Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Documentation update #199

Open
3 of 7 tasks
oadams opened this issue Oct 13, 2018 · 6 comments
Open
3 of 7 tasks

Documentation update #199

oadams opened this issue Oct 13, 2018 · 6 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@oadams
Copy link
Collaborator

oadams commented Oct 13, 2018

Things to document:

  • The need to build Kaldi for filterbank_and_pitch features.
  • Need for settings.ini / include a default.
  • Model training arguments.
  • Use of train_prefixes.txt, valid_prefixes.txt, test_prefixes.txt
  • Mention Python 3.7 is not supported by Tensorflow.
  • Point users to Github issue tracker to raise problems.
  • Document assumptions about data, and how the tool is primarily aimed at the single-speaker scenario.
@oadams oadams added this to the 0.4.0 milestone Oct 13, 2018
@oadams oadams self-assigned this Oct 13, 2018
@shuttle1987
Copy link
Member

Is there any test data for filterbank_and_pitches? I'm putting together environment build automation over in PR #208 and I'd like to be able to verify that I can automate the install of Kaldi by running some data through these code paths.

@oadams
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oadams commented Oct 24, 2018

There's no data: the distinction between filterbank and filterbank_and_pitches is only that pitch features are extracted from the audio additionally, so a test for pitch extraction could use the same data as any existing test that extracts filterbank features.

@shuttle1987
Copy link
Member

shuttle1987 commented Oct 24, 2018 via email

@oadams
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oadams commented Oct 24, 2018

Yes, that's right.

@shuttle1987
Copy link
Member

shuttle1987 commented Oct 29, 2018

Is this issue related to #86 and #1 ?

@oadams
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oadams commented Oct 29, 2018

Yeah, perhaps we should just enumerate current documentation change requirements in the checklist above, unless its really big enough and requires implementation that somehow warrants its own issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants