oreillyj@ul.ie (10/27/90)
I am writing in reference to setting up a special news group for speech. Seemingly this has been suggested before and very little interest has been shown. I can't understand this. Surely the whole area of speech is such a broad topic, encompassing both techniques in speech processing and speech recognition, that there has to be a need for such a group. As to there being sufficient interest within comp.ai.neural-nets this is not evident if you consider the very small number of submissions which relate to speech. John O'Reilly, Neural Network Group, Dept. of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Phone : 353- 61 - 333644 Fax : 353- 61 - 330316 E-mail : oreillyj@ul.ie
Alvin@cup.portal.com (Alvin Henry White) (10/29/90)
I will second Mr O'Reilly's motion. Alvin H. White, Gen. Sect. G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N. Government Online Database Systems Bureau for Resource Allocations to Information Networks [ alvin@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!alvin ]
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (10/30/90)
In article <9377.27299857@ul.ie>, oreillyj@ul.ie writes: > I am writing in reference to setting up a special news group for speech. > Seemingly this has been suggested before and very little interest has > been shown. I can't understand this. There's a problem with certain types of newsgroup proposals -- those that propose a group for which there is very little existing traffic. These people want to read about a certain area, and hope that someone else will post good stuff to read. It really just doesn't work. comp.dsp is currently small enough that there is plenty of room for people's postings about speech analysis and synthesis, speech recognition, speaker recognition, the theory of speech production and reception by human beings, etc. Once we have a steady stream of such postings it is THEN time to create a new group, and not before. There are significant barriers to getting such a discussion going -- there's a lot of proprietary information in the field; many of the researchers aren't on the net and do their writing and reading in other forums, etc. I've worked in computer speech recognition and low bit rate voice for years; on the rare occasions where someone has posted a speech-related question on this group, I've often mailed answers (I'm not currently working on speech). If someone wants to start some discussions, I'll very likely participate. But I will oppose any move to create comp.speech until there is demonstrated volume. > As to > there being sufficient interest within comp.ai.neural-nets this is not > evident if you consider the very small number of submissions which relate > to speech. This is the whole point; there is insufficient evidence that there are enough netters with enough input to keep a comp.speech group going. Creating a new group doesn't create the articles for that group. -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
reynolds@park.bu.edu (John Reynolds) (10/31/90)
We would be interested in such a group.
ajr@eng.cam.ac.uk (Tony Robinson) (11/01/90)
In article <29320@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes regarding a the proposal for a newsgroup to discuss speech issues: >comp.dsp is currently small enough that there is plenty of room for people's >postings about speech analysis and synthesis, speech recognition, speaker >recognition, the theory of speech production and reception by human beings, >etc. Yes, but whereas your first two subjects, "speech analysis and synthesis" may or may not use DSP techniques, the remainder, "speech recognition, speaker recognition, the theory of speech production and reception by human beings" are not really DSP topics at all. So comp.speech would cover much more than the speech issues you see in comp.dsp. There is discussion in comp.ai.neural-nets about speech recognition and databases, talk in rec.music.synth about basic waveform techniques and lots of talk in misc.handicapped on the application of speech synthesis. Speech also entends into spoken language, and that is discussed in sci.lang. Tony Robinson