[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.
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,
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.
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
completely different meaning. It wasn't until I was reading the
AND preserving the audio that I was able to put my finger on it.
I made notes clarifying this.