Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#41

Post by latexr » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 10:45 AM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #39

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in speech however it can serve as a focusing point to indicate the next part is important it's... exact opposite? the main (attempted) use for ummms is to keep continuation of speech despite the pause. And the main complaint is exactly that it ruins the focus and doesn't give respite

It can be a focusing point when someone wants to highlight the deliberate use of euphemism, removing those would be, um, unwise. Although that is probably the less common use.

I think you’re both right. But you’re right regarding writing and your parent comment is right regarding speech.

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#42

Post by td6 » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 10:57 AM UTC

venzaspa wrote: post #26

toast0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having heard radio interviews with and without 'internal editing' to remove ums and ahs, most of the time I'd rather the edited version. It's more concise and focused, and I find it easier to comprehend. Too many ums and ahs and my mind wanders, and if it's radio, I can't go easily go back to try again. When I've listened to podcasts or audiobooks, I could never easily go back a little to try again either, and I gave…

It just goes to show that people have very different views. I think when I hear people thinking out loud (ums and ahs) it's a marker that they are actually engaging with the question, thinking through an answer and not bullshitting without thinking.

I agree to you, when it's in person. I think what your describing is mostly the beginning of an answer.

Just randoms "um" inbetween because your struggling to build sentences can get annoying both in person and online

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#43

Post by 1317 » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:12 AM UTC

Looks interesting, would be a nicer article though if there was a demo with before/after to show the results, and why the previous ideas didn't work

for something dealing with audio you do need to play the audio really

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#44

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:16 AM UTC

When I was doing podcasts regularly, it made me acutely aware of various people's speech mannerisms. (Somewhat similarly, recording a lot of videos during COVID made me very aware of a variety of my own mannerisms--especially overactive hand motions.)

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#45

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:18 AM UTC

HeavyStorm wrote: post #33

monster_truck wrote: post #30

It takes about 30 seconds in Audacity and will give an infinitely better result. Also works on any other sound

Doesn't sound true. Unless audacity already has a tool for this exactly... How would you do it on 30 seconds or less?

It doesn't and ums aren't the only consistent tic you often want to clean up--"you know," long pauses, etc.

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#46

Post by pdpi » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:22 AM UTC

supernes wrote: post #13

This approach seems kind of backwards to me. Why try to detect everything except the thing you're trying to remove instead of either sampling a few uhs and ums and treating them as noise to be silenced (with a sharp crossfade to the noise floor that doesn't interrupt speech flow) or finetuning a model to detect them specifically for full automation?

> instead of either sampling a few uhs and ums and treating them as noise to be silenced

If you're not paying ttention, ctting out specific sounds can easily cause more trouble. I for one would be quite pset if I couldn't hear the pire's reasoning for calling a foul.

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#47

Post by slhck » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:22 AM UTC

> Two small fixes, in order. First, each cut endpoint is allowed to slide a tiny bit (up to 60ms) to land in the quietest spot nearby. If there’s a momentary lull in the audio just before or after the original cut point, slide there. The slide is bounded so it can’t cross into a neighboring word, otherwise you’d chew off real speech. Second, from that quiet spot, the endpoint snaps to the nearest moment when the waveform is exactly crossing zero.

Oh, Claudish striking again.

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#48

Post by ifwinterco » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 11:40 AM UTC

npodbielski wrote: post #14

I think it is harder to remove those from your own speech. I have been doing that for few months now and I still get back at it when I am in hurry or stressed.

In my experience native English speakers are particularly bad, generally when speaking a second language people are less likely to add random filler words.

Also the type of filler word for some reason is often different between UK and US: British people tend to be "umm"-ers and Americans are more likely to add "you know" (although "umm" is also common).

Once you notice it it's impossible to ignore and many, many native English speakers are actually terrible at speaking and add filler words to the point where it's very distracting

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#49

Post by bluebarbet » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 12:04 PM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #37

bluebarbet wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most popular academic theory (IIRC) is that "um" and "uh" are conversational placeholders that say, "don't talk, I'm not finished speaking yet". Which obviously serves no purpose in a monologue. To me they just indicate lack of confidence on the part of the speaker.

There's a correlation between speaking with confidence and bullshitting / corner cutting. Hard, nuanced questions require more thinking time to produce a nuanced answer. But a bullshitter will just confidently answer subtly wrong stuff. But they won't say "uh"! Is that really better?

Sure, that figures. Much of this is surely subjective.

Re: Removing 'um' from a recording is harder than it sounds

#50

Post by goalieca » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 12:05 PM UTC

wzdd wrote: post #10

It’s a nice engineering approach, but I’m interested in the motivation. Um and ah is distracting in a transcript, where you can naturally pause to take in information; in speech however it can serve as a focusing point to indicate the next part is important. See https://medium.com/better-humans/dont-worry-about-saying-um-... for example. The weirdly obsessive zeal that orgs like Toastmasters have about eliminating th…

The younger generation seems to love listening at 1.2x or faster. I think it’s a preference for a fast information dopamine hit. I may argue it’s even a shallow approach that prefers against pausing and time for careful reflection. Meanwhile, book reading is at an all time low seemingly because no one has a preference or patience for careful study and reflection.