Cyndy Green and Howard Owens have been [exchanging comments about sound on video](http://cyndygreen.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/good-audio-bad-audio/#comments). Cyndy’s original view being that audio is one of those things that needs to be done ‘right’, Howard’s main point being that it isn’t the kit but the training that will make audio ‘good enough’

I’m still getting my head round the finer points of Howard’s what we could be doing vs. what the audience will stand approach to reporter shot video – I know, I know, disruptive technology, innovators dilemma and all that – but he makes a fair point and one I agree with wholeheartedly – better training and you can over come some of the problems.

But I can also see Cyndy’s point. The training will only take you so far before low-cost kit lets you down. What do we do then?

But,I will walk away from that and put forward an alternative argument for better audio and why it is important.

If you have good quality audio then it can be re-used/re-purposed more effectively. Strip the audio from a video clip and use it as a stand-alone clip.Good audio can travel. What about secondary markets like radio or podcasts?

Now, I can already hear the repeated mantra of good enough here but there is a difference. The combination of good enough audio and pictures works because the one compensates the other. Without the pictures, audio isn’t good enough.

So, where the money/time/kit/skills allow, record the best you can. Maybe it’s an investment in getting better rather than good enough.