Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[drjd]

I was reading this interesting article on the ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books.

Are Audiobooks As Good For You As Reading? Here’s What Experts Say

I found two of the arguments particularly fascinating, in support of the two different schools of thoughts, which are worth consideration and debate.

About 10 to 15% of eye movements during reading are actually regressive—meaning [the eyes are] going back and re-checking,” Willingham explains. “This happens very quickly, and it’s sort of seamlessly stitched into the process of reading a sentence.” He says this reading quirk almost certainly bolsters comprehension, and it may be roughly comparable to a listener asking for a speaker to “hold on” or repeat something.

But audiobooks also have some strengths. Human beings have been sharing information orally for tens of thousands of years, Willingham says, while the printed word is a much more recent invention. “When we’re reading, we’re using parts of the brain that evolved for other purposes, and we’re MacGyvering them so they can be applied to the cognitive task of reading,” he explains. Listeners, on the other hand, can derive a lot of information from a speaker’s inflections or intonations. Sarcasm is much more easily communicated via audio than printed text. And people who hear Shakespeare spoken out loud tend to glean a lot of meaning from the actor’s delivery, he adds.

[mobama]

I have not heard of this age-old debate. To me it seems the formats are too different for comparison.

An audiobook may be good when looking at a page/screen is unfeasible, e.g. while driving, but otherwise I consider page/screen far better, because you can re-read and flip back and forth comfily. Namely, I mostly read for research, so I often have to even flip back and forth between different files/books.

Fiction may be fine in audio format, but I have my doubts how good the people are who do the voicing. An automatic text-to-speech is usually crappy. A paid actor may be less than enchanted about the task and this will necessarily be reflected in the voice. An entire radio-theatre like performance may be the best option.

Then occasionally the end-user is forced to a specific role. People whose eyes are worn out must explore audio options. Those hard of hearing must keep leafing.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by drjd

I was reading this interesting article on the ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books.

Are Audiobooks As Good For You As Reading? Here’s What Experts Say

I found two of the arguments particularly fascinating, in support of the two different schools of thoughts, which are worth consideration and debate.

No debate. If you can't read, are blind, or are driving a car or something similar then listen to someone reading you a book.

Absent any of those cautions, read.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by patrickt

No debate. If you can't read, are blind, or are driving a car or something similar then listen to someone reading you a book.

Absent any of those cautions, read.

Judgmental much?

Why do you care how people choose to acquire information?

[4691mls]

Previous lengthy discussion

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=291588

[issybird]

Originally Posted by mobama

Fiction may be fine in audio format, but I have my doubts how good the people are who do the voicing. An automatic text-to-speech is usually crappy. A paid actor may be less than enchanted about the task and this will necessarily be reflected in the voice.

Generally, people who perform narrations are highly talented professionals. Why would a "paid actor" as you call it be any less "enchanted" with the task than any professional in any line of work? Moreover, narration is a different skill and while some actors are successful at both, the implication that narration tends to be done by actors who are slumming and can't find jobs more to their liking is absurd. Some of the best and most successful narrators have made a career of narration.

I think it's obvious you've rushed to judgment without ever trying an audiobook. They may well not be for you. You'll never know, though, if you dismiss them out of hand because you've decided in advance they can't be good.

[mobama]

Originally Posted by issybird

Generally, people who perform narrations are highly talented professionals. Why would a "paid actor" as you call it be any less "enchanted" with the task than any professional in any line of work? Moreover, narration is a different skill and while some actors are successful at both, the implication that narration tends to be done by actors who are slumming and can't find jobs more to their liking is absurd. Some of the best and most successful narrators have made a career of narration.

I think it's obvious you've rushed to judgment without ever trying an audiobook. They may well not be for you. You'll never know, though, if you dismiss them out of hand because you've decided in advance they can't be good.

I am as critical of narrators as I am of actors.

It so happens that I have tried audiobooks. I would never ever pay for something that might be a machine-read text-to-speech mp3. These are the worst type of audiobooks that potential customers should be aware of.

And it so happens that I mostly do non-fiction, hardly ever fiction. I am highly sensitive to when the narrator does not understand what he is reading. Non-fiction is all about intellectual understanding, just like fiction is about emotional emphasis. Neither is simply about correct pronunciation. Too bad if the narrator misses the point in either case.

For fiction, radio drama is the best possible audio format, in my opinion. If those were on sale, I would perhaps pay for them, but I tend to find them for free on radio station websites.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mobama

I am as critical of narrators as I am of actors.

It so happens that I have tried audiobooks. I would never ever pay for something that might be a machine-read text-to-speech mp3. These are the worst type of audiobooks that potential customers should be aware of.

And it so happens that I mostly do non-fiction, hardly ever fiction. I am highly sensitive to when the narrator does not understand what he is reading. Non-fiction is all about intellectual understanding, just like fiction is about emotional emphasis. Neither is simply about correct pronunciation. Too bad if the narrator misses the point in either case.

For fiction, radio drama is the best possible audio format, in my opinion. If those were on sale, I would perhaps pay for them, but I tend to find them for free on radio station websites.

You seem to be conflating text-to-speech with professionally narrated audiobooks. Audible, Downpour, etc. do not sell machine-read audiobooks; I'm unaware of anyone who does.

[tubemonkey]

For me, audiobooks over ebooks any day.

[Bilbo1967]

I just can't get on with audiobooks. I don't think that I'm wired to appreciate auditory simulation. I've tried audiobooks, but I find my mind wandering and suddenly realise I just missed half a chapter. I seem to be able to concentrate far better (i.e. at all) when reading.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I just can't get on with audiobooks. I don't think that I'm wired to appreciate auditory simulation. I've tried audiobooks, but I find my mind wandering and suddenly realise I just missed half a chapter. I seem to be able to concentrate far better (i.e. at all) when reading.

I can't handle audiobooks at home - I just can't concentrate on them. I do, however, enjoy listening to them to pass the time on long journeys.

[haertig]

For me, audiobooks really depend on the narrator. Some, I will listen to the first few paragraphs and immediately determine that I simply cannot listen to the entire book. FWIW, in my case, most audiobooks fall into the "I can't listen to the entire book" category. I find it horribly annoying when the narrator tries to create uniquely different voices for each character. They typically fail badly at that. What they usually end up with is a bunch of annoying sounding morons as characters.

An example of a good narrator IMHO, who also happens to be the books author, is Bill Bryson. I loved his reading of his own book, "In a Sunburned Country". I want to go back someday and listen to his reading of "A Walk in the Woods". But since I've already read the book (wonderful!), and seen the movie (just OK), the audiobook is a bit down towards the end of my list. Probably I will read/listen to some of his other books before circling back to listen to Woods.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by haertig

I find it horribly annoying when the narrator tries to create uniquely different voices for each character. They typically fail badly at that. What they usually end up with is a bunch of annoying sounding morons as characters.

Some narrators do it excellently. The narrator of the "Amelia Peabody" series of Egyptological mysteries does a wonderful job with character voices, and it really enhances the listening experience.

[theducks]

Audio books don't stop with life's interruptions, while e-books (and dead tree) ones wait for your eyeball to return.

I find trying to rewind to the proper place... well, Trying

[theducks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Some narrators do it excellently. The narrator of the "Amelia Peabody" series of Egyptological mysteries does a wonderful job with character voices, and it really enhances the listening experience.

If it was not for the narrators 'voices', TTS would be making the BPH bean counters ecstatic