Internet TV about "voice recognition" technology measured who is more reliable
Not more than half of 2017, Internet brand televisions have held conferences to promote new products. This year, they all have a common ground to promote - speech recognition. If you have a more long-term understanding of the Internet brand TV, you will find that the "voice" feature is not new, but after it has emphasized "smart", it has a new flash point.
The technical optimization of speech recognition has never stopped. I remember that at the time of Microsoft Office 2003, local speech recognition technology was added. At the time, speech recognition not only had to “learn†in advance, but also the accuracy and speed of recognition were far from satisfactory. Then, Apple Siri began to accelerate the popularity of speech recognition on the mobile phone side. For the voice recognition of TV products, there are mainly three aspects, one is the hardware basis, including whether the underlying hardware can correctly record voice data, WiFi+BT transmission is reliable. The second is voice recognition technology. At present, most of the voice recognition bottom layer is provided by several companies such as HKUST, Sogou, and outbound. Theoretically, as long as the same technology provider is used, the accuracy of voice recognition will not deviate. too much. The third is the optimization of the television system, allowing more applications for speech recognition.
In order to verify the differences in voice recognition, we have compared three television products including Xiaomi TV 4a and Xiao Wei.
Let's first look at the WiFi+BT hardware specifications for 4 TVs:
From the table, we can see that in the basic specifications, Xiaomi TV 4A and the micro whale high-definition TV both use the 802.11AC wireless network adapter and support Bluetooth 4.1+. The micro whale mainstream TV model 1 supports 802.11n wireless protocol and supports 2.4G+5G transmission. Microwhale mainstream TV 2, support 802.11n wireless protocol, only supports 2.4G transmission.
The chip types used are:
Whaley high products: BCM43569 module Whaley mainstream products 1: BCM43242 module Whaley mainstream products 2: RTK8192 module millet 4A: BCM43455 module from the overall specification table, many users will see this will feel millet TV 4A wireless configuration specifications spike The rhythm of the same product. But if you look closely, Xiaomi TV 4A actually uses a single-received single 1T1R antenna design! The other three comparative products have adopted the double-double-double design.
Where is the problem of single-shot receipt? For example, even if the Xiaomi TV 4A wireless network card uses a Ferrari-class chip, it is like the Beijing Second Ring Road opened on the morning and evening peaks. In the case of WiFi Bluetooth coexistence, data congestion cannot be effectively transmitted. The micro-whale mainstream TV 2, although only the 2.4G 802.11n wireless network card, but due to the design of double-double receiving, due to "no traffic on the road", the transmission speed is more stable and faster.
Of course, this is only speculation, so we moved all televisions into the shielded room and conducted actual testing of network signals. (Think about the weight of four TVs. The babies are hard working.)
The test mainly includes two parts:
Shield room environment. - Used for basic rate data comparison and analog pull distance comparison test; the topology diagram is as follows: PC and TV are in the same LAN segment, and the PC is connected to the AP through the network cable to verify the basic performance in this case;
AP configuration: 11abgn/ac mixed, bandwidth ATUO, channel auto
IxChariot is installed on the PC, and Endpoint is installed on the TV.
TCP, Throughout script, configuration 3 sets of the same Pair;
(4) The antennas of the AP are parallel to each other and are level up vertically; angle: 180°
2. Simulate the user environment. Comparison tests of user competition and coexistence scenarios. We found an office and constructed a simulation of the home user environment.
The AP is located at the middle position of the machine to be tested, and the adjustment distance is set to 3 Pair PC under the Chariot.
Test 1: The shielded room millet wireless transmission almost completely defeated first tested the wireless speed transmission situation (the bigger the data the better), we see that in the 2.4G frequency, the WiFi transmission of the millet TV 4A presents a disadvantage, as the three models of the micro-whale TV product. In the 5G test environment, the micro-whale mainstream television 2 does not support 5G transmission, and the millet TV 4A using the 802.11AC protocol is superior to the 802.11n micro-whale mainstream television product.
