Consumer expenditure survey illustrating the income divide - <AUTHOR> http://erikrood.com/Posts/consumer_expenditures.html <comment><USER2> If you're curious why:

Income before taxes is not "income before taxes _net of transfer payments_." (It can't be, because one of the most salient transfer payments in the US, the EITC, is administered through the tax system.)

One might assume that poverty is sticky and therefore the bottom 20% of earners is relatively constant, but while poverty might be sticky "low income in a year" is not sticky on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis.

Many people in the lowest 20% for income were middle class N years ago _and still are_. They're spending out of their savings faster than their savings throw off interest/dividends. That's OK; their retirement math mandates it. ("Wait, how can you afford a mortgage on $10k a year of inc... oooooh.")

Some folks also deal with substantial income volatility on a year-to-year basis. Relevantly to many HNers, there are a variety of structures in which business owners hit the bottom 20% in formative/bad years.

</comment><comment><USER3> Let me ask a really stupid question: isn't AGE the most defining factor here rather than race etc.? Especially percentage of those owning a home without mortgage - if anything, fractions of a percent may buy a home they'd live in outright, so it must be just because they already paid out that home, and they are old.

Same for the large percentage of women in lower earning groups and larger overspending there: that's natural, young women make less money, but they also get a lot of money from boyfriends, frequently those in the top income group, and spend it, so why is that a problem at all?

</comment><comment><USER4> And if you consider retirees that makes perfect sense.

It's hard to draw any meaningful conclusion from these graphs.

</comment><comment><USER5> _The poorest groups primarily rent._

Breakdowns are "Rent, Home without mortgage, Home with mortgage."

I wonder what percentage of the bottom 20 percent are homeless. Because that data is not even being included. It assumes the most destitute all have homes of some sort. This is not true.

<comment><USER6> Given that the homeless overall make up about 0.5% of the population, I doubt it would have much effect on the survey either way.

<comment><USER5> I bet that the 0.5% of the population that are homeless are found almost entirely in the bottom 20%. This would mean they are about 2.5% of that group.

And it may be higher, depending on the definition of _homeless_ being used. Most people think of street people as The Homeless, but social workers, et al, also consider many other people to be homeless. They are often counted among _the hidden homeless._ These include people who are couch surfing, living with relatives temporarily to avoid being out in the street, people in temporary shelters and people in substandard housing considered unfit for human habitation.

<comment><USER6> > I bet that the 0.5% of the population that are homeless are found almost > entirely in the bottom 20%. This would mean they are about 2.5% of that > group.

Seems a bit obvious.

> And it may be higher, depending on the definition of homeless being used. > Most people think of street people as The Homeless, but social workers, et > al, also consider many other people to be homeless. They are often counted > among the hidden homeless. These include people who are couch surfing, > living with relatives temporarily to avoid being out in the street, people > in temporary shelters and people in substandard housing considered unfit for > human habitation.

> couch surfing

Couch surfing is (usually) not homelessness, I slept on people's couches when I was trying to get out of my mom's house in the most expensive city in Canada. I lived just fine, though. Couch surfing is not always great, but it isn't homelessness.

> living with relatives temporarily to avoid being out in the street

Unless your relatives are abusive, I don't think living with relatives counts as homeless either. If I were comfortable around my parents, I don't see why I would've moved out yet, it'd be a waste of money.

> substandard housing considered unfit for human habitation

Substandard housing is tenuous, I've lived in places with a horribly leaky roof, flaky electricity, and questionable structural integrity... but I don't even think that quite counts as homeless. I guess it's closer. "Unfit" is ill- defined, many houses that people would gladly have lived in in the 40s would be considered "unfit" today, but I doubt these "unfit" homes are presenting an overwhelming mortal danger like being homeless.

> temporary shelters

Temporary shelters I don't know about, I don't think they count people living in camping tents (or other non-permanent tents) as housed.

<comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness)

 _The legal definition of homeless varies from country to country, or among different jurisdictions in the same country or region.[2] The term homeless may also include people whose primary night-time residence is in a homeless shelter, a domestic violence shelter, long-term residence in a motel, a vehicle, squatting, cardboard boxes, a tent city, tarpaulins, shanty town structures made of discarded building materials or other ad hoc housing situations. According to the UK homelessness charity Crisis, a home is not just a physical space: it also provides roots, identity, security, a sense of belonging and a place of emotional wellbeing.[3] American government homeless enumeration studies[4][5] also include people who sleep in a public or private place not designed for use as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings._

<comment><USER6> > The term homeless may also include people whose primary night-time residence > is in a homeless shelter, a domestic violence shelter, long-term residence > in a motel, a vehicle, squatting, cardboard boxes, a tent city, tarpaulins, > shanty town structures made of discarded building materials or other ad hoc > housing situations.

I fully accept this definition, I just don't consider staying with relatives or friends, or in a degraded-but-serviceable house, to be homelessness, even if you don't have any other decent choice.

I'm not ecstatic with my housing choices right now. I live in a ~7m² room with no windows or ventilation, but that doesn't mean I'm anywhere near homeless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pretty shocked that ~50% of the bottom 20% has a college degree. Would have expected much lower

<comment><USER8> I think there's a lot of negative economic exaggerations going on to promote political views on either side. Paint a bleak picture that only your team can solve.

Something something protectionism, something something basic income.

It all seems like junk to me.

