophones, Inc. mail list. Almost no one with
expertise posts here any longer.
>
> Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
>

Joe

John Doe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 4:30:18 PM10/16/05
to
I wrote:

...


> I think you could just dictate into sound recorder.

Correction: you would have to use some other sound recorder like one
which comes free with Creative Labs sound cards. Then you would have to
pipe the playback output into the speech recognition program.

John Doe

unread,
Oct 16, 2005, 4:18:17 PM10/16/05
to
Mark Conrad <NoSpam...@invalid.com> wrote:
> <jd...@usenet.love.invalid> wrote:

>> I think you could just dictate into sound recorder.

> Yes, I thought of that approach, however I hesitate to do it that
> way for several reasons.
> 1) Recorder introduces another "layer" where its
> (minor) distortion can enter the picture, as contrasted
> with just dictating directly into the computer.

I am talking about Windows Sound Recorder. Once sound is digitized,
there is no further distortion.

If I understand what you're trying to do, both would necessarily be a
recording of your speech.

The speech-recognition program also records your speech to a file,
there is no other way. It might use a better format than Sound
Recorder, but the process is fundamentally the same.

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 9:35:41 AM10/17/05
to
Joe wrote:

> Joseph Hofffman Email address included in header.
> In high technology since 1962, Univac, CDC, Alliant and Sun. I doubt
> that you have any clue as to who the first three are/were.

This is a good start. However, a Google search for Joseph Hoffman,
Joseph Hoffman Univac, Joseph Hoffman Alliant and Sun, Joseph Hoffman
CDC produce zero hits/references to you. Please try the following in
Google:
1. Markoe speech recognition - 908 hits
2. Markoe voice recognition - 13,700 hits
3. Markoe microphones - 743 hits

As a matter of fact, my family is steeped in computer/mathematics
background. My brother's PhD from Brown University in the 1960s is in
complex variables. In addition he has been a fellow at the School of
Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey twice. I am the dummy in the
family. However, I remember in the early 1960s helping my brother
create punch cards to be run through the City College of New York
computer while an undergraduate. Therefore, though not assume anything
I have a clue to what you are talking about.


> I am in the business and my firm will me marketing products based on
> array technology in the near future.

That is very interesting, considering I have a business alliance with
Joseph Marash the president of Phoenix Technologies. His first company
was originally purchased by Andrea Electronics so they could develop
array microphone technology in automobiles and other industries. He and
his large team worked diligently with lots of money behind them for
five years to develop a usable array microphone. Several weeks ago I
told him I did not believe there was a software/hardware solution that
will make array technology viable on the desktop computer (let alone
handheld) anytime soon. He agreed with me based on his non-fruitful
endeavors in the field. Here is a verifiable reference:
http://www.andreaelectronics.com/PressReleases/1999/1999_11_04.htm


> Your reference to "bending the laws of physics" was the misleading
> point. You were, I have to assume, referring to the Inverse Square Law.
> While that is true, perhaps you could explain array telescopes, array
> radar systems or the military application of array microphones in ASW
> work. These larger scale devices all use arrays to obtain higher
> resolution and noise rejection.

This is very true. However these devices have tremendous amounts of
computer processing power behind every point in the array. Array
microphones for the average desktop do not have that luxury at this
point.


> SPAM You do/did sell a low level device from Andrea. It happens to be
> a fair device but is now several years behind the curve.

If you notice, I have documented everything I say. Again, you assumed I
sold the Andrea array. My web site motto, listed at the top of every
page, says:
"NOT EVERY MICROPHONE... ONLY THE BEST!!!"

On the home page is a link to, "Read How We Test Our Microphones:"
http://www.emicrophones.com/microphones/howtest.asp

After testing the Andrea Super Beam Array microphone (several times
from Beta to production) we decided to not carry it as it did not meet
our requirements for an effective speech recognition device. The only
array microphone you will see on our web site is the Acoustic Magic
Voice Tracker. We even say about this in the description:
"If you need the best accuracy for Speech Recognition software, look
at our headsets and handheld/desktop microphones."

