11–20 of 87 posts
EDIT: I could also definitely see Audapolis being useful if you could integrate it into a podcast's post processing flow (volume normalization, de-essing) by recognizing certain verbal tics and automatically removing them from the audio such as "ummmm...", etc.
IMHO you should really change the headline on this. I'm an audio person, and my first thought was "that's stupid, words are awful at describing sound". But then I looked, and editing transcriptions of voice recordings by word is actually a great idea. That was not the impression the headline gave me, FWIW!
One of the hosts of a podcast that I listen to has had positive things to say about DeScript.[0] Just mentioning it because he's been talking about it for a few years so I expect its had a good amount of feature development over time. [0] descript.com/
I wondered if this particular feature was really worth paying for so I was happy that I found Audapolis.
> Hindenburg’s manuscript feature gives you a complete overview of your audio. You can select the text just as you would in a text document and watch as your edits are made in real-time. If you need to export your text in a specific format, no problem. Hindenburg supports the most common text and transcription export formats.
IMHO you should really change the headline on this. I'm an audio person, and my first thought was "that's stupid, words are awful at describing sound". But then I looked, and editing transcriptions of voice recordings by word is actually a great idea. That was not the impression the headline gave me, FWIW!
I'm also an audio person and I understood it just fine, so whatevs.
And why the rude response?
IMHO you should really change the headline on this. I'm an audio person, and my first thought was "that's stupid, words are awful at describing sound". But then I looked, and editing transcriptions of voice recordings by word is actually a great idea. That was not the impression the headline gave me, FWIW!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also an audio person and I understood it just fine, so whatevs.
If you're trying to get attention, copy should be clear to all readers. The fact that you did not misread it in no way demonstrates that others won't. And why the rude response?
On the other hand it does say "not waveform" which I think makes it pretty clear. What would you suggest instead?