G: There 're some words that weren't F: OK . We 're on .
G: See , there 're some stretches that weren't even in one or the other ,
B: Right . It would have to be hand G: so B: Right .
H: Yeah .
G: What are you gonna do about those , though ?
B: It would have to be B: Well , a h a person would would check it over
A: Hello ?
G: You 're never A: OK .
B: and then give a final A: Should we close the door ?
F: Oh , we 'll wait for Chuck .
H: I mean , if recognition 's better on the channelized segmentations , then F: Close the door behind him .
B: I 'm B: Well , it 's more
C: We 're we 're recording by the way ,
B: you didn't C: just for B: Oh , sorry .
C: I mean , uh u
F: Y you can keep talking ,
C: You can keep talking .
F: but you should be aware .
C: I just I just C: g guess you were gonna B: You were saying that we were waiting for Chuck ,
B: so I just F: Well , and then , uh then Morgan said " why don't we start ? "
C: Well B: OK .
F: and I said " O K " .
C: So the compromise is we 're we 're starting but we 're leaving the door open .
B: OK .
C: So we 'll have a little more background noise
C: and  Uh .
F: Or we can close the door and make Chuck knock <comment> when he comes .
A: Well , I tend to A: th there 're a couple meetings where there are a lot of preambles like this ,
A: in which case the transcription doesn't start until someone actually says " OK . "
C: Really ?
A: So , we 're starting right now .
B: Well , that 's good .
C: Yeah . Oh , yeah . The meeting 's started .
C: This is this is the real thing .
A: This is the C: This is the real thing .
C: Oh well , never mind ,
C: it wasn't .
C: There goes Chuck .
C: Just kidding ,
C: it was .
C: OK ,
C: so .
F: And Chuck gets stuck with the ear - plug mike .
C: OK . Last guy in gets the A: Yeah .
A: u
A: Didn't get the door .
C: Oh , you just get the door now .
F: But he didn't shut the door .
C: Yeah .
F: I got it
F: since C: Yeah . So I I @ @ Adam sent around this thing about what we were going to talk about
C: and and th we had had this discussion of , uh , flipping back and forth between an emphasis on  on the technology , particularly recognition , versus , uh , the recordings and transcriptions and so on .
C: Um , but , um ,
C: I was asking , if we could , to uh , kind of make it just whatever is happening rather than one or the other
C: because , uh , next weekend next week I 'll be at a meeting on campus
G: Sure .
C: and after that I 'll be Europe for , uh , several meetings ' worth .
C: Uh , you folks 'll be gone for a couple of the meetings ' worth in in Europe also ,
G: Mm - hmm .
B: I overlap exactly with the times you 're gone .
C: right ?
C: Really ?
B: I mean C: OK . Yeah .
B: Yeah .
C: So .
C: So , uh , you didn't you didn't get an agenda ,
C: I guess . We 've got the usual F: Well , because no one no one ever rep responded with any items .
C: Yeah .
F: So I have a couple of minor ones .
F: Uh ,
F: our normal transcription status ,
F: just so that we can make some some plans .
F: So wha what 's up with IBM , Chuck ?
F: Do you know ?
I: Um , I think Brian is on vacation now
I: but , uh , before he left we gave him , uh , another set of meetings to give to the transcribers .
I: And H: How many ?
I: Uh , what is it ?
F: Is is yours working there , Chuck ?
I: Four ?
D: Four .
H: Oh .
I: Four .
F: Can you ?
F: You 're b you 're B ?
I: Test .
I: What am I ?
A: Is it turned on ?
F: There 's no on .
I: Test .
A: OK .
I: Yeah .
F: Oh . It 's just A: Channel B .
F: I 'll Let me raise the gain on that a little bit
I: OK .
A: Channel B .
F: since it 's so far from your mouth .
F: Sorry .
C: OK . So we sent them I: So we gave them four meetings before he left
I: and , um ,
I: that 's it .
I: So , um , I don't think we 'll hear from him before he gets back .
F: OK .
