FPGA Central

sir i am a research scholar of speech processing. i want to know latest

research in phoneme level segmentation area. i.e. in consonant and
vowels. can anybody tell me about the latest research under thid topic.

i am doing research on arabic speech phoneme level segmentation.


thanx for your nice cooperation


ahmad

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 03:54 -0700, ahmad wrote:
> sir i am a research scholar of speech processing. i want to know latest
>
> research in phoneme level segmentation area. i.e. in consonant and
> vowels. can anybody tell me about the latest research under thid topic.
>
> i am doing research on arabic speech phoneme level segmentation.
>
>
> thanx for your nice cooperation

I have nothing to offer with respect to research on speech processing.
I would, however, suggest some research into spelling, punctuation, and
capitalisation (spelt capitalization by those in the US).

James Morrison wrote:

> I have nothing to offer with respect to research on speech
> processing. I would, however, suggest some research into
> spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation (spelt capitalization
> by those in the US).

y b0tha? 2b 133t, u d0n7 n33d 2 spel gud!

Chow,

P373r K.

and while we're at it, how about a more informative subject heading

Mark

What are you wanting to know? There is plenty of research, and a
plethera of information in textbooks on this subject.
http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~ipollak/...Section2.2.pdf

Try that, that's where I learned some of it. You should also check out
the lab that goes with it:
http://vise.www.ecn.purdue.edu/VISE/.../pdf/lab9a.pdf
http://vise.www.ecn.purdue.edu/VISE/.../pdf/lab9b.pdf

Benry wrote:
> What are you wanting to know?

Just for chuckles, I googled for "info". Here's part of the result:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410,000,000 for info

--
Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc
[email protected] http://www.bittware.com (603) 226-0404 x536
Sometimes experience is the only teacher that works - Mike Rosing

The questions were badly worded, gramatically lacking and
definately too vague. But - congratulations to all of you insipid
little pedants who responded with no information, no offer of
help, no reference to further sources of information, nor anything
else useful for that matter...

You can now go chuckling off to lunch - firm in your conviction
that you are truly superior - assholes.........

"Jim Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Benry wrote:
> > What are you wanting to know?
>
> Just for chuckles, I googled for "info". Here's part of the result:
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,410,000,000 for info
>
> --
> Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc
> [email protected] http://www.bittware.com (603) 226-0404 x536
> Sometimes experience is the only teacher that works - Mike Rosing

Netgeek wrote:

> The questions were badly worded, gramatically lacking and
> definately too vague. But - congratulations to all of you insipid
> little pedants who responded with no information, no offer of
> help, no reference to further sources of information, nor anything
> else useful for that matter...

As opposed to your post which is full of it*.

Ciao,

Peter K.

* Only missing two letters!

"Peter K." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...

> As opposed to your post which is full of it*.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Peter K.
>
> * Only missing two letters!

As opposed to the post from the "Principal Applications" guy from
Buttware... or your own response which is only missing two digits ^2
from the IQ of a certified moron...

Answer the guy's questions or shut the f**k up.......

Ciao...See-'ya...

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:48:04 -0400, "Netgeek" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Peter K." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected] roups.com...
>
>> As opposed to your post which is full of it*.
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> Peter K.
>>
>> * Only missing two letters!
>
>As opposed to the post from the "Principal Applications" guy from
>Buttware... or your own response which is only missing two digits ^2
>from the IQ of a certified moron...
>
>Answer the guy's questions or shut the f**k up.......
>
>Ciao...See-'ya...

Good Hell, Netgeek!

After the next time you have *** with your Mother,
while you're both lying there smoking cigarettes,
ask her why she didn't teach you better manners.

[-Rick-]
A guy not too chicken-shit to give his real name.

