Blog

FAQ, Tips & Tricks

Improve audio & save money: the experts speak

Improve audio & save money: the experts speak - ATC Blog

“Practice.  Study your recorder and your microphone and learn how they “listen” and record.  Then, understand how to optimize the quality of your recording so you can adapt to any recording situation.” Doug Boyd PhD, Director, Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History, University of Kentucky Libraries

 I lead in with a quote from Doug Boyd, as evidence that this is not just a self-serving transcription service telling you what to do with your recording and interview techniques, but one of the pre-eminent scholars in the oral history world (and in full disclosure one of our clients who agreed to offer his two cents on interviewing and recording techniques) who spends his professional life making sure he’s able to capture high-quality interviews for archival purposes – while aggressively monitoring the overall dollars he spends on his projects.  Our motives, quite frankly, are a bit selfish.  By having the best audio to work with, our reputation as a high quality transcription service is enhanced.  But equally important is helping you find ways to record archival quality audio/video, and at the same time conserving your all- important budget dollars.  Additionally, on a more personal level for us, we want to save our transcriptionists’ ears and their sanity as well.
The key in all of this –
You or whoever is conducting your interviews needs to help us
in this improvement and financial conservation process.
We guestimate that 30%of the audio we receive each year is recorded as if the people talking are standing at the bottom of a well, and then are conversing with one another through the technological wonders of tin cans and string.  Maybe we exaggerate things (just slightly), but it is to prove a point.  If it wasn’t for those darn confidentiality agreements we’d be more than happy to share examples of this poor quality audio, ergo transcripts, with you as well.
Instead, we’ll do our best to offer some (what we think are) common sense tips, and as backup to our points, some key thoughts from experts in the art of recording and interviewing, answering the question of, “If you only had one thing you could tell someone to help them improve their interviews to get the best interview recording possible, what would it be?”  You’ll see the challenge in their replies is that not many of them were able to keep their list to one thing.  In full disclosure, the quotes are not just from people who are experts in their field, but from people who are also our clients.  Who better to learn from than the people who are recording and interviewing in the best manner possible. 
But first, here’s our bullet point take on it.
·         Above all else: Use Common Sense (If only everyone would use some common sense)
  •   Test out the recording device and all of its features before using it.
  •    Place the recorder closer to the interviewee than to the interviewer.
  •    Check the batteries (if there’s no power chord), and bring extra batteries!
  •    Bring an extra memory card
  •    Don’t talk over the interviewee – let them complete their thought, and then follow-up.
  •    Pay attention to the place of the recording
  •   Is there ambient noise to be concerned with?
    •          Is the location in a quiet room, but under an air conditioner?
    •          Is the location a noisy coffee shop (chatter, dishes, etc.)?
    •          Will external conversations be picked up by the recording device?
  •  Be prepared with questions to keep your interview as cohesive as possible
  •  Don’t forget to bring and use a backup recorder (if possible).
See, we believe all these aforementioned bullet points are common sense, and we don’t know how else to classify them.  Our clients/the experts also offer some excellent points to implement in the interview and recording process, and we know you’ll find them helpful as well.
  lucky_budd_circle-300x300   “The most important thing to keep in mind when interviewing is that capturing the interviewee’s testimony is the primary goal.  A recorder should therefore be placed 2 feet from the interviewee, pointed at their mouth.” –Robert Budd, Memories to Memoirs (He got his Master’s Degree in the field!)
    
    “I have told people before in oral history workshops to go ahead and spend the extra money and get two separate microphones – one for the interviewer and one for the interviewee – and make sure they are both the best quality that you can afford.”  –Anonymous (do to the aforementioned confidentiality concerns, this client/expert prefers to remain anonymous, but did want their thoughts to be included.)
      “Even on days where you’re most excited to get the interview started, be sure to spend the additional time it takes to test all of your audio equipment – in that specific setting, with that particular individual – before you dive into your conversations.” —Samuel J. Redman, Academic Specialist and Lead Interviewer for the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front Oral History Project, Regional Oral History Office, UC Berkeley
    “Do as much research as time and money allow to avoid superficial questions and answers and probable frustration of the interviewee.” –Sally Smith Hughes, Academic Specialist, Science and Technology, Regional Oral History Office, UC Berkeley
      “Know your recording equipment so well that you can be 99 percent focused on the interview and 1 percent focused on the equipment.”–David Dunham Project Manager, WWII Home Front Oral History Project  – Regional Oral History Office, UC Berkeley Web/Video Director
Take the time to implement these helpful ideas, and you’ll find in the long term you’ll have better quality recordings and more accurate transcripts that save you time, money, and our transcriptionists’ headaches.
FAQ, Transcription

