Luckily, there are people who care enough to give us free tutorials on how to make these tools work for us. The fine folks at Audiotuts + are knee deep in a series of tutorials on mastering, which includes compressors, EQ, limiters, and more. While the site is geared towards musical production, you can learn a lot from the techniques. Remember, if it’s good enough for high end producers, it’s good enough for you.

Mastering Elements Part 1: The Buss Compressor

Mastering Elements Part 2: The Mastering Equalizer

Mastering Elements Part 3: Multi-band Compression (this is one of the main tools used by radio stations in their processing chain to get that hot FM sound)

Mastering Elements Part 4: Stereo Enhancement

Mastering Elements Part 5: Mastering Limiters

Keep in mind that you already have most of the tools mentioned above in the software you already use. And that includes free software like Audacity. They may not be as pretty as some of the ones mentioned, and they may not have every feature, but most of them are there.

They are saying that a part 6 will be coming out soon, so keep your eyes peeled. Audiotuts + is one of my must read sites, and I’ve learned a lot from them.

Take a little time to learn these tools, and your podcast will sound better for it.

That’s right, cell phone makers will be forced by congress to put radios in their phones. Stupid? You bet.

I say bring it on.

The problem today with radio isn’t that there aren’t enough radios. The problem is the programming. You can swing a dead iriver mp3 player without hitting a radio. They are everywhere, to the point that you can’t escape them. The technology isn’t the problem. No one wants to listen to the radio because there is so little worth listening to.

And thank you, radio industry, for demanding FM radio chips. All you will do is devalue the AM stations you already own. Which you are already doing by some of your other moves (http://www.podcastunite.com/2010/07/clear-channel-wants-more-stations/). And when AM stations are being sold for a dime a dozen, I have some ideas of where you can find fresh programming.

Mind you, it’s a crap description of what we do. Podcast does imply that you need an iPod (and no other mp3 player) to listen. It implies that there is no live version of our shows. It doesn’t tell people what it actually is.

And yet, the world knows what a URL is. They know what a social network is, even is that isn’t a great description of what facebook and twitter are. They shop and bank online, they watch tv, and tell the world about themselves.

So why is it so hard to get across what a podcast is? Is the word killing us?

But for podcasting, I like the www. It doesn’t mean anything to a URL, but when you say the name of your podcast to your listeners, and you start with ‘www dot’ you are telling them a URL is coming up next. It’s an attention grabber, and while it is clunky to say, and takes more time to say than three little letters and a punctuation mark are supposed to, I think it’s a good thing to do. That time isn’t very useful to you, but it may be very useful to the listener, clicking on an address bar, grabbing a pen, or just setting them up for what they are going to hear.

Amazing how useful three little letters can be when you think about it.

Here’s the kicker. It wasn’t an on air listener that complained about the episode or show, but rather someone on hold in a phone system. From the Jackson Free Press:

In a second post on the Rachel Maddow Show blog, Laura Conaway reported that MPB pulled the program after a complaint about host Terry Gross’ July 7 interview with comedian Louis C.K.

“Mississippi Public Broadcasting shares a campus with offices for the state’s colleges and universities, and we have learned that some of those offices play public radio for callers who are on hold,” Conaway wrote. “Recently, a caller got put on hold during Fresh Air and heard Terry Gross ask comedian Louis C.K. if he always has sex with his shirt on. The caller complained, the station’s zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct kicked in, and away went Terry Gross and ‘Fresh Air’ for Mississippi.”

So we are clear, one person complained about what they heard on hold at the university, and MPB pulled the show down across the network? Remember what was said about Clear Channel wanting more stations? What will destroy radio faster, Clear Channel, or one person who is offended? If you aim the weapon at the right target (in this case, NPR stations and their lack of wanting to offend), you can do quite a bit of damage.

Having a “zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct” is a nice idea, but in practice, it’s a utopian ideal that homogenizes the tastes of everyone. We are not that kind of society. We shouldn’t be that kind of society. I’m sure that wherever that policy came from was from the best of intentions (or fear of litigation), but it obviously doesn’t work. Frankly, sometimes people have to be offended a little. It can be a healthy thing to have your ideals challenged.

What does MPB have to say about it? From Sun-Herald.com:

“Mississippi Public Broadcasting strives to deliver educational, informative and meaningful content to its listeners,” MPB Executive Director Judith Lewis said in a statement. “After careful consideration and review, we have determined that ‘Fresh Air’ does not meet this goal over time. Too often ‘Fresh Air’s’ interviews include gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature.

“We believe that most of these discussions do not contribute to or meaningfully enhance serious-minded public discourse on sexual issues.

“Our listeners who wish to hear ‘Fresh Air’ may find it online.”

This I fully support. If Mississippi Public Broadcasting wants to drive it’s listeners away from it’s radio signal, and towards podcasting, I am happy to reap the benefits.

