I just finished a 16 hour audiobook and I’m curious about what you guys think about something. Do you think you’d finish a book faster or shorter depending on it being audio or a visually-read book? I’m not sure if I can read and comprehend alone as quickly as I can when someone reads it to me, especially because I’m less concerned about names and things when someone else pronounces them.
Just a thought I had and figured you guys might have thought about as well.
I think it depends on subject matter. If I'm reading something science or philosophy heavy then it will slow me down but if it's a lighter read then I can match audio speed by just reading visually. But I've had the experience where I had to read it visually because the subject was too hard to take in otherwise. I speed up audiobooks to around 1.25-1.75 speed anyway depending on the voice, if that helps any.
People read at different speeds. They also listen at different speeds. If I could read as long as I can listen, I'd finish faster by reading. But I can't. And also, I can listen at times when I'm doing something else like cooking, laundry, driving, etc. So it's probably about even.
I'll physically read a book 2 or 4 times faster than if i listened to it but I do a lot more cross-stitching, quilting, and walking with audio books.
I listen to audiobooks at 1.25-1.75 speed. I don’t like them slow and monotonous, I want to listen at an average speaking pace. It helps to ramp it up slowly by like 10% at a time so you can adjust to the voice.
Plus driving
I can read 3-4 times faster when doing so by myself with a physical or kindle copy of a book.
However, what I do love about audiobooks is I can listen to them at times when reading would be impossible. For instance, I can listen while exercising, walking the dog, preparing dinner, doing the dishes, vacuuming or doing the laundry.
Because I listen to audiobooks I can get through about 110 books a year. Without audiobooks, it would probably be somewhere between 80-95 books a year.
Audiobooks are much faster for me than printed books. Although now that I'm reading more, my reading speed is increasing. I also have more opportunities to listen than I do to sit down and read with my eyes.
I guess it depends on reading speed and book length, but if an audiobook is 16 hours, I could read at least four normal books in that time (I recently read three books on a twelve hour flight). I would not be able to read anywhere near the volume of books I do now if I used audiobooks.
I don’t have a lot of time to read anymore and I am driving all of the time. So I typically finish a audiobook within 2 to 3 weeks while a physical copy will take me about a month to month and a half once I actually start it
I can sit and finish a book much faster than I could listen to it but audiobooks are more convenient most of the time
Lmao you can just say read, unless it's braille it's obvious you're doing it visually. You can't read with your ears
Uh oh.. you're gonna get in trouble for that.
Takes much longer to read a book than to listen to it. Either option works or both. Enjoy a book however you can.
Libby/Overdrive & Audible allow you to increase speed. I always increase the speed of the book to the fastest point I can that doesn’t sound unnatural and I can still comprehend everything. I feel like that balances out the fact that I read much faster than the average audiobook.
I finish two or three times as many audiobooks in a year than I have time to read. I’m able to listen at work, during my commute, and while working on my hobbies. I also change the speed to listen faster.
It’s substantially faster to read, but I listen to audiobooks anyway so I can quilt at the same time. Depending on the narrator I listen at 1.2x or even 1.3x, and it still takes at least three times longer than reading would.
It would take me about as long to read a book as have it read to me, but I wouldn't get anything else done. I love audiobooks because I can listen while working around the house, cooking, baking, driving, knitting and just about anything except watch TV or listening to music.
I am a slower reading and words form in my mind so that is no different that if I was speaking them or listening to them.
You comment about comprehension was interesting. Over the last 2 or 3 years I've read a number of books that have 3 or 4 female characters in them. I've been reading a lot about women in WWII in Europe. Along with factual books I've been reading historical fiction. One was about women spotters at RAF bases.
I found that with the audio books it wasn't as easy to flip back and check to the section where the characters were introduced. I often listened to the book more than once because of that.
At my age memory retention helps with brain health. i read an article that suggested if comprehension is an issue to take notes. It helps the brain as it ages.
The article could have been nonsense, but it can't hurt.
Faster reading myself. Though I recently found if I speed up the audio usually to 1.1 or 1.2 then it’s a bit better for me coz it’s more at a speed id have a normal conversation
I find if I leave an audiobook as it is then it’s just too slow and I get bored, unless I’m on a long road trip
Agreed! I listen to long series while driving or doing chores, and typically read shorter books physical. I also tend to increase the reading speed in audio books depending on the voice actor.
Definitely faster for me to listen. I can’t skim read but listen to most audiobooks on x1.5 or x2
I read way faster than I listen but I feel like I get more into the world building with audiobooks.
Plus it allows me to still enjoy books even if my eyes are strained or need a hot compress due to MGD.
For similar reasons I get details or theories I maybe never considered reading the books. (Spoilers for Harry Potter)
>!I never really understood why people hated Harry so much for being emotional or whiny or easily upset since it seemed like aside from being a teen, but they did seem to all start bickering a lot more especially in book 5 onward. Then it occurred to me: Duh. Not only are they teens, Harry is a literal horcrux. Same as carrying the locket. Of course… I also hated the “accidental horcrux” bit given it’s supposed to be really complicated but “his soul was so fragile by that point.” But somehow he kept killing other people afterward without accidentally making more? But fine, whatever. From the end of 4 onward, Harry has an inseparable horcrux and the other two are near it all the time. Of course they’re crabby.!<
PotterAndPitties t1_iy58h9f wrote
The great thing about audiobooks is they let me finish books I would never have time to read otherwise.