[sorenjan]

How come audio books can be as or even more expensive than the same book in paper format? There's no production, shipping, and so on involved with digital products, and the recording itself is a few hours with the voice talent, often the author themselves, and a few more people in a small studio.

[goldcd]

I can actually answer that (due to random quirks in my life).

1) Opposite my office there used to be an audiobook company. Whole office of people built around a sound-booth where an actor would spend a week or so recording a book. I used to see the famousish coming out for smoke-breaks day-after-day. Maybe a dozen people, for a fortnight, to make 'an audiobook'

2) My wife used to work for a publishing company for hire (used to knock out Disney branded books for supermarkets and the like). Books cost practically nothing to print in China. Then could be shipped around and sold at the lowest of rates/margins.

Saying an audiobook costs nothing to record, is like saying a band could just publish their sheet-music.

[sorenjan]

So what's the approximate cost of recording an audio book then? Is it a lot more than preparing the text for print? How much does distribution cost compared to the paper version? My uneducated guess is that the profit margin on audio books are much higher than paperbacks, maybe hardbacks as well.

[dfabulich]

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+does+it+cost+to+rec...

https://findawayvoices.com/pricing/

> An average audiobook created with Findaway Voices has about 50,000 words and costs between $1,000 and $2,000. We can estimate the cost of your audiobook by multiplying a per finished hour narrator rate with the estimated length of your finished recording. The longer the book, the higher the estimate will be.

Playing with the sliders, they seem to estimate that a 50K-word book will be 200 finished hours. Their narrators charge a $250-$500 rate per finished hour. ("Narrators charge by the length of the delivered audio, not how many hours go into preparing, recording, editing, mastering, proofing, etc.")

Famous actors can cost arbitrarily more, of course.

[chihuahua]

200 finished hours for a typical book seems very high to me. I'm listening to a lot of audiobooks from the library (free) and most non-fiction books are between 10 and 30 hours.

[stevewillows]

An audiobook takes about six hours [1] to nail down one hour of final recording.

[1] https://audible-acx.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/664...

[ygra]

I've read and recorded books for fun in my free time for friends and the best I could manage (on my own) was about 2 to 4 hours per hour of completed recording. From sentences I had to re-record over and over again (either due to me not being able to get it right, or the cat intervening) then cutting, re-listening whether the pauses are okay, etc. For a professional recording six hours sounds about right.

[dwighttk]

The usual 200pg bestselling fluff usually comes in at 5-6hrs unabridged.

[dmitriid]

”A few hours with a few people” is

- often multiple hours in the studio because people make mistakes, they get tired, they want to re-do passages etc.

- during recording you want at the very least a sound technician, the voice talent, and a director/author/producer to listen in and give direction/corrections/adjustments on the reading

- after recording you need at least an editor, a director/producer to make sure the recording is cut correctly.

And then off to the presses (that is, converting RAW audio to whatever digital formats).

A designer may also be involved if the book requires a different cover.

Disclosure: I work at Storytel though not anywhere near (other than physically) audiobook recordings.

[_i____ii_______]

People do Librivox recordings free of charge as volunteers. Those recordings are just as good as Audible recordings. I myself, with rudimentary gear and a free DAW, can create an Audible level recording for the mere cost of my time. I'm going to have to totally reject your list of expenses. Sounds like a bunch of superfluous positions and bloat.

[zaat]

If you can't tell the difference between the average LibriVox recording and the average commercial audio book, there is no way you can produce an Audible level of recording.

Even if half the volunteering recorders and their gear were as good as those of the commercial offerings, just sitting and selecting those that are not good enough for publishing and those that require some re-recording is a massive extra work.

[_i____ii_______]

What is so special about Audible recordings that is unnattainable by Librivox? You mean sound quality? You mean some holy grail vocal mics? Or vocal talent? I don't get it.

[dredmorbius]

Mostly talent, production, and editing.

I've listened to a few Librevox recordings. They're usually (though not always) tolerable. Occaisionlly good, but that's exceeding rare.

Good audiobooks -- and a friend listens to many -- are far more often vastly superior. Even then, a poor reader is exceedingly grating.

Libravox may improve with time. History of volunteer efforts has been compeling. But not yet.

[azeotropic]

Its not that high quality is unobtainable, it's that nobody at librivox seems to try to attain it. Sound quality is definitely uneven at librivox, ranging from poor to middling, and passages composed of multiple tales are rarely mixed together smoothly. The vocal talent is mostly adequate (I certainly find plenty of narrators I dislike on audible) but it also seems sort of unsupervised -- narrators who encounter unfamiliar words will mispronounce them. I honestly think they'd get more even results with TTS now that WaveNet is so good.

I'm impressed by what librivox has achieved with just volunteers, but the production values are nowhere near as high as most books on audible.

[DanielleMolloy]

Ratings could be a partial fix for quality control but they have been opposing them for years (because they want to keep it fun and motivating for volunteer readers..): http://piratelibrary.com/2010/05/on-the-absence-of-ratings-a... (ratings are now available in some LibriVox apps though)

IMHO they are just doing injustice to a number of good readers in their catalogue who put real effort into their recordings, but get buried under those one can barely listen to.

[DanielleMolloy]

Partly true. I've listened to a handful of excellent readers on LibriVox. For audiobooks I don't care if audio quality is sub-par as long as I understand every word and the reader is good.

There were even these incidents with people ripping the best recordings off LibriVox and selling them on Audible where they ended up achieving high ratings..

However, bad LibriVox experiences were one reason why I didn't truly "get" how superior audiobooks can be for years. Enduring their endless copyright and chapter announcements also hampered the experience a bit.

LibriVox derivatives have now fixed the problem of finding good readers in some of the apps with simple user ratings. I believe a similar project based on WaveNet will make much of LibriVox obsolete soon by being better than many readers there, which saddens me a bit since in principle LibriVox is a good project that simply promoted free sharing of information and knowledge.

Both AI and most of LibriVox have a lot to learn to even come close to the quality of the professional Gert Westphal reading of "The Magic Mountain", or to anything Stephen Fry has read.

[islanderfun]

Isn't this the equivalent of "I can do Dropbox in one weekend"?

[seattle_spring]

Or, more recently, "someone with one week of JavaScript experience can replicate Airbnb."

[martinpw]

> Those recordings are just as good as Audible recordings.

No. They are not. I tried listening to Don Quixote Librivox. While a couple of readers are tolerable, several are terrible, and none are close to professional voice actor level. Which makes it really hard to get through. Check out the comments here too if you don't want to subject yourself to listening to the reading itself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLTTJo0E1ag

Audible recordings in general are vastly superior.

[dwighttk]

I listen to a lot of librivox books. There are some talented volunteers, but there are many that are just not that good.

Plus all their text is on the public domain.

[blondin]

you are making a good point imo. strange to me to read that audiobooks cost so much more than printed books. about the same amount of work goes into both. and i don't think people buy audiobooks because their favorite actor is narrating it. if they do then yes, they should be charged a lot. i also think maybe text to speech software makers need to get into that business. will drive the cost down a little.

[macintux]

I assume the price of audiobooks reflects the fact that far fewer are purchased, so all of the engineering and voice work has to be recouped somehow.

I've done a little voice work before. It is insanely tedious, even for a book I loved.