<comment><USER9> Except both are valid economic strategies for increasing income. Protectionism reduces the labour pool, so demand is higher relative to supply, which increases wages. Basic income increases wages by redistributing wealth.

The downside to protectionism is it makes it harder for firms to find workers. The downside to basic income is that it's a massive expense to government, would require higher taxes, and may reduce incentives for people to work (which is why it's mostly being trotted out as a way for people to subsist when automation potentially wipes out labour).

<comment><USER8> I'm not saying there's no validity to either of them as strategies, just that they're big differences from the way we operate today and there's nothing to mandate their application except these politicized exaggerations.

I more mean the bleak pictures painted to gain these ideas favor are pretty much junk in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does the population considered for these graphs include people who are retired? If you are living primarily off of savings, I imagine you would be included in the bottom 20% bracket.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd be curious to see more specific breakdowns. There's a big difference between someone around the 80th, 85th, and 90th percentile vs someone in the top 1% or top 0.01%. I'd guess that for the very rich, they spend less than 20% of their income. If someone has better info, I welcome corrections.

The most significant implication seems to be that as more money flows to the top, it is not being recirculated at the rate it would if it were still in the hands of middle or low-income workers. This is not a moral judgement on the especially rich (in this case). They're making more money than they can reasonably spend, and even if they could spend more, it wouldn't be in their best interest. As I understand it, though, this is not a good thing for the economy.

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel the labels are switched in this picture [http://erikrood.com/Posts/renter_home_income.png](http://erikrood.com/Posts/renter_home_income.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> ah, yep, good eye! will fix this evening when I get back to computer

<comment><USER13> Also, it looks like you say, "The bottom 60% of earners spend more than they make in a given year." while the first figure seems to show the bottom 40% do so.

<comment><AUTHOR> Updated both, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised to see over 50% of top 40% owns their home outright. Are people paying off their home early or is this baby boomers who have lived in the same home for 30 years? I would like to see the age breakdown of each segment.

As housing costs increase and rent payments continue to flow to the top, inequality will continue to accelerate. Housing policy that promotes affordability needs more attention and effort behind it.

<comment><USER15> If you fought in WW2 and came back, there was a massive boom of affordable housing across the nation. It grew in the 1950s and 1960s, when wages were growing. Between those who bought 30+ years ago (and didn't refinance every 5 years) + those families who passed their real estate down in their inheritance, I can easily see that being a large percentage of the population.

The fact that they are in the bottom 20% of _income_ seems less relevant. If you are in/near retirement or simply underemployed, owning your home means you have to work less to cover your costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Questions of clarity not addressed in this post (needs digging in the underlying data):

* Is this individuals, individuals who work, or households? * Is this data self-reported or somehow collected and correlated by experts? * Does any of this data include people who don't file taxes? * What is the definition of the "college degree" category? Does this include the "college" category or degrees from non-accredited colleges/trade schools? * Does "income" represent all benefits or just paycheck? I'm under the impression that civil servants make little in paycheck, but their benefits are back-loaded with pensions and health benefits that aren't visible if just analyzing "income".

These all have a large impact on the data and could easily sway the impression that the reader gets.

</comment><comment><USER16> > The bottom 40% of earners spend more than they make in a given year.

This stat presumably includes people who are retired, people who are dependents (e.g. on a parent), and people who are on welfare. I don't think you can conclude much without breaking that down further.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does not include dependents, groups into families. May include retirees though I could not verify this either. (you're welcome to dig through the data linked in the article yourself, let me know if you find anything). I think the general point would still stand even excluding retirees, but agree that would be a more telling cut of data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Or, the lowest 20% of earners according to CES under-report their income, which may include tips and cash payments, so CES thinks they are overspending.

<comment><USER18> This is a fair point, but could 50% of their income really be tips and cash payments? It seems high to me but I have no insight into how those things work in the US.

<comment><USER19> When I delivered pizza, my tips were more than my paycheck.

<comment><USER18> Wow, I never realized it was that bad

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Where is the divide illustrated? I see a spectrum across the population with no clear dividing lines.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is this based on before or after tax income? I would assume after, but it doesn't really say.

<comment><AUTHOR> After tax income. If you dig through the data [1] you'll find that.

[1] [https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm#annual](https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm#annual)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> How is it possible for so many people to overspend their income? Credit cards will only tide you over for so long, and once you carry a large balance, it's hard to get additional unsecured credit.

<comment><USER23> Despite claims to the contrary there's still a lot of economic mobility in the US - just as most homeless people are homeless for a only short period of time, many people will dip in and out of poverty throughout their lifetimes and not that many are "chronically poor".

During the lean times, the temporarily poor may be cashing out savings and 401k (and taking huge penalties), burning through home equity lines of credit, borrowing money from relatives, working under the table, etc.

eg. Have a 60k a year job, 40k a year expenses and over a couple of years save up 20k in savings. Get laid off and your income goes down to 20k that year but you're only able to cut your expenses to 30k. You drain half your savings, spending 150% of your income that year. Next year, you're able to land a job paying 65k and you can start building up your savings again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> So of the top 50% of income earners, half of them have their houses paid off completely? That doesn't seem right.

