4 ms·

All these responses about subjective, andecodtal experiences are interesting, but is there any data or any research to support it?

jasode 10y ago
I don't have research about 2x audio to cite but I think there are datapoints that the authors didn't consider when they wrote "Doubling the speed [...] makes it just about impossible to follow the meaning." Consider that most of us can read text at a normal unhurried speed of 200wpm to 300wpm. We also hear this "inner voice" as we read the written words. This subvocalization is therefore "sounding out" the words at ~300wpm in our head. However, many people speak out loud at only ~100wpm. For many of us, accelerating speech from 1x to 3x is simply making the speaker sound out the words at 300wpm. Since that's the same as our subvocalization wpm, the meaning is not impossible to follow. Most humans can't move their mouths fast enough to talk at 300wpm -- but with digital technology -- they don't have to. Spoken recordings at 100wpm is mind-numbingly slow and it would just make my mind wander. I think the authors should have surveyed a hundred youtube users that always take advantage of the 2x speed option. They would have been surprised to learn that people can follow the meaning of the words at 200wpm very easily.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > there are datapoints that the authors didn't consider In fairness, 1) we don't know what the authors considered; they apparently have done a lot of research on the subject, and 2) what you list aren't data
  - jasode 10y ago
    >we don't know what the authors considered; they apparently have done a lot of research on the subject That's true we don't know what they considered but a cursory search doesn't find any primary research on 2x audio acceleration performed by either Rebecca Treiman or Jeffrey Zacks. As for reading text, it looks like RT's commentary on speedreading is based on meta-research[1] and not primary lab research. (It's also possible they published primary research in an academic journal that google doesn't index.) It looks like their comment about speech acceleration is anecdotal instead of being based on rigorous research. >what you list aren't data Why not? If an audiofile has speech content, one can count the total words, divide by total minutes, and hence, calculate a words-per-minute. Why is wpm not data? The average reading speed of adults is also well-documented: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+reading+speed+of+adults https://www.google.com/search?q=average+reading+speed+of+adu... In any case, HN readers can try it themselves on a bunch of youtube videos. For example, the Scarlet Letter novel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfaAZu0fNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfaAZu0fNE Another example from a news show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTSr07u8gow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTSr07u8gow Apple presentation with Tim Cook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbAFSJCPSI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbAFSJCPSI&feature=youtu.be... Change the playback option to 2x on those videos. Can it really be impossible to understand the meaning as the authors assert?!? For listeners whose native language is not English, perhaps they require the slower 1x playback speed. For most others, I'm very skeptical that 2x speed is impossible to extract meaning. [1]http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/speed_reading.html http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/s...
    - jholman 10y ago
      Holy crap, Tim Cook at 3x is still too damn slow.

jasode 10y ago

I don't have research about 2x audio to cite but I think there are datapoints that the authors didn't consider when they wrote "Doubling the speed [...] makes it just about impossible to follow the meaning." Consider that most of us can read text at a normal unhurried speed of 200wpm to 300wpm. We also hear this "inner voice" as we read the written words. This subvocalization is therefore "sounding out" the words at ~300wpm in our head. However, many people speak out loud at only ~100wpm. For many of us, accelerating speech from 1x to 3x is simply making the speaker sound out the words at 300wpm. Since that's the same as our subvocalization wpm, the meaning is not impossible to follow. Most humans can't move their mouths fast enough to talk at 300wpm -- but with digital technology -- they don't have to. Spoken recordings at 100wpm is mind-numbingly slow and it would just make my mind wander. I think the authors should have surveyed a hundred youtube users that always take advantage of the 2x speed option. They would have been surprised to learn that people can follow the meaning of the words at 200wpm very easily.

hackuser 10y ago
> there are datapoints that the authors didn't consider In fairness, 1) we don't know what the authors considered; they apparently have done a lot of research on the subject, and 2) what you list aren't data
- jasode 10y ago
  >we don't know what the authors considered; they apparently have done a lot of research on the subject That's true we don't know what they considered but a cursory search doesn't find any primary research on 2x audio acceleration performed by either Rebecca Treiman or Jeffrey Zacks. As for reading text, it looks like RT's commentary on speedreading is based on meta-research[1] and not primary lab research. (It's also possible they published primary research in an academic journal that google doesn't index.) It looks like their comment about speech acceleration is anecdotal instead of being based on rigorous research. >what you list aren't data Why not? If an audiofile has speech content, one can count the total words, divide by total minutes, and hence, calculate a words-per-minute. Why is wpm not data? The average reading speed of adults is also well-documented: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+reading+speed+of+adults https://www.google.com/search?q=average+reading+speed+of+adu... In any case, HN readers can try it themselves on a bunch of youtube videos. For example, the Scarlet Letter novel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfaAZu0fNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfaAZu0fNE Another example from a news show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTSr07u8gow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTSr07u8gow Apple presentation with Tim Cook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbAFSJCPSI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbAFSJCPSI&feature=youtu.be... Change the playback option to 2x on those videos. Can it really be impossible to understand the meaning as the authors assert?!? For listeners whose native language is not English, perhaps they require the slower 1x playback speed. For most others, I'm very skeptical that 2x speed is impossible to extract meaning. [1]http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/speed_reading.html http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/s...
  - jholman 10y ago
    Holy crap, Tim Cook at 3x is still too damn slow.