<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ResearchTalk podcast: great initiative, now get a better microphone!</title>
	<link>http://insights20.com/2006/08/03/researchtalk-podcast-great-initiative/</link>
	<description>consumer insights reloaded</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 19:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: ResearchTalk</title>
		<link>http://insights20.com/2006/08/03/researchtalk-podcast-great-initiative/#comment-4</link>
		<author>ResearchTalk</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://insights20.com/2006/08/03/researchtalk-podcast-great-initiative/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Hi Oliver,

The wonder of blogs and pings, you asked for me to address the issue of sound quality and here I am (yep, I'm behind RT)!

The sound quality on this podcast is particularly poor, so much so that I felt the need to point this out in the show notes.

I agree with you 100%. No matter how good the content, if listeners can't enjoy the content reasonably comfortably then the experience is spoiled. You won't be surprised to learn that a number of people have raised the same issue.

By way of background, this was the first podcast I did with a participant calling in via cellphone. 

I've since taken the decision not to allow mobiles other than in extreme cases where I can't get a critical interview otherwise.

It took me a long time to edit the podcast to get the sound as good as possible - I use Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition. 

And before releasing, I polled a number of people, including both participants, on whether it was sensible to release it.

It was my decision to do so, on the basis that the content was too important to hold back. John and Michael were both fully prepared to redo the conversation if I wanted, but both are extremely busy and redoing would have impacted the spontaneity and authenticity of the conversation.

So hopefully you'll realise that I take your issue very seriously. I hope you're not putoff from trying some of the other podcasts and that you find the sound quality generally acceptable, that this podcast is more of an exception, unacceptable though this is.

I really appreciate the fact that you have taken the effort to comment on RT - this is a real passion of mine and it's only through feedback such as yours that I can make the service truly listener driven.

In fact, why don't you drop me a line at letmetalk **at** googlemail **dot** com because I'd like to get you on a future show.

BTW, I did a recent newsmaker podcast with your new COO, David Shanker, which you can check out at www.mrweb.com/earpiece.

In terms of more about us, check out http://www.mrweb.com/drno/frmemail/article5664.htm.

Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Oliver,</p>
<p>The wonder of blogs and pings, you asked for me to address the issue of sound quality and here I am (yep, I&#8217;m behind RT)!</p>
<p>The sound quality on this podcast is particularly poor, so much so that I felt the need to point this out in the show notes.</p>
<p>I agree with you 100%. No matter how good the content, if listeners can&#8217;t enjoy the content reasonably comfortably then the experience is spoiled. You won&#8217;t be surprised to learn that a number of people have raised the same issue.</p>
<p>By way of background, this was the first podcast I did with a participant calling in via cellphone. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve since taken the decision not to allow mobiles other than in extreme cases where I can&#8217;t get a critical interview otherwise.</p>
<p>It took me a long time to edit the podcast to get the sound as good as possible - I use Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition. </p>
<p>And before releasing, I polled a number of people, including both participants, on whether it was sensible to release it.</p>
<p>It was my decision to do so, on the basis that the content was too important to hold back. John and Michael were both fully prepared to redo the conversation if I wanted, but both are extremely busy and redoing would have impacted the spontaneity and authenticity of the conversation.</p>
<p>So hopefully you&#8217;ll realise that I take your issue very seriously. I hope you&#8217;re not putoff from trying some of the other podcasts and that you find the sound quality generally acceptable, that this podcast is more of an exception, unacceptable though this is.</p>
<p>I really appreciate the fact that you have taken the effort to comment on RT - this is a real passion of mine and it&#8217;s only through feedback such as yours that I can make the service truly listener driven.</p>
<p>In fact, why don&#8217;t you drop me a line at letmetalk **at** googlemail **dot** com because I&#8217;d like to get you on a future show.</p>
<p>BTW, I did a recent newsmaker podcast with your new COO, David Shanker, which you can check out at <a href="http://www.mrweb.com/earpiece." rel="nofollow">www.mrweb.com/earpiece.</a></p>
<p>In terms of more about us, check out <a href="http://www.mrweb.com/drno/frmemail/article5664.htm." rel="nofollow">http://www.mrweb.com/drno/frmemail/article5664.htm.</a></p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

