[Updated: Transcript now available]
Nick is an old friend and radio geek. He was the technician when I did my first radio programme, and taught me the basics I still work by. Since then much has happened. I work for Mozilla, and have recently started thinking about how audio and radio and the open web can merge. Nick works on Hindenburg, an excellent piece of audio software for journalists, which could be part of the kind of radio experience, I now work on creating a demo for. A seamless experience that supports the most important element in journalism: the story. One in which technology simplifies and enhances the experience while the power of the open web – adding depth, detail, and infinite time/space. Nothing less!
Nick and I met in Copenhagen to discuss where we’d like to see radio go in the future. Here’s the interview – if you make it to the end, it ends with a question, which I’d love to hear your comments on!
I recorded using the iphone field recorder app and edited using the Hindenburg desktop app. Download the raw interview and session files here,. You can grab an Ogg Vorbis version of the edited interview here, mp3 here.
Not surprisingly, Nick and I share a bunch of itches about the present way things work in radio production. I’ll elaborate on mine in a separate blog post, but Hindenburg scratches a few of those I had when I was a freelance radio journalist. That’s a good start. Of course, Hindenburg is not free software (at least in the freedom sense – there is a free version with limited functionality), but it orients itself towards standards, and Nick and his team have open minds.
Why is Hindenburg interesting for hyper audio?
I won’t elaborate much here, but basically, the term hyper audio combines the hyperlink with audio. Nothing original here, I’m basically riffing off this blog post by Tristan Nitot, and drawing inspiration from technologies brewing at Seneca College – most notably popcorn.js. Everything that can be done with <video> can be done with <audio>. But that’s a whole different story.
The strength of Hindenburg is it’s ease of use and it’s ability to let you focus on the story. It allows you to add markers while you record, and it would be fairly simple to add images and other audio from your recording device (in my case an iPhone 4). These transfer with the file to your editing software, and Hindenburg outputs XML- based session files that could be used for sharing session data, merging your audio with semantic data seems seams a realistic feat. As a journalist, why not not add the sources used, list the Wikipedia entries you drew from, and link to the people in your story? Comments. Geo data. Copyright information – whatever helps strengthen the conversation that audio could be part of. As Nick and I discuss, simply combining time coordinates with transcripts and making these searchable would be a huge improvement over the flat audio we mostly encounter on the web. Imagine a Soundcloud player that shows your markers and links and integrates with comments on your blog - a player that build solely on open standards. I could go on.
Nick: “You can do anything. It’s just code. But really, want you want to do is something useful.
Henrik: And what would be useful for the listener?
Nick: That’s a really good question. You should put it out to your listeners.
Henrik: We’ll do that! Thanks.
Hindenburg – quick hands-on impressions
- Hindenburg is easy to use, lightweight, intuitive and does 99% of what I need. It just .. feels right and is extremely user-friendly; and it has a very lean workflow from start to end. This is so different from any other audio editing application that I’ve used in the past.
- Auto levels rock. Period. This, on it’s own, is a killler app in itself, and also the main difference between the free and the paid app. It doesn’t replace using your ears (or experience) but it helps a lot.
- No hardware. This is the most sucky feature about Pro Tools – I bought their hardware/software soluation 3 times (but never paid for upgrades – and never felt I got my money’s worth from Digidesign’s Support) and always had to carry around a clunky, external sound card, that I did not need 90% of the time (unless recording into pro tools); the “micro” sound card dongle ruined my USB port, and of course, if I needed to make a quick change in an earlier session and did not have the hardware with me I was out of luck. The Hindenburg app is slim, powerful and fast, as opposed to Pro Tools.
- The iPhone integration is brilliant. Soundcloud integration is coming, hopefully. This means you can record a quick and dirty interview, edit on the iphone, and publish, on the fly.
- It’s WAY better than Audacity or any other freeware apps I used, and very stable. I have not yet worked on advanced projects, and of course automations and filters are still the domain of the Pro Tools of the world. And that’s fine.
- It’s FAST! Putting out this 25:27 interview in .WAV format took 6 seconds (!). Mp3 took 40. Pro Tools would have to “bounce” in real time, which means outputting happens at 1:1 speed. Ridiculous for radio journalism, because you always have to fix something after you’ve finalized your project.
- Of course, knowing the developers makes the customer experience so much more personal – they actually listen to feedback!
This is my first post about Hyper Audio. Expect more – maybe a podcast; I like this conversation-based approach.











[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Henrik Moltke, Anders Høeg Nissen. Anders Høeg Nissen said: RT @moltke: New blog post: "Hyper audio: Nick Dunkerley, Hindenburg and the future of radio" http://yoyodyne.cc/hindenburg/ [...]