The only reason we even carry the Voice Tracker microphone is because
there are people who are disabled and cannot put on a headset or hold a
microphone and are willing to use this as a device of last resort.

> > Could it be that Speech Recognition is a complex technology and the
> > improvements you and others desire are just not feasible?
>
> Wrong! Prima facie!

Again, you make a statement without backing up. Do you think that
ScanSoft, IBM, Philips, and Microsoft would not like to have all the
features you and others desire? Do you think they are just holding them
back for some unknown reason?

> You MAY have been inside but I HAVE been and also speak from a position
> of knowledge. More importantly I am not here touting my business. A
> position which makes anything you say suspect, doesn't it.

You just said you are going to be in the business. People who have been
purchasing from eMicrophones do not just receive a microphone. Take a
look at our web site's frequently asked questions section, and
Links/Articles section. In addition, we respond to approximately 150
e-mail/calls each day and what we give is good solid advice. We do not
tout one product over another, just what we believe from our experience
will work best. As anyone who knows me and has been following my
postings knows, I love the technology and still see the magic of words
appearing on-screen.


> I have been watching this group for a long time and you have managed to
> turn it into the eMicrophones, Inc. mail list. Almost no one with
> expertise posts here any longer.

Let me get this straight. People with expertise/knowledge do not post
here because Marty Markoe posts here? Do I have some kind of power
where I can get through people's computers and throttle them. Perhaps
you should ask yourself what you really mean? Is it jealousy,
impotence, or something else? When I say something I can back it up, so
far you have not documented anything.

Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.

John Doe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 11:13:20 AM10/17/05
to
Mark Conrad <NoSpam...@invalid.com> wrote:

...


> MacSpeech's software "iListen" is making good strides in the
> accuracy area, just as good as DNS Pro is IMO, so Scansoft is
> likely to lose market share if they do not invest more actively in
> improving their software.

It would have to be more than just competition in the Mac market.
Losing Mac market share is trivial to mainstream programmers.

John Doe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 11:33:30 AM10/17/05
to
"Martin Markoe" <mmarkoe optonline.net> wrote:
> Joe wrote:

>> Joseph Hofffman Email address included in header.
>> In high technology since 1962, Univac, CDC, Alliant and Sun. I
>> doubt that you have any clue as to who the first three are/were.

> This is a good start. However, a Google search for Joseph Hoffman,
> Joseph Hoffman Univac, Joseph Hoffman Alliant and Sun, Joseph
> Hoffman CDC produce zero hits/references to you.

Not that it matters or that anyone reading this could care less.

> Please try the following in
> Google:
> 1. Markoe speech recognition - 908 hits
> 2. Markoe voice recognition - 13,700 hits
> 3. Markoe microphones - 743 hits

Maybe Martin means "Google Groups" (Martin isn't much for technical
correctness). Of course there are going to be thousands of matches
since spamming his business is practically all Martin does here.

> As a matter of fact, my family is steeped in computer/mathematics

> background...

What Martin's alleged family members allegedly know about technology
means nothing to this group.

> I am the dummy in the family.

Martin certainly doesn't know much about computers.

>> I am in the business and my firm will me marketing products based
>> on array technology in the near future.

> That is very interesting, considering I have a business alliance

Alleged business alliances are a big zero here in this group.

> with Joseph Marash the president of Phoenix Technologies.

Doing a search on Yahoo for the terms "Joseph Marash" and "Phoenix
Technologies" produces zero results.

>> SPAM You do/did sell a low level device from Andrea. It happens
>> to be a fair device but is now several years behind the curve.

> If you notice, I have documented everything I say.

And the cow jumped over the moon. Anybody who is good with technical
things can see how Martin does little to support his arguments. Most
if not all of what he writes in an argument is babbling/trolling.

> My web site motto, listed at the top of every page, says:
> "NOT EVERY MICROPHONE... ONLY THE BEST!!!"

I think he means "only microphones you can't comparison shop for so
you don't know how much we are screwing you on the price".

My inexpensive microphones work great and are sold by many different
retailers.