"Rick Lyons" <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:48:04 -0400, "Netgeek" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Peter K." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected] roups.com...
> >
> >> As opposed to your post which is full of it*.
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >>
> >> Peter K.
> >>
> >> * Only missing two letters!
> >
> >As opposed to the post from the "Principal Applications" guy from
> >Buttware... or your own response which is only missing two digits ^2
> >from the IQ of a certified moron...
> >
> >Answer the guy's questions or shut the f**k up.......
> >
> >Ciao...See-'ya...
>
> Good Hell, Netgeek!
>
> After the next time you have *** with your Mother,
> while you're both lying there smoking cigarettes,
> ask her why she didn't teach you better manners.
>
> [-Rick-]
> A guy not too chicken-shit to give his real name.

Tell you what Rick - I see that your email is listed as
Bogus-IEEE-blah.............

My email is [email protected]. I take some offense
at you using an IEEE address as your "bogus" since I spent
quite a few years working within the IEEE and was a member
of the Governing Board for a few years - unpaid - in fact it cost
me quite a bit personally.

Your Mom and I were just discussing your own manners the
other day. She felt that your problem really had something to do
with being "inadequate" - like your Dad.............

You may think you're a real stand-up guy for using your "real"
name on Usenet - but when you insult people by reference to
their parents - you deserve to have your ass kicked. If you really
have any balls (which I doubt) - contact me via email and either:

a) Issue an apology - or -
b) provide an address - and we can meet (I travel alot - can go
just about anywhere)...

So, let me know Mr. "not too chicken-shit"........ You've gone a
little too far. *** with Mom? Only in your fantasies aparently...

Netgeek wrote:


> My email is [email protected]. I take some offense
> at you using an IEEE address as your "bogus" since I spent
> quite a few years working within the IEEE and was a member
> of the Governing Board for a few years - unpaid - in fact it cost
> me quite a bit personally.

Well, Bill Shields, you still haven't answered my question: why didn't
YOU give the OP any information if you feel so strongly about it?

Ciao,

Peter K.

I have attempted to send Rick email privately - all bounced....
It seems that the "not-too chicken-shit" guy doesn't care to post
any real email addresses for response.

My apologies to this newsgroup for having to post this here and
wasting the bandwidth, but:

RICK - Contact me personally at the address I provided
previously...

Bill

"Netgeek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
>
> "Rick Lyons" <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:48:04 -0400, "Netgeek" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Peter K." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected] roups.com...
> > >
> > >> As opposed to your post which is full of it*.
> > >>
> > >> Ciao,
> > >>
> > >> Peter K.
> > >>
> > >> * Only missing two letters!
> > >
> > >As opposed to the post from the "Principal Applications" guy from
> > >Buttware... or your own response which is only missing two digits ^2
> > >from the IQ of a certified moron...
> > >
> > >Answer the guy's questions or shut the f**k up.......
> > >
> > >Ciao...See-'ya...
> >
> > Good Hell, Netgeek!
> >
> > After the next time you have *** with your Mother,
> > while you're both lying there smoking cigarettes,
> > ask her why she didn't teach you better manners.
> >
> > [-Rick-]
> > A guy not too chicken-shit to give his real name.
>
> Tell you what Rick - I see that your email is listed as
> Bogus-IEEE-blah.............
>
> My email is [email protected]. I take some offense
> at you using an IEEE address as your "bogus" since I spent
> quite a few years working within the IEEE and was a member
> of the Governing Board for a few years - unpaid - in fact it cost
> me quite a bit personally.
>
> Your Mom and I were just discussing your own manners the
> other day. She felt that your problem really had something to do
> with being "inadequate" - like your Dad.............
>
> You may think you're a real stand-up guy for using your "real"
> name on Usenet - but when you insult people by reference to
> their parents - you deserve to have your ass kicked. If you really
> have any balls (which I doubt) - contact me via email and either:
>
> a) Issue an apology - or -
> b) provide an address - and we can meet (I travel alot - can go
> just about anywhere)...
>
> So, let me know Mr. "not too chicken-shit"........ You've gone a
> little too far. *** with Mom? Only in your fantasies aparently...
>
>
>

Netgeek wrote:

> I have attempted to send Rick email privately - all bounced....
> It seems that the "not-too chicken-shit" guy doesn't care to post
> any real email addresses for response.