<comment><USER25> Maybe these graphs will help:

Median Family Income: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPNHSUS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPNHSUS)

Median Price of New Homes: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N)

Comparing 1965 to 2015, in 1965 a new home cost less than half of what a family earned in a year, in 2015 it cost 4 times annual earnings. Times have changed. The crossover point, where median house prices exceeded median family annual incomes didn't occur until the 1980s -- meaning people who bought houses during that period or prior likely had little trouble servicing multi- decade mortgages, or even paying them off early.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Childhood: Imagining animals in the clouds. Adulthood: Finding axes to grind in charts.

</comment><comment><USER13> The title should probably be the title of the article here.

<comment><USER27> Yes, thanks. We've updated the title from "The bottom 20% of earners outspend income by 2x each year".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So that's the spending requirement for a reasonably comfortable life. Good to know</comment>


We didn't get in the first time - <AUTHOR> http://blog.giveit100.com/didnt-get-first-time/

<comment><USER2> I don't get your biz at all...

Guess I'm not privileged to your revenue model (I hope its not dependent on ad spend), but usually when its hard for investors to see a business without a presentation from management, it's a pass.</comment>


Crash and error reporting: Sentry as HockeyApp alternative - <AUTHOR> https://holtwick.de/blog/2019-01-07-crash-reporting <comment><AUTHOR> What alternatives for macOS/iOS would you recommend?</comment>


Tell HN: I'm selling codr.cc - <AUTHOR>

I'm selling my latest project, Codr.cc, which you might remember from here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2481287
Why I want to sell:
I'm a college student with limited time, money, and ressources. I haven't touched the app since listing it on HN and since people seem to like it it deserves someone who can take it further. Also, there's a project that has been on the back burner for a while that I should really go back to.
Furthermore, I've been learning Apple software development, and I want to purchase an iPad to further my learning (the simulator doesn't cut it when it involves stuff like geolocation, gestures, accelerometer, camera, etc.). I'm also trying to get off heroku and acquire some sysadmin skills, for which I want to get some money to pay for a linode vps for a while. There's also a handful of programming books and guides I want to buy.
These are things I really want to do but can't afford unless I get a bit of a cash boost.
----
It got some good feedback here on HN, it got listed on a few sites, and twitter and forrst love it.
After the HN spike died down, it's been getting around 250 visitors a day on average.
Here's a PDF snapshot of my google analytics for the past 23 days: http://cl.ly/2J2e3q222x1F2o1g293J
The app is first on google for "share code live" (revision: it just dropped to second place), and slowly climbing for "share code".
I had plans to develop a pro version and provided a form for those who were interested. About 82 entries were collected, though I'd argue that many were not aware of its placement (not a very good one).
----
Given what I explained above, I'm looking to sell for a price in the upper $xxx. Selling apps like this and getting some odd programming jobs through HN helped me to get a MacBook, and I'm hoping it happens again.
I can answer any questions if any of you is interested :)
Thanks! <comment><USER2> How is this app built? Open source code or closed source? What type of server capacity is required to keep it fast? How soon will you sell?</comment>


Movement-Based Behaviors and Leukocyte Telomere Length Among US Adults (study) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25970659 <comment><USER2> A clear dose response was observed.

Moderate physical activity

Vigorous physical activity

Walking or cycling for transportation

Strength (resistance type exercise)

Doing any one of these good - doing all four great.

What this suggests to me is that even though I run twice a week and do pretty heavy weightlifting 3 days a week. I would still gain additional benefit from adding lower intensity exercise into the mix.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In other words, exercise helps mitigate markers for adverse effects of exercise.</comment>


The Turing Digital Archive - <AUTHOR> http://www.turingarchive.org/ <comment><USER2> For those more knowledgeable in respect to WWII history and with Turing's contributions:

if Alan Turing hadn't been born, how do you think the WWII would have played out?

I know he made very important contributions, but were they decisive to winning the WWII?

<comment><USER3> I'm not an expert at all, but from what I've read the consensus seems to be that the Allied countries would have won in the end, but it could have taken one or a few years longer.

Also, several very decisive battles took place on the Eastern front (Russia).</comment></comment>


AI recreates the face you're thinking about - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5426367/Computer-recreates-face-youre-thinking-about.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 <comment><AUTHOR> This seems eerily reminiscent of Black Mirror: Crocodile.

The Paper: [http://www.eneuro.org/content/early/2018/01/29/ENEURO.0358-1...](http://www.eneuro.org/content/early/2018/01/29/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab- article-info)

U Toronto: [https://www.utoronto.ca/news/new-technique-developed-u-t- use...](https://www.utoronto.ca/news/new-technique-developed-u-t-uses-eeg- show-how-our-brains-perceive-faces)

</comment><comment><USER2> Very similar to an article I read a while back. They were using similar tech to recreate a persons thought, the images weren't great but you could clearly see what the person was thinking about. Like a painting that only reveals itself when you view it from a distance.</comment>


Webcam, Lights, and Audio for Remote Work, Podcasting, Videos, and Streaming - <AUTHOR> https://mattstauffer.com/blog/setting-up-your-webcam-lights-and-audio-for-remote-work-podcasting-videos-and-streaming/ <comment><USER6> You can spend $700+ on his high end audio recommendations but 90% of home office style recording environments (even with acoustic panels) are going to have a noticeable amount of background hiss (computer fans, etc.) get picked up and his set up doesn't account for that.

If you goto the OP's Youtube channel and listen to his recordings, for example [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0sTxLs9VA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0sTxLs9VA), there is a HUGE amount of hiss / static in his audio, to the point where I would be uncomfortable listening to his voice for a long period of time at a medium volume. He's using the $400 Shure mic in that video too.