Transcripts, timecoding, and you

Transcripts timecoding and you - Audio Transcription Center Blog

As the Director of the Audio Transcription Center, I am routinely in meetings with Sandy Poritzky, the owner who started this firm in 1966.  Over the course of my 5 years with the firm, I have listened numerous times to Sandy’s arguments for time-coding transcripts and had many an argument about the topic.

“Michael, my boy,” he’ll say, “why don’t we have time-coding as a standard for all client transcripts?”  “Sandy, the challenge with time-coding is that there is no standard,” I’ll tell him, and then we’ll get into a debate for the next 35 minutes about time-coding.

In the ensuing battles in his office, Sandy, in his inimitable fashion argued that we need to come up with a standard for time-coding that would be included in all client transcripts.  On the counterpoint, in my inimitable fashion, I argued that every client’s needs are so different that there can not be any standard inclusion of time-coding in transcripts.

To be fair, Sandy’s belief is that time-coding should be a standard offering in transcripts, and he understands that every client has very different needs in how time-coding should be included and used in transcription.

Five years later, the battles still linger on, but we now have a conversation with clients about their specific transcription requirements and how time-coding can be a major time-saver in reviewing and editing your transcripts in the long run.

Quite basically, time-coding is beneficial for clients on a few different levels.  One way is for clients to be able to sync up their transcripts with their audio/video files, so that visitors to an online oral history project may synchronously watch the video recording and read the transcript.

For instance, have a look at the website of the Kentuckiana Digital Library, which offers their video footage with a synced transcript.  As Doug Boyd, Director of the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky Libraries writes in his article, “Achieving the Promise of Oral History in a Digital Age”, published in Donald Ritchie’s The Oxford Handbook of Oral History [Oxford University Press, 2011], “By embedding time-code into the transcript, we enabled time correlation between the transcript and the audio or video, yielding an integrated final product where the components work together…Additionally, we created a customized software solution to more easily (albeit still manually) embed time-code markers into the transcript.  The decision was made to embed these markers at one-minute intervals throughout the transcript.  The five-minute interval proved to be, still, too much text to scan while trying to determine the specific location of the information being sought in the audio file.”

We also work with numerous production companies that are sending in their video footage prior to editing.  These clients actually have us time-coding their transcripts at even shorter intervals, so they can easily and efficiently edit sound bites by reviewing their newly time-coded transcripts.

Additionally, if a client sends in an audio file with with poor quality audio, and we are unable to transcribe a word that is said, we’ll put (inaudible) in place of the unknown word.  Time-coding these portions becomes an added feature to help a client easily locate the “inaudible” content in their audio, and review to see if they are able to replace the “inaudible” content with the word that was said.

So in the end, there is no standard need for our clients in how time-codes should be inserted in transcripts, but there certainly is reason to find the time-code formatting that will make reviewing, editing, reading, and watching your content that much simpler.

Academic, Client Spotlight, Transcription

Malcom X: A Life of Reinvention – Manning Marable

Malcom X A Life of Reinvention - Manning Marable - ATC Blog
 On April 4, 2011 Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention was published, and the magnum opus of Manning Marable’s life’s research was finally in print.  Sadly, for those who do not know, Dr. Marable passed away 3 days before the book hit the shelves.  Thankfully, he was able to see the book in print before he passed away. 

