[New York Times] Will Books Survive Spotify?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by haertig

In my experience, it takes MORE concentration and focus to listen to an audiobook than to read a paper book or ebook. The narrator doesn't pause for your brain to catch up and mull over or interpret something like you can do when reading.

So to those who can listen to an audiobook and pick up everything that goes past in real time, I tip my hat to you!

What is real time? Most of the time, I up the speed of the audiobook from 1.2x to 1.4x.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by JBaby

My dyslexic sister also has ADHD so her mind can scatter if she isn’t hyper focused on something. She sees interesting squirrels everywhere. Audiobooks are still easier for her even when they aren’t easy for her. Sometimes she has to read a paragraph with her eyes six times before she gets it because the letters scramble for her.

Has your sister ever tried colors? Sometimes someone with dyslexia can read better with colors then just B/W. I've heard that green text can be good for some.

[DiapDealer]

I speed them all up as well. Almost every narrator reads slower than I want to listen.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've heard that green text can be good for some.

Urban myth. Actual studies show little (usually too small sample) or no advantage to special fonts or color.
Being able to chose Sans-serif or Serif (depending on person), vary size and spacing is best. Also no drop caps or small caps and no distractions.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I actually agree with the retaining part, even though I seldom read paper books anymore and always, always prefer ebooks. I have noticed I remembered things better in the past when I read paper books. As I read 100% for pleasure, it doesn't stop me from reading ebooks, but it's something to consider, at least for me (not saying it's necessarily true for others).

Then again, it might be the early onset of senility. Who knows.

I tend to think that as I age, I do not remember things as well as I did when I was younger. Also, my brain full of more things that I have to remember than when I was younger.
Apache

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Urban myth. Actual studies show little (usually too small sample) or no advantage to special fonts or color.
Being able to chose Sans-serif or Serif (depending on person), vary size and spacing is best. Also no drop caps or small caps and no distractions.

I agree. My wife is dyslexic and loves to read. Special colors and fonts do not help her.
Apache

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Apache

Also, my brain full of more things that I have to remember than when I was younger.
Apache

This is certainly true.

[Frogm4n]

Have there been modern studies of print vs ebook reading retention? The ones I remember are all well over a decade old and in the era when smartphones were new and many people weren't used to reading on a small screen in general. I feel that a lot of the early tests didn't control for the novelty of ereading for people who had only/mostly experienced print reading. Are there any that controlled for people reporting a preconcieved bias about print vs ebooks? We still see a lot of posts by people on the reddit Kindle sub that were adamant about print only until they finally tried an ereader and realized they were just being snobbish.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Frogm4n

Have there been modern studies of print vs ebook reading retention?

I suspect that like with most studies, there are substantial individual variations. Some people remember print better, some remember audio better, some never remember much of anything in any case and so on. I don't think there is a general rule in this that applies to everyone.

In my case, I definitely retained things better with paper; but as I have seldom read paper books for more than a decade, I don't know if it was specifically paper or something to do with age.

[Arconte]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To those who would use "fierce" or "virulent" to describe the defense of opinions on this site: you really should get out more. This forum is absolute milquetoast compared to the majority of the internet (not to mention real life).

Does everyone spend all their time surrounded by people who agree with them about absolutely everything or something?

Thanks for that!! I really don't think I said anything in disrespectful ways, nor I have been harsh at any point.

Originally Posted by Renate

Maybe not, but it comes across as presumptuous and arrogant.
In a very short time you've managed to antagonize a few people.
I think that you should consider more the effect of what you say.

I didn't meant to any of that, and I can't control how the others react to my saying, so I really can't do a lot more if the benefit of doubt it isn't amid the options when trying to understand what someone else said in a forum. If you find it arrogant and presumptuous and didn't decide to ask if that was my intention before reacting, it is really a 100% fault of mine?

[Arconte]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The same story in pBook, eBook, and audiobook are all the same book. Doesn't matter which way you digest it. You get the same information. Words are words. You're dislike for audiobooks is just wrong. What do you think of people who think eBooks are not real books? Are you happy with that?