The $100 for the dedicated 2nd pre-amp with the Triton seems pretty wasteful. As an alternative, for $299 you can pick up the DBX 286s pre-amp[0] which also acts as a noise gate (helps filter hiss / static), de-esser, compressor and basic EQ together. It's an awesome piece of hardware and offers way more bang for your buck.

Also the AT2005[1] mic is a solid upgrade from the AT2100 that he recommends, and both are about the same price. IMO the AT2005 is worth using as an end- game microphone. The AT2005 is one of those crazy mics where it almost feels like it's mis-priced at $80 and the DBX 286 has enough knobs and buttons to make it sound good with a number of different types of voices.

Ultimately your real natural voice is going to play one of the biggest roles in how you sound in the end.

[0]: [https://amzn.to/2VPbmMc](https://amzn.to/2VPbmMc)

[1]: [https://amzn.to/39hyQwI](https://amzn.to/39hyQwI)

(Yes these are affiliate links, I've been using both pieces of hardware for years)

<comment><USER7> A noise gate does not remove hiss or static, it simply reduces the volume of the signal when it gets below a certain level.

As a professional audio engineer in a past life, I can say the SM7B + Triton Fethead is a great recommendation. The SM7B has very good off-axis rejection characteristics and will pick up _much_ less room noise than most alternatives.

<comment><USER6> > A noise gate does not remove hiss or static, it simply reduces the volume of > the signal when it gets below a certain level.

But the end result is with a configured noise gate the audio coming out will not appear to have as much hiss or room noise.

Check out the Youtube video I linked of his. It's super noticeable. With Sony MDR-V6 headphones, I hear a huge amount of hiss in his audio. To the point where it's distracting and drowns out his voice.

I'm not trying to pick on you or him, but if I go to your most recent Youtube video at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lf6dwipRYg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lf6dwipRYg), you can very much hear the same type of hiss within the first few seconds. I can't say for what what it is, but it sounds like your computer fan is spinning at 50% and it very much comes through. At about the 16:22 mark in the video, your fans appear to be spinning at 100% because it's much louder than before you started coding. It sounds like your computer is about to launch into space.

It looks like you have the same mic too.

I'm not saying the mic is bad, it's a really good mic. I just think the OP should have talked more about one of the biggest things that will kill a recording, especially when talking about "professional podcasting" and recommending high end gear.

For comparison, here's something I recorded with the AT2005 + DBX 286s acting as a noise gate: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd84hlIjkI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd84hlIjkI)

There's no software processing here either and my room is not treated with acoustic panels. In fact, my office is almost a worst case scenario. It's a wide open empty room with hardwood floors, angled ceilings and almost no furniture or rugs. I have super loud computer fans too and I'm right next to a window.

Even at maximum volume (unrealistically loud) there's pretty much no hiss or room noise. At least nothing I can hear with the same Sony MDR-V6 headphones.

I'm sure I could get similar results with the Shure mic too (using the DBX), but I'm happy with the AT2005. If I ever upgrade mics in the future it would be to a shotgun mic so it's out of frame.

<comment><USER7> What you're hearing in that video is a space heater running in my office — I don't put a ton of effort into making everything perfect for ad hoc live streams.

A proper screencast is probably the better thing to judge:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff_n_QClipQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff_n_QClipQ)

I'm sure you'll find something to nitpick over but I think it's pretty good for a programming tutorial recorded in my home office.

<comment><USER6> > I'm sure you'll find something to nitpick over but I think it's pretty good > for a programming tutorial recorded in my home office.

It's not nit picking.

The video you linked sounds much much better and really really good. Besides turning off your heater did you do any other processing with software afterwards? Such as using your video editor's noise cancellation filters or a proper DAW?

I'm just asking because taking a quick skim through your videos, your live stream videos all have some form of hiss but your shorter non-live screencasts do not which makes me think additional post-processing is being done on them.

But I think the OP's channel intro video and your live stream video is a good example of the importance of managing background noise, which isn't mentioned in the article at all but it's probably the most important thing to do and you can't just blindly throw money at the problem to fix it with no prior knowledge.

For a professional set up, it seems like a no brainer to want to filter out background and room noise before it even hits your computer. That's some of what the DBX does. This way the amount of effort it takes to do a live stream or screencast is the same when it comes to audio quality. You just turn it on and hit record, and you're done. It also works the same in OBS, your video recording tool of choice, zoom, hangouts, skype or any program that records your mic.

You mentioned being an audio engineer. Surely you know how important having a good audio source is, and how time consuming the editing process is when you need to fiddle with cleaning things up after the fact. Configuring all of this stuff to happen live is something I did after recording about 20 videos. Now 400+ videos later I couldn't imagine having to do post-processing on videos just to clean up audio.

<comment><USER8> I listened to the first clip expecting it to be much worse than it ended up being. I'm listening on HD280pros, the headphones I keep at work, although I use Sony MDR-7506s when I'm in front of my audio gear.

The noise floor sounded more to me like bad gain staging than it sounds like fans and room noise. And I honestly think that the majority of people who watch that video aren't going to notice. I think you're too close to the process. I would venture that almost no one else in this thread would watch that video and call that an all-caps HUGE amount of noise.