Continue reading “Malcom X: A Life of Reinvention – Manning Marable” →

FAQ, Tips & Tricks

Analog vs. Digital: Pay Now or Pay More Later

Analog vs Digital Pay Now or Pay More Later - ATC Blog

Some of you have asked me why we still have information on our website about “going digital,” but clearly the fact that we still receive newly recorded audio on “old-fashioned” cassette tapes  tells me that some people just don’t understand the importance of upgrading technology (on a lot of levels).  After 44 years in business, we finally took the “tape” out of our name, because it’s all about the audio!

Today I’m writing about more than “going digital,” but I will also touch upon recording habits in general.  Remember, just because you’re recording digitally does NOT mean that you will automatically have broadcast quality audio.  (WHAT?! You’re thinking, ‘it’s digital, so it has to be better quality.’)  There’s a lot involved in recording, and as the person conducting the recording, you need to stop and think about the details of recording for more than a couple of seconds.  That’s right, we know that some of you already know these things, but do you truly take the time to learn your device before using it?  I know that’s a very personal question, so think about it for a moment.  You don’t have to share.

The quick points to remember:

First and foremost, it’s now 2011, so use a digital recorder!  You can walk into any electronics store, or jump online and find one.  Just do some research first.  Remember, in 2004, 90 % of our clients used analog equipment to record their interviews.  Now in 2011, 95% of our clients use digital equipment to record their interviews.  You’ll have immediate access to your audio recording.  Volume too low? There’s software for you to give the file a quick boost to increase the sound quality.  Is your transcriptionist next door or across the country?  It doesn’t matter where they are located, because you can upload your audio to them, and still have access to listen your audio.  Imagine never having to spend shipping dollars again!!

Clearly the facts demonstrate there’s been a near total reversal in the analog vs. digital battle.  Remember, your transcripts are only as good as the audio your transcriptionist receives, and better quality audio will save time and save those all important dollars in your budget.  Again though, just remember, it’s more than just “going digital”!

You’ve purchased that device, but you really don’t want to delve into the box with the paperwork and all sorts of wires that are tucked neatly inside.  Read the paperwork, and use the wires.  Of all the wires in the box, use an A/C power-supply – it might be 2011, but batteries die quickly, so plug in when you can.  For those times that you forgot it at home, bring plenty of backup batteries!!   Seriously, go buy stock in the major brands, because you will always want to have an ample supply of batteries quickly within reach!  You never know when you’ll have to record those unexpected longer interviews.  Think of it as practicing “safe recording”!

Now you’re sitting there ready to hit the record button, but stop and check recording volume regularly.  I can’t tell you how many interviews we get where the recording levels are so low you can barely hear the person, so don’t forget to check those recording levels beforehand.  If your recording device has meters, refer to them, but also be sure to listen to the audio levels with headphones at the start of the interview session.
Another important piece of equipment to use is an external microphone.  Different situations require different types of microphones, so you’ll need to do a little studying up on what your recording environment needs.  If you’re able, try more than one external microphone among the group, to be sure you have properly mic’d all of your speakers.  This is especially important for any group larger than 3 individuals, and be sure to place these microphones as close as possible to the people who are speaking.  Sitting at a long table with people at both ends of the table? Think about how the person at the end of the table will sound if there is only one microphone in the middle of the table.  Murphy’s law also says that person will be your most verbal in the group.  Conducting a one-on-one interview?   Drop into Radio Shack beforehand, and grab a lapel mic.  The difference in recording quality is remarkable, and you’ll thank yourself later (as will your transcriptionist).
Don’t forget about the longevity of your recording for your archives!  Your transcriptionists do not require large archival files for transcribing, they just require some good audio to hear those words clearly.  On that note, if you’re going to be storing these recordings for archival posterity, make sure you do your research on the latest technological advances in formats for saving your audio files.  .wav? b-.wav? .mp3? Spend the time, do your research, and know the facts on digital audio longevity.  (See our previous blog on thinking beyond the shoebox.)

For a more detailed read, look over our recording tips page, and check out some of the other service providers we recommend as well.

