review of Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8.0 and IBM ViaVoice 10
Andy Kaiser
For those interested, I've posted an article containing short-term and
long-term usages of out-of-the-box installs of Dragon NaturallySpeaking
8.0 and IBM ViaVoice 10:
http://www.andybrain.com/extras/voice_recognition.htm
It's targeted towards first-time users of speech technology, but still
might be helpful to some here.
Thanks,
Andy
John Doe
You can add the fact that IBM's ViaVoice is now owned by ScanSoft,
the same company which publishes NaturallySpeaking. There probably
will not be any further upgrades or even patches for ViaVoice.
ViaVoice is noticeably unmodular in design. That in my opinion far
outweighs the annoyance of requiring about six different Internet
connections. It indicates bad programming and makes the poor
performance easy to understand.
Should you pay a lot more for a needed program that works?
Absolutely positively definitely Yes.
Currently, ScanSoft's only competition can come from Microsoft. If
Microsoft ever wants to do something good like provide a more
functional user interface for personal computer users, ScanSoft
might have something to worry about. The PC user interface should
already include high quality speech input and text-to-speech output.
But Microsoft is purely profit driven, that threat of competition
for ScanSoft probably will be a long time coming. Then again,
Microsoft is such a huge threat, ScanSoft probably is very aware of
the potential.
Martin Markoe
Your article is right on target for the most part and in
synchronization with my experiences. There are two items I would like
to point out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As my first test, I just grabbed one of my ever-present science-fiction
classics and started reading. I was fairly happy with the results. Not
yet wanting to learn the intricacies of dictating punctuation or
performing text editing, I focused on just simply reading text and
seeing how well the programs translated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although I understand why you did not do so, a new user should learn to
use punctuation and speak in phrases. Not reading punctuation is a
mistake. Speech Recognition software works not only by decoding the
sounds (phonemes) but through the use of the context of the words
before or after each word. It uses hundreds of thousands of tables of
probabilities, developed by linguists who scour a country for regional
speech samples, called bigrams and trigrams. Bigrams are two word
phrases and trigrams three word phrases. Accuracy is greatly improved
not only by clear enunciation but by speaking in phrases.
You also make the comment about my web site. It says:
"http://www.emicrophones.com/articles (Some of the emicrophones.com
articles are fairly old. Note the dates before reading.)"
The web site is a product of eight years on the Internet. It dates from
the infancy of continuous speech recognition software. Although speech
recognition software vendors claim greater accuracy with each new
version, we have been consistently getting 98-99% since the original
discrete (pauses between words) programs from IBM and Dragon. The
reason is that the principles of speech recognition have not changed.
You need the following things to be successful:
1. Understanding that you need to train yourself (to enunciate clearly
and speak in phrases) as well as train the system.
2. Have a good soundcard or USB sound pod. Even the best microphone
will yield poor performance if the soundcard introduces unwanted
electronic noise from within the computer enclosure.
3. Have a microphone that is appropriate for your needs. If you are a
professional dictating thousands of words a day and you must stand by
those words ethically and legally, you will need a better microphone
than someone just responding to E-mail.
Beginners should look at the Linksl/Articles section of our web site
at:
http://www.emicrophones.com/articles/index.asp
The first bullet has links to three sound files on How to Sound and How
Not to Sound. The second bullet has the old, but classic, "Key Steps to
High Speech Recognition Accuracy."
Sincerely,
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
Martin Markoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But Microsoft is purely profit driven, that threat of competition
for ScanSoft probably will be a long time coming. Then again,
Microsoft is such a huge threat, ScanSoft probably is very aware of
the potential.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure sounds as if you are covering your bases (Microsoft. First you
say Microsoft's threat will be a long time coming. In the next breath
you say, "Then again, Microsoft is such a huge threat."
Which is it do you believe?
Also, is there something wrong with a company being "profit driven?"
How does a company stay in business otherwise? How does a company pay
its employees who have families and work so hard? How does a company
have the incentive to grow and create more jobs? How does a freedom
loving country like the USA (I saw your super patriotic posts on
another newsgroup) stay free if there economic system is not
capitalistic?
Before calling me a name, your favorite is troll, why don't you answer
the questions above or is it a challenge to your intelligence to do so?
