Use of audible translators in radio

General Discussion
1

As topic, it’s just an open subject about usage of localised and internet based translation services with dialog mode, where it listens and translate any heard speech.

Now this could be as useful, in principle, in radio as it can be in telecommunications. Some of them are incredibly tolerent of noise too, so being even more useful where implemented.

Now I realise there’s plenty of arguments for/against such things, on many subjectivity diverse levels, but I’m more looking at the compliancy based arguments.

Technically, the playback of the translation counts as a recording as far as it’s a stream of consecutive strung phonemes sequenced into an audio stream goes. So under some licenses, it’s automatically not legal to use the outgoing robot dialogue as sent audio, but it’s legit under such ruling to actually mimick the phrasing and words heard on the resulting translation of your intended response/over.

But under some rules in licensing, it’s actually considered as a form of third party messaging which is prohibited under applicable licenses.

So, on a level where licensing rules fail to meet the advancement of technology and any ethical consideration, where do you feel whole things sits?

In my mind, I can support arguments that the robot generated translation of your over shouldn’t be directly sent unless you have normal use of speech synth tech due to disability - but using the audio translation to guide your dodgy attempts to spoken converse in another language, ■■■■ I think it’s in the spirit of both consideration and respect of others.

As for TPM claims - most TPM use definitions are as grey and muddy in context as often out of context with current needs. So I play the TPM game by ear and use best judgement.

So, it’s open for you lot to discuss such stuff, or not :slight_smile:

puts plenty of fire extinguishers and fireproof clothing on standby

2

Chris - I’ve read this a few times but have to say I’m totally confused by what on earth your post is about? You seems to ask a question, then answer it, then move on - what is an audible translator?
Paul

3

Simply, it’s a combination of speech recognition, audio translation or (using SST derived transcription of the audio) text translation, and a reverse chain to generate spoken translated output.

Best mainstream example being using the converse mode of speech driven mode of Google Translate - where put into converse mode it translates what it hears (auto detect capable) and then listens for a response to the audible translation - then responds in reverse to generate spoken translation of what it hears by input audio source next.

If you look at phone/tablet based clients for it, the live converse mode is pretty easy to find.

I wasn’t answering the question, not that it’s really a question, but highlighting what I believed to be fair legit use if desired and some of the issues people might consider outlaws the use of.

Realising English is the most commonly accepted use language in radio comms, there are times where use of non-English can aid communications or becomes essential for consistent clear communications. So there are definitely times, especially if trying to be part of a net on a foreign language specific talkgroup, where it helps or becomes an essential tool.

But ultimately, it’s more how you perceive how it’s used to create a spoken reply or CQ call that’s where it’s dispute validity and legality lies and as you’ll realise, that’s subjective on many levels.

So I expressed my insight into it, it’s relative values and where I find it’s reaso ably legit to use, and left it open to other insights and thoughts.

Maybe it’s too obscure a subject for many, but given it’s heavily used in internet IP communications, it’s likely to be eventually migrate to radio use too in time.

Some of us already make heavy use of it, in my case I hedge my bets and self-speak the translation of my intended over as there’s no legislative or ethical conflict by that hybrid use of the tech.

It’s really no different to piping the input and using the translated output in MGM and telegraphy (radio or wired equally), and given that DV is telegraphic in essence, there shouldn’t actually be an issue, but to some there is.

4

Nope - I still don’t quite get this one? Are you saying you think there is a market for a radio that translates the received audio into English, or another language, and translates what you reply into that language? Seems a neat idea, but non-english is pretty rare isn’t it? The other thing is you wonder if this is/is not a contravention of licence terms? I doubt it would cause issues, because nothing says in my licence you must transmit in English - so what is the issue here. Is translation any more third party than a to d conversion and back again?

I’m sadly not quite on the same wavelength I think - I’m trying hard, but struggling.

5

No, I’m talking about taking what’s received as audio, using audio based translation to translate and do the reverse with your response to create actual translated responses or guidance for you to parrot the particular translation of what you are trying to express in your response.

I wasn’t even vaguely suggesting a universal translating radio, more of using available tech to aid cross language communications, but if there was a demand, I’m sure some could benefit from such a powerful device - it could certainly be an integrated affair in POC/Network Radio and hybrid radio phones as the android bases of those already have the basic access and just need the integration into the ‘radio’ app.

Using an external cross feed, I used to use the technique a lot on audio IM conversation, and recently resurrected it for use when I’m in the territory of non English net, but I parrot the other language translation of my responses as OG audio rather than use a machine generated synthetic audio ‘mic’ input.

I guess it’s one of those things you need to see in action for it to make sense.

The legality side - that’s easy, if you physically parrot the translation of your intended response, there’s no issue - it’s the potential use of the MG synthetic speech as the sent audio that’s open to a lot of question marks, so I employ the human version of the theme.

6

Right, you want to receive audio in one language, translate it and retransmit it on amateur bands? That’s going to need permission but I don’t see the point? If it’s for something like licence free radio it’s not permitted, although you could perhaps do it with digital two slot, but who would be able to join in? I still think I’m very confused about what the context of the application is, can you give an example of the practical circumstance you have in your head? I just don’t understand, I’m sorry