<snipped more of Martin Marco's usual spam>

> The only reason we even carry the Voice Tracker microphone is
> because there are people who are disabled and cannot put on a
> headset or hold a microphone and are willing to use this as a
> device of last resort.

Too bad Martin regularly offers careless advice, even to people
who are disabled.

> Again, you make a statement without backing up. Do you think that
> ScanSoft, IBM, Philips, and Microsoft would not like to have all
> the features you and others desire? Do you think they are just
> holding them back for some unknown reason?

It's a very well-known motive. At least as far as Microsoft is
concerned, their sole motive is making more money. Speech technology
is a small market. That is the reason high-quality speech
recognition and text-to-speech have not been included with Windows,
even though speech input/output is an essential part of the
operating system to disabled people just like keyboard input and
monitor output are essential for most users.

<snipped more of Martin Marco's usual spam>

Martin apparently doesn't understand that constantly spamming his
business here only solidifies the doubt about advice he gives.

Always spamming his business here certainly doesn't support his
arguments, but I guess his business is all he's got to go on.

>> I have been watching this group for a long time and you have
>> managed to turn it into the eMicrophones, Inc. mail list. Almost
>> no one with expertise posts here any longer.

Martin Marco tries very hard to intimidate other authors who
interfere with his advertising here, but experts at technical things
should be able to cope.

> When I say something I can back it up,

And other fairy tales.

>
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Martin Markoe" <mmarkoe optonline.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.speech.users
> Subject: Re: - - - Can NS Pro do this?
> Date: 17 Oct 2005 06:35:41 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 114
> Message-ID: <1129556141.248344.158700 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> References: <151020052127184849%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <Xns96F162E6DDACDfollydom 207.115.17.102> <161020050855379947%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <1129487524.359622.295090 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <161020051332502714%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <LmA4f.4121$H3.3645 twister.nyc.rr.com> <1129504872.102887.209790 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <pMB4f.4371$H3.2157 twister.nyc.rr.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.119.117.84
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129556146 14619 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2005 13:35:46 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <pMB4f.4371$H3.2157 twister.nyc.rr.com>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.119.117.84; posting-account=U-Isdw0AAADr0OK1Ts3hoOkRr2rdiLMK
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.speech.users:12567
>


Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 12:11:01 PM10/17/05
to
John Doe wrote:

> Doing a search on Yahoo for the terms "Joseph Marash" and "Phoenix
> Technologies" produces zero results.

I do not know anything about computers? Did you click on the link? Do
you know what a link is? The search was done under Joseph Marash Andrea
Electronic. Following the colon (that is two dots like :) you click the
next line:
http://www.andreaelectronics.com/PressReleases/1999/1999_11_04.htm


> I think he means "only microphones you can't comparison shop for so
> you don't know how much we are screwing you on the price".

You mean microphones you use which are poor performers because they are
consumer grade goods from Plantronics, Labtec, or Telex. The last two
are not in business anymore. Ask your self why if you are smart enough
to know why a company goes out of business? Or are you only smart
enough to call people names and jealously question their motives?


> My inexpensive microphones work great and are sold by many different retailers.

Your expertise and standards do not require a quality microphone to get
work done. Obviously your microphones work well when Lshaping (aka John
Dope)only uses words like spam and troll.


> Too bad Martin regularly offers careless advice, even to people
> who are disabled.

Uh, was that like your useful advice where you wrote:
"I think you could just dictate into sound recorder. I'm not sure
whether the speech recognition can handle input from a wave file,
but it probably can since it is able to translate from a recorder.
Speaking of... maybe you could use a compatible voice recorder."

Then when I politely responded with, "Windows Sound Recorder has a


limitation of only recording for 60
seconds. This limits its usefulness beyond a good way to test one's
microphone and sound card."

Your response, "Correction: you would have to use some other sound


recorder like one
which comes free with Creative Labs sound cards. Then you would have to

pipe the playback output into the speech recognition program."


Geez, I try to be polite, not hammer you as your lack of knowledge and
expertise deserve. You finally admit publicly how wrong you are and I
think it is a good start for you to get your act together. I do not
know what your physical disability is, but you are in greater need of
mental health care than anything else.


