He said "I need to learn to not tap on the table where the mic is mounted" or something like that. Don't bang on the table where your mic is resting. It makes for weird sounds!
Also, I'm sure that the typing I did near the end with my very audible mechanical keyboard will come through quite loudly.
@James I started, and only made it so far. My voice sounds so high-pitched and nasally to me. I hope that's just the recording (microphone) and not what I sound like in real life.
I'm getting a new microphone (for another reason, not studio-like, like James's) in about two weeks, so we'll see if that fixes it. If not I might try coaching my own voice a bit. I hope I don't actually sound like that.
This discussion about not wanting to hear yourself talk reminds me of a line from the Beatles move, "The Yellow Submarine". The scene shows the Nowhere Man talking about his performance and writing his own reviews then saying "I never read my reviews".
We speak for an hour and half then "never read our own reviews".
It just makes me smile.
(...and I've started listening again.)
@NexTerren, I can see what you mean about the nasal voice but I only noticed it after you pointed it out.
@Green Also I'd like to say, I don't recall fidgeting when we were recording, but I do remember you making hand gestures, which I recall being fitting/amusing, and certainly didn't detract.
Hey, if I can listen to y'all for at least 12 straight hours while editing the thing, you can't sound that bad.
@James yeah. Post on YT first so that we have a link, then shortly afterwards write up a summary blog post with the video embedded and post on Medium. Possibly also write up a meta post pointing to it, because it's the first one and all, and talk to the mods about getting it featured.
(So basically it's now down to you and the channel permissions :))
@Green I'd go with that. I oddly enjoyed editing it :)
@HDE226868 I just finished the whole thing. The parts I thought were going to be a bit slow (and I would have wanted to edit out) ended up being quite accessible.
@ArtOfCode That might have been it then. I did clip him midsentence though.
@Green I figured on leaving the silences in, because they're how the conversation flowed, and because cutting things smoothly is hard. I'm not a fan of jumpcuts.
@NexTerren can't you? Huh, I'm sure I've seen people doing that. Anyway, no matter. I'd say good enough to go live, yeah.
@ArtOfCode If we made an audio-only version and put it up on iTunes (or some-such), people can set the play speed to as fast as they like. (I did a 1.25 speed up on the narrator of Hardcore History. I love his voice and the way he narrates but so...many....pauses.)
@ArtOfCode I mean I'm 98% sure. I've seen too many post-edits of annotations trying to fix things or people saying "click here to see the new video" in annotations covering the whole screen to think it's just that many people who don't understand the feature. Plus it makes sense, as it'd be easy to popularize one video, and then reupload another video in its place (advert, troll, whatever).
@NexTerren I think it's just fine the way it is. The YouTube trolls will tell us exactly where we messed up (it's the only thing they're good for) and we can make that better next time. None of us have done this before. I'm not worried that the pilot episode isn't precisely perfect.
@NexTerren 'bout that, yeah. Couple of hours watch through, 3-ish hours on audio editing, 3-ish hours on video editing, another couple re-watching and correcting the little bits, and a couple rendering.
@Green muffled is probably about distance from the mic; treble/bass adjustments I can fix in post if you point 'em out to me
@ArtOfCode I don't have any specific instances bad enough that I think it's worth a rerender. I'll keep that in mind for next time though.
Would you be willing to work with me on some audio recording tests? No rendering necessary, just feedback on different positions, distance, angles, etc.
@Green yeah, that's sorta what I was going for. You're audible pretty much all the way through, so it's not a problem in this one - it's just quality tweaks for next time.
Yeah, if we prove this is a reoccurring thing I'm going to invest in a microphone/stand/shield-dealy-thing. I just don't want to drop the cash and then never record another episode.
I'll be looking for a <$100 total package, I'd imagine. My impulse purchase range doesn't have an upper end as so far as I can tell, so I'm trying to shift my mindset to fight said impulses. (Thankfully, as a single guy with a good job I still don't spend what I earn)
XLR gives you the best quality you can get, if you can get XLR end to end. 3.5mm is next best, so downgrading XLR -> 3.5mm shouldn't knock the quality too much.
