Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
I remember once reading an article about why audiobooks were better than print books* and one of the reasons was that you found out how to pronounce difficult words. Hah bloody hah, was my reaction to that!
*Audiobooks are different from print books. I don’t know why people in either camp think it’s a contest.
|
And dramatic readings done like a Radio Play are totally different thing to straight Audio Books. I picked up a set as cassettes* and couldn't listen to them as there was too much music and sound effects. At most you can have a little music between chapters, but I discovered in about 1996 doing stuff for multimedia that dialogue needs to stand-alone. Too much cinema and TV now needs subtitles due to poor mixing on dialogue and too dominant effects and music. Or productions that only work played on decent 5 channel audio (the .1 doesn't need a separate channel if you have fuil range speakers instead of 3" to 4" plastic boxes, or 6" in proper boxes if lucky as it's only less than 70 Hz effects).
*Cassettes work better than CDs if you stop in the middle of a chapter or track. Even digital files need a player that "remembers" last location. Also while even HiFi Cassettes are not really HiFi, even a very basic cassette player is good enough for audio books. Books for the Blind, before cassette, used approximately 16 rpm 12" discs. They started with abridged 12" 78 rpm discs in the Victorian era. Even in 1930s the albums with symphonies often used five 12" discs rather than more 10" discs (the equivalent to 7" 45 rpm disc released from 1949).