Always remember your ultimate goals when you’re recording.  If you’re going to have your audio transcribed, you want the best recording possible, so give your transcriptionists audio that they can transcribe both fast and accurately!  If you can believe it, we’re telling you to spend a little more up front, that will save you money on a service we provide.  Go figure…

Software, Transcription

Reality Check: Transcription Vs. Speech Recognition Software – The Showdown

Transcription vs Speech Recognition Software Audio Transcription Center Blog
If anyone reading is a fan of the game show Jeopardy!, you already know that this week, IBM super-computer Watson is taking on legendary past Jeopardy! champions (and human beings) Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in a Human vs. Human vs. Machine grudge match, and we now know Machine has won!
Congratulations to Watson.
We don’t have a super-computer, or a fancy game-show soundstage, but we are bringing you the results of our Human vs. Machine faceoff. Can human transcriptionists from the Audio Transcription Center (ATC) slay the Dragon? Read on and find out!
(Full disclosure: we’re a transcription company that has been in business since 1966. Successful speech recognition software could put us out of business. Just so you know.)
Championships have been won in Boston: the Red Sox have won World Series, the Celtics NBA Championships, and the Bruins Stanley Cups, all just five minutes from our very offices. So it is fitting that our office be the site of this titanic Human vs. Machine bout!
First of all, I will introduce the Machine… wearing a green cardboard box, from Nuance Software, Dragon Naturally Speaking 10, Home Edition, or as we prefer to call it “Team Dragon”. (Version 11 has been released since we began testing; and we will put it to the test at a later date.)
And in the other corner, wearing headphones, torn jeans and flexing their fingers… the human transcriptionists of the Audio Transcription Center (ATC), specifically four randomly-selected competitors from our staff of dozens of versatile, multi-talented transcriptionists. All four, collectively known as “Team ATC”, were eager to take on the challenge.
“But wait,” you exclaim! “Dragon only works with one voice at a time, this is an unfair fight!” Correct. But rather than automatically claim victory, we decided to level the playing field by having both competitors work with only one voice, who would be speaking on a variety of subjects.
Dragon Naturally Speaking (or “Team Dragon”), as well as our team of terrific transcriptionists (or “Team ATC”), would be transcribing the voice of… me. Your humble blogger, formerly heard on college radio and occasionally behind a karaoke machine, would be the voice that would take both competitors to their limits!
Let’s begin the match, shall we?
First of all: speed of delivery
Team Dragon: walk to the store, purchase the software, come back to the office.
Team ATC: walk to the subway, purchase subway ticket, come to the office.
Advantage: We’ll call this one a tie.
Speed of installation
Team Dragon: 32 minutes for “complete installation”. The DVD-ROM was a very bright shade of orange.
Team ATC: less than 10 minutes for installation, and that includes pouring themselves a cup of coffee while the computer boots up. Occasionally wears bright colors as well.
Advantage: Team ATC.
Speed of training for first-time use
Team Dragon: 39 minutes, from first launch until the program was ready for prime-time, including entering the serial number at least 4 times.
Team ATC: About two hours, including filling out at least 4 pieces of paperwork. We’re thorough that way.
Advantage: Team Dragon.
So far, before we’ve introduced actual transcription into the contest, we’re tied at 1-1. It’s a close match in the early going…
Now, let’s bring in some actual audio. Specifically, about 1,135 words, spoken over about 7 minutes, on a variety of subjects, by yours truly.
“But wait,” you exclaim. Again. “’Team Dragon’ has to be trained to recognize your voice! It’s designed to improve as you use it more!” Correct. Whereas ‘Team ATC’, none of whom have ever heard my voice on a recording, can hit the ground running immediately. Advantage: Team ATC.
Back to the audio: our four transcriptionists each took one pass at it, transcribing it verbatim (with ums and ahs). Once done, the audio was given a real-time review, and time needed to perform corrections was noted.
Transcription time for “Team ATC” for seven minutes of audio, spoken in a quiet room, clearly and methodically: averaged out to 20 minutes.
But how did it look, you ask? There was an average of two errors in the 7 minute file. Out of 1,135 words, that’s over 99.8% accuracy before review. Review time averaged out to eight minutes, for a total score of 28 minutes.
Now, for the first round with “Team Dragon”. For the first round, I once again spoke slow-ly and meth-od-ic-al-ly. I also spoke punctuation and carriage returns in their appropriate places, as per instructions.
Dictation time for “Team Dragon”, first round? 16 minutes. Which sounds fast, until you realize that reading the audio into a recorder at ‘normal’ pace took less than half that time.
But how did it look, you ask? Not so good. Review time took 18 minutes; with over 60 errors (versus two!), for a total score of 34 minutes, and around 94% accuracy or roughly 15 errors per page. Which sounds good, until you remember that this is one voice, speaking slow-ly and meth-od-ic-al-ly. Which most of us don’t do in our daily lives.
 