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc
John Doe
"Martin Markoe" <mma...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.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!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Martin Markoe" <mmarkoe optonline.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.speech.users
> Subject: Re: review of Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8.0 and IBM ViaVoice 10
> Date: 24 Jun 2005 03:23:16 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <1119608596.471717.93880 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> References: <1119550921....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <Xns967EE28264...@207.115.63.158>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.45.98.145
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1119608601 11202 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2005 10:23:21 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <Xns967EE28264...@207.115.63.158>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.45.98.145; posting-account=U-Isdw0AAADr0OK1Ts3hoOkRr2rdiLMK
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.speech.users:12354
Martin Markoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The usual troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have proven your intelligence level is below the horizon. You do
not have the ability to respond on an educated level.
Why are you here? You contribute nothing? Actually, you allow me a
chance to take a break from my usual offering of solid advice based on
years of experience. Sort of like recreation. You break up the day as a
diversion.
Thanks,
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
PS. Try changing your poor attempts at put downs. It would show a
modicum of intelligence if you did.
Andy Kaiser
I actually did do this, but my original text was misleading (even
approaching incorrect). I did dictate punctuation, just not the more
complex dialog stuff. At the time, I didn't know how to properly
dictate quotes and dialog capitalization. Not wanting my voice profile
to get taught incorrectly, I just dictated as normal (with basic
punctuation), but ignored dialog-specific punctuation.
>You also make the comment about my web site. It says: "http://www.emicrophones.com/articles (Some of the
>emicrophones.com articles are fairly old. Note the dates before reading.)"
Thanks for your clarification on this. I've since changed the text of
my article to properly reflect what eMicrophones provides.
Andy
Martin Markoe
>I did dictate punctuation, just not the more complex dialog stuff.
Great. That is certainly not a problem.
> Thanks for your clarification on this. I've since changed the text of
> my article to properly reflect what eMicrophones provides.
Thank you. It is certainly appreciated when a certified expert
validates another's offerings.
Marty Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
PS. If you continue to use speech recognition on a daily basis, let us
know so we can send you a better microphone than was supplied with the
Dragon software.
Hubert Crepy
> http://www.andybrain.com/extras/voice_recognition.htm
You write in that article:
> During initial set up and training, my firewall interrupted me about 10 times as
> IBM ViaVoice continually tried to connect to the Internet. This is bad installation etiquette.
> Software should warn you before it tries for a Net connection.
>Hidden communication, for whatever reason, is impolite at best and
dangerous at worst
> (see adware and spyware as examples).
That is, I believe, a common misunderstanding. ViaVoice does NOT
connect to the Internet. What it does is use the TCP/IP layer to
communicate between processes on your own machine.
A misconfigured or overenthusiastic firewall (as is often the case) will
see these communications and flag them in a similar way as attempts to
communicate outside the machine.
This really is not a flaw with ViaVoice but with the firewall or the
firewall user. I'll grant you that, practically speaking, this causes
problems and it'd be nice if it didn't. I believe the choice of using
TCP/IP for interprocess communications is a sound architectural one, but
it does create usability problems in the field.
--
Hubert Crépy
John Doe
> Andy Kaiser wrote:
>> During initial set up and training, my firewall interrupted me
>> about 10 times as IBM ViaVoice continually tried to connect to
>> the Internet. This is bad installation etiquette. Software
>> should warn you before it tries for a Net connection.
>> Hidden communication, for whatever reason, is impolite at best
>> and dangerous at worst (see adware and spyware as examples).
> That is, I believe, a common misunderstanding. ViaVoice does
> NOT connect to the Internet. What it does is use the TCP/IP
> layer to communicate between processes on your own machine.
As I recall, according to ZoneAlarm it requested about six
different Internet connections including Internet server.
Whatever it was supposed to be doing, it was disrespecting the needs
and complicating the lives of most broadband users, users who have
to manage their Internet safety.
> A misconfigured or overenthusiastic firewall (as is often the
> case) will see these communications and flag them in a similar
> way as attempts to communicate outside the machine.
> This really is not a flaw with ViaVoice but with the firewall or
> the firewall user.
But in fact, there is little to configuring ZoneAlarm and it is
the most popular freeware firewall program with probably millions
of users.
> I'll grant you that, practically speaking, this causes
> problems and it'd be nice if it didn't. I believe the choice of
> using TCP/IP for interprocess communications is a sound
> architectural one,
Yes, I can believe that other workings are worse. ViaVoice was
like a huge bowl of spaghetti.