In pull distance testing, we use laboratory attenuation instead of pull distance testing. Judging from the experimental data, Xiaomi is slightly lower than the mainstream of the micro-whale program, the difference between the micro-whales' scheme is 10 meters + (6dB), the steady-rate rate (with the rate below 0dB is controlled within 90%), and the millet ratio micro-whale program is pulled. 2 meters (5dB) from the distance.
5G: Micro whale high product millet 4A micro whale mainstream product 1
2.4G: Micro whale high product Micro whale mainstream product 2 Micro whale mainstream product 1 Millet 4A
Test two: In the real environment, the Xiaomi TV 4A wireless signal is not as good as a small whale TV with a high product. This test is a test of a family scene. 1m/3m simulates a typical living room scene, 5m is a bedroom scene, and 10m is a limit-through scene.
Let's first take a look at the results of a comparison test between the Xiaomi TV 4A and the micro whale high TV models: Xiaomi 4A is less competitive than the micro whale, about 80%, at 1 meter and 3 meters. In a 5-meter environment, it is better than a small whale product, but it is 30% worse than a small whale product at a distance of 10 meters (consistent with the steady-state rate drop test result)
To increase the Bluetooth coexistence experiment, Xiaomi's entire scene won't compete with the micro whale. But looking at the decay of coexistence, the rate at which the microwhales and millet corresponded to each other had a decline, and millet recession was even greater, and coexistence was inferior to that of microwhales.
Limit pull distance test:
Micro whale high product micro whale mainstream product 2 micro whale mainstream product 1 millet 4A
Then we compare the performance degradation of the next 4 TVs when both WiFi and Bluetooth are transmitting simultaneously. In the 2.4G coexistence scenario, the Wi-Fi experience deteriorated when BT voices were long, and millet 4A was the worst. Affected more than 50% (1T1R), followed by a total of Rx program of micro-whale mainstream products 2, affecting nearly 29%. This proves our previous single-single-receipt design flaw prediction. (Road traffic jam!)
Simultaneous transmission performance:
Micro whale high product millet 4A micro whale mainstream products 1
Whether the performance of WiFi+BT will be affected will not be affected. We have also conducted supplementary tests for speech recognition. Xiaomi TV 4A and micro-whale TV both emphasize speech recognition technology. The former provides technical support by asking questions and Sogou. Micro-whale TV speech recognition technology It came from the Science and Technology News. We measured the comparison of speech recognition rates within the range of 3 meters, 5 meters, and 7 meters. From the results, Xiaomi 4A is slightly inferior to the micro-whale product, and there is basically a gap of 20%.
Wireless is a technology trend. In the future, more products and technologies will be implemented in a “wireless†way. As a TV product, the use of wireless methods can make the periphery of the TV more beautiful, and the “rice noodle†in the TV of the millet needs to solve the shackles of the cable. Unfortunately, Xiaomi TV 4A has obvious disadvantages compared to this comparison of micro-whale TV. The real voice service should be optimized from hardware to software.
Smart TV/box information can focus on smart TV information network sofa butler (http://), China's influential TV box and smart TV website, providing information, communication, TV boxes, smart TVs, smart TV software, etc. Answering questions.
The technical optimization of speech recognition has never stopped. I remember that at the time of Microsoft Office 2003, local speech recognition technology was added. At the time, speech recognition not only had to “learn†in advance, but also the accuracy and speed of recognition were far from satisfactory. Then, Apple Siri began to accelerate the popularity of speech recognition on the mobile phone side. For the voice recognition of TV products, there are mainly three aspects, one is the hardware basis, including whether the underlying hardware can correctly record voice data, WiFi+BT transmission is reliable. The second is voice recognition technology. At present, most of the voice recognition bottom layer is provided by several companies such as HKUST, Sogou, and outbound. Theoretically, as long as the same technology provider is used, the accuracy of voice recognition will not deviate. too much. The third is the optimization of the television system, allowing more applications for speech recognition.
In order to verify the differences in voice recognition, we have compared three television products including Xiaomi TV 4a and Xiao Wei.
