Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Against Podcasts

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#291

Post by eropple »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #283
eropple wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I have a small studio (for podcasting, among other things) and my go-to microphones are $99 sE L7 dynamics because to my ear they're cleaner than SM58s. I have a few others available, like the AT2035 that sits at my desk, but the difference is so, so marginal for any spoken-word stuff that I don't know why someone would bother. (The above is with one major caveat: I'd kick a puppy for a half-dozen RE20s. I love…

Have you tried Monoprice's dynamic performance mic[0]? It's an SM58 clone with (if reviews are correct) great detail and a bit more high-mids/highs. It might be another alternative besides the sEL7. [0] https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=600058

I haven't, no. It looks like a competitor (if it isn't a rebrand) of a Behringer XM8500. Which are fine cheapo mics, and really good for stuff like on-stage performance or karaoke or whatever. But I, for my purposes, am using those sE L7s as something of a knockoff of a broadcast mic, with decent-to-good plosive handling and very strong off-axis rejection (they're supercardioid microphones). So, while they're more expensive, they exactly fit my needs.

Lots more interesting options exist in condensers, IMO, than in dynamics. The sE V7 is a standout in the space. Honestly, from my experience, the only real upgrade in the "quiet room, sitting down" dynamic microphone realm is an Electro-Voice RE20 (if I want "newsy" or a Shure SM7b (if I want "aggressively neutral"); both are amazing microphones but neither are as notably bright as a V7. There's one interesting option in the Beyerdynamic TG V70d for some stuff, because it has a dangerous amount of proximity effect, but it's more "interesting" than "good".

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#292

Post by black6 »

chaoticmass wrote: post #270
inapis wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point me to some high quality podcasts? Most I have listened to have so much fluff and unnecessary banter that I subconsciously tune out. I have been trying to get on the podcast bandwagon but having a hard time finding something to like.

noagendashow.com

And congressionaldish.com

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#293

Post by Tor3 »

manigandham wrote: post #125
Tor3 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about valuable time, it's about the low bandwidth. That's why I also, in general, don't watch Youtube videos that try to explain theoretical concepts. It's like watching paint dry, when I could just read it in a small fraction of the time if the material is available in written form. At least Youtube videos are useful where the visual is important, e.g. repair instructions. Podcasts don't even have that. The…

You can speed up videos. 3x is easy and efficient.

I forgot to add that in addition to the bandwidth issue, it's also about the sequential nature of podcasts and videos. I like to move back and forth when I'm learning something. E.g. an explanation that I want to re-read after reading something more, for a better understanding. So for me it's the slow input _and_ the sequential nature of audio and video that I don't like, for the most part. With some execptions, of course.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#294

Post by nickelcitymario »

Bartweiss wrote: post #290
nickelcitymario wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sometimes those people break completely with journalistic practice. This may be the first real argument I've seen for the difference between blogging and journalism. Blogging is one person's opinion or account of a topic. Journalism is one person's opinion or account of a topic, as filtered, reviewed, revised, challenged, fact-checked, and approved by an organization. It's reasonable to expect an individual to be a…

> So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com... because I trust the NYT. Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. This is probably the best argument I know of for having journalistic 'institutions'. Gellman Amnesia is a real thing, and very hard to solve for any topic where you're not an expert. But if a source manages to provide a predictable level of quality over many stories, it's sudd…

Well said!

On a related note, Michael Lewis has an excellent podcast called _Against the Rules_, and one of the episodes focuses on what happens when we can't trust the referee. In this case, the referees in question were scholars entrusted with deciding whether classic works of art were legitimately painted by the artists they claim to have been painted by (like a da Vinci).

I won't go on too much about it, other than to say in this discussion of podcasts and trusting journalists, there happens to be a great podcast about the challenge of trust. We have to trust SOMEONE, but so often that trust is abused.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#295

Post by crb »

Gravityloss wrote: post #231
ghaff wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And please, do get all the people in the same room! Often easier said than done. As I wrote elsewhere, I definitely prefer to be in the same room as the person I'm interviewing for both technical and conversational reasons. But it can really limit the number of people you can get on a show--even more so if it has to be in your studio. Lots of people record podcasts and videos at events like conferences (partly for t…

is there software that can do multi track recording on everyone's computer / phone and later combine the high quality local recordings after the fact? Because it's hard to guarantee enough bandwidth for real time high quality centralized recording.

