0ab2f528   
   From: rcrowley@xp7rt.net   
      
   "Farrel"  wrote ...   
   > For speech, it does not have to be high "high quality" but it should   
   > be better than one hears over the telephone. I am definitely not   
   > referring to audiophile quality so sorry about my loose use of "high   
   > quality". Maybe I should have typed "higher quality".   
   > What do you think would be a low barrier way of starting a podcast? I   
   > was thinking of interviewing (having a conversation with) various   
   > experts in a a very narrow niche disease from around the world. Should   
   > I just set up skype to skype calling and record the call with Pamela   
   > or similarly Google Talk to Google Talk and use audacity or   
   > highcriteria's Total Recorder standard edition that has "Recording   
   > VoIP Calls and Internet-telephony Conversations". I have never done   
   > this but was going to start. Intuitively I just thought that it would   
   > make most sense to record at source rather than after the one stream   
   > has had to take a streaming internet journey.   
      
   It has long been the standard practice to send an experienced sound   
   recordist with high quality microphone and recorder out to the location   
   of the interviewee while the interviewer is back at home base on the   
   phone. This practice dates back before the days of the internet, Skype,   
   and podcasting, etc.   
      
   Telephone-quality audio has not been a problem for most listeners   
   *IF* the content is compelling: If the person is some sort of expert   
   on the subject (or a celebrity, etc.) or if it is on-location and/or live   
   reporting of something happening far away (or even across town,   
   for that matter.)  Furthermore low-quality audio is used as an effect   
   (the audible equivalent of MTV "shaky-cam") to convey the feeling   
   of "reality" and immediacy.   
      
   It is certainly technically feasible to do a higher-quality recording   
   at the distant end, but it would assume that that person has a   
   microphone (and acoustical environment) worthy of higher-quality   
   reproduction. It would also presume that they are technically savvy   
   enough to install and operate whatever software.  IMHO, the   
   assumption is not valid in most cases, and the potential increase   
   in quality is nowhere near worth the effort it would take to get there.   
   The cost/benefit ratio seems very much in the negative field here.   
   I strongly suspect that is why nobody is doing something like this.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)