Going online for content also empowers the listeners to have their own ‘inappropriate content’ meter, allowing them to judge what they should and should not listen to. You can choose what to put on your show, and they can choose to listen to it or not.

Public radio joins the ranks of commercial radio by shooting itself in the foot.

Clear Channel Communications files its comments in the FCC’s 2010 quadrennial review of ownership rules, and the company is proposing a two-tiered set of ownership limits that would allow a single owner to have 10 stations in a market with between 55 and 64 stations, and up to 12 stations in markets with 65 stations or more.

Right now, a company can own up to eight stations in a given market, with five of those being of a ‘like service’ (AM or FM). Keep in mind that Clear Channel has sold off some of it’s stations as radio listenership has declined. So why would they want to be able to own more stations?

Keep in mind, companies can own an unlimited number of stations, but they can’t own more than eight in a market. What Clear Channel wants in to own more stations in the more profitable (ie: bigger) markets. CC must believe that what it really wants is more control in markets it already has a major stake in. The obvious path to success is to own more stations and force out competition.

Let’s say Clear Channel got it’s way, and was able to own more stations in a market. How would that break down for AM and FM stations? From the Radio Business Report website:

Additionally, it wants the AM-FM subcaps done away with. Currently, a single owner is limited to five stations in any one service in the largest markets.

If you own eight stations in a market, three of them have to be AM stations. If Clear Channel’s system were implemented, they (or any media group) would be able to own 10 – 12 FM stations in larger radio markets. Basically, the value of an AM radio station would fall to that of a small condo, and that’s at current prices. AM radio, with it’s quality issues, is only valuable for it’s reach, and it’s ability to sell products (it’s getting harder and harder to tell the commercials from the content, but that’s a rant for another day). FM is where the money is, with cheap music programming (it costs internet radio stations much much more to broadcast music than terrestrial stations). AM radio would be dead.

It’s a huge move by CC, to push for more ownership, and less regulation of (the people’s) airwaves. So why now? And why so drastic a proposal? It’s clearly within CC’s rights to file comments with the FCC (as is also your rights, if you don’t mind jumping through the FCC’s hoops). But in the self interest of making more money, CC answers these questions as well. From FMQB:

In the filing, CC states, “Today, terrestrial radio stations compete not only with their local peers but also with the growing panoply of regulated and unregulated competitors at the local, regional, and global levels. These competitors use new technologies and services to deliver music, entertainment, and news in formats and on platforms that today’s audiences demand. Many of these outlets did not exist in 1996, and several were in nascent stages in 2006; today, satellite radio and internet-based services are robust competitors to terrestrial radio stations.”

The broadcaster argues that “Unlike terrestrial radio broadcasters, none of these powerful competitors are limited in the number of outlets or program streams they can provide. Coupled with sharply increasing competition from other terrestrial broadcasters and new audio platforms, the radio industry has experienced significant financial setbacks since 2006. Beginning with the financial meltdown of 2007, the number of bankruptcy filings and lender workouts among terrestrial radio companies, along with other broadcast and print media, has ballooned.”

When in doubt, blame the internet.

Yes, there is a lot more competition, and competition is good. At least, for innovation and quality, competition is supposed to be a good thing. For sitting back and doing the same thing you always have – similar programming, less local and personal interest, consolidation to earn short term money – competition is a bad thing.

From reading those few comments, we can assume that Clear Channel isn’t interested in getting into those same competitive outlets that you or I have chosen to get into. Basically, the internet is killing radio, and radio can’t defend itself. Which is entirely ridiculous, as radio stations and radio companies have the same access to the internet as we do. They have better tools for podcasting than we do as well, but are choosing not to use them. Rather than take the bull by the horns and dive straight in to these competing fields (which would be easy for radio to do), they want more stations. That’s it. That’s their solution to their financial problems.

Keep in mind that after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened up radio station ownership to it’s current levels, Clear Channel (and many other large radio conglomerates) have consolidated stations, used less DJs by using voicetracking, shortened music playlists, bullied musical acts into near monopolistic touring deals, and reduced the number of jobs in radio. But if you read the filing (102 pages long), the real problem is the internet and satellite radio.

Clear Channel is just doing what it (and other radio ownership groups) does best. It wants to leverage it’s main asset that other entities don’t have – it’s broadcast tower and radio license – to put it in a position of profit and prosperity. And considering the current business landscape of radio, who can blame them? Radio is in serious trouble, and isn’t forward thinking enough to survive much longer in the media world that has been created around it. Certainly not using the old practices it’s grown accustomed to.

As a podcaster, and as a person who doesn’t listen to commercial radio, I wholeheartedly ask the FCC to give Clear Channel everything it wants. That’s right, I want Clear Channel and other radio ownership groups to own more stations in larger markets, and keep doing the exact same things they have been doing for years – stifling creativity, reducing the choices available to the public, and putting the interests of the station (shareholders, owners) over that of the listeners. I want more radio listeners to feel like their favorite station has completely forgotten them. I hope for more expensive cars being driven by the sales staff than the on air staff. I hope things keep going the same direction they have been for years.

The more and more dull and consolidated radio becomes, the less interest the listening public will have, and the listening public will look for something else that works for them. And podcasters can be there to scoop up those displaced listeners. The more radio continues on it’s path of self-destruction, the more podcasters can benefit. The listening audience isn’t any less hungry for quality audio content that speaks to them, it’s only more disappointed in what the radio companies are giving them. It’s why radio listenership is down, but NPR listenership is up.

And when the AM stations are practically being given away, podcasters could step in and take over the airwaves. Fresh content, produced by people who care, sent out to people who will be desperate for it. Sure, that part is a pipe dream. But could you imagine?

Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR (as they like to be called now, not National Public Radio), had this to say about radio stations at the D8: All Things Digital conference recently:

Radio towers are going away within 10 years, and Internet radio will take its place. This is a huge change and we should embrace it. Mobile will play a big part.

It keeps looking like radio wants to make that a self fulfilling prophecy.

You can see for yourself, and read the comments filed by Clear Channel (all 102 pages of them) here.

But I stumbled across a post by Colin Marshal listing the things he has learned after 100 episodes of podcasting and interviews.

http://colinmarshall.typepad.com/blog/2010/02/what-i-can-tell-you-about-interviewing-after-conducting-editing-and-broadcasting-100-of-them.html

The danger with any list is that you will focus on the list, rather than implementing the ideas, or even practicing and putting in the hard work to integrate those items into your work. You can read lists forever, but until you do something about it, you won’t get any work done.

Some of Colin’s thoughts seem so simple, they also seem obvious, but that isn’t the point. Reading something and saying “of course” is one thing, but actually implementing them, and integrating them into your work is another. I can’t find a stinker in there, and while it may point to a few shortcomings I have, it’s all about using it.

Read the post, it’s worth your time. If you have any others, please post them. I’d like to know.

It’s actually quite frustrating right now, because I love to podcast, I love recording the podcast, I enjoy the people I talk to on the podcast, but my schedule, based around making a living with a real job, is making it hard to do what I love. I’m up to 59 of the podcast (70 if you count the multipart episodes), and I’m burning to make more. It’s frustrating not to be able to.

As we revel in the wonders of the bounty of digital technology, it’s good to remember that the cutting edge comes well before the swollen and hefty middle.

In no way does that invalidate our obsession with that edge.  It does, however, remind us that the edge is – quite by definition – not typical of the middle.

In the middle, folks are still buying CD’s – even if they’re not buying as many as they used to.

In the middle, some cars still have cassette decks – even if their owners have no need for them.

Ramsey says that radio has won the middle, and I can’t really argue.  If radio has won the middle, podcasting is on the slope of the bell curve. Radio has won the middle partly due to it’s passivity.  You may hear the radio without listening to it, but podcast listening is an act of attention.  It’s rarely fodder for the background.

Podcasting isn’t new anymore. It’s been around for a while, and it gets more and more vital and valid as the technology expands.

The unfortunate part is, we are slaves to that technology.  We have to contend with the best iPod that Apple can come up with, or the current scheme iTunes uses to distribute our content.  The limitations of what other technology can provide keep us from….

What exactly?

What are we doing to make put the cutting edge more firmly in our hands?  What are we doing to push the boundaries of our medium?  We are content providers in ways commercial radio isn’t.  But what is cutting edge for us?

Radio has won the middle.  The war is over and radio is the victor.

The edge, however, is a foggy land of guerilla warfare.

Radio has been around for a very long time, but it’s firmly entrenched in the middle, which means that something is going to come along and push it out.  I don’t think any of us want to be in the middle.  Who get’s into radio or podcasting to become the middle?  The middle can easily be ignored.  The edge may not be where it’s at today, but it will be.  Radio has been around for a very long time, but it’s firmly entrenched in the middle, which means that something is going to come along and push it out.  Is that going to be us?

So what’s going to create our edge?

I never considered myself a microphone collector, and I guess I still am not. I don’t have an exotic collection. I have 4 of the same shotgun mics (RODE NTG1), two nice broadcast mics (a Heil PR40 and an EV RE20), as well as an AT2020 (cheap condenser) and a few other odds and ends.

It’s amazing how good the quality of the microphones that are coming out these days are, and for such a low price. I’ll report back on the microphone. For $99, if this one is a solid vocal mic, it could become a nice podcasting staple.

1) around 3:15PM, call Tom (my podcasting partner). Talk over the rundown, and probably discuss it too much, to the point where a little bit of the fire and the passion of the conversation is used up.

2) Start recording. Get into the conversation. Things go well, then I have to go to work.

3) Eat some dinner, go to work, come home around 10:30 PM, and start the edit.

4) Edit the podcast less than I would like, record intro and outro, cut a few things here and there, then start the mixdown and conversion.

5) Write the blog post that accompanies the podcast episode, upload the show, and publish to the blog.

6) Post on twitter that the show is up, then get ready for bed, because I have to be in early the next day.

The point of all this is that I don’t do nearly the work I would like to do on the podcast, and I think it shows. I have some excuses about it, but I know what I put out, and I know what I am capable of putting out. And I know when those two things don’t match up.  To me, it’s disappointing. I don’t know if the show would be more “popular,” or would get more listeners, but I know it would be better.

I would like it to be better.

I hate telling people what podcasts are, mostly because I have to make it sound really pedestrian. The “radio on the internet” doesn’t cut it. And especially if a person isn’t all that tech savvy, what else can I go to? Plus, we may be like radio in function, but not in form. We are content creators, unlike most radio stations (can you call an afternoon drive time music blog ‘content?”)

I know there are a few videos out there (as pointed out by PU! member Jay), but I would love to brainstorm out a few more useful ideas on defining podcasting. Don’t worry about looking silly. You couldn’t do much more silly than this. What do you have.

I have come to the realization that I am more interested in the path and theory of Adam Carolla much more than the actual listening to. I probably should be in his target audience, but I have a hard time getting into his show. And at some point, you have to give up. I give up.

I know people love him. I’m just not into him or his show, but he is doing more for podcast awareness by simply existing than most people are accomplishing with websites and putting actual effort into it.

Just me?

I like the idea of not having to carry around a portable radio as well as an iPod (if you haven’t guessed, I am an NPR listener), but as far as my podcast is concerned, it’s also competition for my listeners attention. iPod buyers are looking for something to listen to, and adding an FM radio is helpful to their cause. And while I’m sure the radio industry is happy with the addition, they don’t find it the boon they are looking for.

And yes, the Zune had a radio previously, but the Zune isn’t nearly as popular as the iPod, and therefor has less impact overall. This has been something Zune users have turned their noses up at iPod users for a long time, but it hasn’t been much of a priority for Apple. This is like Apple providing competition for their own iTunes music store.

Then again, additional functionality may make an iPod more attractive to people who haven’t bought one before. And more iPods in more hands isn’t a bad thing for podcasters.

Radio in an iPod. Any thoughts?

The Think In will explore five main topics that are significant to NPR’s ecosystem and its future: social media and connection to the audience, the organization’s national network of more than 800 stations, the potential of its open API, expansion of platforms, and its diversified revenue model. After an NPR overview and an opening session, participants will break out into small groups to develop concepts that NPR can incorporate into its organizational roadmap.

Check out this select list of participants (from SiliconBeat):

Craig Newmark, Founder of craigslist; Reid Hoffman, Chairman and co-Founder of LinkedIn; Roger McNamee, Managing Director and Co-Founder of Elevation Partners; Chris Beard, Chief Innovation Officer of Mozilla; Krishna Bharat, Principal Scientist and creator of Google News; and Sue Gardner, Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation, among many others.

That’s and interesting list, but it becomes even more interesting the deeper it gets. Such as:

Richard Jalichandra – President and CEO of Technorati Media

Merlin Mann – 43 Folders, You Look Nice Today, Inbox Zero

Toni Schneider – CEO, Automattic (the WordPress guys)

There were a lot more (maybe too many for a one day affair?), many of them based in social media. NPR is going to be covering their own confab over the next week, so there should be some juicy information from this soon.

But think about it this way. NPR is pretty much the king of podcasting. Mind you, most of it is downloadable versions of their regularly broadcasted content, but not all of it. NPR has several shows that are only in podcast form. These guys may not be on the cutting edge of podcasting, but they are a major player in the field, and have been doing it with more regard to the public benefit than the money it could bring in.

But who else but NPR would spend the money on something like this? Is there another radio broadcaster that spends as much on actual content generation than NPR? Is there another radio broadcaster that generates as much content (a conversation for another day)?

NPR does what it does well. It produces high quality news and audio programming for radio, and turns that into highly successful podcasts. What they don’t do well is create a social environment for the listeners, other than reading a few letters on the air, or taking calls on Car Talk. NPR does have a social network, but have you seen it? It’s pretty awful, and completely centered around the user donating money to a member station. Really, if you are going to have social features on your website (comments, forums, networking, anything the user interacts with) you should have a plan and a reason for it to be there, make it interesting, and allow it to serve the user, not just the point of origin.

So maybe NPR needs a conference like this more than I originally believed. And from their dime, we may get some good info along the way.

Technorati Tags: NPR

Next up is Uh Yeah Dude. I’ll let you know what I think.