A long time ago, I was mixing down some rough recordings of my band, and as I was putting everything together, I kept hearing the squeak of my cheap kick pedal every time I hit the bass drum. It was incessant, and it didn't help that I typically played at upwards of 160bpm. I tried EQ, notch filtering, all kinds of things available to me back in 2002 to try and get rid of that squeak without destroying the other things coming through the room mic, and I just couldn't do it, so I had to leave it in. No one else in the band could hear what I was talking about.

On my way home, I put in a CD by the band Cake that I'd had for a couple of years at this point, and I had heard probably a hundred times before. And even though it had never stood out to me at all before, all of the sudden the only thing I could hear on this professionally recorded album was THE SQUEAK OF THE KICK PEDAL. It was absolutely maddening.

I went on an electronic music binge for a couple of months after that, just to cleanse my palette.

<comment><USER9> > I would venture that almost no one else in this thread would watch that > video and call that an all-caps HUGE amount of noise.

I listened to the video and while I wouldn't go all-caps, it's way more noise that I like to listen to. So I downloaded the audio track and measured the RMS noise and signal levels, getting about a 30dB SNR. That's a somewhat bad number, which matches my subjective experience.

A few years ago I converted some old audio cassettes with voice recordings of deceased family members to MP3. I heard all sorts of weird noises, but I spent a while getting rid of them with EQ and notch filters. I don't know if anyone else in the family cared about the work I did cleaning up the audio, but I did.

Everyone has different standards, and it's not quite fair to say that nobody in the audience cares about these things, just like it's not quite fair to say that everyone in the audience cares.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for doing the work to get the RMS noise and signal levels.

Yeah just casually comparing it to other random videos and podcasts, IMO it's really noticeable.

I was going to post a screenshot comparison of that between all 3 videos but it's probably not worth the effort. It's tricky to compare just by hearing because headphone quality plays a massive difference. On some headphones you can't hear anything but on others you hear all sorts of stuff.

Here's a funny story... I recorded a video course once, and even with a dynamic mic, RDX, etc. a crow was going BERSERK outside of my window, like you would think it was having a fight to the death with a pterodactyl.

Since the video came out pretty nice, I decided to keep it in as a joke since it didn't last too long, and during a spot where it was super loud I decided to throw up a 1 second picture of a crow.

Since the course has come out, I've had about 20 people e-mail me asking me why I showed a crow picture while talking about Docker. Turns out, they couldn't hear it even after I mentioned why I did it and requested to them to play it back a few times in a loop at max volume. Some headphones are just mechanically limited to not emit certain frequencies. Sadly, these are common frequencies in voice, instruments and random background noises that humans can hear.

A pair of MDRV6s can go a long ways. It's no wonder they are used in almost every recording studio.

<comment><USER9> As I'm reading your comment I have the MDR-7506 (the V6 is discontinued, I think) right next to me.

They're almost useless for mixing, but whenever I record something with a mic, I'll put headphones on and crank up the mic gain. Does wonders for getting clean recordings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the section on mics could be enhanced by explaining a little about the different pickup patterns available. A cardioid pickup is a lot more appropriate for these uses than an omni pickup would be. The author mentions the Yeti mic picking up a lot of background noise - I'd bet that that mic has an omni pick up pattern. Some mics even have a small switch which allows you to cycle between different pickup patterns.

EDIT: While I've always known them as pickup patterns, I've just noticed that Wikipedia refers to them as polar patterns. I assume this is a more universal term.

<comment><USER11> There is a switch on the Yet that gives you 4 different pickup patterns. [https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/yeti/](https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/yeti/)

      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>
      - <USER4>
      - <USER5>

<comment><USER12> I use my Blue Yeti on cardioid mode without headphones and the noise picked up is relatively minimal. My apartment is pretty quiet to begin with, but cardioid limits some of the noise and also seems to prevent feedback. (which is taken care of to some degree by the software, but I never have issues when cardioid is on)

<comment><USER10> Do you remember what the factory default was? I expect most people who aren't au fait with pickup patterns will either leave it on the factory default or put it in stereo (which looks very similar to omni).

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately, I don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The value of a good mic for remote work cannot be understated.

One of the worst aspects of my job as a remote developer has been working with people with crappy microphones. I worked with one client whose conference mic was so low-fi that a lot of what they were saying in meetings was incomprehensible. (I told them about this, but they didn't seem to care, which is why I'm glad I'm not working with them anymore)

Going against what the author suggests, I purchased a Blue Yeti mic. The reason I went for it is that I want my coworkers to not have to strain to hear me. Ideally, it should sound as if I'm in the same room with them. With cardioid mode turned on, I can use the mic with my MacBook Pro speakers as the output channel and never have feedback issues. My home is quiet, so I never have issues with bad noises coming through. If I'm at a cafe, that's when I'll use my AirPods. However, I use my Yeti mic when possible. A few of my other coworkers have since bought a Blue Yeti or a Razer Seiren, and it makes a world of difference.

<comment><USER13> I used to use a Snowball, which worked great, but it obstructed my view of my 4 monitor setup. I currently use a Blue Snowflake, and it's been working very well. It's small and inobtrusive, and I haven't heard any complaints about the audio for calls. For a podcast, however, I would probably go back to the Snowball or higher end mic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> One thing he didn't differentiate on was the microphone and its appearance in video casting.

While there are many good choices, the Shure SM7B is the quintessential desk or studio microphone for recording vocals. However, it is a bulky monster and will take up a _lot_ of real estate in a video frame. If you're audio-only, that's not an issue, your vocals will sound awesome.

