A: No , but it 's easy enough to do .
B: What F: But I but I have a B: Doing the gain ? It 's no problem .
D: n Doing th
B: Adjusting the gain ?
D: No , getting the coefficients ,
D: for each channel .
C: Know what numbers .
B: Yeah , that 's no problem .
D: OK .
D: So we just run that one B: We can do that .
A: There are lots of ways to do it .
A: I have one program that 'll do it .
B: Yeah .
A: You can find other programs .
B: I I used it ,
D: We just run that
B: so .
A: Yep .
F: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
D: J - sound - stat ? OK .
A: Minus D , capital D .
F: But B: Yeah .
F: but but I I I have another suggestion on that , which is , since , really what this is , is is is trying to in the large , send the right thing to them and there is gonna be this this post - processing step ,
F: um ,
F: why don't we check through a bunch of things by sampling it ?
D: Mm - hmm .
F: Right ?
F: In other words , rather than , um , uh , saying we 're gonna listen to everything A: I didn't mean listen to everything ,
A: I meant , just see if they 're any good .
F: Yeah .
F: So y you do a bunch of meetings ,
F: you listen to to a little bit here and there ,
D: Yeah .
F: if it sounds like it 's almost always right and there 's not any big problem you send it to them .
D: Send it to them .
B: Yeah .
D: OK .
F: And , you know , then they 'll send us back what we w what what they send back to us ,
C: Oh , that 'd be great .
F: and we 'll we 'll fix things up
F: and some meetings will cost more time to fix up than others .
A: We should A: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
A: And we should just double - check with Brian on a few simple conventions on how they should mark things .
D: OK .
B: Sure .
D: When they when there 's either no speech in there ,
B: Yeah .
D: or something they don't understand ,
B: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
D: things like that .
C: Mm - hmm .
F: Yeah .
A: Yeah , cuz @ @ uh what I had originally said to Brian was well they 'll have to mark , when they can't distinguish between the foreground and background ,
A: because I thought that was gonna be the most prevalent .
D: Mm - hmm .
A: But if we send them without editing , then we 're also gonna hafta have m uh , notations for words that are cut off ,
B: Yeah .
D: Mm - hmm .
B: Yeah .
A: and other sorts of , uh , acoustic problems .
D: And they may just guess at what those cut - off words are ,
C: They do already .
C: Yeah .
D: but w I mean we 're gonna adjust everything when we come back A: But what what we would like them to do is be conservative
A: so that they should only write down the transcript if they 're sure .
B: Yeah .
A: And otherwise they should mark it so that we can check .
B: Mark it .
B: Sure .
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
D: Mm - hmm .
C: Well , we have the unintelligibility convention .
C: And actually they have one also ,
A: Mm - hmm .
A: Right .
C: which F: i Can I maybe have have an order of F: it 's probably in your paper that I haven't looked at lately ,
F: but F: Uh , an order of magnitude
C: Certainty .
F: notion of of how on a good meeting , how often uh , do you get segments that come in the middle of words and so forth ,
F: and uh in a bad meeting how often ?
B: Uh .
C: Was is it in a in a what what is the t
F: Well he 's saying , you know , that the the EDU meeting was a good good meeting ,
C: In a good meeting ,
C: what ?
B: Yeah .
F: right ?
C: Yeah .
F: Uh , and so so so it was almost it was almost always doing the right thing .
C: Oh I see ,
C: the characteristics .
F: So I wanted to get some sense of what what almost always meant .
F: And then , uh in a bad meeting , or p some meetings where he said oh he 's had some problems , what does that mean ?
C: Uh - huh .
F: So I mean does one of the does it mean one percent and ten percent ?
C: OK .
F: Or does it mean five percent and fifty percent ?
C: OK .
F: Uh B: So F: Or Maybe percentage isn't the right word ,
C: Just
F: but you know how many how many per minute ,
B: Yeah th
F: or F: You know .
B: Yeah ,
B: the the problem is that , nnn , the numbers Ian gave in the paper is just uh , some frame error rate .
B: So that 's that 's not really  What will be effective for for the transcribers , is B: They have to yeah , in in they have to insure that that 's a real s spurt or something .
B: And but , the numbers B: Oops .
B: Um C: Hmm !
B: Let me think .
B: So the speech the amount of speech that is missed by the detector , for a good meeting , I th is around or under one percent , I would say .
B: But there can be B: Yeah .
B: For B: yeah ,
B: but there can be more B: There 's There 's more amount speech B: uh , more amount of B: Yeah well , the detector says there is speech ,
B: but there is none .
B: So that that can be a lot when when it 's really a breathy channel .
F: But I think that 's less of a problem .
F: They 'll just listen .
B: Yeah .
F: It 's just wasted time .
B: Yeah .
F: And th and that 's for a good meeting .
F: Now what about in a meeting that you said we 've you 've had some more trouble with ?
B: I can't <comment> really hhh , <comment> Tsk . <comment> I don't have really representative numbers , I think .
B: That 's really B: I I did this on on four meetings and only five minutes of of every meet of of these meetings
B: so , it 's not not that representative ,
B: but ,
B: it 's perhaps ,
B: Fff .