I absolutelly disagree (in a respectful non arrogant way, of course). Just the same as McDonals is not just the same as a good dish, and a Kubrick movie it is not the same as a Marvel movie. Maybe the information is the name listened than read, but the mental processes are diferent. Appart from the concentration, which is you are doing other stuff while you are listening to it it is obvious is less than read, there is the capacity to go back one parragraph (it is not the same than going 10 sec back...); to set your own tempo to match perfectly your speed of though, letting you to grasp every poetic and interesting grammatical construction; to underline and mark parts; to bxe sure story doesn't keep going without you understand anything without noticing; also because the voice it is reading the book it is not your own voice, and maybe some more reasons.

Words are never just words. If one says he/she prefers to listen instead to read, and he/she also says "because it is more confortable to me" or "I have visual problems" or "It needs less concentration to me", then I would be totally agree, but never with an "it's the same".

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You're dislike for audiobooks is just wrong.

This is a thousand times more aggresive and arrogant than anything I said. Hope you realize that.

By the way, for me the only diference beetwen books and ebooks is that I miss the thouch of the paper and to the certainity of that the marks and underlines I do will last forever, as on my real books. For the rest I think it is the same, and it doesn't molest me the opinion of others

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Arconte

By the way, for me the only diference beetwen books and ebooks is that I miss the thouch of the paper...

Missing the touch, feel or smell of paper is JUST WRONG!

(Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously though, missing the feel/smell/taste of paper is not something I understand at all, and I'm old enough to have read paper books for most of my life. I've seen that sentiment several times on this forum and I never get it. What's there to miss? Paper feels and smells pretty awful, IMNSHO.)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Arconte

Personally, I can't respect so much people who listen audiobooks

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You're dislike for audiobooks is just wrong.

Originally Posted by Arconte

This is a thousand times more aggresive and arrogant than anything I said. Hope you realize that.

No, it is not, even if you had not included the , which, for me, was the most offensive part of any of your posts, in the context of the preceding sentence. (I do not listen to audiobooks.)

JSWolf has been notorious for years for his aggresively arrogant, dictatorial, and frequently objectively incorrect posts for years. His worst posts are 10 or 100 times worse than yours but never 1000, and in this case, not as bad as yours.

You might be tripping up by starting with a personal opinion or experience then quickly changing to projecting negative qualities on those that don't share those opinions or experiences. Hope you realize that and consider keeping your posts as personally related to you when appropriate. (And publicly agree to start using something more appropriate than "men" to address readers of this forum.)

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Arconte

Just the same as McDonals is not just the same as a good dish, and a Kubrick movie it is not the same as a Marvel movie.

This analogy is arrant nonsense. It's more like the difference between eating your McD's burger off a china plate at a table vs eating it out of a paper wrapper standing up. Same content, different surroundings/circumstances.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf
The same story in pBook, eBook, and audiobook are all the same book.

Originally Posted by Arconte

I absolutelly disagree (in a respectful non arrogant way, of course). Just the same as McDonals is not just the same as a good dish, and a Kubrick movie it is not the same as a Marvel movie.

A nonsense comparison.

Originally Posted by meeera

This analogy is arrant nonsense. It's more like the difference between eating your McD's burger off a china plate at a table vs eating it out of a paper wrapper standing up. Same content, different surroundings/circumstances.

Or an old faded paperback on wood-pulp paper set in only 6pt Garamond with smudged ink is a like a VHS recorded off air at long play vs an eBook on a modern ereader is like the DVD / BD version.

Originally Posted by Arconte

Maybe the information is the name listened than read, but the mental processes are diferent.

That's nearly true. Unless the information is exactly the same then it's not a good audio book and the mental process are different due to listening rather than seeing and reading.

I know loads of smart people that prefer consuming book content via audio. Forty years ago there were only a limited number of abridged titles for blind or partially sighted people. Originally on 78 discs in 1890s and then various tape systems from 1960s. Curiously though compact cassettes existed from 1962 (before 8 track which hardly caught on in Europe) the RNIB used a custom cassette even in 1980s.

The availability of unabridged audio books and also nearly decent text to speech (pioneered by Ray Kurzweil's invention of workable OCR in late 1970s used for the Blind) for free (Pocketbook app on Android etc) is great for everyone.

Personally I prefer reading text. But there is nothing inferior about people choosing audio books. It is usually the same content.

Some people have no choice either through bad eyesight or bad hearing. Having choice is good.