C: And the
A: Do they know about your pie chart ?
I: I don't know .
A: OK .
I: I don't know .
C: What pie chart ?
F: Pie ?
F: Oh .
A: He has a nice pie chart on the , uh , s the current status page ,
B: Pie .
A: which shows the amount of transc amount of data that had been transcribed
G: Mm - hmm .
A: and the amount out of the entire A: and at this point it 's not quite half .
A: Wouldn't Is that what you 'd say , with the pie chart ?
I: Yeah .
A: And then of that , there 's , uh , a little sliver A: I could try and draw it
A: but it 's probably better to describe .
C: Half the data that 's been recorded has been transcribed ?
A: So  Roughly . Almost .
A: Not quite .
C: Wow ! That 's getting pretty good .
A: And I haven't actually caught up with , uh A: since I got back so recently from my vacation .
A: Um , I know that the transcribers finished , um , uh , several meetings while I was gone .
I: Oh .
A: And I haven't told you
A: cuz I haven't I haven't figured out which ones they are y are yet .
I: Right .
A: But when that happens , then that pie will get even closer to the midline .
C: Mm - hmm .
I: Mm - hmm .
A: It 's not quite  not quite fifty percent
A: but really getting close .
A: I think it will be .
F: OK . So also , um G: You mean , pi will be close to one half ?
A: Well , not mathematically .
G: That 's new .
F: Now , that 's a strange C: Well , if we can have three point one four times as much tr transcribed as we recorded , we really would be doing well .
A: n
F: Yep .
G: Right .
A: But it 's a nice it 's I recommend his his his graphic ,
F: Um . So G: You know , this this raises some A: cuz it 's it 's a really nice graphic .
G: Mm - hmm .
F: How much G: How do you transcribe that ?
F: How much do we need transcribed before it 's worth doing some trainings ?
G: Oh . B uh B: Mmm .
F: I mean , it seems like probably we have enough now .
G: We can F: Right ?
F: Because , like like Macrophone wasn't that much data .
B: You mean F: Right ?
F: And it helped .
G: Well , we already use it for digit training .
B: But but that was read speech .
F: You only used that for digits ?
G: I mean F: Right .
G: Well , we did do some training on digits F: That 's right .
G: uh , rather adaptation on digits digits .
G: I mean , supervised adaptation .
F: Mm - hmm .
G: So .
G: Yeah . I mean , uh B: Maybe like twenty hours . We could try ,
B: but Maybe not counting the non - native speech ,
B: cuz if That that just doesn't translate very well .
G: Well ,
G: I would I would love to do some , um G: you know , with adaptation you can use fairly small amount of data to improve your performance .
F: Right .
G: Um , and
G: n you know , it 's just basically ,
G: uh uh
G: You know , I I don't have to time to to do too much these days
G: except what I 'm already doing .
G: So F: Mm - hmm .
G: um , but if there 's some someone has some free time , I 'm I 'll be happy to show them how it works
G: and you can play with it .
F: Cool .
F: Um .
C: Uh , I thought you you were already using adaptation w on the test set .
G: No , supervised adaptation .
F: Supervised .
G: So , we 're doing s unsupervised speaker adaptation .
C: I see .
G: But you could build a test set which you sort of take your models and ada do supervised adaptation .
C: Oh , OK .
C: Got it .
G: And then you start with the speaker adaptation from sort of channel - adapted
C: Right .
C: Right .
G: or room - adapted
G: or whatever .
C: Yeah , yeah . Yeah , whatever this is .
F: H how would you imagine doing a test set on this corpus ?
F: A test set , training set division ?
F: I mean , it it 's really weird .
F: Right ?
F: Because it 's it would be hard to get speaker disjoint sets .
G: Right .
F: Do y do we just give up on that ?
B: Right . And actually the I was thinking about this
B: the original application doesn't really appl
B: I mean , if you 're using this over and over again , you 're gonna be testing on the same the same speakers .
F: Well , but then you have the supervised versus unsupervised question .