Advantage for round one: “Team ATC”.
Before the competition, and in between rounds, while “Team ATC” was eating lunch or going for walks, “Team Dragon” was in training, as I read and corrected material from various sources into the software. Song lyrics, blurbs from dust jackets, chocolate bar wrappers… “Team Dragon” was being further trained to recognize my dulcet tones.
For round two with “Team Dragon”, I changed a setting to speed up the process; Dragon has a setting which inserts commas and periods in logical places. That indeed shaved a few minutes from the dictation time: dictation now took 11 minutes.
But how did it look, you ask?  Still not so good. There were over 40 errors; review time took 13 minutes (which was, again, longer than the dictation itself), so over 96% accuracy or roughly 10 errors per page. Which, again, sounds impressive, until you compare it to 99% accuracy.
Total time for round 2, including review time: 24 minutes. Which means…
Advantage for round two: “Team Dragon”.
So what have we learned? That speech recognition software can, with repeated training, be accurate enough that your dictation time, plus your review time, can be faster than a human transcriptionist.
So “Team Dragon” wins? The robots are taking over?
Uh, no.
If your audio input consists of one voice, and only one voice, and you have enough access to that one voice to allow Dragon to become further accustomed to that one voice, then by all means, stop reading now, and become a proud supporter of “Team Dragon”.
For everyone else, “Team ATC” is still miles ahead. “Team ATC” can transcribe your all-hands meeting, with its 27 participants from the CEO to the intern. “Team Dragon” can’t.
“Team ATC” can transcribe your interview with your Nana where she talks about the old country; and because the Audio Transcription Center (ATC) can match your interview subject matter up with the right member of “Team ATC”, you can get a transcript with 99% accuracy or higher, even though we’ve never heard your voice.
 
“Team Dragon” can transcribe you or your Nana, at lower than 99% accuracy, and only knows what it’s been programmed about the old country.
And most importantly, the human beings at the Audio Transcription Center (ATC) can consult with you before your project even begins, and work with you to help you get the most out of your limited transcription budget.
When and if “Team Dragon” catches up to us, and is able to transcribe the material our talented, smart human beings are able to transcribe, quickly and accurately, we will be the first to jump on the bandwagon. Until “Team Dragon” puts us out of business.
But for now, if you call the Audio Transcription Center (ATC), there are no machines to train, no dragons to slay, just friendly, helpful customer service, a second-to-none transcription staff and a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Next in line for us is a white paper that will help you find your best transcription solution, even if it is (gasp) not us!
by Patrick Emond
Software, Transcription

Reality Check: Transcription vs. Speech Recognition Software

Transcription Vs Speech Recognition Software Audio Transcription Center Blog 
Here at ATC, we occasionally get the tough questions. One in particular that briefly stops us in our tracks: “Why can’t I just use speech recognition software?”

Nobody likes being replaced by a computer, or a robot, and we are no exception. Our short answer to that question is this: “we are more accurate and more versatile than the software available today.”

Still don’t believe us? Well, we’re going to introduce you to our competition.

Speech recognition has been around since 1952: that early device could recognize single spoken digits. (We, on the other hand, have been around since 1966, and were able to recognize whole spoken sentences immediately.)

The next large leap forward came in 1982: Dragon Software, who still release speech recognition software today, released software for industrial use. By 1985, that software had a vocabulary of 1,000 words – spoken one at a time. (That is comparable to a four-year-old child. We don’t recommend having a four-year-old, even a precocious one, transcribe your audio.)

