Replies and comments

• 

  Jeremy Cherfas

  3 november, 2017 13:43

  Ah, the old chestnut about audio quality of podcasts. So I’ll give my standard answer. If what you’re saying is interesting, audio quality is less important. Asymcar is my goto example for that. And if what you say is not interesting, no level of production value will make me listen longer.
  In between is a grey area. So, specifically addressing Henrik’s question, that microcast was perfectly OK, except that once we had dealt with the weather and the question, I had had enough. On all outdoor recording wind noise, handling noise and bumps are the most distressing to me because they are always a shock to my ears. But if I know it is going to be over in three minutes, I can survive.
  I’ve recorded outdoors and walking along myself, almost always with either the built-in microphone on the earbuds or else with an external Zoom iQ-6. The Zoom is actually worse, because it is so much more sensitive to wind and handling. A few times, when I was doing Dog Days of Podcasting, I cheated and recorded while walking along only to shadow myself with a decent mic when I got home. That’s fun because you get the spontaneity of unscripted speech with much better sound quality.

• 

  Daniel Goldsmith

  3 november, 2017 18:13

  Once the voice that I’m listening to is clear, I don’t really sweat it about the quality too much. Thankfully, most microcasts are single-voice, thus avoiding the awful skype encoding mess that ruins many longer-form podcasts. I found this microcast clear and understandable, Henrik, and it was fun to imagine you pushing your baby stroller through the frosted fields of Sweden.

• 

  johnjohnston

  3 november, 2017 18:44

  @MrHenko I like the concept of publishing short audio without edit or worrying about equipment. Happy to listen to variety of sound quality.

• 

  MrHenko

  3 november, 2017 20:57

  @johnjohnston Thank you for replying, John!