I use Hindenburg Pro for radio work. It is the most valuable tool in my arsenal, by far. No other DAW comes close to how easy and quick it is to produce a top-quality final result. It is really easy to fall into the 'there are not enough features' trap. Hindenburg strips off the fat and makes the editing experience a joy compared to just about every other product I've tried. I think a user needs to look at what they're using it for, and decide if this is the DAW for them. For me, nothing even comes close.
I agree that Hindenburg is a very valuable tool and has an easy to use and fast workflow, especially when compared to music-based DAWs. It's not without some shortcomings, though, and Version 2 was step forward. I feel there is no better DAW for podcast editing, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or to be frustrated by some of the limitations as a user.
@@jesse.mccune Agreed that there is some room for improvement. I guess where I'm coming from is that some of the criticisms people lob at it just don't make sense (ie, can't accept more than 6 plugins). If you are producing radio content or a podcast, that is just overkill. Just my opinion. They need to keep it streamlined.
@theway-backmusicmachinepod9953 I agree a radio show shouldn't need more than 6 plugins, but podcasts are a whole other story since the audio is regularly recorded by people with no experience with recording, how to properly use and position their (usually not so good sounding) equipment in terrible sounding spaces. More than 6 plugins can be needed at times and when those times come, we are forced to make compromises instead of being able to deliver the best quality audio on these lower quality recordings. My typical chain is: 1. Noise/reverb reduction 2. Mouth de-click 3. De-esser 4. EQ 5. Compression 6. Loudness meter There are times when I might need to add: De-plosive A gain rider A noise gate Or I might have the need to try A/B testing two different plugins, which becomes challenging if I've already dialed in my chain and don't have any open slots. I'm an advocate of keeping things as simple as possible. I use only what is needed for a particular piece of audio. On my recordings I'm only using Mouth De-click, de-esser, and loudness meter. One of the biggest things I've learned from working with and mentoring other editors is that we all work differently and have differing professional needs. There isn't one right or wrong way of approaching things. I know my life would be so much simpler if my clients could give me audio that needed very little work, but that is not my reality.
Thoughtful interview, Jesse. I'd never use Hindenburg for what I do - Audacity and Reaper do just fine. Your description of Hindenburg leadership and customer service responses and what sounds like vaporware promises, reminds me of the Commodore Amiga which was my first computer. That kind of stuff did them in - small company - tunnel-vision owner and profiteer - always trying to sell new faster machines to a fixed customer base - more and more of them peeling off and moving to the PC or Mac for wider and more stable software selection. Still miss it as a fun machine that did some things very well - but not keeping up with user wish-list stuff killed it.
Thanks, Jack. I feel Hindenburg has done a good job of creating an easy to use DAW for dialog editors and version 1 was solid. I don't think there were vaporware promises, t least not yet. I think they have every intention of delivering those features, but lack the leadership experience to know that there are two options here: • announce the new features that will be included, but make it clear they will not be available on release day and give an estimate of when to expect them to be released • only announce the features that will ship on release day My friend had a Commodore Amiga. It was the first computer I got to use outside of computer day at school. I don't remember much about it, though since I was still a kid. "but not keeping up with user wish-list stuff killed it." This is where Hindenburg is right now. There are so many companies building a lot of brand loyalty by listening to the needs and wants of their clients. Hindenburg doesn't function this way and seem to not see how much damage they are inflicting on their brand reputation. Brand is everything these days if a company wants to become successful.
@@jesse.mccune Sounds like Hindenburg ought read up on the difference between a push and pull system of design. What you're describing is a push system and users won't stand for that for long.
@ilblues I'm unfamiliar with those methods, but I get the gist. There are a few things they could benefit from by reading up on if they want to remain a sustainable company or grow into something more than a niche product for radio producers.