B: Um B: Yeah , it 's perhaps then it 's perhaps five percent of something ,
B: which s uh the the frames speech frames which are which are missed ,
B: but um , I can't can't really tell .
F: Right .
F: So I  So i Sometime , we might wanna go back and look at it more in terms of how many times is there a spurt that 's that 's uh , interrupted ?
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
F: Something like that ?
C: The other problem is , that when it when it uh d i on the breathy ones , where you get  breathing , uh , inti indicated as speech .
F: And B: So C: And I guess we could just indicate to the transcribers not to encode that if they C: We could still do the beep file .
F: Yeah again I I think that that is probably less of a problem
F: because if you 're if there 's  If if a if a word is is split , then they might have to listen to it a few times to really understand that they can't quite get it .
C: OK .
C: OK .
C: OK .
F: Whereas if they listen <nonvocalsound> to it and there 's don't hear any speech I think they 'd probably just listen to it once .
B: But B: Yeah .
F: So there 'd you 'd think there 'd be a a factor of three or four in in , uh , cost function ,
C: OK .
F: you know , between them or something .
B: Yeah ,
B: so but I think that 's n that really doesn't happen very often that that that a word is cut in the middle or something .
B: That 's that 's really not not normal .
F: So so what you 're saying is that nearly always what happens when there 's a problem is that is that uh , there 's some uh , uh nonspeech that uh that is b interpreted as speech .
B: That is marked as speech .
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
F: Well then , we really should just send the stuff .
C: That would be great .
F: Right ?
F: Because that doesn't do any harm .
B: Yeah ,
F: You know , if they they hear you know , a dog bark and they say what was the word ,
B: it 's F: they <comment> you know , they B: Yeah , I als I F: Ruff ruff !
B: Yeah I also thought of there there are really some channels where it is almost <comment> um , only bre breathing in it .
F: Yeah ?
B: And to to re - run 's
B: Eh , um . Yeah . I 've got a a P - a method with loops into the cross - correlation with the PZM mike ,
F: Uh - huh .
B: and then to reject everything which which seems to be breath .
B: So , I could run this on those breathy channels ,
B: and perhaps throw out A: That 's a good idea .
C: Wow , that 's a great idea .
F: Yeah .
F: But I think I th Again , I think that sort of that that would be good ,
F: and what that 'll do is just cut the time a little further .
B: Yeah .
D: Mm - hmm .
B: Yeah .
F: But I think none of this is stuff that really needs somebody doing these these uh , uh , explicit markings .
D: Yeah .
C: Excellent .
C: Oh , I 'd be delighted with that ,
C: I I was very impressed with the with the result .
C: Yeah .
F: Yeah , cuz the other thing that was concerning me about it was that it seemed kind of specialized to the EDU meeting ,
F: and and that then when you get a meeting like this or something ,
B: Yeah .
F: and  and you have a b a bunch of different dominant speakers
C: Oh yeah ,
C: interesting .
F: you know , how are you gonna handle it .
F: Whereas this sounds like a more general solution
C: Oh yeah .
F: is C: Oh yeah ,
C: I pr I much prefer this ,
C: I was just trying to find a way F: Yeah .
C: Cuz I I don't think the staggered mixed channel is awfully good as a way of handling overlaps .
F: Uh - huh .
C: But D: Well good .
C: but uh D: That that really simplifies thing then .
C: Yeah .
D: And we can just , you know , get the meeting ,
D: process it ,
D: put the beeps file ,
D: send it off to IBM .
D: You know ?
C: Mm - hmm .
D: With very little work on our side .
B: Yeah .
B: Process it ,
B: hear into it .
B: I would D: Do what ?
B: Um , listen to it ,
B: and then A: Or at least sample it .
D: Well , sample it .
B: Yeah .
F: I I would just use some samples ,
D: Sample it .
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
F: make sure you don't send them three hours of " bzzz " <comment> or something .
B: Yeah .
D: Yeah .
D: Yeah .
B: No .
D: Right .
B: That won't be good .
D: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
D: Yeah that would be very good .
B: Yeah .
D: And then we can you know F: Yeah .
D: That 'll oughta be a good way to get the pipeline going .
C: Oh , I 'd be delighted .
C: Yeah .
B: And there 's there 's one point which I <comment> uh  yeah , which which I r we covered when I when I r listened to one of the EDU meetings ,
F: Great .
B: and that 's that somebody is playing sound from his laptop .
A: Uh - huh
B: And i the speech - nonspeech detector just assigns randomly the speech to to one of the channels ,
B: so .
B: Uh - I haven't - I didn't think of of s of this before ,
A: What can you do ?
B: but what what shall we do about s things like this ?
C: Well you were suggesting You suggested maybe just not sending that part of the meeting .
A: Yep . Mmm .
C: But B: But ,
B: sometimes the  the the laptop is in the background
B: and some somebody is is talking ,
B: and , that 's really a little bit confusing ,
B: but F: That 's life .
A: It 's a little bit confusing .
B: Yeah .