B: I just mean that it 's not a terrible thing to assume that you don't that you don't have disjoint sets ,
F: Right .
C: Mm - hmm .
F: So .
B: for this particular kind of application .
B: I mean F: Yeah .
C: Right . Yeah .
C: I mean , you could have some parts of it that are disjoint and some that aren't ,
G: It 's it 's sort of like in , um , Broadcast News
C: and see what the difference is , you know , on the others .
B: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
G: because you have those people who re - occur over and over .
C: Yeah .
G: I mean , the anchor speakers tend typically .
F: Right .
G: So ,
G: um m m m m
G: Yeah . As long as you 're aware that you 're doing that , that 's I don't see that as a problem .
C: You can separate it out and see how if they 're F: And then s s similarly with subject matter .
C: Yeah .
F: That , you know , if you 're training your language model on this meeting only and testing on this meeting only , you 're gonna do a lot better than if you start crossing them .
G: Mm - hmm .
B: Somewhat . Although what 's interesting is that the majority of the words in the language model are actually C: Mm - hmm .
F: Are the same .
B: Yeah . They 're actually these , like , function words
F: Sure .
B: and " Yeah ! " and s stuff like that .
C: Mm - hmm .
C: Mm - hmm .
B: And there there 's a lot of speaker dependence there .
B: Even the transcribers will say they know who the speaker is after a while just from their backchannels
C: Yeah .
F: Just from word choice ?
B: and B: Right .
B: So y So , I don't think you 're talking the way you write , in in other words .
F: Most certainly . So it 's just , uh , if we 're gonna do that we should give some thought to how we wanna divide it up .
C: Yeah . Yeah , so , you know , maybe someone else would do a lot of the work where probably your advice
F: Yeah . And similarly with digits . We now have a lot of digits
G: Yeah .
C: would be helpful .
F: but most of them aren't transcribed .
F: So if we wanted to do a forced alignment on them , we could start collecting ourselves up a fairly large digit corpus .
C: Yeah . Well , we 'd F: And so , same issue .
F: You know we just need to get someone who 's interested in that to start looking at it .
C: We want that for sure .
C: Yeah .
F: So who 's working on digits currently ?
C: Uh , Dave Gelbart .
F: OK , maybe I 'll talk to him and see if he 's interested .
C: Not right away .
F: Yeah , certainly .
C: He 's got prelims
F: He wants to pass the prelims .
C: and C: Yeah .
C: Um , one thing , uh , uh , just a e uh , uh , an announcement of sorts is that , um , Chuck is gonna be going to a meeting at NIST ,
C: in , uh , about a month and a half , I guess .
C: They 're still working out the date .
C: cuz they want to gather together sort of one person from each site who is involved in the meeting stuff
C: since they 're going to be doing a bunch of meeting recordings there .
F: Mm - hmm .
C: And so , uh .
F: Is , uh ? Are the CMU folks gonna be there ?
C: Somebody you know , it 's like one person C: at the moment it 's one person from each site .
C: So there 'll be somebody from the CMU , and somebody from here , and somebody from , uh , a a number of places .
C: Probably somebody from UW .
C: Um . So .
C: Yeah , it 's possible they 'll open it up to more people .
C: But but I think , you know , the main thing is just to ,
C: uh uh uh uh , it 's not a it 's not a conference .
C: It 's not a workshop , really .
F: Right .
C: It 's just connecting with them .
C: So .
C: Um . So , then if they start a bunch of recordings then ultimately they 'll they 'll have training sets and test sets ,
C: and  and all that all that stuff ,
C: and C: But .
G: But it would be interesting to hear what they intend to do about the speaker overlap , for instance .
F: Right .
C: Yeah .
B: What 's the plan if were we still going to be like a center for transcribing data ?
B: What happens if th they don't deliver things until next year or something when we have less resources
C: I
B: or ?
C: Well , again the hope is that , uh I mean , it 's it 's looking I mean , I have to ask these folks
C: but , uh , my impression is that the , um , IBM path is looking , you know , more promising .
F: Yep .
F: It it pretty good .