He does, just mangled to avoid spam. You apparently can't figure that
out, even though you noted it in a previous post.

Ciao,

Peter K.

Peter,

The OP was looking for information which is outside my area of
expertise. Rather than provide him with some info that didn't
directly address his questions I was hoping that some of the members
of this newsgroup would address his questions and send him on the
right path. I was horrified at the response. Instead of being helpfull,
the guy was ridiculed for his use of English and basically ignored. I
don't think that's in the best spirit of the newsgroups, so I was fairly
harsh in admonishing some of those who responded in a really demeaning
way.

What's happened since then is a sad example of what can happen on the
newsgroups. I was personally attacked. I expect an apology from those
people that went too far. It may not happen, but let's see if reason
prevails.

If you have info for the OP - I urge you to provide it. All the rest of
this
merely clouds the issue (that is - someone asked for help - will they get
it?).

Regards,
Bill













"Peter K." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Netgeek wrote:
>
>
> > My email is [email protected]. I take some offense
> > at you using an IEEE address as your "bogus" since I spent
> > quite a few years working within the IEEE and was a member
> > of the Governing Board for a few years - unpaid - in fact it cost
> > me quite a bit personally.
>
> Well, Bill Shields, you still haven't answered my question: why didn't
> YOU give the OP any information if you feel so strongly about it?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Peter K.
>

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:35:58 -0700, Peter K. wrote:

> Netgeek wrote:
>
>> I have attempted to send Rick email privately - all bounced....
>> It seems that the "not-too chicken-shit" guy doesn't care to post
>> any real email addresses for response.
>
> He does, just mangled to avoid spam. You apparently can't figure that
> out, even though you noted it in a previous post.

I guess that that proves that address mangling does work, even against
seemingly Turing-test passing automatons like "Netgeek" :-)

However, Rick might want to tweak his bogus mail address just a little, as
"_" is not a valid character to have in a domain name, so it's a dead
giveaway. A hyphen or nothing at all would be a little more convincing.

I'm working on my own collection of spam (110000+ and counting), so I
don't muck about with address hiding :-) It wouldn't help anyway, as too
many examples of my addresses have already been archived in various places
on the web forever more. Mostly mailing list archives.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:14:23 -0400, Netgeek wrote:
> The OP was looking for information which is outside my area of
> expertise. Rather than provide him with some info that didn't
> directly address his questions I was hoping that some of the members
> of this newsgroup would address his questions and send him on the
> right path. I was horrified at the response. Instead of being helpfull,
> the guy was ridiculed for his use of English and basically ignored. I
> don't think that's in the best spirit of the newsgroups, so I was fairly
> harsh in admonishing some of those who responded in a really demeaning
> way.

You must have missed one of the first round of posts by someone who did
seem to know a thing or two about the question, and which included some
links for further reading.

In my own attempt to be helpful to the OP, I'll point out that his
questions are perhaps more relevant to the comp.speech and
comp.speech.research groups, with side-orders of comp.speech.users and
comp.dcom.telecom. As always, google is the OP's friend.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ch&btnG=Search
is a google search of the gist of the OP's original question. It would
seem to contain some useful links.

Posts denigrating the question are entirely expected,
particularly when not even the subject line has any reference to the
question. Even a day or two's reading ("lurking") in the newsgroup would
have shown the original poster the appropriate way to form a usenet
question. Once upon a time news readers automatically subscribed you to
the news.newusers group, where this sort of thing is spelled out, but that
doesn't appear to happen any more. So the poster was told. Now they'll
know.

> What's happened since then is a sad example of what can happen on the
> newsgroups. I was personally attacked. I expect an apology from those
> people that went too far. It may not happen, but let's see if reason
> prevails.

