5 ms·

What? After getting a proper audio setup for videoconferencing (studio quality) my jaw dropped on the floor when I realized how BAD Zoom's audio quality is. It'

What? After getting a proper audio setup for videoconferencing (studio quality) my jaw dropped on the floor when I realized how BAD Zoom's audio quality is. It's comparable to a 128 Kbps mp3 file. The only thing they do well is noise cancellation. That whole Zoom thing is built for people using their MacBooks with built-in microphones and speakers, and these are THE LOWEST quality possible. A set of those internal peripheral costs maybe $4. I was expecting something close to a RedBook (uncompressed 16 bit 44.1 kHz) quality investing money in a good microphone and an audio interface. Money wasted. A lot of WebRTC software made by hobbyists has usually much better quality than Zoom has. PS: Zoom also sucks in their over-compressed 720p. I use a Canon camera with a separate HDMI->USB encoder and what I get straight from that setup vs what Zoom can handle are two different worlds. Shame, again. PS2: I've been using videoconferencing tools since 1995 (I was also selling high end ones like Cisco) for a long time. The quality delivered by them has been very good for a really long time. Zoom isn't even comparable to something like mid-range Polycom ;/ I use Zoom a lot, but let's be honest - the only good things about it is price and reliability (and good noise canceling tailored up to shitty laptop microphones). I tell you, guys, the Zoom people don't want to pay for bandwidth... I can understand, though, that someone who uses only a laptop for calls might be in love with Zoom. Myself I'll rather zoom out of that product toward something better focused on quality, especially audio. Immersive experience is important to me. I don't expect that much. Just a stable 1080p (sharp!) and a RedBook audio. (before anyone is going to ask: I sit on a 1 Gbps fiber... And my PC is an i7 with 16GB RAM)

AOsborn 6y ago
Everything you mentioned makes sense - video streaming is far from my area of expertise. But you may have missed what I think is the major point in the OP: for the majority of customers, Zoom appears to have far better audio quality out-of-the-box versus other major players in the market. You mentioned optimizing for MacBooks with built-in microphones and speakers, and I think that is exactly the point. The number of users that have a fully equipped setup will be a tiny minority. I think the best things about Zoom are the optimized UX in terms of getting into a call, and then the decent quality. They have definitely converted our company into paying customers. I only have anecdotal evidence, but we're continually asking our staff and all the clients we call with how the quality is, and everyone has mentioned Zoom is much better than the alternative we have been trying. Do you have any thoughts on why/how Zoom appears to have much higher quality than say Skype/Google Hangouts without the need for additional equipment? For us, the major use case is getting a random client on a call easily, with a reliable signal and clear audio, using their current equipment - they are never going to buy additional equipment or configure peripherals .
- user_agent 6y ago
  Sure, even if it doesn't look like so, I'm happy that Zoom exists. I use it every day without thinking about it at all. This is how technology should work. It should be transparent. Moreover, I myself converted at least 7 companies to use it instead of other solutions. > Do you have any thoughts on why/how Zoom appears to have much higher quality than say Skype/Google Hangouts without the need for additional equipment? Zoom founders are former Cisco guys. They took let's say 70% of what's the best Cisco has developed in terms of know how and started selling it for pennies. So, they have a lot of experience with that kind of tech. That results in: a great noise cancellation by default, extra good algorithms for balancing sound levels between participant (that might be even the most unique on the market), an algorithm that can focus on (also audio) for a currently speaking person - working VERY fast. It also seems that they leverage a big cloud provider for low latency between ALL continents (tested, 4 way connection between the US, Asia, Europe and Iceland - works probably better than anything their competition can offer). One must remember, though, that the initial cost of development of all of that, plus the cloud costs (it must be a lot, this is why they forbidden 1080p and HD voice) must have been very large when they had started. The only other company I've seen doing that in the last couple of years was Star Leaf (they were like a father to Zoom), and they are... I'm not sure if they're out of the market or in just a bad financial shape. Financially it's a high-level game. No wonder there's not that much actual competition. Only on the first glance all those products look similar, but Zoom is like what Skype was for regular people 10 years ago, although for enterprise. Microsoft is entirely different beast, and Google is just a joke for hipsters. Skype belongs to Microsoft, and they went the UC way (like unified comms market does it always) - I mean that they assume you're going to make your config tailored up to your situation; which comes down to dedicated rooms, DSP processors, etc. Zoom went with completely different approach - everything is configured with some assumptions in mind. They are like Apple. They want you not to see all the files on your HD by default. No wonder it works wonder for a lot of people. Especially those non-technical ones! It just works at least reasonably well. It's hard to argue with the fact that Zoom has nailed it from the very start. They made a bet and now they can enjoy the results. Being former Cisco guys, I'd just expect them to strive for quality too, but that's not going to happen. It's crystal clear now - even providing advanced encryption is now a big deal. They are going to be like Apple. That has both pros and cons. Up to everyone to decide for oneself, exactly as it should be. Yet, I'd like to point to the fact, that the paramount value in videoconferencing since always was immersion. Now the market decided it wants more of the cheap+fast+I-don't-wan't -to-thing-about-it stuff. I want videocalls to be like in SF novels! I want it commonly used and 4k with ultra-HD voice, with multi-directional audio coming from like 7 different directions. I want immersion. I must be biased though, because I work remotely and I prefer it over other options ;) Howk!

