Live data from Hacker News

Audiblegate

twitter.com

281–290 of 362 posts

Re: Audiblegate

#281
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a universal problem, it's so universal that there's even a field of development which solves the problem - Domain-Driven Design. It's not exactly rocket-science either - you basically involve domain experts in the development proces directly, and codify their knowledge in a form that they can understand (be that very explicit models, or focussed domain-specific languages).

Sounds good, but I can see several obstacles to this, especially when it's not an internal tool (and most of the time it isn't, unless you're Amazon): e.g. that the people talking to the customer are not the same people developing the application (maybe the people on the customer's side are not the real domain experts either); or that the customer has a mentality of "we hired these guys to develop a shiny new system…

> that the people talking to the customer are not the same people developing the application

I think there can be some slack in this. I've had great success when product managers and UX designers worked closely tightly with engineers but were the only ones talking to customers/users. As long as their focus is on deeply understanding the domain and user needs it can work really well. I think XP describes this as something like a standin customer.

Re: Audiblegate

#282

I've spent a lot of money on Audible (and have a subscription) and part of the reason is because I can return books if they wind up being awful or are simply poorly produced (tin-sounding audio, awful narrator, clipped audio, etc.)

I agree, the return policy is a feature not a bug. However I have been surprised at the generous timeframe within which I'm allowed to return a book. Seems like there is a compromise to be had there.

Re: Audiblegate

#283
post #11

The twitter thread and the accompanying website don't quite tell me what's going on besides 'not as much money as expected'. But I can't quite see what the 'Net Sales' problem is, it's just stated as "less money" for no reason? Although I am tired so maybe something just isn't clicking. I don't doubt that the terms of the deal are poor though. I had wondered for a while how the credit system worked, and if the increa…

I haven’t dug into it too deeply myself, but here’s some numbers from late last year. Note that this as a producer sharing that 40% with the writer half and half (royalty share contract). One month saw 21 sales of a $19.99 audiobook. Amazon reported net sales of $76, so I made around $11. EDIT: looking closer, 17 of the sales occurred in a market/purchase combination that resulted in no royalties at all. The invoice…

Thanks for giving actual data. My take is many producers are surprised about the royalty share-- Amazon could be more upfront with expected revenue.

The terms are monopolistic, but I mean, they have a monopoly.

Re: Audiblegate

#284

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

Treating the staff responsible with the sort of contemptuous malice you describe does not somehow absolve the company of culpability. Amazon set up these conditions and is happy for them to continue.

Re: Audiblegate

#285

I feel like the Twitter thread—for all its focus on royalty math—is missing some crucial context for people not immersed in the sausage-making of audiobooks, specifically Audible's ACX platform. I worked for Audible some years ago, so understand this context a bit better than most, and can explain for those who are interested. I left Audible not too long after ACX launched, but remember many meetings about it. To be…

> It's a gamble for everyone except Audible. The gamble is this: you will spend thousands of dollars producing an audiobook. In exchange you will get distribution on the biggest audiobook marketplaces in the world: Audible, Amazon, iTunes.

Audible and Amazon are the same thing.

iTunes: Can't everyone get his/her audiobook on iTunes?

I don't think producing content and then getting 13% of the proceeds is appealing. Neither are 25% or even 40%.

But then again i stay awayfrom Audible because of the DRM.

Re: Audiblegate

#286

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

One of the things I will never understand is software companies' insistence at throwing engineers at any and all problems, and leaving them to their own devices. For example: accounting problems, for which society has accountants.

That's where I assume the greed comes in. They threw software people at an accounting problem, and when the numbers were wrong in their favor, they looked the other way.

Re: Audiblegate

#287

I've spent a lot of money on Audible (and have a subscription) and part of the reason is because I can return books if they wind up being awful or are simply poorly produced (tin-sounding audio, awful narrator, clipped audio, etc.)

I agree, the return policy is a feature not a bug. However I have been surprised at the generous timeframe within which I'm allowed to return a book. Seems like there is a compromise to be had there.

I don’t abuse it. If I enjoy a book, I keep it - even though I’ll likely never listen to it again. But if I slog through half of a book (depending on the book it could take a month or more to get to that point) and it feels like an awful slog - I have no qualms returning it, no matter how long it’s been since I purchased it.

I prefer to keep things as they are.

Re: Audiblegate

#288

Not a judgement on the content of the post, but is anyone else annoyed at the lazy trend to dub any controversy "something"-gate? Watergate was called that because that's the name of the hotel. Gate is not some synonym for scandal. It's just a gate. We used to have more appropriate names for things. At least the Panama Papers had a proper name, even if everyone forgot about it and nothing ever came of it.

Language can change and words can take up new meanings.

Re: Audiblegate

#289
post #226
post #179

Is there a viable alternative to Audible out there?

