Automatic audio transcription is not worth it
Automatic audio transcription is not worth it. And see: if so, why would (and other reputable companies) have transcribers that you should always pay for the service? This guide is provided by writer from https://payforessay.pro/ In the market system in which we live, no company would miss out on this opportunity if it were really worth it.
Many attempts have already been made in this direction by IBM, Google and other large companies. We also very much hope that this dream of automatically transcribing audios will become a reality.
Why isn't automatic audio transcription worth it?
The proposal for automatic audio transcription is not worth it yet, because the software needs to convert the human voice (recorded or live) into quality text. Otherwise, the time required to review it after conversion ends up being longer than it would take to type it manually.
And more! The texts produced by these softwares are very dangerous because the post-conversion revision must be much more careful, since they never convert the audio into non-existent words. That is, if the pronunciation is not well done, the software will return the word or phrase that most closely matches what was said - as with smartphone text-to-speech converters. Imagine the volume of errors that can come from more extensive audio ...
It is true that in informal activities these software can help. But, if the purpose of transcribing your audio is to generate protocol documents, especially if the content has specific terminologies, do not waste your time. Transcribe it manually and make sure everything gets under control. Otherwise, you will run many risks of damaging your document.
Experiences with automatic transcription software
As the service providers of audio transcription (and erasure ), of course we did many experiments to arrive at this conclusion. And that is why we wrote this article. Whenever possible, we seek more up-to-date information, as we are in the era of Artificial Intelligence.
We even had the experience of passing the texts converted by the software to our reviewers, but, of course, also for financial reasons, this did not work, since the proofreading service is more expensive than the transcription service.
IBM was the first to do voice-to-text conversion. Assuming that the human voice differs from person to person, when ViaVoice was installed on the desktop, it was necessary for the user to do voice recognition. The user needed to read, aloud, all the texts that the software requested, until the speech recognition was completed.
There was no progress, unfortunately
I didn't even realize that 10 years have passed! Today, Google and other manufacturers are already converting voice to text without the need for speech recognition. But, unfortunately, the features of the conversion can be practically the same. Very little progress.
If 10 years after ViaVoice the conversion technology remains the same, despite the efforts of the powerful Google and other large companies, the hope that software that really plays the role of converting voice to text with quality still appears on the market it's sparse.
Therefore, if you cannot continue to wait until the software is actually developed, we suggest that you learn to transcribe manually or hire essays for sale of those who already do it professionally.
Related Recource:
0コメント