For video, I really think an off-camera mic on a boom stand in sound treated room is the best option for seated, stationary casting. Many hypercardioid vocal microphones most people have actually work fairly well in this setup. Treating panels doesn't even need to be expensive; this youtuber made really nice looking ones from towels: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVEXp87TTrs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVEXp87TTrs)

I don't like the sound or intrusive look of a lapel mic or the noise it picks up, for moving sequences, it's probably the best option unless you can hire a grip.

<comment><USER15> Surprisingly the monoprice 600700 pencil condenser with a hypercardiod capsule works really well for this, and it's way cheaper than mid range shotguns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hope that nobody reading this thinks you HAVE to have these things to work from home. I've been WFH for the better part of a decade. Audio: A $25 Logitech H390. Video: A MS 720p webcam. Cost: Maybe $60 USD tops? I'm not in meetings all day, but really it's not that big of a deal when I am.

</comment><comment><USER17> One small point I'd like to make regarding USB mics (and USB headsets): the #1 rule of digital audio is to only have a single sample clock for the entire system (the sample clock is the thing that defines when a voltage value gets converted to/generated from a digital sample).

Although I understand the plug-n-play appeal of these devices, they uniformly violate this rule because they cannot share whatever sample clock is being used for the other "direction" (i.e. the USB mic has its own clock, which is independent from the one used for playback).

Using these sorts of devices implicitly requires the audio software stack to do resampling to keep both input and output in sync with each other. For podcasting the change in quality that this causes is probably not an issue, but users should at least be aware this is happening under the hood.

You're much better off getting a cheap USB audio interface, an XLR mic and doing both recording and playback via the same device (with a single sample clock).

<comment><USER18> Are you claiming to be able to "hear" resampling, and I dont mean 20 year old naive implementations like Cretive SB Live. Sample clock, and its phase is irrelevant as long as you pass Nyquist threshold, reconstructed signal will be indistinguishable from original.

You might want to read [https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil- young.html](https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

<comment><USER17> I cite xiph.org/monty's videos to people all the time, just to be clear (I write a DAW for a living).

If you check out infinitewave.ca you will see that actually there are still lots of resampling implementations with notable artifacts, certainly when subject to measurement.

Can you hear them? Depends on the nature of the artifacts. I'd agree that in general, the answer is no.

Nevertheless, it is still wrong in my opinion for these mics to be spreading (or even being made) without it being clear what they imply for the user. You might not hear the effect, and you might not care, but you should understand clearly what using these devices require from whatever software stack you're using.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To be honest, investing in a whole studio setup for remote work seems to go against one of the biggest perks of remote work itself: freedom.

Stock is usually good enough. That money is better invested on a pair of comfortable headphones, and also some good on-the-go light headphones with micro to hold remote calls outside of a quiet environment.

<comment><USER20> It mostly seems unnecessary even if I'm doing calls from my office, as opposed to when I'm traveling or otherwise not at home. I have a dedicated office with decent lighting (and not backlit) and a good Logitech webcam. That's more than a lot of people I work with have. Anything more would really be overkill and probably not even noticeable on a typical video call.

<comment><USER21> Hell, I've been trying to get coworkers to just _get_ webcams and it is an uphill battle. There is so much non-verbal communication that you lose working remote, it's harder still when you can't even see the person.

<comment><USER20> A number of teams I work with have fairly strict "Cameras on unless there's some reason you can't (e.g. you're driving)" rules. In general, I think it's a good idea. I know not everyone likes video but it's one of those things you should really do IMO if everyone isn't co-located.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's disappointing to see the Shure SM7B recommended so widely for use in residential environments. While Shure's classic offering is popular among 2020 media creators (Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, and streamers like Tfue or SypherPK) it is still cruel and unforgiving of poor microphone technique, audio reflection, and background noise. Considering its high noise floor when driven by all but the nicest preamps, other options are just more attractive overall.

It's not that the SM7B is bad. Like any high end tool it requires to skill (and other high end tools) to be effective. Even in amateur hands it can sound great. But for $350 the average podcaster, streamer, or remote worker can do much better.

Otherwise this article is great.

<comment><USER23> What would you recommend?

<comment><USER22> Shure's SM58 and SM57 have the same capsule as the SM7B for 1/3 the price and fuss.

Like the Rolex Submariner, the SM58 has been cloned at lower and lower prices since its introduction. The design is solid regardless of the price point. Imitations from Pyle and Audio Technica sound great and cost less, but aren't as rugged.

If you _want_ to spend money for more pleasing tone the Beta 87A from Shure is outstanding. As are similar cardioid microphones from Electro Voice and Neumann

<comment><USER24> I've also driven a truck over an SM58, dropped it about a dozen times, and seen them smashed up beyond recognition—and they still sound as good as new. Those things are built like tanks.

<comment> 52-6F-62 That line of Shure's in general are amazing. I've got an old 565SD from the 60s or 70s that was given to me. It's beat to all hell and _still_ sounds fantastic and is totally reliable. They've re-released them as well if anyone's into the shiny thing

[https://www.shure.com/en- US/products/microphones/565sd](https://www.shure.com/en- US/products/microphones/565sd)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A few things:

\- Sony makes great cameras but the lenses are expensive. You can get an old Panasonic GH3 and a camlink and the lenses will be cheaper, while the image quality won't (for this sort of use) be affected much at all.