I’ve used all the major programmes since Fast Edit back in the 90′s, through Cool Edit, Audition, Wavelab, Soundforge, Sadie, Logic, Pro Tools and so on. I know what I’m after in editing software.
What I want is meta data for the web; give me the chance to use makers as hyperlinks, allowing me to ‘chapter’ my audio; give me meta data enough to transcribe interviews, link to other content etc, and I’m starting to be interested.
Hindenberg seems to have all the speed I want, the auto levels promise much and the markers help you develop the story. But, when exporting the file, what else do I get? Is the file internet ready?
Benjamin,
Thanks for the feedback. You have some excellent points. In the talk I had with Henrik Moltke we where talking about the future of radio production. Fortunately the future is not that fare away. Well at least the first steps.
Hindenburg as you have tried it is the beginning point. The focus was to make an elegant solution for radio journalists that did not have prior experience with professional audio editing. The automated levels and the voice profiler are designed to help journalist create radio packages at broadcast standards. By shifting the focus from audio editing we hope that journalists can spend more time on story telling. And that is what it’s all about.
Looking toward the near future…
In the next upgrade of Hindenburg, it will be possible to create enhanced podcasts.
It will be possible to create chapters, insert images and links.
From there you can publish the file directly as a podcast to iTunes … or other RSS readers. This, I hope, will cover most of your needs for the moment.
Future..
Creating the radio production tools for the future is going to be a collaborating effort.
What information should be presented for the user. How can they interact with them.
This goes beyond what we can achieve as a production tool. But we will try to drive the innovation and provide the tools for producing … whatever we all come up with.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Nick Dunkerley
Hi Henrik and Nick.
As Nick points out, the key is perhaps how the audio (and therefore journalist) interacts with the audience. Radio has reinvented itself many times and with the development of the web, it has done so again. It has incorporated speed and interactivity. In the UK, many journalists working in broadcasting work freelance. Added to that are 180+ community radio stations averaging around 70 volunteers each. This suggests that there are a lot of people with personal responsibility for the interactivity of an organisations output. Opening up the editorial to audience scrutiny may be another way forward for radio.
As you suggest RSS and meta data are very useful. But going beyond that, databasing that data, allowing cross metatag searches, would be very powerful, particularly as a democratic tool. This would initially be achieved with many people using a single software programme, at least until standardisation is achieved. Imagine being able to search within a programme from two years ago for the web links and raw data that helped develop that story, and follow relevant links to the new, latest version of the story.
It’s possible, and as you say, software developers perhaps need to think less about parametric filters and more about what journalists will do with the programme.
Thanks for your reply, and good luck with your development.
Ben
Ben, this is more or less what I want to do with this project. Thanks for understanding that much from this messy first interview and blogpost. Any advice or tips as to I, Mozilla and anyone interested in marking radio be OF the web and not ON the web is extremely appreciated. Do you know of anyone or any projects I should be looking at? People I should talk to?
“it’s ease of use and it’s ability”
“on it’s own”
These are not contractions of “it is” or “it has”, therefore no apostrophe. You don’t write “I like hi’s interview.”
Thanks for that. Fixed.
[...] Audio could augment the radio listening experience. More on that and Harddisken soon. Also, see this post about Hindenburg. Hyperdisken [...]
Hi Henrik and Nick.
I’m a novice with all this audio production stuff having only recently become involved in 2007 with a podcast about people’s lives – YourStoryPodcast.com and now my second podcast teaching how to record life stories. The difficulty for me, coming from a non-computer literate background, is having to learn all the tech to make it work. It gets in the way of getting the job done.
I started audio editing on Garageband but I don’t like their recent changes and have always thought it did more than I needed as it seemed to be designed for music production. I haven’t even looked at protools but in using Hindenburg for the last six months I’ve found that I’ve been far more productive.
I’ve been using Basic and doing any additional effects in garageband but have just recently upgraded to Journalist and looking forward to seeing how well it works. I have high hopes that it will do all that I was using garageband for and more without the issues.
Your question of “What do listeners want?”
As a listener of a LOT of podcasts and a producer of two, what I would love is what Apple’s enhanced podcasts was attempting. That is the ability to be listening to a podcast and click on a link to additional information especially while mobile without any of the cross platform issues. And all available via RSS/iTunes.
I’d love to comment in text and/or audio to a podcaster producer or follow a link to other content while mobile or on my other devices. Apple’s enhanced podcasts just doesn’t work like it has the potential.
Most listeners don’t interact with producers because of the walled garden inheriant in the old media consumption model. It’s all about being talked to, it’s time that it becomes more like a phone conversation.
I’ll be following the development of Hindenburg and PopcornJS with great interest.