After having used Hindenburg Pro for several years - having paid for a "perpetual" license - I was more than disappointed and annoyed when they stopped supporting H1 and went to the subscription model. I ultimately purchased the new subscription version at the "reduced" price for those who had licenses for the original version. My annual renewal came due a month or so ago. I thought long and hard before committing to another year. I like the functionality of the application and use it to produce several podcasts. Your description about how they handled the launch is spot on. It was terrible. Some features promised with great fanfare now aren't even mentioned. Their silence is deafening. I hope they get their act together, but it seems like they continue to limp along slowly. I'm likely going to move my production to Reaper as the year rolls on. Such a shame.
It's definitely been a bumpy transition from H1 to H2. Out of curiosity, did you know they offered H2 with a perpetual license, or did you knowingly choose the subscription? I like the ideas that Hindenburg offers, but many times it feels like they miss the mark. They created a tool that could become a powerful program if they could get out of their own way and start doing product and market research. I had a conversation with Nick, who's a nice guy, but I didn't feel like I was being listened to as a frustrated customer. I heard a lot of excuses and the only real acknowledgment was he agreeing the roll out was terrible. He said they will start creating features that will appeal to the more experienced engineers and editors, but we'll have to be patient. I don't know how much patience I have left at this point. There were comments that the bugs and flaws with the program are because of the platform and not actually bugs with Hindenburg. As a user, I don't care where the blame lies, I just know that I dealing with constant bugs. Even if it's the platform they have built Hindenburg on, who chose that platform? My general takeaway was that Hindenburg either doesn't have the resources to hire the staff they need or the experience to understand why it's hurting them to keep operating the way they have been. The way they've handled the rollout and customer feedback is the type of mishap that damages brands in deep ways and they still have done nothing to try to fix that. I tried to get through to Nick that the silence is the thing that has really made things worse for many of us and that it would help if they started communicating more. He said they were going to start doing that. I haven't really seen that. Their latest release with the Effects Presets, which is likely to be a big thing for most of their serious users, was quietly released. No announcements, no emails. I only knew about it because someone in my community asked about it. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have concerns that they will indeed get their act together.
@@jesse.mccune Totally agree. Props to you for reaching out to Nick and other Hindenburg people. I was aware of the new perpetual license option, but I wasn't - and still am not - sure they're going to last long enough to make the new perpetual license fee worth the money. As time permits I'm playing with Reaper as a potential replacement. It's overkill for podcast editing, but other than a one time fee of $60, there's no recurring annual or large upfront expense. We'll see how things go over the coming months. I enjoy H2's ease of use and basic features, but unless I see significant change in their communications and development, progress over the coming months, my thinking is now it's time to move on next year, probably to Reaper.
@@StephenCarterStressExpert With Reaper, I believe that $60 buys you all updates for a single version ... i.e., when I bought 6, I was golden until they came out with 7 and then had to pay again or stick with 6.
@StephenCarterStressExpert It was actually Nick who initiated the conversation because I've encountered so many bugs over the last year under the premise of giving some context. That context sounded more like excuses and justifications than one of listening to my experience and feedback. Nick is a nice guy and passionate about what they do. He does want to make Hindenburg a great tool for audio storytellers. And his definition of audio storytellers are radio shows and narrative style podcasts. It left me with the feeling that interview podcasts are something they don't really know much about or even care about. Comments like "if you need more than 6 plugins you're overthinking it" and "we can't create a strip silence tool because people will misuse it and ruin things by removing all the ambiance". I asked some questions about their brand and who their target audience is and he couldn't answer. They market it as a tool for podcasters, but kind of look down on interview shows. There's something about some of these older radio guys where they look down on interview podcasts like they are lesser than. For me, I can't get fully behind a product when leadership keeps telling me their tool isn't meant for me. They've dug themselves into a giant hole and now have to figure out how to get out of it. I've heard good things about Reaper. I wouldn't say it's any more overkill than any other DAW for editing podcasts. With the rate that Descript, Riverside, and Podcastle are developing, DAWs, even Hindenburg, may well become overkill and something that only us dinosaurs use to edit.