I host the Kubernetes Podcast from Google and we use zencastr.com for this.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#296

Post by Bartweiss »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #294
Bartweiss wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com... because I trust the NYT. Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. This is probably the best argument I know of for having journalistic 'institutions'. Gellman Amnesia is a real thing, and very hard to solve for any topic where you're not an expert. But if a source manages to provide a predictable level of quality over many stories, it's sudd…

Well said! On a related note, Michael Lewis has an excellent podcast called _Against the Rules_, and one of the episodes focuses on what happens when we can't trust the referee. In this case, the referees in question were scholars entrusted with deciding whether classic works of art were legitimately painted by the artists they claim to have been painted by (like a da Vinci). I won't go on too much about it, other th…

Interesting, thanks very much. I'd never heard of Against the Rules, and it sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'll love!

(And a nice touch that we're now full-circle to the topic of podcasts.)

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#297

Post by jldugger »

pkroll wrote: post #126
jldugger wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With so many delicious oranges uneaten, why should anyone waste their time consuming a mealy, flavorless apple?" Well, you're not wrong, apples are a garbage fruit. And podcasts interviewing people via cellphone lines is a garbage podcast. If any podcaster is worried about inconveniencing their guests by asking for quality recordings, consider that the viewership takes a lower view of their guests when audio quali…

I'm fine with the rest of your comment, but no, no NO you just don't get to say apples are a garbage fruit without contention, just no. Apples are great. Not all (I'm looking at you, Red Delicious), but I'd much rather eat an apple than an orange. (I'd much rather have fresh orange juice than any form of apple juice, if that takes the edge off my orange-hate.)

> Not all (I'm looking at you, Red Delicious)

Red Delicious is the American platonic ideal of an apple. When I think of all the apple's I've been given in childhood, they were all RD. Any vigorous defender of apples has to answer for the crimes against humanity that we call "Red Delicious". After all, one rotten apple spoils the bunch.

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#298

Post by DBYCZ »

inapis wrote: post #207
jordanpg wrote: post #109

What an edgy, contrarian critique. Watch as the author translates his criticisms of some podcasts that he doesn't like into a global criticism of all podcasts. I wonder if this guy still insists on listening _exclusively_ to LPs and lossless audio formats. Here are some things about podcasts that I love: * some podcasts are true gems -- extremely high quality content * free * no ads or ads are trivial to avoid * blat…

Can you point me to some high quality podcasts? Most I have listened to have so much fluff and unnecessary banter that I subconsciously tune out. I have been trying to get on the podcast bandwagon but having a hard time finding something to like.

Jocko Willink puts out an excellent podcast focusing on learning leadership and discipline lessons via military history books from the perspective of a Navy SEAL.

I don't listen to it too much because it gets pretty dark (My Lai, WWI, Chechnya), but every episode I've listened to has been worthwhile.

http://jockopodcast.com/

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#299

Post by crazygringo »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #187
crazygringo wrote: post #181

Weird article. I personally can't listen to podcasts for another reason though: I find them so frustratingly slow. E.g. when I read the New Yorker, I can read 5x faster, and more importantly skip over sections I'm less interested in. (So even listening at 2x speed still doesn't fix it, and you just can't "scan" a podcast the way your eyes can scan a page.) When I listen to a podcast, I feel so stuck at the pace of th…

Do you have this problem with speaking to people in real life too? Podcasts aren't meant to be an information dump, it's about the interactions between the hosts.

Huh. I mean, all the podcasts my friends recommend me always seem to be information-dump type ones, whether on politics or design or whatever. Kind of like audio New Yorker articles or mini-documentaries. I listed to the first few hours of Serial and it sure felt like a documentary to me too -- I didn't notice any interaction between the hosts. So I'd just prefer to read.

But to answer your question, no. But maybe that's the difference -- I'd rather "interact" with my friends directly where it's a 2-way street, that just listen to hosts interact with each other. But I guess if I were feeling lonely/bored that could make a lot more sense to put on a podcast, if I couldn't put on a TV show (e.g. because driving)...

Re: I'm Against Podcasts

#300

Post by _b8r0 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #167
_b8r0 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literal gatekeeping - I just get a paywall when I click on the link. Aaand nothing of value was lost.

I'm sure even podcasters like to be paid for their work—whether you agree with what they're saying or not. I hear a large number of podcasters slide their commercials and sponsors in as if they're not being sponsored at all—and there are no communications regulations focusing on subversive use of advertisements in those contexts. There is space for the good in the podcast world, but I wouldn't assume it's superior be…

I'm referring solely to the link to the Washington Post article. No article comes up, just a paywall.
Post reply on HN