> It's a very well-known motive. At least as far as Microsoft is
> concerned, their sole motive is making more money. Speech technology
> is a small market. That is the reason high-quality speech
> recognition and text-to-speech have not been included with Windows,

Have you not heard of or tried the excellent Microsoft Speech 6.1? It
is "FREE" with the world standard Microsoft Office 2003. It does not
have the command and control of Dragon, but out of the box, is at least
as accurate.

Your lack of computer expertise means you are unaware of Windows Vista,
the next version of the Microsoft operating system. This will include
Microsoft Speech 7.1 which from what we have seen and used be the equal
to Dragon NaturallySpeaking.

As for Microsoft only be concerned about money, the income they produce
employs thousands of people world wide. That translates to jobs where
people feed their families. In addition, the principals of Microsoft
and the corporation are some of the largest donors to philanthropic
causes. Your view of money (desiring things on the cheap or free)
indicates a complete lack of understanding of how an economic system
works.

Sincerely,
Martin Markoe

chuck....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 1:34:05 PM10/17/05
to
Guys,

Let's not get involved in posturing, OK? Everyone is entitled to their
opinions.

What I have learned is that Speech Recognition is VERY subjective. One
person will be absolutely appalled if they get less than 98 or 99
percent accuracy, while another may be happy with 85% (although,
admittedly, I don't see how). In our communications with customers, we
even had one severely handicapped individual indicate he was thrilled
with the 60% he was getting.

That having been said, we have done some testing with a few array
microphones. We used to offer a model from Telex that has been
discontinued. We are now offering a microphone from Acoustic Magic
called the Voice Tracker that is very, very good. Now, let me take a
moment to clarify what I mean by "very, very good."

We have a very strict testing procedure for certifying microphones. We
have found this necessary because mics that work well with VoIP, audio
iChat, and gaming aren't always as well-suited for use with Speech
Recognition on Macs. There are a lot of reasons for this, which I won't
go into here.

What we found in testing the Voice Tracker was that it performed as
well as the standard VXi microphone we ship in our $149 bundle, but not
as good as the TalkPro and TalkPro Xpress. It is the perfect solution
for those who can't - or won't - wear headsets.

We have also had remarkably good experience with the MicFlex, and -
believe it or not - even the Griffin Lapel Mic. (The problem with the
latter is that it still requires a USB adapter, which negates the
advantage of its low cost.)

The bottom line is that people will always have different thresholds
where a given thing is judged acceptable or not acceptable. Martin's is
understandably high. For many, however, slightly lower accuracy may be
an acceptable sacrifice for comfort and freedom of movement.

chuck....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 1:37:13 PM10/17/05
to
Mark:

If you can get a WAV or AIFF file into your computer, you can use
iListen's transcription feature to transcribe it. The use of a digital
recorder is not required. In theory, if you were to use the same
headset that you use with iListen, and you record at 16Khz mono, your
accuracy should be very near - if not at - what you are accustomed to
when dictating live.

BTW, you aren't required to use the $400+ DS-4000 for digital recording
with iListen. While it is true we only support certain Olympus
recorders (for reasons I won't go into here except to say they are
technical in nature), you can use the less expensive DM-1 or even the
newer DS-2, as well as a few other models.

Joe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 2:20:49 PM10/17/05
to

Martin Markoe wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>
>>Joseph Hofffman Email address included in header.
>>In high technology since 1962, Univac, CDC, Alliant and Sun. I doubt
>>that you have any clue as to who the first three are/were.
>
>
> This is a good start. However, a Google search for Joseph Hoffman,
> Joseph Hoffman Univac, Joseph Hoffman Alliant and Sun, Joseph Hoffman
> CDC produce zero hits/references to you. Please try the following in
> Google:
> 1. Markoe speech recognition - 908 hits
> 2. Markoe voice recognition - 13,700 hits
> 3. Markoe microphones - 743 hits
>
> As a matter of fact,

SNIP Not germane.

I am the dummy in the
> family.

If you say so.