I use Hindenburg Pro for radio work. It is the most valuable tool in my arsenal, by far. No other DAW comes close to how easy and quick it is to produce a top-quality final result. It is really easy to fall into the 'there are not enough features' trap. Hindenburg strips off the fat and makes the editing experience a joy compared to just about every other product I've tried. I think a user needs to look at what they're using it for, and decide if this is the DAW for them. For me, nothing even comes close.
I agree that Hindenburg is a very valuable tool and has an easy to use and fast workflow, especially when compared to music-based DAWs. It's not without some shortcomings, though, and Version 2 was step forward. I feel there is no better DAW for podcast editing, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or to be frustrated by some of the limitations as a user.
@@jesse.mccune Agreed that there is some room for improvement. I guess where I'm coming from is that some of the criticisms people lob at it just don't make sense (ie, can't accept more than 6 plugins). If you are producing radio content or a podcast, that is just overkill. Just my opinion. They need to keep it streamlined.
@theway-backmusicmachinepod9953 I agree a radio show shouldn't need more than 6 plugins, but podcasts are a whole other story since the audio is regularly recorded by people with no experience with recording, how to properly use and position their (usually not so good sounding) equipment in terrible sounding spaces. More than 6 plugins can be needed at times and when those times come, we are forced to make compromises instead of being able to deliver the best quality audio on these lower quality recordings. My typical chain is:
1. Noise/reverb reduction
2. Mouth de-click
3. De-esser
4. EQ
5. Compression
6. Loudness meter
There are times when I might need to add:
De-plosive
A gain rider
A noise gate
Or I might have the need to try A/B testing two different plugins, which becomes challenging if I've already dialed in my chain and don't have any open slots.
I'm an advocate of keeping things as simple as possible. I use only what is needed for a particular piece of audio. On my recordings I'm only using Mouth De-click, de-esser, and loudness meter. One of the biggest things I've learned from working with and mentoring other editors is that we all work differently and have differing professional needs. There isn't one right or wrong way of approaching things. I know my life would be so much simpler if my clients could give me audio that needed very little work, but that is not my reality.
Thoughtful interview, Jesse. I'd never use Hindenburg for what I do - Audacity and Reaper do just fine. Your description of Hindenburg leadership and customer service responses and what sounds like vaporware promises, reminds me of the Commodore Amiga which was my first computer. That kind of stuff did them in - small company - tunnel-vision owner and profiteer - always trying to sell new faster machines to a fixed customer base - more and more of them peeling off and moving to the PC or Mac for wider and more stable software selection. Still miss it as a fun machine that did some things very well - but not keeping up with user wish-list stuff killed it.
Thanks, Jack. I feel Hindenburg has done a good job of creating an easy to use DAW for dialog editors and version 1 was solid. I don't think there were vaporware promises, t least not yet. I think they have every intention of delivering those features, but lack the leadership experience to know that there are two options here:
• announce the new features that will be included, but make it clear they will not be available on release day and give an estimate of when to expect them to be released
• only announce the features that will ship on release day
My friend had a Commodore Amiga. It was the first computer I got to use outside of computer day at school. I don't remember much about it, though since I was still a kid.
"but not keeping up with user wish-list stuff killed it." This is where Hindenburg is right now. There are so many companies building a lot of brand loyalty by listening to the needs and wants of their clients. Hindenburg doesn't function this way and seem to not see how much damage they are inflicting on their brand reputation. Brand is everything these days if a company wants to become successful.
@@jesse.mccune Sounds like Hindenburg ought read up on the difference between a push and pull system of design. What you're describing is a push system and users won't stand for that for long.
@ilblues I'm unfamiliar with those methods, but I get the gist. There are a few things they could benefit from by reading up on if they want to remain a sustainable company or grow into something more than a niche product for radio producers.