The author mentioned, and the only one I know of, is buying directly from the publishers. Problem is: those are ridiculously expensive, like 35 euros for a single audio book that I don't even know if I'll like the contents because you can't browse it. Physical books are usually 15 euros and then you have unit and shipping costs. Somehow the publisher is fine putting it on audible (where I pay €10) and getting a few p…

> This author (publisher?) is clearly not interested in getting sales via means other than Audible

I guess the 40% instead of 25% (in reality: 21% and 13%) that Audible offers are the reason

Re: Audiblegate

#290

It's terrible for the narrator too. In many cases the narrator makes a bad decision to record the Audiobook not for a per-finished-hour rate, but as a "Royalty Share" where they only earn on the Royalty -- that's 20% (50-50 royalty split with the author) on the audiobook version. In most cases a narrator will never earn even close to minimum wage for the effort to create an audiobook. And it's more effort than you mi…

My housemate is an audiobook recording engineer. I just asked him about it. He says in the best case, with a skilled narrator, an hour of audiobook can take only 1 hour 10 minutes to record. In the worst case it can take up to three hours. I asked him if it could ever take up to five hours and he said no way, never.

Your housemate is wrong. Or, not thinking it through. Or, has ever narrated as a primary income earning job.

That's like saying "Those 20 lines of code you wrote are only like 90 words. You type at 40WPM, so it took you what 2, maybe three minutes to write?" You and I both know that's utterly uncorrect.

Your housemate might be thinking only of the "talking into the microphone part", and assumes that the narrator only makes mistakes on a line a few times in an hour. There are some excellent cold readers out there, but in my experience that's just not the case for the majority.

And for the vast majority of the time in the ACX world, the narrator is also doing your housemate's job.

As someone who's been narrating for about 10 years with hundreds of hours of finished audio under my belt, here's how it breaks down:

- Rehearsal / Prereading. A narrator needs to know what's going to happen so they can properly act a line. So you have to read the text in advance. No one should expect a narrator to read a work of fiction cold and get it perfect on the first try. YOu need to rehearse, or at least get familiar with the text. Let's say that's 30 minutes because you read faster than you narrate. If it's a work of fiction and you've got a number of different characters you need to create and voice consistently it can mean additional prep work. Characters don't just come out, first try, fully realized.

- Actual recording. By definition this cannot be less than one hour, but that assumes an absolutely perfect read for one hour. In my experience it's probably a minimum 1.5x multiplier for retakes, mistakes, line fixes if you do punch and roll. So 1.5 hours. Complex fiction with lots of characters could take a significantly longer. Of course there are amazing narrators out there who can do this, but that is the vast minority.

So, We're up to 2 hours already, minimum.

Now that it's recorded you need to do a QA pass -- you should listen to what's been recorded and make any adjustments to timing, breaths, volume riding, effects, compression, EQ, and to identify and correct errors. You shouldn't ship untested code, you shouldn't ship untested audio. In many ACX cases, the narrator also performs this job.

If it's absolutely perfect on the first try it's another hour (unless you're QA'ing at a faster than 1.0x reading speed, then you're ignoring all the technical checks, and only validating narration checks). Again, in many ACX cases, the narrator does this job too.

There are almost always pickups (redoing mistakes you find) in an hour of text, for missed words, dropped lines, bad line interpretation, reversed words, etc... The audio should be letter perfect to the text, so even the slightest mistake should be fixed. Any pickup will take time to get right. If you interpret a line wring it can influence the outcome for the character. You need to get the line reads right. Skilled narrators can punch in a correction perfectly with just a take or two, but some lines can require multiple tries and full minutes to get right. Especially if it's the next day and you need to warm up again so you can sound like you did before, (your voice changes as you narrate) so there is a multiplier. call it 1.5x

Now we're to 3.5 hours. Your friend may disagree, this is my experience after doing this a long time.

Finally you have to master it and get it delivered to ACX. This can be largely streamlined, but it takes time to ensure you meet ACX's technical standards. Let's say you get it perfect on the first try. Call it 15 minutes to render, label, upload and pass the ACX checks.

We're to 3 hours 45 minutes.

A narrator needs to warm up before a session so that they sound consistent from session to session. When you're warming up for a gig, you're not working on another gig, so the time goes to the current project. Maybe you can multitask and QA yesterday's work while your warming up, but it's hard to do critical listening while you're humming and stretching and reciting toungue twisters. Call the warm up 15 minutes. Maybe less maybe more. But Most narrators cannot narrate for 8 hours a day. There is a limit to preserve the voice, and breaks must be taken to preserve your voice not only for the session, but for your work. So warming up is part of the gig, you're working and you need to factor that time in to creating the finished audio.

So, We're at 4 hours. And that's if you're really skilled and great at it and working at high efficiency. You know your DAW inside and out, and you have the voices down perfectly every time.

For many narrators there is an efficiency factor to build in. Narrating is physically demanding as it requires a great deal of sustained concentration -- not to dissimilar to coding. After a long narrating session you might not have the mental energy required for the sustained attention to detail to perform QA. (Similar to how it's difficult to debug code right away, and you find errors the next day when you're fresh)

In my experience that adds 30 minutes work to get the finished audio right and out the door.

So, yeah, a finished hour of audio can easily take 4 to 5 hours for an experienced narrator to create. Less skilled narrators who make more mistakes, take longer to edit, take longer to punch in corrections, take longer to meet the technical standards can easily get to 8 to 10 hours PFH. Just like a junior dev makes more mistakes and takes longer than a senior dev.

I coach newer voice actors all the time. I know from real experience how long this takes.

Post reply on HN