I’m potentially selling my beloved Soniccord Bantam #1 amp. I’d like to get $800 for it.
This amp was built by Steve Boudette in Massachusetts. The amps were featured in several large guitar magazines. I think John Scofield was playing one for a while, and I heard something about Jack White picking up one (although that might be incorrect). This one however is different.
Steve built this as his prototype amp that he was trying things out on.
It has some weird features, including wheels on the bottom, a hole in the top to put a threaded lead pipe in so you can roll it around easier, easy to access handles (its heavy), and spring mounted controls on the front.
He also put in some neat stuff to tell if the polarity of the power is screwed up, or if the amp is ground lifted (potentially dangerous and always good to know).
On Steve’s advice, I put in the best speaker that I could find for the amp. It’s an Emminence Red Fang 12″ now. The stock speaker was a Jensen if I remember right and it just didn’t break up early enough or have enough low end response. The Red Fang fixes that nicely.
The grill cloth is made of burlap or something like that, and is a bit torn up from my cat thinking that it was a great place to scratch her nails. Keep it as it, or replace it (easy).
Sonically, its a really neat and unique amp. It’s rich, dark, but with a nice cut to it that will work well on stage. There are only two controls, “tone” and volume along with two inputs “studio” and “stage”. With the stage input, the tone knob effects how much distortion will come in when the volume is cranked. The knobs are very interactive and there is no bad setting. It is a loud amp however and there isn’t really much for a super-quiet setting.
Definitely a killer rock amp. I wouldn’t suggest it for your nu-metal band, but for anything else it works great.
Why am I selling it? It’s a bit loud for my apartment and I’d like to get something with a wider tone pallet. I have my eyes on the Egnater Rebel 20. Perhaps not as much of a solid vibe with the Egnater, but it will work better for studio stuff I think and at low volumes for me. I don’t care about getting money even if I can get the Egnater amp + cab in some sort of deal.
Christian Bale flipped out a while ago on the set of the upcoming Terminator movie. Seems that the DP pissed him off. The producers submitted audio of the rant to their insurance company in case Bale bailed and left them stranded. The audio has since leaked to the interwebs. And today, I remixed it.
Audio used from the Dark Knight soundtrack, the Terminator 2 soundtrack, and a tiny clip of Kayne West’s “Robocop”. Used just Logic Pro for remixing, and a FMR RNC compressor on the 2-bus.
One of the most basic things that you need to figure out when starting a podcast is the format that you’re going to use. This is one of those things that you do not want to whip back and forth on, and you must make a clear decision. Let’s go over some of the considerations for a podcast in each format.
Audio
Audio, the older and more basic format (history of podcasting), is the easier of the two to produce and obviously non-visual. There are several distinct advantages to audio-only podcasts.
Easier to edit. You can cut out phrases, words, and pauses without making it seem that a person is jumping all over a screen (as it would in video). Using “Strip Silence” or similar in a DAW can make a 10 minute interview easily into a 6 minute interview depending on who is speaking.
Appeals to many listeners. Video you have to ‘watch’ but I can put on an audio-only podcast and the full content while doing the dishes or cleaning my apartment. Also, you have the ability of appealing to the millions of commuters in cars. Sure, more cars have LCDs in them, but you really shouldn’t watch a show while driving! Listening however is significantly safer.
Consistent production is easier. Video requires lighting, perhaps makeup, most of the people being in the same room consistently, the same clothes from shot to shot, same location, etc. It’s a pain in the ass. Audio you can allows you to record the first part of your podcast first thing in the morning before shaving, the second part after lunch, and the third part from your friend’s house and it will all come out mostly the same and no one will know that it was done in three sections.
Doesn’t matter what you look like. Let’s face it, we aren’t all photogenic. Have you ever met most radio personalities? Often they aren’t pretty people, but people love listening to them. Video however puts you (rightly or not) under the scrutiny of people’s visual judgement and we can’t all be awesome on camera like iJustine. Also it gives the bonus of recording in your underwear. I guess you could do that on your video podcast, with audio the listener doesn’t have to know about it.
Cheaper. It’s 2009. Cheap is in. You can get a pretty killer audio podcasting setup for under $1000, if not significantly less. For around $1000 you’ll sound almost as good as NPR, if not better. With video $1000 doesn’t get you far and you still have to consider the audio quality.
Longer episodes are ok. If I have to look at something for 50 minutes to get the content, that’s a lot of my time. However if I’m passively listening to something and doing other things then its mostly ok and I can deal with it. Few video podcasts can get away with being so long.
Smaller downloads. While few people today in the US care about bandwidth, it still is a consideration. Distribution, storage, and portability are all easier with audio-only.
Historically, The Bar is Low. Maybe you like the sound of FM radio, but honestly the over-compressed, over-bass boosted sound really doesn’t take all that much to beat. Modest gear and technique will give you truely pro-quality sound.
Traveling is Easy. You get some killer mobile equipment, including all-in-one recorders that do a nice job at catching interviews.
The disadvantages of audio are few:
Visual branding is harder
People ‘think’ they like video better
Some subjects are harder to cover with words
Competition is fierce
Advertising/sponsorship sales might be harder
You’ve probably figured out after reading those the strength and weaknesses of video but let’s look into them. Strengths first:
Compelling video can be captivating. People do like seeing awesome things, and well shot video with solid content will appeal to people’s senses.