After having used Hindenburg Pro for several years - having paid for a "perpetual" license - I was more than disappointed and annoyed when they stopped supporting H1 and went to the subscription model. I ultimately purchased the new subscription version at the "reduced" price for those who had licenses for the original version. My annual renewal came due a month or so ago. I thought long and hard before committing to another year. I like the functionality of the application and use it to produce several podcasts. Your description about how they handled the launch is spot on. It was terrible. Some features promised with great fanfare now aren't even mentioned. Their silence is deafening. I hope they get their act together, but it seems like they continue to limp along slowly. I'm likely going to move my production to Reaper as the year rolls on. Such a shame.
It's definitely been a bumpy transition from H1 to H2. Out of curiosity, did you know they offered H2 with a perpetual license, or did you knowingly choose the subscription?
I like the ideas that Hindenburg offers, but many times it feels like they miss the mark. They created a tool that could become a powerful program if they could get out of their own way and start doing product and market research. I had a conversation with Nick, who's a nice guy, but I didn't feel like I was being listened to as a frustrated customer. I heard a lot of excuses and the only real acknowledgment was he agreeing the roll out was terrible.
He said they will start creating features that will appeal to the more experienced engineers and editors, but we'll have to be patient. I don't know how much patience I have left at this point. There were comments that the bugs and flaws with the program are because of the platform and not actually bugs with Hindenburg. As a user, I don't care where the blame lies, I just know that I dealing with constant bugs. Even if it's the platform they have built Hindenburg on, who chose that platform? My general takeaway was that Hindenburg either doesn't have the resources to hire the staff they need or the experience to understand why it's hurting them to keep operating the way they have been.
The way they've handled the rollout and customer feedback is the type of mishap that damages brands in deep ways and they still have done nothing to try to fix that. I tried to get through to Nick that the silence is the thing that has really made things worse for many of us and that it would help if they started communicating more. He said they were going to start doing that. I haven't really seen that. Their latest release with the Effects Presets, which is likely to be a big thing for most of their serious users, was quietly released. No announcements, no emails. I only knew about it because someone in my community asked about it. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have concerns that they will indeed get their act together.
@@jesse.mccune Totally agree. Props to you for reaching out to Nick and other Hindenburg people. I was aware of the new perpetual license option, but I wasn't - and still am not - sure they're going to last long enough to make the new perpetual license fee worth the money. As time permits I'm playing with Reaper as a potential replacement. It's overkill for podcast editing, but other than a one time fee of $60, there's no recurring annual or large upfront expense. We'll see how things go over the coming months. I enjoy H2's ease of use and basic features, but unless I see significant change in their communications and development, progress over the coming months, my thinking is now it's time to move on next year, probably to Reaper.
@@StephenCarterStressExpert With Reaper, I believe that $60 buys you all updates for a single version ... i.e., when I bought 6, I was golden until they came out with 7 and then had to pay again or stick with 6.
@StephenCarterStressExpert It was actually Nick who initiated the conversation because I've encountered so many bugs over the last year under the premise of giving some context. That context sounded more like excuses and justifications than one of listening to my experience and feedback.
Nick is a nice guy and passionate about what they do. He does want to make Hindenburg a great tool for audio storytellers. And his definition of audio storytellers are radio shows and narrative style podcasts. It left me with the feeling that interview podcasts are something they don't really know much about or even care about. Comments like "if you need more than 6 plugins you're overthinking it" and "we can't create a strip silence tool because people will misuse it and ruin things by removing all the ambiance".
I asked some questions about their brand and who their target audience is and he couldn't answer. They market it as a tool for podcasters, but kind of look down on interview shows. There's something about some of these older radio guys where they look down on interview podcasts like they are lesser than. For me, I can't get fully behind a product when leadership keeps telling me their tool isn't meant for me. They've dug themselves into a giant hole and now have to figure out how to get out of it.
I've heard good things about Reaper. I wouldn't say it's any more overkill than any other DAW for editing podcasts. With the rate that Descript, Riverside, and Podcastle are developing, DAWs, even Hindenburg, may well become overkill and something that only us dinosaurs use to edit.