\- You don't need a freakin' SM7B for this stuff. I do audio engineering as one of my too-many side gigs and the _most expensive_ microphone I own is the Synco D2, an interesting little MKH416 knockoff shotgun microphone. It was $225. It's above my head right now, I was on a call an hour ago. It's out of frame and it sounds great. While the PR40 (which personally I prefer to a SM7B) or the SM7B are great mics for what they are, the delta between them and much cheaper competitors is not that significant.

\- You don't really need hardware to tune your audio stack, aside possibly from a preamp if you bought the wrong microphone (in this case, defined as "the SM7B"). Use your computer. It's fast enough, it can save multiple presets, and it will _get out of your way_.

\- Software matters. I use vMix for everything: live streaming and recording. _This_ is where I recommend spending money. vMix has a reasonably featured (for the purpose--videography and audio to go with it) audio system, able to use ASIO with Windows and to use VSTs. It can support half a dozen cameras (my road kit uses 4, my home setup uses 6) and as many voices as your interface can, while supporting multi-record for archival footage/alternate takes and a nice tablet-control interface that's topped only by Logic Remote in this space (and if you're only doing audio, Logic Pro on a Mac is a no-brainer).

</comment><comment><USER26> Somewhat off topic, but I've thought this would be quite a useful thing to do just for helping my focus while working, kind of like having a permanant rubber duck.

Has anyone ever had experience of "live coding" at a company, and if so, how do you manage things like, not broadcasting a database secret, etc.

Are there any examples of companies letting people record their work? I remember a lot of videos floating around about "a day in the life at X" style things.

<comment><USER27> Actually, I just started doing this yesterday. I had streamed a handful of times on Twitch (channel the same name as my username here) for side projects before, but I just joined a startup as a co-founder and decided to try streaming during work hours.

A couple tips:

      - Use multiple monitors - this is almost a hard requirement
      - Separate secrets into their own files.
      - Exclude secret files from your IDE/editor search
      - Make the second monitor the main monitor so notifications and what not go there
      - On that second (or third monitor), put everything that isn't your editor

Be prepared for few to no viewers. Remember the point is to help keep you focused, not get attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I recently got a green screen to use during my video conferencing. I thought it would be fun just to mess with my co-workers, make it look like I'm on the Mars or something. I've yet to figure out how to get it to work with gotomeeting/skype/hangouts video though. I've found apps that can do it for recorded video, but I suppose it's on the camera to have the chroma effect available. Which the one I have doesn't do. I don't want to spend too much just for a joke.

<comment><USER29> Zoom has this feature built-in, it's called virtual background.

[https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- us/articles/210707503-Virtual-...](https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- us/articles/210707503-Virtual-Background?mobile_site=true)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Any suggestions for maintaining sound and video quality when you are interviewing/featuring someone remote, who does not have any special sound or video equipment beyond what they have on their laptop? Would you keep a modest kit with decent webcam and mic that you can mail them with a return label? I've heard of at least one podcaster doing this.

The comments here were as helpful as the original post - thanks all.

</comment><comment><USER31> Spending money on decent lights and cameras to then block the view with a GIANT microphone doesn't make sense to me. I've been involved with professional audio for 23 years--if I were doing this, I would use a decent single ear, earset style mic. That would keep the mic out of view, provide excellent sound quality, and keep the audio consistent if you turn your head (away from a fixed mic).

It actually drives me nuts when podcasters use the SM7B mic and have their low-end cranked or don't apply a strong enough HPF to compensate for the mic's proximity effect. That's incredibly tiring to my ears--I usually end up reducing the low end via my playback device's EQ.

99% of the pre-amp options don't matter as long as you get a strong, clean signal into a decent ADC stage. Spend your efforts on learning how to properly process the signal chain instead (apply High-pass filter, proper gain, apply dynamic compression, possibly EQ/de-ess, etc.).

Sorry for the rant. :)

<comment><USER9> > 99% of the pre-amp options don't matter as long as you get a strong, clean > signal into a decent ADC stage.

It turns out this is actually hard, when you use inexpensive preamps, typical microphones, and you're recording voice at home. Getting a strong signal means more gain than onboard preamps in inexpensive interfaces typically provide, which is why you might want to get an outboard preamp or use an inline device like the fethead. Getting a clean signal means learning how to do mic placement, doing some room treatment, etc.

From what I understand, there's a limit to how much clean gain you can get from a single amplifier stage, and it's often just not enough. I was very skeptical about getting an outboard preamp but it ended up making a much larger difference than I thought it would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Mine is the C930e, but Wirecutter now recommends the c920s, which is cheaper > and adds a privacy shield.

Ah, Wirecutter. The same guys who will one year absolutely recommend dual-hose portable ACs (and cite many sources, including the Department of Energy) and utterly demolish the efficiency of single hose models. Then, next year, say that this is not actually important at all. Because they are less practical or something. Which is an argument they themselves discarded just one year prior.

What changed? That's left as an exercise for the reader.

They may be fine if you use them to check products that you might otherwise have missed. But as far as recommendations go, I'm not sure they have no agenda.

