So he hasn't applied it to recognition or if he did he didn't talk about it. It 's  it 's just  And one of the concerns in the audience , actually , was that  that , um , the , uh , uh  he  he did a comparison to , uh , you know , our old foil , the  the nasty old standard recognizer with  mel  mel filter bank at the front , and H M Ms , and  and so forth. And , um , it didn't do nearly as well , especially in  in noise. But the  one of the good questions in the audience was , well , yeah , but that wasn't trained for that. I mean , this use of a very smooth , uh , spectral envelope is something that , you know , has evolved as being generally a good thing for speech recognition but if you knew that what you were gonna do is detect sonorants or not  So sonorants and non - sonorants is  is  is almost like voiced - unvoiced , except I guess that the voiced stops are  are also called " obstruents ". Uh , so it 's  it 's  uh , but with the exception of the stops I guess it 's pretty much the same as voiced - unvoiced ,
Mm - hmm.
right ? So  so  Um. So , um , if you knew you were doing that , if you were doing something say for a  a , uh  a  a Vocoder , you wouldn't use the same kind of features. You would use something that was sensitive to the periodicity and  and not just the envelope. Uh , and so in that sense it was an unfair test. Um , so I think that the questioner was right. It  it was in that sense an unfair test. Nonetheless , it was one that was interesting because , uh , this is what we are actually using for speech recognition , these smooth envelopes. And this says that perhaps even , you know , trying to use them in the best way that we can , that  that  that we ordinarily do , with , you know , Gaussian mixtures and H M Ms  and so forth , you  you don't , uh , actually do that well on determining whether something is sonorant or not.
Didn't they