Dragon itself even admits this today: “Most of us develop the ability to recognize speech when we’re very young. We’re already experts at speech recognition by the age of three or so.” Our college-educated transcriptionists had vocabularies in the 17,000-word (and up) range. Even in 1985. And they still do.

By 1993, a computer could recognize over 20,000 spoken words, which put it on a par with human beings. Except for the accuracy, which was only 10% in 1993. By 1995, the error rate had dropped to 50%, which is quite a leap in a short time. (Our transcriptionists test at 98% accuracy.)

In 1997, Dragon released “Naturally Speaking”, its first consumer speech-recognition product. By 1997, we already had a 31-year head start on transcription for consumers at large.

We know, we know…

“That was back then. How about now?”

We’re glad you asked. 

Since 1985, the National Institute of Standards and Technology have been benchmarking speech recognition software. The graph below illustrates some key data points highlighting several of their relevant benchmark tests.  (Click the graph to enlarge.)
 
(source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/mig/publications/ASRhistory/index.html)

There are a lot of data points up there, so let me highlight the important features:

    • Take a look at the error rates (WER means Word Error Rate) for Conversational Speech (in red) and Meeting Speech (in pink). They aren’t even close to what human beings can deliver.
    • That 2% to 4% range is human error. As in, the accuracy rate you would get from our human beings. And we aim for even lower than that.
    • The only tests that match up with human accuracy are air travel planning kiosk tests (bright green). Also known as “People Who Speak Very Deliberately and Slowly in Airports.”
    • Very few people speak deliberately and slowly in real life.
    • The error rate for broadcast news readers (blue), ie: people who are very well-paid to speak clearly, is around 10%.
Software has to be trained to recognize your voice. And re-trained to recognize anyone else’s. Our transcriptionists can handle a meeting full of speakers and accurately differentiate them.

A 98% accuracy rate means you will spend much less time reviewing your audio, correcting errors and inaccuracies, and much more time growing your business.

The bottom line is this: computers are getting smaller, and more powerful, all the time. They can do many things better than human beings can.

But not, as you can see, transcription. And looking at the graph, they won’t catch up anytime soon.

Your audio wasn’t recorded in a lab, it was recorded in the real world, where we live. We transcribe conversations and meetings every day, from all over the world. Not to mention webcasts, dictation, presentations, and conferences.

Again, Dragon says it themselves: “People can filter out noise fairly easily, which lets us talk to each other almost anywhere. We have conversations in busy train stations, across the dance floor, and in crowded restaurants. It would be very dull if we had to sit in a quiet room every time we wanted to talk to each other! Unlike people, computers need help separating speech sounds from other sounds.”

Our transcriptionists and production staff are highly educated, well-trained, and are constantly learning, whether that means going to graduate school, reading magazines, or watching the newest viral videos.

We like computers, and we think we can co-exist. So, by all means, speak your destination into your cell phone’s GPS, or say “tech support” to speak to technical support. Those are two versions of speech-recognition software that many of us use almost every day.

But if your audio is any more complicated than that, call us. We’re versatile, we’re accurate, and if you pour us enough coffee, we won’t crash.

We have run full tests on the entire Dragon experience, from opening the box all the way to the proof of the pudding, which is in the crust… er, the transcript. We will publish those results on or before February 17, so keep an eye on your inbox and this blog for the results!

Client Spotlight, Transcription

Powderhouse Productions – Client Spotlight September 2010

Powderhouse Productions - Client Spotlight September 2010 - ATC Blog

Here at the Audio Transcription Center we’re always amazed at the diversity of our clients’ audio.  One day we may be transcribing a high-brow legal hearing, and the next we’re creating a transcript about the world’s shortest cat.  And truly, everything that you can imagine in between is heard by our team of transcriptionists.  With the mix of clients we have, the content we transcribe truly is, “soup to nuts.”  
 
But, back to that world’s shortest cat, and the client that sent that audio our way,  Powderhouse Productions. 