You're the one picking a fight. You'll get what you get.

--
Andrew

Andrew Reilly wrote:

> I'm working on my own collection of spam (110000+ and counting), so I
> don't muck about with address hiding :-) It wouldn't help anyway, as too
> many examples of my addresses have already been archived in various places
> on the web forever more. Mostly mailing list archives.

It does help greatly. I used to use an unmangled address. It took about
6 mos. for the spam and virii to subside, but it is definitely better
now.
As for the controversy in regards to the original posting - I agree
with Netgeek. Although your point is also valid, pointing out assholes
on Usenet is a lot like pissing into a strong wind.

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org (Rick Lyons) writes:

> [-Rick-]
> A guy not too chicken-shit to give his real name.

Really. (i.e., I agree with the sentiment)
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
[email protected], 919-472-1124

"Netgeek" <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> Bill

Bill,

Now that Rick has confronted you on the identity issue, you're using
(apparently) at least your first name. That's good, in my opinion. Why
did you feel the need to not only foil spam machines but also
completely hide your identity up to this point? I mean, even your
first name?
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
[email protected], 919-472-1124

Netgeek wrote:

> The OP was looking for information which is outside my area of
> expertise. Rather than provide him with some info that didn't
> directly address his questions I was hoping that some of the members
> of this newsgroup would address his questions and send him on the
> right path.

OK, fair enough.

> I was horrified at the response.

A little naive, though, considering the low level of your response to
the situation.

> Instead of being helpfull,
> the guy was ridiculed for his use of English and basically ignored. I
> don't think that's in the best spirit of the newsgroups, so I was
fairly
> harsh in admonishing some of those who responded in a really
demeaning
> way.

Bill, people on this newsgroup are, in general, very helpful IMHO.
Having said that, we tend to have (depending on the phases of the moon,
time of day and whether we've had our coffee/medication yet) a short
response to people who don't "play by the rules".

The "rules" (see, e.g. http://users.erols.com/jyavins/procfaq.htm ) are
reasonable, considering that comp.dsp is an open (unmoderated) forum.

> What's happened since then is a sad example of what can happen on the
> newsgroups. I was personally attacked. I expect an apology from
those
> people that went too far. It may not happen, but let's see if reason
> prevails.

Bill, your first foray into the dicussion was:

] The questions were badly worded, gramatically lacking and
] definately too vague. But - congratulations to all of you insipid
] little pedants who responded with no information, no offer of
] help, no reference to further sources of information, nor anything
] else useful for that matter...
]
] You can now go chuckling off to lunch - firm in your conviction
] that you are truly superior - assholes.........

which, again IMHO, was at a way lower level than and responses to the
OP... which just underscores, for me, your naivety.

> If you have info for the OP - I urge you to provide it. All the rest
of
> this merely clouds the issue (that is - someone asked for help - will

> they get it?).

If the original on-topic post is not sufficient, then the OP should ask
again, ask a different question or (now that he's answered) try Andrew
Reilly's suggestions.

Thanks for coming back with a reasonable response.

Ciao,

Peter K.

"Peter K." wrote:

>
> Bill, your first foray into the dicussion was:
>
> ] The questions were badly worded, gramatically lacking and
> ] definately too vague. But - congratulations to all of you insipid
> ] little pedants who responded with no information, no offer of
> ] help, no reference to further sources of information, nor anything
> ] else useful for that matter...
> ]
> ] You can now go chuckling off to lunch - firm in your conviction
> ] that you are truly superior - assholes.........
>
> which, again IMHO, was at a way lower level than and responses to the
> OP... which just underscores, for me, your naivety.
>

Here's the distinction you seem to fail to grasp - The original poster
did nothing to deserve mockery. The posters, OTOH, who replied in a
'low level' way as you euphemistically characterize it, deserved to be
called assholes.
Simply not being proficient in English is no excuse for being attacked.
I know there are a few who believe it is, but they're just assholes and
that is why they think that way.