A: I mean , <comment> what 're we gonna do ?
B: Yeah .
B: OK .
F: Yeah .
A: Even a hand - transcription would C: Do you A: a hand - transcriber would have trouble with that .
B: Yeah ,
B: that 's that 's a second question ,
A: So .
B: " what what will different transcribers do with with the laptop sound ? "
F: What was the l what was the laptop sound ?
C: Would you would C: Yeah , go ahead .
F: I mean was it speech ,
F: or was it B: Yeah .
B: It 's speech .
F: Great .
C: Well ,
C: so C: I mean C: So my standard approach has been if it 's not someone close - miked , then , they don't end up on one of the close - miked channels .
C: They end up on a different channel .
C: And we have any number of channels available ,
F: Uh - huh .
C: I mean it 's an infinite number of channels .
B: Yeah .
C: So just put them on some other channel .
B: But ,
B: when thi when this is sent to to the I M - eh , I B M transcribers , I don't know if if they can tell that 's really C: Yeah ,
C: that 's right .
A: Yeah cuz there will be no channel on which it is foreground .
B: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
C: Well , they have a convention , in their own procedures , which is for a background sound .
A: Uh A: Right , but , uh , in general I don't think we want them transcribing the background ,
A: cuz that would be too much work .
B: Yeah .
A: Right ?
A: For it A: because in the overlap sections , then they 'll
D: Well I don't think Jane 's saying they 're gonna transcribe it ,
D: but they 'll just mark it as being there 's some background stuff there ,
A: But that 's gonna be all over the place .
D: right ?
C: Yeah .
A: How w how will they tell the difference between that sort of background and the dormal normal background of two people talking at once ?
B: Yeah .
C: Oh , I think I think it 'd be easy to to say " background laptop " .
D: But wait a minute ,
A: How would they know that ?
D: why would they treat them differently ?
B: Yeah .
C: Well because one of them A: Because otherwise it 's gonna be too much work for them to mark it .
A: They 'll be marking it all over the place .
B: Yeah .
C: Oh , I s
C: background laptop or , background LT  wouldn't take any time .
A: Sure ,
A: but how are they gonna tell bet the difference between that and two people just talking at the same time ?
C: And C: Oh , you can tell .
B: Yeah .
C: Acoustically , can't you tell ?
B: It 's really good sound ,
B: so C: Oh is it ?
C: Oh !
F: Well , I mean ,
F: isn't there a category something like uh , " sounds for someone for whom there is no i close mike " ?
B: Yeah that would be very important ,
C: Yeah .
A: But how do we d how do we do that for the I B M folks ?
B: yeah .
A: How can they tell that ?
D: Well we may just have to do it when it gets back here .
A: Yes ,
A: that 's my opinion as well .
B: Yeah .
A: So we don't do anything for it with it .
C: OK .
D: Yeah .
C: That sounds good .
C: That sounds good .
D: Yeah .
A: And they 'll just mark it however they mark it ,
A: and we 'll correct it when it comes back .
B: So th
F: Yeah .
C: OK .
B: there was a category for @ @ <comment> speech .
A: Yeah ,
A: the default .
C: Yeah ,
C: s a
B: OK .
A: No , not default .
C: Well , as it comes back , we have a uh when we can use the channelized interface for encoding it , then it 'll be easy for us to handle .
B: Yeah .
C: But  but if if out of context , they can't tell if it 's a channeled speak uh , you know , a close - miked speaker or not , then that would be confusing to them .
B: OK .
A: Right .
B: OK .
C: I don't know ,
C: I it doesn't C: I don't C: Either way would be fine with me ,
C: I don't really care .
F: Yeah .
F: So .
F: Shall we uh , do digits and get out of here ?
C: I have o I have one question .
A: Yep .
C: Do you think we should send the um that whole meeting to them and not worry about pre - processing it ?
F: Yes ma '
C: Or C: Uh , what I mean is we we should leave the part with the audio in the uh , beep file that we send to IBM for that one ,
C: or should we start after the that part of the meeting is over
F: Which part ?
C: in what we send .
C: So , the part where they 're using sounds from their from their laptops .
B: With B: with the laptop sound ,
B: or ?
C: w If we have speech from the laptop should we just uh , excise that from what we send to IBM ,
B: just C: or should we i give it to them and let them do with it what they can ?
D: I think we should just D: it it 's gonna be too much work if we hafta worry about that I think .
C: OK ,
C: that 'd be nice to have a a uniform procedure .
D: Yeah , I think if we just m send it all to them .
D: you know .
C: Good .
A: Worry about it when we get back .
D: Let C: And see how well they do .
D: Yeah , worry about it when we get back in .
F: Yeah .
C: And give them freedom to  to indicate if it 's just not workable .
D: Yeah .
C: Yeah ,
F: Yeah .
C: OK ,
F: Cuz , I wouldn't don't think we would mind having that transcribed , if they did it .
C: excellent .
A: I think C: Yeah ,
A: As I say , we 'll just have to listen to it and see how horrible it is .
D: Yeah , e
C: yeah .
B: Yeah .