However, I remember in the early 1960s helping my brother
> create punch cards to be run through the City College of New York
> computer while an undergraduate.

Key punch operator!

Therefore, though not assume anything
> I have a clue to what you are talking about.

?

>
>
>>I am in the business and my firm will me marketing products based on
>>array technology in the near future.
>
>
> That is very interesting, considering I have a business alliance with
> Joseph Marash the president of Phoenix Technologies. His first company
> was originally purchased by Andrea Electronics so they could develop
> array microphone technology in automobiles and other industries. He and
> his large team worked diligently with lots of money behind them for
> five years to develop a usable array microphone. Several weeks ago I
> told him I did not believe there was a software/hardware solution that
> will make array technology viable on the desktop computer (let alone
> handheld) anytime soon. He agreed with me based on his non-fruitful
> endeavors in the field. Here is a verifiable reference:
> http://www.andreaelectronics.com/PressReleases/1999/1999_11_04.htm
>

Reference from 1999 and many things have changed since then and the
referenced PR does nothing to support the argument that you make. If he
is "President" of Phoenix, I am unable to find anything about him in
that capacity. He did join Andrea with the acquisition of LAMAR as CTO.


>
>>Your reference to "bending the laws of physics" was the misleading
>>point. You were, I have to assume, referring to the Inverse Square Law.
>> While that is true, perhaps you could explain array telescopes, array
>>radar systems or the military application of array microphones in ASW
>>work. These larger scale devices all use arrays to obtain higher
>>resolution and noise rejection.
>
>
> This is very true. However these devices have tremendous amounts of
> computer processing power behind every point in the array. Array
> microphones for the average desktop do not have that luxury at this
> point.

The "tremendous amounts of computer processing power" is used to handle
interpretation of the data. Signal conditioning is / can be far less
MIPS intensive and can be handled by a DSP. Very misleading Martin.

And Voice Tracker? Array?

>
>
>>SPAM You do/did sell a low level device from Andrea. It happens to be
>>a fair device but is now several years behind the curve.
>
>
> If you notice, I have documented everything I say. Again, you assumed I
> sold the Andrea array. My web site motto, listed at the top of every
> page, says:

SNIP of marketing pitch.

If you never sold the Andrea array technology then I apologize.


> The only reason we even carry the Voice Tracker microphone is because
> there are people who are disabled and cannot put on a headset or hold a
> microphone and are willing to use this as a device of last resort.
>
>
>>>Could it be that Speech Recognition is a complex technology and the
>>>improvements you and others desire are just not feasible?
>>
>>Wrong! Prima facie!
>
>
> Again, you make a statement without backing up. Do you think that
> ScanSoft, IBM, Philips, and Microsoft would not like to have all the
> features you and others desire? Do you think they are just holding them
> back for some unknown reason?
>

Another Red Herring Martin. I object your statement that it is "just
not feasible". The software gets better all of the time.

>
>>You MAY have been inside but I HAVE been and also speak from a position
>>of knowledge. More importantly I am not here touting my business. A
>>position which makes anything you say suspect, doesn't it.
>
>
> You just said you are going to be in the business. People who have been
> purchasing from eMicrophones do not just receive a microphone. Take a

SNIP SPAM

>
>>I have been watching this group for a long time and you have managed to
>>turn it into the eMicrophones, Inc. mail list. Almost no one with
>>expertise posts here any longer.
>
>
> Let me get this straight. People with expertise/knowledge do not post
> here because Marty Markoe posts here? Do I have some kind of power
> where I can get through people's computers and throttle them. Perhaps
> you should ask yourself what you really mean? Is it jealousy,
> impotence, or something else? When I say something I can back it up, so
> far you have not documented anything.
>
> Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
>

Yep, Just as you are trying to do now.

You are making this personal, not me. I simply suggested to the OP that
there are in fact alternatives. And agreed with his concern over
product development.

Joe

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 3:30:55 PM10/17/05
to
Chuck,

You and I are in agreement on all issues except one thing I want to add
about the Voice Traacker. In a quiet environment I will agree they are
as good as the low end VXI non TalkPro models. However, any background
noise, even keyboard clicks, are picked up as stray words. As you say,
there are many people who will be thrilled with it. As you do, we try
to let consumers know the limitations before they purchase.