AOsborn 6y ago

Everything you mentioned makes sense - video streaming is far from my area of expertise. But you may have missed what I think is the major point in the OP: for the majority of customers, Zoom appears to have far better audio quality out-of-the-box versus other major players in the market. You mentioned optimizing for MacBooks with built-in microphones and speakers, and I think that is exactly the point. The number of users that have a fully equipped setup will be a tiny minority. I think the best things about Zoom are the optimized UX in terms of getting into a call, and then the decent quality. They have definitely converted our company into paying customers. I only have anecdotal evidence, but we're continually asking our staff and all the clients we call with how the quality is, and everyone has mentioned Zoom is much better than the alternative we have been trying. Do you have any thoughts on why/how Zoom appears to have much higher quality than say Skype/Google Hangouts without the need for additional equipment? For us, the major use case is getting a random client on a call easily, with a reliable signal and clear audio, using their current equipment - they are never going to buy additional equipment or configure peripherals .

user_agent 6y ago
Sure, even if it doesn't look like so, I'm happy that Zoom exists. I use it every day without thinking about it at all. This is how technology should work. It should be transparent. Moreover, I myself converted at least 7 companies to use it instead of other solutions. > Do you have any thoughts on why/how Zoom appears to have much higher quality than say Skype/Google Hangouts without the need for additional equipment? Zoom founders are former Cisco guys. They took let's say 70% of what's the best Cisco has developed in terms of know how and started selling it for pennies. So, they have a lot of experience with that kind of tech. That results in: a great noise cancellation by default, extra good algorithms for balancing sound levels between participant (that might be even the most unique on the market), an algorithm that can focus on (also audio) for a currently speaking person - working VERY fast. It also seems that they leverage a big cloud provider for low latency between ALL continents (tested, 4 way connection between the US, Asia, Europe and Iceland - works probably better than anything their competition can offer). One must remember, though, that the initial cost of development of all of that, plus the cloud costs (it must be a lot, this is why they forbidden 1080p and HD voice) must have been very large when they had started. The only other company I've seen doing that in the last couple of years was Star Leaf (they were like a father to Zoom), and they are... I'm not sure if they're out of the market or in just a bad financial shape. Financially it's a high-level game. No wonder there's not that much actual competition. Only on the first glance all those products look similar, but Zoom is like what Skype was for regular people 10 years ago, although for enterprise. Microsoft is entirely different beast, and Google is just a joke for hipsters. Skype belongs to Microsoft, and they went the UC way (like unified comms market does it always) - I mean that they assume you're going to make your config tailored up to your situation; which comes down to dedicated rooms, DSP processors, etc. Zoom went with completely different approach - everything is configured with some assumptions in mind. They are like Apple. They want you not to see all the files on your HD by default. No wonder it works wonder for a lot of people. Especially those non-technical ones! It just works at least reasonably well. It's hard to argue with the fact that Zoom has nailed it from the very start. They made a bet and now they can enjoy the results. Being former Cisco guys, I'd just expect them to strive for quality too, but that's not going to happen. It's crystal clear now - even providing advanced encryption is now a big deal. They are going to be like Apple. That has both pros and cons. Up to everyone to decide for oneself, exactly as it should be. Yet, I'd like to point to the fact, that the paramount value in videoconferencing since always was immersion. Now the market decided it wants more of the cheap+fast+I-don't-wan't -to-thing-about-it stuff. I want videocalls to be like in SF novels! I want it commonly used and 4k with ultra-HD voice, with multi-directional audio coming from like 7 different directions. I want immersion. I must be biased though, because I work remotely and I prefer it over other options ;) Howk!