F: Yeah .
C: And if that 's the case and if it turns out that , uh , it 's really a relatively small amount of time
C: for our transcribers to process things before and after ,
C: if they really have taken out enough of the of the , uh , uh , work that that it 's f feasible , then maybe we can do it with a smaller staff next year .
B: Mm - hmm .
C: I mean , next next year , uh , in which he 's you 're referring to is , uh , next year we we don't have a whole lot of guaranteed funding for this  this work .
C: Um , other funding may come .
C: You know that 's But but if we wanna just count on , uh , uh , what we know about , it 's it 's more modest than this year .
C: Uh , it 's still there 'll still be money ,
C: but it 's just more modest .
C: So C: um , so I would see us as probably not doing more recordings
C: at least for for for meetings or or digits or anything .
C: But , uh , if if we feel that we need to , probably still doing some recordings for SmartKom or something .
D: Yeah .
C: Um , but otherwise just , you know , stop that
C: and just take whatever comes from the other places ,
C: which ,
C: uh ,
C: I guess we have an u unknown rate .
C: If it if it starts being if they 're generating this huge amount and we can't handle it then , you know , we 'll tell them .
C: But .
C: Uh , although it would have been nice if that their stuff had come earlier ,
C: it it 's in some ways a good thing ,
C: because we 've been ironing out this path .
C: So .
F: Um . Well , I got a email from one of the UW guys .
F: They want to record the meetings at higher , uh , sampling rate than sixteen kilohertz .
F: Uh ,
F: I didn't ask why .
F: But it seems to me that really doesn't matter .
F: If they have the disk space to do it , it seems that that is not a big deal .
F: I was just wondering if anyone had an opinion about mismatched rates .
C: Well , it 's just if that they 're sending it to us , then we have to have the disk space to do it too .
A: Can't we downsample
A: and , uh , transcribe on that basis ?
C: That would be the hope .
C: Yeah .
F: Yep .
C: d Are they doing some nice integer multiple
C: or ?
F: Excuse me ?
C: Are they doing some nice integer multiple of th of sixteen ?
F: No .
B: Are they they 're doing , like , twenty - two
F: No . No , no , it was like forty something .
B: or s ?
B: Could B: Forty - eight ?
B: Forty forty - four ?
F: Forty - four ,
H: F
F: forty - two .
H: So , CD .
B: Yeah .
B: CD - ROM .
D: CD .
F: Yeah .
B: Yeah .
C: Oh , forty - four point one .
D: Yeah .
B: Forty - four .
H: Forty - four one .
D: Yeah .
B: S
C: Yeah .
F: Something like that .
C: Oh , so that 's C: Well , you know , we record here at for at forty - eight or something
F: And then we downsample . Yep .
C: and then we downsample .
H: But forty - eight 's a nice multiple of eight .
B: But but it but forty - four and sixteen are not easy ?
C: Yeah .
C: Well you can do it .
H: You can do it , I think .
B: Yeah ?
C: Oh , absolutely you can do it .
B: It 's not lossy ?
C: Yeah . You can do you can go from anything to anything else .
H: You c y
C: But but it 's it 's just it 's it 's just a little more complicated .
F: You get aliasing .
B: As long as you 're B: Yeah .
B: As long as you 're not doing the processing on the downsampled H: There 's probably some B: I mean Just for transcribing it , you mean ?
C: It 's just like C: Yeah .
C: So u u u
C: Yeah . I mean , it 's just slightly more complicated ,
C: but it 's but i you can you can go from any frequency to anyth any other frequency .
C: So it 's F: Well , the the only thought was if we 're gonna do a combined corpus , does it really matter if some 's sampled at one rate and some 's sampled at the other ?
F: My feeling is no , it doesn't .
F: Your audio , u these days audio tools tend to take care of all of that .
F: But I just wanted to double check with other people before I told them " yeah , no problem " .
A: Also seems like the corpus could all be standardized on s on this the , uh F: That 's what I was saying .
I: Why are why are they asking us ?
F: So so