Marty

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 3:52:14 PM10/17/05
to
Joe wrote:

> You are making this personal, not me. I simply suggested to the OP that
> there are in fact alternatives. And agreed with his concern over
> product development.

Excuse me? In the sixth message in this thread, your first posting on


this group that I can see, you said:
"Regarding Martin's comments concernig array microphones; he is
misleading you, whether from ignorance or commercial bias I don't
know."

Now do you remember who started this. You come out and make a statement
that I am misleading people. Then you tell us you have a vested
interest in Array Microphone technology.


I detailed and referenced why I have not seen and do not believe I will
see a good array microphone any time soon. My professionalism speaks
for itself all over the Internet and world. You told us you were Joseph
Hoffman but there is no online references to your qualifications. Chuck
Rogers posted here today. His qualifications in the speech recognition
community are well known. Who knows you that I can ask?

Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
See us at: http://www.emicrophones.com

John Doe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 4:43:18 PM10/17/05
to
chuck.rogers gmail.com wrote:

> Guys,
> Let's not get involved in posturing, OK? Everyone is entitled to
> their opinions.

Opinions, Yes. Using this group as a marketplace, No. This is not a
forsale/marketplace group.

> The bottom line is that people will always have different
> thresholds where a given thing is judged acceptable or not
> acceptable. Martin's is understandably high. For many, however,
> slightly lower accuracy may be an acceptable sacrifice for comfort
> and freedom of movement.

That might be useful if it mattered to someone who enters this group
for help.

Reply authors need to pay more attention to the needs of posters,
and stifle their ambition to sell products here. Selling products is
not what this group is for.

>
>
>
> Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: chuck.rogers gmail.com


> Newsgroups: comp.speech.users
> Subject: Re: - - - Can NS Pro do this?

> Date: 17 Oct 2005 10:34:05 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <1129570445.580250.178940 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> References: <151020052127184849%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <Xns96F162E6DDACDfollydom 207.115.17.102> <161020050855379947%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <1129487524.359622.295090 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <161020051332502714%NoSpamDammit invalid.com> <LmA4f.4121$H3.3645 twister.nyc.rr.com> <1129504872.102887.209790 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <pMB4f.4371$H3.2157 twister.nyc.rr.com> <1129556141.248344.158700 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns96F26B68AB1CDfollydom 207.115.17.102>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.205.186.225


> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129570450 2892 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2005 17:34:10 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:34:10 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <Xns96F26B68AB1CDfollydom 207.115.17.102>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.205.186.225; posting-account=amNkcA0AAACA4tbQyWdPcBZV_UHqJuWa
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.speech.users:12575
>


John Doe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 4:47:20 PM10/17/05
to
"Martin Markoe" <mma...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Joe wrote:

>> You are making this personal,

> Excuse me?

He's right Martin. You are a spammer with an attitude.

It's sort of funny IMO.

Joe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 5:01:49 PM10/17/05
to

Martin Markoe wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>
>>You are making this personal, not me. I simply suggested to the OP that
>>there are in fact alternatives. And agreed with his concern over
>>product development.
>
>
> Excuse me? In the sixth message in this thread, your first posting on
> this group that I can see, you said:
> "Regarding Martin's comments concernig array microphones; he is
> misleading you, whether from ignorance or commercial bias I don't
> know."
>

You made the statement that arrays don't work.
You are not a technologist.
You sell microphones.

All Facts.

> Now do you remember who started this. You come out and make a statement
> that I am misleading people. Then you tell us you have a vested
> interest in Array Microphone technology.

Non Sequitur.

>
> I detailed and referenced why I have not seen and do not believe I will
> see a good array microphone any time soon.

Your opinion.


My professionalism speaks
> for itself all over the Internet and world.

OK. You are prolific.

You told us you were Joseph
> Hoffman but there is no online references to your qualifications. Chuck
> Rogers posted here today. His qualifications in the speech recognition
> community are well known. Who knows you that I can ask?

