It's taken a bit of trial and error to find a host for my churches podcasts that's reliable, but I think I've found one. Switchpod actually offers 200 megs of hosting for free with real urls for each file.
Click here to listen to the podcast and tell me if it worked and what the quality was like.
This file is a larger higher quality version of the above file.
Friday, April 06, 2007
This is a test... Podcast link.
11:52 AM
Matthew
2 comments:
Hi Matt, I commented on this one earlier, but I guess it didn't take it.
Basically, I listened to the whole thing and I have to give it a mixed review.
You sounded great. The bump music wasn't bad. The part I was surprised about was how the message sounded muffled. I remember the clarity of the original mixcraft file you made from the tape, and it was very good. When I listened tonight it sounded like we'd lost something. I'm guessing this is due to compression of bitrates or sampling or some easily explained technical reason.
I this is our best option, we can work with it. What do you think? Is there much we can do to bring it closer to the original file?
Thanks for all your help. I don't mean to be picky. BTW, hearing the sermon now, after some cooling off time, I realize it really wasn't so great after all. I'll be interested to hear whether you get any comments on it from outside our church.
Blessings. I truly appreciate all your work.
Pastor
It's strange, but blogger does sometimes drop comments. But then, it seems like all blogs do that too.
You're right about the message, but the muffled quality is my fault. This isn't something that would effect most recordings, but it did this one. When we recorded the sermon, it was through the wireless mike you use, and there's a recording drawback to it. If you look down at your text, you are talking directly into the microphone, but when you look up you are no longer talking directly into it. This makes the volume go up and down.
I corrected this in the recording I first gave you buy implementing a dynamic range compressor on that track but didn't take into account what might happen when the rendered track was downgraded from 160 kbs to 64 kbs. What happens is the entire track winds up compressed after the fact and the parts already compressed lose definition.
So, I corrected for this and I think theres a marked improvement.
Post a Comment