[deleted]
Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#22IMHO 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!
What would be a clearer title?
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#23IMHO 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!
What would be a clearer title?
"[...] by transcript, not waveform".
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#24Earlier 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?
You're being insecure. It's not rude to disagree.
Also, there's often no perfect combo of words, there's a spectrum of options and you just pick an operating point. Transcription is a longer word than "word" so there's a tradeoff. It doesn't feel like a chasm to me.
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#25One 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 love Descript. Their "convert to studio quality" feature is better than Adobe's and ElevenLabs, in my experience. I wondered if this particular feature was really worth paying for so I was happy that I found Audapolis.
What does that feature do?
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#26Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#27I remember when Adobe demoed this idea of being able to edit waveforms by the recognized text back in 2016 and it was pretty mind blowing for the time. https://youtu.be/I3l4XLZ59iw 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 su…
What ever happened to that Adobe demo? Was that a real product at any point? It's quite amazing how ahead of its time it was. Now that we have AI making people say whatever we want, it felt like Adobe was on the cusp of that then.
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#28IMHO 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!
To me (not an audio person), it was pretty obvious that the headline meant editing voice recordings.
It's not at all obvious. Given what we have seen recently, an equally plausible interpretation is "talk to an LLM and it will edit your audio" where audio could be anything.
It's not a good idea, but then tons of the LLM ideas we see here aren't either.
Re: Audapolis: Edit audio files by transcript, not waveform
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You're being insecure. It's not rude to disagree. Also, there's often no perfect combo of words, there's a spectrum of options and you just pick an operating point. Transcription is a longer word than "word" so there's a tradeoff. It doesn't feel like a chasm to me.
Uh, no I'm not. In my work world, disagreeing with "whatevs" would be considered rude and dismissive and would be called out.
Believe me, I don't care that you disagree. I just don't like to see people breaking the civility guidelines here as it's just about one of the last places online where discourse is largely held to a a civil level for disagreements.
I write copy professionally, among other things. If you don't care whether what you write is clear to almost all readers... then I suppose it doesn't matter. Most people do not want misunderstandings of their copy and most copy editors would flag that as unclear. The new version is much better.