Let's first look at the WiFi+BT hardware specifications for 4 TVs:
The chip types used are:
Whaley high products: BCM43569 module Whaley mainstream products 1: BCM43242 module Whaley mainstream products 2: RTK8192 module millet 4A: BCM43455 module from the overall specification table, many users will see this will feel millet TV 4A wireless configuration specifications spike The rhythm of the same product. But if you look closely, Xiaomi TV 4A actually uses a single-received single 1T1R antenna design! The other three comparative products have adopted the double-double-double design.
Where is the problem of single-shot receipt? For example, even if the Xiaomi TV 4A wireless network card uses a Ferrari-class chip, it is like the Beijing Second Ring Road opened on the morning and evening peaks. In the case of WiFi Bluetooth coexistence, data congestion cannot be effectively transmitted. The micro-whale mainstream TV 2, although only the 2.4G 802.11n wireless network card, but due to the design of double-double receiving, due to "no traffic on the road", the transmission speed is more stable and faster.
Of course, this is only speculation, so we moved all televisions into the shielded room and conducted actual testing of network signals. (Think about the weight of four TVs. The babies are hard working.)
The test mainly includes two parts:
Shield room environment. - Used for basic rate data comparison and analog pull distance comparison test; the topology diagram is as follows: PC and TV are in the same LAN segment, and the PC is connected to the AP through the network cable to verify the basic performance in this case;
AP configuration: 11abgn/ac mixed, bandwidth ATUO, channel auto
IxChariot is installed on the PC, and Endpoint is installed on the TV.
TCP, Throughout script, configuration 3 sets of the same Pair;
(4) The antennas of the AP are parallel to each other and are level up vertically; angle: 180°
2. Simulate the user environment. Comparison tests of user competition and coexistence scenarios. We found an office and constructed a simulation of the home user environment.
The AP is located at the middle position of the machine to be tested, and the adjustment distance is set to 3 Pair PC under the Chariot.
Test 1: The shielded room millet wireless transmission almost completely defeated first tested the wireless speed transmission situation (the bigger the data the better), we see that in the 2.4G frequency, the WiFi transmission of the millet TV 4A presents a disadvantage, as the three models of the micro-whale TV product. In the 5G test environment, the micro-whale mainstream television 2 does not support 5G transmission, and the millet TV 4A using the 802.11AC protocol is superior to the 802.11n micro-whale mainstream television product.
Rate test
5G: Micro whale high product millet 4A micro whale mainstream product 1
2.4G: Micro whale high product Micro whale mainstream product 2 Micro whale mainstream product 1 Millet 4A
Test two: In the real environment, the Xiaomi TV 4A wireless signal is not as good as a small whale TV with a high product. This test is a test of a family scene. 1m/3m simulates a typical living room scene, 5m is a bedroom scene, and 10m is a limit-through scene.
Let's first take a look at the results of a comparison test between the Xiaomi TV 4A and the micro whale high TV models: Xiaomi 4A is less competitive than the micro whale, about 80%, at 1 meter and 3 meters. In a 5-meter environment, it is better than a small whale product, but it is 30% worse than a small whale product at a distance of 10 meters (consistent with the steady-state rate drop test result)
Micro whale high product micro whale mainstream product 2 micro whale mainstream product 1 millet 4A
Then we compare the performance degradation of the next 4 TVs when both WiFi and Bluetooth are transmitting simultaneously. In the 2.4G coexistence scenario, the Wi-Fi experience deteriorated when BT voices were long, and millet 4A was the worst. Affected more than 50% (1T1R), followed by a total of Rx program of micro-whale mainstream products 2, affecting nearly 29%. This proves our previous single-single-receipt design flaw prediction. (Road traffic jam!)
Simultaneous transmission performance:
Micro whale high product millet 4A micro whale mainstream products 1
Smart TV/box information can focus on smart TV information network sofa butler (http://), China's influential TV box and smart TV website, providing information, communication, TV boxes, smart TVs, smart TV software, etc. Answering questions.
Headphone Cover,Earbuds Cover,Earphone Cover,Headset Covers
Nantong Boxin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.ntbosen.com