Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

doug.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

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

#81

Post by saulpw »

amelius wrote: post #21
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…

As with all things ... Don't be opinionated and make it an option for the user.

So are you saying that every podcast should ship two episodes, an "unedited" version and an "umless" version? That's not really viable.

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

#82

Post by fasterik »

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 think speaking fluidly while thinking out loud is a completely separate skill. Some people are really good at it, usually the ones who get a lot of practice at public speaking. I also suspect extroverts have an easier time with it than introverts. "Ums" and "ahs" aren't necessarily evidence that a person is thinking, but it's also true that a lot of very smart people are "inarticulate" in the conventional sense.

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

#83

Post by Izkata »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #28
chrismorgan wrote: post #24

I think the “What it won’t touch” section shows why the entire concept is unsound. Here it is with a different first sentence, and (other than the third sentence no longer matching erm’s reality) it’s perfectly coherent: > It leaves um , uh , er and elongated versions ( ummmm , uhhhhh ) alone. Those sound like fillers but they’re doing real work in the sentence, and cutting them automatically would change what someon…

>> It leaves um, uh, er and elongated versions ( ummmm, uhhhhh ) alone. Something's already gone wrong here. Uh and er refer to the same sound. Uh is the American spelling. Er is British; to them a following "r" like that is just a kind of vowel.

"Er" is definitely distinct as an interjection, it's usually used instead of "um" to indicate a correction and does sound different.

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

#84

Post by netsharc »

siriaan wrote: post #12
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…

Occasional ums and ahs are fine but when every other phrase starts with a long aaaaah it can be pretty unpleasant to listen to.

I saw a video where the speaker spoke his words quickly, but had long pauses every words. Luckily NewPipe has a "fast forward during silence option".

Looking at it again he'd pause, probably trying to find the next word, doesn't find it, and goes "aaaah". So watching at >100% speed and with skip silences saved my sanity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCO633KE7RA

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

#85

Post by heroprotagonist »

dotancohen wrote: post #19
heroprotagonist wrote: post #9

Not to promote something, but Wispr Flow does that for me automatically if I trigger a setting for it.. While it's a commercial product with a subscription, I spent a long time on the free tier not even hitting their limits until I started using it so extensively that I wanted to pay for it. And I've used Whisper in the past, mostly for tinkering. I tried it for a couple of use cases but haven't touched the base proj…

Is love to hear more about subtitle generation. Specifically, can you label different speakers? I'd be using this for meeting transcription. Thank you.

Yeah, that's in faster-whisper-xxl via the --diarize parameter with additional options to tweak how it works:

https://github.com/Purfview/whisper-standalone-win/discussio...

I haven't used it when subtitling, though, so I don't know much more.

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

#86

Post by keane »

toast0 wrote: post #17
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…

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…

For a good example of this (maybe the one you heard?), see WNYC's On the Media segment (aired December 30 or 31, 2004) titled "Pulling Back the Curtain": https://wnyc.org/story/129437-pulling-back-the-curtain/

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

#87

Post by dotancohen »

heroprotagonist wrote: post #85
dotancohen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is love to hear more about subtitle generation. Specifically, can you label different speakers? I'd be using this for meeting transcription. Thank you.

Yeah, that's in faster-whisper-xxl via the --diarize parameter with additional options to tweak how it works: https://github.com/Purfview/whisper-standalone-win/discussio... I haven't used it when subtitling, though, so I don't know much more.

Terrific, thank you.

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

#90

Post by loevborg »

keane wrote: post #86
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…

For a good example of this (maybe the one you heard?), see WNYC's On the Media segment (aired December 30 or 31, 2004) titled "Pulling Back the Curtain": https://wnyc.org/story/129437-pulling-back-the-curtain/

Thanks for the link. As a longtime listener, listening to Bob Garfield's voice brought a tear to my eye - I'm a big fan and was sad when he left OTM, as much as I admire Brooke.
Post reply on HN