> but it does create usability problems in the field.
It's not the only problematic part of ViaVoice.
But that is all water under the bridge since ScanSoft owns ViaVoice
and there will be no further development or patching.
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!infeed-2.proxad.net!news13-e.free.fr!not-for-mail
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:34:59 +0200
> From: Hubert Crepy <no.sp m.for.me>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: comp.speech.users
> Subject: Re: review of Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8.0 and IBM ViaVoice 10
> References: <1119550921....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> In-Reply-To: <1119550921....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <42c11992$0$12688$626a14ce news.free.fr>
> Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jun 2005 11:34:11 MEST
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.212.29.83
> X-Trace: 1119951251 news13-e.free.fr 12688 195.212.29.83:10458
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@proxad.net
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.speech.users:12385
>
Hubert Crepy
> As I recall, according to ZoneAlarm it requested about six
> different Internet connections including Internet server.
All should have been going to the localhost, NOT to the internet. No
reason to trigger a firewall alarm in a properly configured system, or
to cause worry to a knowledgable user.
> Whatever it was supposed to be doing, it was disrespecting the needs
> and complicating the lives of most broadband users, users who have
> to manage their Internet safety.
It's a question of point of view, I see no need for disparagement here.
I agree this situation creates a complication for users, I'm saying
it's not formally the fault of ViaVoice, but agreeing it's somewhat of a
moot point. It's like webpages that don't work with MSIE because MSIE
does not adhere to standards. MSIE is at fault, but that's irrelevant,
in the end the page does not display right for the end-user.
In this case, it's ZLID (and its user) who's to blame, but in the end,
the fear spreads that ViaVoice might be doing unholy things. And you're
not helping calm these fears, for reasons I fail to understand.
I'll leave some of your other agressive assertions unanswered, but I
have to wonder about your motives for spreading FUD -Fear, Uncertainty
and Doubt- about ViaVoice like that. I'll just dispute the following:
> But that is all water under the bridge since ScanSoft owns ViaVoice
That's untrue.
And I'll sign my name and affiliation:
--
Hubert Crépy - IBM France Speech Lab Based Services (not an official IBM
spokesperson)
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> As I recall, according to ZoneAlarm it requested about six
>> different Internet connections including Internet server.
>
> All should have been going to the localhost, NOT to the
> internet.
So ZoneAlarm is lying?
> No reason to trigger a firewall alarm in a properly configured
> system, or to cause worry to a knowledgable user.
I guess we can dispute what "knowledgeable user" means. I am
intimately familiar with the Windows user interface. I have
written my own macro recorder in C++ (with the help of an expert
Windows programmer who wrote the DLL). I have been building my own
personal computers for over a decade.
Knowing Windows macroing forwords and backwards, having a keen
understanding of how programs interact with Windows, and having
tried two levels of IBM's ViaVoice version 10 at different times,
I can tell that there are serious programming problems underneath
the hood.
>> agreeing it's somewhat of a moot point.
> It's like webpages that don't work with MSIE because MSIE does
> not adhere to standards. MSIE is at fault, but that's
> irrelevant,
You can call it unfair from here to eternity, but you will have to
cope somehow.
So the problems have something to do with IBM's lack of
conformance with Microsoft. That is easy to understand. I know the
history very well.
But all of IBM's problems with Microsoft mean absolutely nothing
to most users.
> in the end the page does not display right for the end-user. In
> this case, it's ZLID (and its user) who's to blame, but in the
> end, the fear spreads that ViaVoice might be doing unholy
> things. And you're not helping calm these fears, for reasons I
> fail to understand.
Because no other program does the same. Not even Microsoft's
Windows Explorer requires an Internet connection. Many programs in
Windows ask for Internet connections, but none of them (except
Internet communications programs) require a connection in order to
function.
> I'll leave some of your other agressive assertions unanswered,
> but I have to wonder about your motives for spreading FUD -Fear,
> Uncertainty and Doubt- about ViaVoice like that.
Because it crashes the system. Because it is unmodular in design.
Because it slows down the user interface. Even moving a window is
affected by ViaVoice.
Even moving a window is affected by ViaVoice. Go figure.
Then there is the problem with speech recognition. But if it
cripples the system, it is hardly worth using in the first place.
And I am not talking about system performance degradation due to
hardware specifications. I am talking about the way ViaVoice
interacts with a Windows personal computer.