Marty, how come whenever someone disagrees with you, you get into this
high school urinating contest mode? Actually I can't find your
credentials anywhere either, except as a guy selling something.

BTW Marty, there are a lot of senior level folks in business out there
who will not have a significant "online" presence and who would like to
keep it that way.

> Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
> See us at: http://www.emicrophones.com
>

Joe

John Doe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 5:05:54 PM10/17/05
to
chuck....@gmail.com wrote:

...


> While it is true we only support certain Olympus
> recorders (for reasons I won't go into here except to say they are
> technical in nature), you can use the less expensive DM-1 or even
> the newer DS-2, as well as a few other models.

I have been using IC recorders for years. I really like my current
Olympus VN-240. It's surprisingly rugged, the interface is nice, and
recording time & sound quality are both good (it is a mature
technology now). Next time, if it ever wears out, I will look for
another Olympus recorder cheap at ZipZoomFly.

Looking at that online store, I'm kind of itching to buy a spiffy
new model. They're really nice IMO and I use one all the time.

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 5:11:00 PM10/17/05
to
John Doe wrote:

> He's right Martin. You are a spammer with an attitude.

Define spammer?

Martin

Mark Conrad

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 7:39:39 PM10/17/05
to
In article <1129570633.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<chuck....@gmail.com> wrote: ...lotsa helpful stuff...

First order of importance, I would like to thank _everyone_ here for
their input to this thread, it has really helped me a lot.

Secondly, I want to apologize to you personally, chuck, for my
over-zealous lambasting of the fine speech software for the Mac
platform, namely iListen version 1.6.8

After all these years of badmouthing iListen's accuracy, I found that
the reason for its poor performance, was that I was using it on Mac
computers that were just too slow to handle the software.

FWIW, the PC software, Dragon Naturally Speaking Pro, seems to be a bit
more tolerant about being used on slower computers - - - so I wrongly
assumed that slow Macs would perform likewise.

Possibly because Dragon has been around much longer that iListen, they
have had a chance to optimize the code so it would run okay on slower
PC hardware, dunno.

> If you can get a WAV or AIFF file into your computer, you can use
> iListen's transcription feature to transcribe it. The use of a digital
> recorder is not required.

Ahh, great, that is exactly the info' I needed. I do a lot of
airline travel, and do not wish to lug along my big 17-inch Mac
powerbook, primarily because I have over $4,000 invested in it, so it
is a prime target for thieves at airports, hotels, etc.

... instead I carry a used PC or Mac for air travel.

For automobile travel I carry the expensive powerbook, however.

> In theory, if you were to use the same headset that you use
> with iListen, and you record at 16Khz mono, your accuracy
> should be very near - if not at - what you are accustomed to
> when dictating live.

'scuze me while I do some online muttering about the
implications of your above statement :)
******************************************
Assuming that the headset has the proper adapters to allow it to
connect to the low priced PC or Mac, that appears to be a good idea.

Of course, I would also need PC or Mac software that allows me to
record a straight audio file into the computer.

If I were using a used low end Mac, perhaps I could use the software
named "Toast" - - - or some of the music software that is part of the
"iLife" or "iWork" suite of applications.

Normally, I think Apple uses the AIFF sound format, which I think could
be used directly with iListen ?

...or convert the Mac native AIFF to WAV format somehow, if I planned
to later process the resulting WAV file using Naturally Speaking Pro.

Pehaps "Toast" could do the conversion from AIFF to WAV.
*******************************************
End of online mutterings -

One interesting bit of trivia that shows what is in store for the
future, for road warriors like myself who use speech technology while
we travel - - -

One Norwegian airline _already_ allows its passengers to surf the
Internet while they are flying over the Atlantic, for an added fee.
(Lufthansa Airline, I believe)

In theory, I could transmit a WAV or AIFF file from the aircraft
mid-Atlantic, to my home computer, where the sound file could be
converted to text, by either iListen or Dragon.

...then email the resulting text files, all done remotely from wherever
I happen to be traveling at the time, in this case over the Ocean.

