• _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    viewership prefers AI dub vs. no dub

    According to the beta testers, and the Internet, listeners abhorred the LLM localization & actual tone-deaf Speech audio dubbing. Keeping the original dubbings is simply what folks want, esp. if it’s labeled abridged.

    [components of dubbing]

    At the least you are aware why this /c/ prefers subs, because it is that much cheaper and errorless to output.

    • molave@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      According to the beta testers, and the Internet, listeners abhorred the LLM localization & actual tone-deaf Speech audio dubbing. Keeping the original dubbings is simply what folks want, esp. if it’s labeled abridged.

      Yes, at its current state. Will it stay that way? The tech companies are burning cash in attempts to make it not so. My hunch says even Vocaloid-tier AI dubbing will be enough for a large sector of the audience. Then the human vs. AI dubbing debate could be analogous to debates between lossy (more accessible) vs. lossless (higher quality) audio.

      Now, LLM localization is the greater challenge. I highly doubt those, including the classic machine-learning models, can reach N1-level localization quality.

      • _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The only thing funny about mentioning Vocaloid is the fact that Vocaloid synthesis has to be manually pitched, tempod, and toned🤣. Glad you honestly believe capitalists want to invest more on disqualifying tone deafening pitchless speech waveforms.

        But please, never stop supporting espeak!