Headquartered in Somerville, Ma. Powderhouse Productions has been producing a wide range of television shows since 1994 for channels such as PBS, National Geographic, TLC, and the programs we’ve most recently been transcribing, “Dogs 101,” “Cats 101,” and “Pets 101” for the Animal Planet network.  

So you truly want to know the answers to these questions, well you could just ask my team of transcriptionists, but then you wouldn’t be watching the premiere this Saturday night at 8 p.m. on Animal Planet.

“Powderhouse relies on the Audio Transcription Center for high quality, accurate transcripts delivered on time and on budget.   They understand the demands of television production – their turnaround time is fast and their customer service is excellent.  We depend on them to meet our tight deadlines and they always deliver!”   

– Dan Miller VP, Production 

Inside ATC

Archiving – Thinking Beyond the Shoebox!

Archiving Thinking Beyond the Shoebox - ATC Blog

In our inimitable fashion here at ATC (www.audiotranscriptioncenter.com) we’re constantly reading through all those emails we’re receiving from different listservs about any number of things.  The latest one that caught our eyes was about how rapidly technology is changing, and it got us thinking on many levels.  WWOCD?  What Would Our Clients Do?  The article in the latest issue of ComputerWorld.com is written by Lamont Wood, “Fending off the digital dark ages: The archival storage issue.” So this is where transcription of those audio/video collections is key to the longevity of your archives. 

When was the last time you tried to play a 33 rpm record?  When did you find an old floppy disk with information that you couldn’t access?  How about that interview of Aunt Lucy and Uncle Joe in the shoebox that was recorded in 1972 on any sort of media that is now outdated?  Point being, anything you record today will be outdated in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years.  Do you have a plan?  Does your customer have a plan?  We don’t have a plan either, but hey, we got you thinking about it. 

As far as I know no company is currently transcribing on sheepskin, but most everyone who receives their transcripts is storing them digitally.  These digital transcripts are now searchable documents, and then they are usually printed and stored for archival purposes as needed. 

The question again is, how often is digital media changing? 

Plainly, your audio archives will someday be obsolete, and you’ll have to look at ways to convert these collections to a new functional usable format. (How many of you are already doing this every 5, 10, 15 years or so?)  These transcripts of the media content provide the essence of what researchers need!

What will you do to make sure this scenario doesn’t happen to you or your client?  Or will you be retired by that point, and leave the “legacy” to someone else?

Inside ATC

The Story of “Farakaveh”

The Story of “Farakaveh” - ATC Blog

Excuse me, which way is “Farakaveh”?

Not too long ago, a member of our production team was reviewing a transcript of an oral history interview before sending the completed work back to the client.

While the work was top-notch as usual, there was one word that just didn’t sit quite right with our eagle-eyed (or nitpicky, however you want to phrase it) production-er and he couldn’t bring himself to press “send.”

Instead, he took a few minutes to listen and re-listen to that little blip of audio but kept hearing the same thing the transcriber had: “Farakaveh.”

Eh, good enough… 

While putting the word in brackets with a question mark to indicate it as a guess and sending off the transcript might have been the next acceptable step, he just couldn’t let it go.

So he brought in some outside expertise, someone with a background that might help decipher the accent of the interviewee — a Jewish, rather Russian and very New Yawk elderly woman.  In this case, that “outside expert” happened to be ATC founder and president, Sandy Poritzky.

Bringing in the “Big Kahuna”

While we couldn’t quite get our top exec to sit down and listen to the audio on a pair of headphones (though we admit it is fun to picture that scenario in our minds), we did the next best thing by putting the printed transcript on his desk.  One quick read and Sandy recognized “Farakaveh” pretty much immediately.  It’s a little neighborhood in Queens, NY.  Probably better known as “Far Rockaway.”

The moral of the story?  

Well, it could be that we go the extra mile (yay!).  Or, it could be that we employ fiendishly detail-oriented and extremely cautious people (they’re our heart and soul!).  Or, it could be that sometimes the big boss actually does have all the answers (shudder).  Mostly, we like to think it illustrates another point: Transcription isn’t always just what you *think* you hear.