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I suggested that he use a more informative subject title so that
everyone doesn't have to read his post to find out what it is about. I
think that was a helpfull suggestion. What do you have to offer?

Mark

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:06:47 -0400, "Netgeek" <[email protected]>
wrote:

(snipped)
>>
>> Good Hell, Netgeek!
>>
>> After the next time you have *** with your Mother,
>> while you're both lying there smoking cigarettes,
>> ask her why she didn't teach you better manners.
>>
>> [-Rick-]
>> A guy not too chicken-shit to give his real name.
>
>Tell you what Rick - I see that your email is listed as
>Bogus-IEEE-blah.............

Tell you what Netgeek - if you delete the
"_BOGUS_" cahracters, then you'll have my
E-mail address.

>My email is [email protected]. I take some offense
>at you using an IEEE address as your "bogus" since I spent
>quite a few years working within the IEEE and was a member
>of the Governing Board for a few years - unpaid - in fact it cost
>me quite a bit personally.

The "ieee.org" portion of my E-mail address is legitimate.
Governing Board huh? Interesting. I thought they paid you guys.

>Your Mom and I were just discussing your own manners the
>other day. She felt that your problem really had something to do
>with being "inadequate" - like your Dad.............

Ha. That was good. (Better than I expected.)

>You may think you're a real stand-up guy for using your "real"
>name on Usenet - but when you insult people by reference to
>their parents - you deserve to have your ass kicked. If you really
>have any balls (which I doubt) - contact me via email and either:

If you want to kick my ass, you'll have to get in line.

>a) Issue an apology - or -
>b) provide an address - and we can meet (I travel alot - can go
>just about anywhere)...

I live in the Sacramento California area.
The next time you're in my neighborhood, let me
know. We'll meet.

>So, let me know Mr. "not too chicken-shit"........ You've gone a
>little too far.

Well, ... maybe.
Netgeek, if you're gonna throw insults at people, ya' have
to be willing to have insults thrown back your way.

>*** with Mom? Only in your fantasies aparently...

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 22:19 -0400, Netgeek wrote:
> The questions were badly worded, gramatically lacking and
> definately too vague. But - congratulations to all of you insipid
> little pedants who responded with no information, no offer of
> help, no reference to further sources of information, nor anything
> else useful for that matter...
> You can now go chuckling off to lunch - firm in your conviction
> that you are truly superior - assholes.........

OK, since I started this off let me chime in. I'm not trying to duck.
I just can't keep up with this flurry of responses. Perhaps my response
could have been more polite or friendly. After seeing many of these
types of postings I guess I snapped.

Anyone who is in the engineering profession has a hard enough time
getting respect. See the thread about audio engineers for just a taste.

Can you imagine a lawyer posting something to a public place and not
using _any_ punctuation or having a post that is, in your words,
"gramatically lacking and definately too vague"? Absolutely not.
(Isn't it ironic that you misspelled both "grammatically" and
"definitely".)

For engineers to begin to build up a good reputation we have to be able
to communicate with the other 99% of society that are not engineers. It
is not acceptable to not be able to communicate with those 99%. Also,
keep in mind, that before you land _any_ job the hiring managers should
be going a quick search on google to see if they can see what you have
posted in the past. If you are a poor communicator it will come through
and that could certainly effect you chances. I do own my own company
and if I ever needed to hire someone literacy in (insert primary
language of customers) would be high on the list of requirements.

This isn't to say that we don't all make mistakes or have varying
degrees of competence in the english language. But this is not a pager
service and the OP did not make _any_ attempt. If you take the time to
post a well constructed and thought-out message you will have a much
better chance of getting useful responses. As I stated I didn't have
anything to offer technically here but I do with respect to
communicating skills.

So there you have it. Flame away if you desire.