I already remotely control my home computers from the road, using
software like Timbuktu version 8.1 - - - and hardware like Powerkey-Pro
version 650.

Powerkey allows me to remotely power on/off my Macs and PCs, reboot
them, etc.

In practice, speech recognition from an aircraft would never work,
unless someone manages to create one heck of a good noise cancelling
microphone that can be used in a commercial aircraft - - - not likely.

Mark-


I do not know if or when the local U.S. airlines will allow surfing
directly from their aircraft.

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 7:47:44 PM10/17/05
to
Mark,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In practice, speech recognition from an aircraft would never work,
unless someone manages to create one heck of a good noise cancelling
microphone that can be used in a commercial aircraft - - - not likely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The highly noise cancelling Sennheiser Headset (modified ME3) worked
just fine on a flight last summer to Seattle. However, I found talking
to the computer was likely disturbing to those around me. Decided to
read a book instead.

Marty

Martin Markoe

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 8:43:32 PM10/17/05
to
Joe wrote:

You made the statement that arrays don't work.
You are not a technologist.
You sell microphones.

First of all, this is a list devoted to speech technologies. Array
microphones for desktop speech, automobiles and Telematics to date do
not work well enough to be reliable. If you know someplace where they
do work I am more than happy to look at them closely. What does it take
to be a technologist? I have a master's degree in audiovisual
technology (1975). Not only to I sell microphones, I support than they
in and day out for the past 11 years going on the 12th.

I forgot to mention, for two years I wrote the Microphone column for
Speech Technology Magazine. Here is the documentary proof (do not be
bowled over by the picture of the handsome man):
http://www.speechtechmag.com/issues/5_6/cover/241-1.html

You still have not shown us your qualifications. Again, you have made
unsupported statements and worst of all you have been presumptive about
my qualifications. Would you like me to scan in my master's degree
diploma and send it to you?


> > I detailed and referenced why I have not seen and do not believe I will
> > see a good array microphone any time soon.
> Your opinion.

Hmm, an opinion base on testing in real life usage and knowing the
world's top array microphone designer.


> OK. You are prolific.

Only because I am a lover and believer in the technology.


> Marty, how come whenever someone disagrees with you, you get into this
> high school urinating contest mode? Actually I can't find your
> credentials anywhere either, except as a guy selling something.

Links and offers of credentials are above. Where are yours?


> BTW Marty, there are a lot of senior level folks in business out there
> who will not have a significant "online" presence and who would like to
> keep it that way.

First of all I am the top man of a small 3 person company, not a giant
corporation. Hate to say this although I have seen it while training in
large corporations, many senior level business people do not know how
to use a computer very well.

Unless you are prepared to post your credentials, I will assume are not
able to.

smey...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 17, 2005, 9:32:47 PM10/17/05
to
Is Marty promoting his business, or is he giving unbiased opinions?

I recently asked him, at the scansoft bulletin board, if the $450
Sennheiser microphone he sells would be superior to the $150 one I
already own. He said "no, no difference" between them. I think he is
unbiased, and I trust his opinions.

Steve

Mark Conrad

unread,
Oct 18, 2005, 1:04:22 PM10/18/05
to
In article <1129592864.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Markoe <mma...@optonline.net> wrote:

Mark Conrad posted -


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> In practice, speech recognition from an aircraft would never work,
> unless someone manages to create one heck of a good noise cancelling
> microphone that can be used in a commercial aircraft - - - not likely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Martin Markoe responded -


> The highly noise cancelling Sennheiser Headset (modified ME3) worked
> just fine on a flight last summer to Seattle. However, I found talking
> to the computer was likely disturbing to those around me. Decided to
> read a book instead.

Heck, that is no problem with me. I just go into the lounge area, pump
up an inflatable dummy, set it near me, and pretend I am talking to it.

;-) ;-) ;-)

Heh, I can see what might happen now. The airlines, desperate for more
revenue, might offer a sound proof cubicle for business passengers who
want to do dictation - - - something like an onboard pay toilet.

Cubicle could double as an onboard area where couples could yell at
their spouses, without disturbing the other passengers.

Mark-

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages