Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tyrannosaurs | Hacker News Reader

I like all the people on the 5by5 podcasts but this is exactly why I don't listen to them.

I wish instead of doing 1 hour 15, they'd do 15 minutes planning, 15 minutes editing and a 45 minute show. There's plenty of good material there, I just feel it gets drowned out.

View on HN

John Siracusa ('Hypercritical'[1]) spends 5-7 hours a week researching, 1 hour reading numerous responds, 50 minutes in each show responding to follow-ups and spends the remainder of each show (that are between 1h45m-2h30m) on a new topic (in a highly structured way). Give hypercritical a shot (you can start by listening to episodes 42[2] (18 minutes in) and 43[3]) that discusses Job's biography.

[1]: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/

[2]: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42

[3]: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/43

The funny thing is that most of the complaints I've heard about the show are about how pointless the follow-up responses are. Maybe he should mix up the format to put the new topic first.

Possible tip: Use a dedicated podcast app with playback speed-up functionality. I use Downcast on iOS and DoggCatcher on Android.

Gruber, with his slow speaking and uncomfortable pauses, is much more tolerable at 1.5x. Conversely, if you're listening to someone like Merlin Mann, 0.75x speed can be helpful.

I'm listening to all my podcasts at 2.5x speed. That seems like the limit before it starts to sound weird.

Your brain can understand speech much faster than most people talk.

Editing audio or video generally takes a multiple of the original running time, not 15 minutes at the end.

A 1 hour minimally edited podcast could easily take several hours to edit and review properly.

I don't think it needs doing properly. Seriously, listen to one, if you don't think it could be improved with 15 minutes trimming then I'd be amazed.

I don't know about that. Just to even get an idea of what you want to edit, you need at least the amount of time it takes for you to review your raw material, which in this case could be over 2 hours sometimes...

(I work with a lot of audio, though no podcasts, so I may still be underestimating a bit)

I think you and your GP are right on. I edited a short-lived podcast and regularly spent 1.5 hours producing and editing each 25 minute show. Even if you're using good equipment and have a solid connection, producing a tight podcast necessarily takes more effort than is obvious to the listener. That's kind of the point.

Final reasons might be another point why podcasts without much preparation and only the necessary minimum of post-production are common. I don't know the economics of podcast networks but a post-production infrastructure similar to traditional media would probably be go beyond the financial scope.

I think we are mainly talking about the kind of editing where you delete an entire section because it never got interesting.

Unfortunately, these are live podcasts for the most part so there is no real incentive to do that... you already put it out once as a finished product so why spend more effort on it?

It's the format and it's not for everyone. More preparation might help – some similar podcasts on 5by5 and elsewhere have more structure –, but was probably not John Gruber's style. Sometimes I liked it, sometimes not. I wasn't too happy about the first episode of the 'new' podcast but I'll certainly listen to some future episodes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com