My Appearance On TINAP

I perhaps should have blogged about my appearing on TINAP way back in the mists of time when it happened, but decided not to bother at the time. A conversation a few days ago on Identica made me think about doing these posts, although I wasn't sure. After some reflection I've decided to write them.

I need to separate some things, just so there's no confusion as I'm talking about different aspects of TINAP.

My Appearance On The Show

Given that the show was about Identica, I offered myself as a guest on an episode at some point in the future if they chose to have guests. I had hoped that other Identica regulars would do the same, so we'd all be able to put voices to names we chat to via taxt. This is how TINAP has been progressing, I just happened to be the first guest. I'm guessing it was down to recording schedules and being available when they wanted to record, more that any special reason for choosing me first. I hope they continue with more guests as and when recording schedules match up.

I was on a Skype call with David, Andy and Luke for maybe 2 hours, I didn't time it, I was happy to just chat and go wherever they wanted to go. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in what I was suggesting, which I tried to clear up at the start as soon as I noticed it, perhaps it was just a choice of wording, I don't know. I was introduced as being an interviewee which was never my intent, my intent was to be a guest, sitting chatting for one episode with David, Andy and Luke about whatever came up. An interview focuses on me, being a guest doesn't. TINAP is their show, it should focus on them.

There was no clue about "the show starts in 3, 2, 1" or indeed any indication of the recording starting, it was simply a Skype conference call with no markers at all. The call was interspersed with several "we better cut that out" types of comments although none from me. 

We discussed various things, from Techbytes which I was a co-host on at the time, to Identica and football. The Techbytes stuff was first. About 25 minutes into that David informed us that the recording didn't work. These things happen, it wasn't a big deal. It did mean that we essentially started from scratch and did the Techbytes stuff again. I was trying not to do a carbon copy as it'd feel wrong, I got the impression that David, Andy and Luke were on the same train of thought so the conversation wasn't as detailed but we covered much of the same topics. What we didn't cover wasn't any intentional thing, it was just us forgetting to cover what we'd already done.

The discussion about the format of the show was taking place on the recording too, like doing French intros for each of us, in some cases a few takes. My French stopped at 2nd tear of high school which was a lifetime away so the little I did learn wasn't making itself easy to work with.

The result of this as a single audio file, is an unholy mess to be edited. Not only do we have no idea when the show "starts" and "ends", we have a failed recording and do-over of a topic, multiple out-takes, and a different release order. This is what David has to work with to create a released show.

During the Techbytes topic I explained how Roy, Tim and myself recorded the show, in an attempt to help the TINAP guys cut down the workload on their show. I'd explained that by some planning and treating it as a performance they can avoid the unholy mess that is an unedited audio file.

On Techbytes, Roy and Tim already had a pretty good and efficient workflow in action by the time I joined them. The call starts, Roy checks the levels of each of us, makes sure we're recording, we have a quick few minutes discussing if it's a special episode about a particular subject, or if it needs to be a quick episode or whatever, then we have 10 seconds of silence and we're "on stage". There are no edits, what you hear is what happened. The same applies at the end of the show too, where Tim wraps up the show, then 10 seconds of silence. The silence is just for a visual part in the wave for Roy to cut the start discussion, then add in the Creative Commons audio tracks they've chosen to use. The point of this, is that a new show can be out on the feed within hours of finishing the call that recorded it.

In the true open source fashion, I saw TINAP having a real problem with their recording and editing workflow, so I explained how Techbytes do it. My thinking is that when something that's volunteer driven and takes weeks to do, what others do in days, it's a chore. When things are a chore, they add stress, they very quickly stop being fun. When that happens, the interest goes, and the show dies. I offered advice in the hopes that TINAP could do their thing to the same standards but much easier and faster. It seems that advice was not only unwanted, but deemed hostile.

I had fun on the call. I enjoyed talking to David, Andy and Luke. Right from the start, they said they'd give a copy of the proposed edit to each of us to go through and make sure nothing was on it that we wanted cut out. I was offered that as promised. I declined the offer. I had two reasons for declining the offer, first that I trust David not to edit me out of context, if I didn't I'd never have volunteered as a guest, and I treated the call as if I was on stage from start to finish. By that I mean I did not say anything I'd want cut out of the final edit. The second that the first episode took ages in editing, so I'd hoped that by declining my part in the clearance process, that the episode would be released a bit quicker. It still took ages.

The result was a disappointment. My trust that David wouldn't edit out of context was well judged. There was nothing out of context, he did not try to shaft me in any way in the final edit. The edits were very noticeable however with words clipped all over the place. You can tell the audio has been butchered. Given the unholy mess of an audio file it would be from the conversation it was always going to be a hefty editing job. The problem is if you're going to take weeks to edit something, people kinda expect better as a final output.

Some audiocasters do take a while in editing their shows. The difference is that shows like Linux Outlaws have two hosts who are also musicians with reasonably professional equipment and mixing knowledge. Their raw input from their mics are professional quality, their mixes are professional quality. They sound like they're in a studio together because they record locally then mix it.

You're never going to get that with some people all connected via USB headsets to standard PC hardware on a Skype call. I record on my netbook, with a USB headset and mic, and the netbook's internal sound card. I'm lucky in that I don't have noticeable hum or buzz. It's decent, but it's not professional quality by any stretch. So you've already taken a dip in quality on the actual recording, there's a limit to how much you can improve that.

I am perfectly happy with the sound quality of the show, for me, audiocasting is about groups of like minded people getting together to record a show about something. It's accessible to the masses without the higher entry level standards of "you need pro recording equipment and mixing skills". It's also speech which makes a huge difference, like listening to a conversation in a little better than phone call quality. Something of this audio quality shouldn't take weeks to edit and release, specially with noticeable butchered cuts.

With audiocasts people accept that it's not professional, that the people who do them are rarely professional, that the recording quality may be sketchy. They don't mind that, they listen because of the people and the chat.

Since this is bit of an in-depth look, it's spread over two posts. The second part is here.