> I'll just dispute the following:
>
>> But that is all water under the bridge since ScanSoft owns
>> ViaVoice
>
> That's untrue.
Apparently development has stopped. Otherwise there would have
been a patch released years ago for ViaVoice 10.
ScanSoft definitely "owns" ViaVoice in a certain sense of the
word. Then again, it is like owning a corpse.
> And I'll sign my name and affiliation: -- Hubert CrＱy - IBM
> France Speech Lab Based Services (not an official IBM
> spokesperson)
While you are here, please do Andy Kaiser (the original poster) a
favor and tell him about ViaVoice version 10.5
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!infeed-2.proxad.net!news13-e.free.fr!not-for-mail
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:20:27 +0200
> From: Hubert Crepy <no.sp m.for.me>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: comp.speech.users
> Subject: Re: review of Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8.0 and IBM ViaVoice 10
> References: <1119550921....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <42c11992$0$12688$626a...@news.free.fr> <Xns968339F284...@207.115.63.158>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns968339F284...@207.115.63.158>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 35
> Message-ID: <42c1405a$0$12678$626a14ce news.free.fr>
> Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jun 2005 14:19:38 MEST
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.212.29.91
> X-Trace: 1119961178 news13-e.free.fr 12678 195.212.29.91:45661
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@proxad.net
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.speech.users:12387
>
Hubert Crepy
> So ZoneAlarm is lying?
Maybe, maybe not (it may be the user that's misinterpreting a message
put out by ZoneAlarm). Not knowing the exact message makes it
impossible to tell.
> Because no other program does the same. Not even Microsoft's
> Windows Explorer requires an Internet connection. Many programs in
> Windows ask for Internet connections, but none of them (except
> Internet communications programs) require a connection in order to
> function.
Neither does ViaVoice. As I have explained, ViaVoice uses the TCP/IP
protocol to communicate *within* the machine. It does not require an
Internet connection. Some firewalls (or firewall users) apparently
don't make the difference, but it is real. I don't know any simpler
words to explain that.
Your experience with ViaVoice, as you report it, seems quite negative.
From what I've heard (in the years I was directly involved with
ViaVoice), it's fortunately far from being a general experience. If it
were that bad, this product would have been dead a long time ago.
I am sorry to say that your vehement opposition to the product, your
choice of words joined with your anonymity, makes one wonder about your
motives and credibility.
> While you are here, please do Andy Kaiser (the original poster) a
> favor and tell him about ViaVoice version 10.5
Sorry, I don't work in the ViaVoice product line any more. And if I
did, I wouldn't be allowed to divulge information that's not already
public. As I said, I'm not an official IBM spokesperson.
--
Hubert Crépy
Andy Kaiser
Just wanted to chip in with a couple of my thoughts here:
>Maybe, maybe not (it may be the user that's misinterpreting a message put out by ZoneAlarm). Not knowing the exact message makes it
>impossible to tell.
I'd label myself an expert computer user. I wasn't misinterpreting my
firewall's warnings. I was using the built-in WinXP firewall at the
time of the test, and here's probably what happened:
If ViaVoice uses IP to communicate with itself internally, fine. But
when you do something that's non-standard compared to most software,
then it's your responsibility to cover your bases. Either 1) warn the
user to expect the process so they don't think something's wrong and
can configure third-party software properly, or 2) automatically
configure the installed firewall. Many programs do either or both of
these already. Based on what others have said, v10 / 10.5 was available
before there was the XP built-in firewall. We're just experiencing a
problem of local security methods growing beyond the expectations of
older software.
>As I have explained, ViaVoice uses the TCP/IP protocol to communicate *within* the machine.
Incidentally, what happens if you try to install/run the software with
TCP/IP uninstalled? (There really *are* still offices not running
TCP/IP. Does IBM still run Token-Ring internally? I know they used to.)
>Sorry, I don't work in the ViaVoice product line any more.
No problem.
Andy
John Doe
> I am sorry to say that your vehement opposition to the product,
> your choice of words joined with your anonymity, makes one
> wonder about your motives and credibility.
I don't appreciate being sold for a price something that wastes
much of my time.
Like many other people, I paid (twice) for IBM ViaVoice expecting
there to eventually be a patch like there is for all complex
software, and it never came.
Most experienced users would consider ViaVoice a bad software
product for that reason alone.