@ArtOfCode Sadly the sound card (which I've now ordered) only has 3.5mm. But your previous comment makes it sound like it's not a big deal to use one of those converters?
@NexTerren I don't know much about using XLRs with PCs, I'd have to read up on it. But I assume they're available, and if they are then it shouldn't be terrible for quality.
So if I have an XLR mic feeding to an external audio source which then connects to my PC over USB, that's worse than if that same audio source connects over 3.5mm?
@Green Depends what's actually doing the recording. If the external device is doing the recording, and the USB connection is basically just transferrring an MP3 stream rather than raw audio data, that's fine. If your PC is recording (say, if you're recording via Audacity on the PC), then you'd want a 3.5 or XLR connection for preference.
@Green oh, right. I was thinking there was something between the mic and the PC. In that case, just make sure it's XLR as far as it can be, then downgrade to 3.5mm when it needs to go into the PC.
And from what I can see, a dynamic mic seems the better choice for what I'm doing. More robust and I don't need the sensitivity to high frequency that comes from condensor mics.
@ArtOfCode To be a bit more nerdy It would be "Green 1-1, ArtOfCode, request bogey dope." Here, I'm announcing who I am and who I want to talk to. Also, I'm assuming that ArtOfCode is a AWACS platform that can give me information on the unknown aircraft that I've encountered.
@NexTerren Yes. Brevity code is supposed to convey accurate tactical information in as little time as required on a very broad set of circumstances.
@Green Huh, you're going backwards to ATC then. ATC says who you want then who you are. "Green, ArtOfCode, climb flight level 340" would be an instruction from me to you to climb.
I don't know. To me "geeky" doesn't exclusively imply "more details" or "more education." It's more nuanced than that, embedded in culture and popular usage.
ATC "just" worries about the movement of aircraft. Brevity code handles who's shooting at who, who's turning away, how much ammo is left, how much fuel is left, etc, etc.
@ArtOfCode I very well could have gotten the order backwards.
well, crap. I did get it backwards. Who you're talking to comes first, then who you are.
@Green That's from the telegraph days; they'd say the destination first so the other telegraph stations on the line would know that they could stop listening, or, for those sufficiently good at it, know that they should start listening.
Interestingly though, the source header comes before the destination header in IP packet headers. (I just went looking for funzies.)
Also book recommendation, "Parkinson's Law" by C. Northcote Parkinson. Highly informative and very funny (warning: I've heard that the last few chapters are somewhat/very racist. I haven't read those chapters yet so I can't say for sure.)
@NexTerren Semantically, it makes sense to say who's sending then who's receiving. That makes more sense to humans. And, in an IP header, there's no special pressure to identify who should be listening.
@NexTerren An additional concern on telegraph that doesn't exist for IP packets, is determining who should listen. On telegraph, an operator hears every tap. In a properly configured IP network (running on switches, not hubs), only the intended recipient receives the packet.
There is no management of attention that needs to be done.
I will work on getting it posted to YT tonight and will work on the blog post as well.
Are we good on permissions to the *thefactoryfloorwb@gmail.com" drive/yt account or did someone still need something?
Also I concur with the conversation regarding quality and the edits. I am very happy with how things turned out and we have a few pointers that we will take care of next time and just generally improve over time.
@James the idea was that if you give me upload permissions to the channel, I can upload direct instead of forcing one of you to download it then re-upload.
Do you want to give that a go now? If you can get me permissions, I can start the upload, you can start the blog post, and it all gets done quick-like.
Especially now that you can explicitly state "I don't remember your name because I chose to remember Aragorn's speech at the Black Gates. Sorry, um, Bob."
I suppose the coworker could be offended you didn't remember their name, right up until you told them why. Any decent person will then say "Oh well. Aragorn, for sure. Carry on. Just for the record it's Mary, not Bob."
That was my hiccup; I wasn't actually receiving the invitation when I was trying to set it up.
@James On that note, feel free to make me whatever. I first tried manager, when it didn't work I tried owner to see if I got a different result. I just left it there.