</comment><comment><USER33> I hate doing video on calls. But I might be more willing with a stylish red beanie. My appearance is my biggest concern and a stylish hat is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER34> I was a bit surprised to see the recommendation of another inline preamp in the chain with the Focusrite. He recommends a TRITON AUDIO FetHead Filter in- Line Microphone Preamp. Does anyone have further experience with this setup? I've been using my MXL Mics 770 Cardioid Condenser Microphone with a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 with nothing in-between. I know I've got the gain dialed up pretty high but it never occurred to me to put something else in between them. I'd love to hear your experiences and recommendations. Is an in-line preamp worth it?

<comment><USER35> I don't see that recommendation in the article. Rather it's specific to the SM7B which is famously pretty quiet.

I use a Cloudlifter with my SM-58 just because the gain it provides is a lot cleaner than my interface (Audiobox iOne) seems to provide at the top end.

<comment><USER24> It also gives you a little more headroom for doing things like talking at a greater distance from the mic (e.g. talk at 6-10" from the mic and still get great signal).

Of course, if the room acoustics are horrible, that's not going to sound nearly as good as talking close to the mic, but if you have a decent sounding room it is freeing to not have to be close (and a good mic won't necessarily sound worse at slightly longer distances).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've been doing remote work and videos for a while. I sort of took my built-in camera for granted even though I've had better tools available.

Recently, started using the base logitech webcam and have gotten several mentions about how much better the video is from people on the other side of the calls. That sort of drove it home for me.

Don't know why it took me so long for it to "hit" \- gonna probably pick up a couple things in this post - thanks.

</comment><comment><USER37> Another audio option I don't see mentioned often is a headset with a boom microphone. Some of my best sounding coworkers have these. They also typically have ambient sound rejection, meaning you can be in a relatively noisy environment (AC) and still sound good.

A nice pair of headphones can have a boom mike added with little hassle, using something like an Antlion Modmic.

</comment><comment><USER38> I just did a bunch of this over Christmas, and it was a ton of fun to set up.

The way I see it...people work in these offices that cost hundreds of thousands, so I will benefit from looking somewhat professional on my calls from home.

One frustrating note: we use RingCentral/Zoom at work, and they only work with the Elgato CamLink once. After one call with proper video, I have to reset my PRAM.

</comment><comment><USER39> Surprised the Blackmagic Design Web Presenter wasn't mentioned. It has several nice features including switching between 2 feeds without latency.

[https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicwebprese...](https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicwebpresenter)

<comment><USER40> I have the Elgato Camlink, which is way cheaper, but I've been wondering whether the Web Presenter would be a more foolproof solution. For OBS the Camlink is fine, because I'm able to get a signal by manually configuring the source frame rate. But non of the cameras I've tried will show up in Skype—or if they do, they drop out at some point. How is your experience with the Web Presenter, does it show up as a webcam reliably across software?

<comment><USER39> From my experience it shows up reliably, using any web related platform, and also dev work with webcam related react/JS libraries, the BMD device works well. (No different than the built in Mac/etc camera.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> One item that the author didn't touch on was internet connection. I would imagine that streaming with a 4k camera, even with codecs and compression and stuff that i know little about, would both take a decent sized upload pipe as well as no capping on uploaded data.

Does anyone have more info about this piece of the set up?

<comment><USER24> 15-20 Mbps uplink will be enough for most situations, at 4K. It's not like you'll be streaming ProRes or some other minimal/no-compression data. You should be encoding a compressed stream and sending that to the streaming service. For 1080p, you can probably get by with 10-15 Mbps up, though it is better to have more bandwidth since you might have other things pushing data up at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've recently been thinking about really improving my home office lighting setup. For example, most of my meetings are with Zoom and on video, and proper studio lighting can go a long way to making a good impression. We all want to look good, right?

<comment><USER43> I've been thinking the same, well that I need to get better lighting in general - I have remote calls daily and during the summer that's fine because there's sunlight all the time whilst I'm working.

But now in the winter, it gets dark quite early and my normal room lighting is not bright enough. Doesn't make me look exactly as if I'm sitting in the dark but it's close to it :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> A little off topic: has anyone managed to have chroma key effect on Mac ? I'm also thinking to have almost same concept youtube channel. But, I also want to have chroma-key background. any ideas ?

<comment><USER45> I think OBS will do live keying.

<comment><USER44> I'm also looking for its virtual-camera plugin which is only window :(

<comment><USER46> I'm was looking (still looking actually) for a virtual camera for GNU/Linux, but all the solutions I found involve lot of hacks.

That would be awesome to be able to switch scenes from OBS inside a "corporate" video conference setup.

<comment><USER47> I've done it without too much trouble. I did have to compile and load a small kernel module, but it wasn't too hard. I have notes on how I did it if you're interested. Most of my time was spent in OBS tweaking the look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Doesn't look like the author really did research on the equipment. Almost everything except maybe lighting is a wrong choice or combination.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'd hate having a webcam for remote work.

I mean, I'd need to get dressed :(</comment>


A new dawn for music startups? - <AUTHOR> http://concertwindow.com/5092/a-new-dawn-for-music-startups

<comment><USER2> Where are the 'successful startups' the post refers to? I don't think we can consider Pandora or Spotify/GrooveShark/Mog/Slacker/etc/etc successful as yet.

Even though Pandora is now a publicly traded company, it is not yet profitable, and it's 6 month stock chart is not exactly inspiring... [http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/dynamic_charting.aspx?selected=P&...](http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/dynamic_charting.aspx?selected=P&symbol=P&symbol=PANDORA&timeframe=6m&charttype=line)</comment>