[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

Yes, so a transcript, even one done accurately, is only as good as a transcript can be. The nuance of speech, all the non-verbal part, is lost.

Let us not forget that in this day, audio recordings can also be edited in such a way as to be undetectable to the human ear.

joe salerno

Lou Judson wrote:
Marie, My partner does transciption professionally. Most of her work comes from my recordings and clients these days.

Short tale about why she gets the work:

A client had used volunteers for transcribing in the past. They asked her to edit and refine the transcription of one talk, in which they described at some length the origins of the song, Bonnie Banks O' Loch Lomond (You Take the High Road), which I won't go into here but it was about ten minutes lecture including the lyrics, (<http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/lochlomond.htm>)
and the volunteer transcriber had written "This song was written by a soldier dying on a battlefield."

Coleen got the job to accurately transcribe the entire six hour seminar, and this is our favorite example of why accuracy is important. Her background is medical transcription, where the difference between hyper and hypo can be life or death.

Accuracy matters! Pardon me for the short story.

Lou Judson • Intuitive Audio

On Oct 14, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Marie O'Connell wrote:

Another twist to this is the actual transcript of a sound recording. Having
worked on hundreds of Civil Rights oral histories whilst working in the
South, I found that often the transcribers put a completely different
emphasis on statements and words, which in turn gave what you were reading a
completely different meaning. It wasn't until I was reading the transcript
AND preserving the audio that I was able to put my finger on it. Ofcourse,
I made notes clarifying this.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]