Tutorials are easier, comedy too. When instructing someone how to do something, video definitely wins in most fields. Could you imagine Bob Ross on the radio only?
Branding is easier. Your face, logo, office or whatever will be instantly recognizable in video format. Audio leaves the chance that someone who is an avid listener wouldn’t recognize you if they met you.
Advertising and sponsorship sales are easier, bigger $$$. Likely obvious, but there’s more chances to bring in some income with video other than the “message from our sponsor” moment. Wearing a company’s t-shirt, putting in a trailer, something in the background, etc. Most of those aren’t effective with audio.
And finally the downsides of video. These are mostly flips of the upsides of audio.
Consistent production is hard. People likely need to be in the same room, at the same time, on a regular schedule.
High standards. We’re used to seeing HD video, with good lenses, multiple camera angles, killer lighting, teleprompters, makeup, and strong production. Revision3 dumped tons of money into making a studio that kept with the quality standards that people are used to seeing on TV.
All the considerations of audio, few of the benefits. You still need audio production, but you don’t get many of the benefits, such as lightweight production, using a “strip silence” tool, etc. Bad audio will completely invalidate your killer looking video.
Video is Expensive. Cameras, hard drives, lighting, sets, cases, etc. It racks up quickly. Cameras are getting relatively cheaper, but video is still probably 4x as expensive as audio. Are the benefits worth it to you? You can do 4 channels of audio production on a computer that’s 10 years old (or a netbook) with ease. Multiple streams of 1080p video and you’re looking at a new Mac Pro.
More people are required. Ok, maybe not required, but if you’re shooting a good show you’ve likely got 1-2 technical people working with you or you’re doing karate to jump in front of the camera at the right time. With audio, you can do it mostly all yourself easily. See Howard Stern being in control at the soundboard.
Post-Production is heavy. Audio takes little time for me to finish up after recording a podcast. Video takes time. Transferring the video, syncing the audio, color/exposure correction, editing, processing, compressing/encoding, uploading. You’re gonna be there for a while. Likely 4x as long to do the post-production than audio.
Traveling isn’t fun. G4 covered ROFLCon last year, and they had a ton of equipment. Huge HD cameras, audio booms, lighting rigs, battery packs. The footage turned out great, but I wouldn’t have wanted to pay the bill for the airline to check that stuff, or carry it around (let alone allow the airline to handle the equipment).
Which is for You?
Its a hard call. It comes down to your budget, time, expectations and audience. If you have a podcast on wedding dress style, Photoshop tutorials, or sightseeing on vacations then those subjects alone probably dictate that you need to go with something visual. On the otherhand if you’re talking about politics, stock trading, or the merits of 17th century literature in France then you might be fine with audio. Larger budgets definitely leave more room for video, but workflow will still be a consideration.
There is always the possibility of doing occasional video production and mostly sticking to audio, but then you come against consistency problems and you’re still spending the money on the video equipment (and since its not a priority your video production will likely be subpar).
A few weeks ago I was complaining about the audio quality of MP3s that I was listening to, when approached by Erik J. Heels (@ErikJHeels on Twitter) with a challenge that I couldn’t actually tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and a CD. Since everyone in the audio world “knows” that the lossy encoding of any MP3 is far inferior to CD I took him up on the challenge that I would easily be able to tell the differences between MP3 and CD audio. It seems that he had a pretty good test put together (details in link) and a few days later I recieved a CD in the mail.
The CD contained a wide mixture of commercial, high quality, well recorded material with 12 songs, each with both CD and MP3 format on the the disk but in random order. The MP3s were originally encoded at 256kbs VBR, and at 48khz even. I felt that the shift from 44.1 to 48khz would give it away, as well as the encoding. I felt confident.
I originally intended to go into Taylor Barefoot’s recording studio and listen to everything in a well treated room, with stereo subwoofers, multiple monitoring options, and a Benchmark DAC-1 converter. However times scheduling that didn’t work out, so one day I at work I pulled out some pretty high quality Sony in-ear monitors/headphones and gave the test a shot on my Macbook Pro. I listened to each track, quickly writing on a sheet of paper which I felt was MP3 and which was originally CD. Threw it all into a quick email and sent it back to Erik. Only two of them did I mark as “hard/unsure”. I felt that the other 10 tracks were pretty clear as to which was MP3 and which was CD. The Macbook Pro with good headphones isn’t the perfect listening environment, but I felt that it should be ok for telling CD vs MP3 if there is such a huge difference.
I got my results back later that day. Out of 12 songs/24 tracks, I had gotten half right. Yes, I had lost. Half right is the same as rolling dice or a monkey choosing them. I felt pretty confident about my answers, and consider myself to really have an ear for audio. I was shocked, but Eric admitted that few people, himself included, pass the test with 100% right. This all goes to show, don’t believe everything you read in audio forums. Go with your own listening ability. I might have been able to tell the difference between 192khz/24-bit audio and the MP3, but between MP3 and CD I can say that there were differences, but I couldn’t tell which was “better” and certainly not which was which.
You can find all of the details on his test on his blog at: http://www.erikjheels.com/?p=1236
