11 ms·
People vastly undervalue good audio quality. It also often makes the difference (given equal visuals) between great amateur and pro in e.g. the YouTube scene.
by diarrhea 6y ago
People vastly undervalue good audio quality. It also often makes the difference (given equal visuals) between great amateur and pro in e.g. the YouTube scene.
I didn't have data to back this up before, but I bought a good microphone specifically for this purpose. People will simply like the audio, and by extension what I am saying and also me as a person, better.
Meanwhile, my ears will continue to bleed from the awful audio people broadcast into this world. I wonder, most people must notice how terrible everyone in e.g. video conferences sounds; why don't they make the connection that they themselves have it in their hand to improve the situation? Maybe it's like wearing masks.
- ghaff 6y agoI think a lot of people get wrapped around the axle of having the "right" $500 microphone whereas there are a ton of decent USB mics under $100 that will make a big difference. Also consider a good external webcam and doing something about lighting if you can. I realize that not everyone has a great physical environment to work with. But I'm struck by how many people who seemingly haven't made any real effort after a year+.
- shoto_io 6y agoI have noticed with colleagues the insane improvements in video and audio after their amazon shopping sprees. At the same I haven’t updated my camera because I don’t have a nice room to work from and I feel a bit ashamed to show my tiny box with a high resolution... sounds weird, I know, but that’s how I feel
- ghaff 6y agoThere are things you can do with hangings and screens and so forth if you want to. I do have an office but my background includes some ugly file cabinets so I got a fabric print to hang over them. You can also do virtual backgrounds with a lot of software if you rig up a green screen. (That's not absolutely necessary but it tends to look bad otherwise.)
- aikinai 6y agoUse a longer lens and you won’t have to show any of your tiny box! I hooked up my mirrorless camera behind/on top of my monitor and have a 35mm (APS-C so 50mm equivalent) which is perfect to just frame my head and show basically nothing behind me. I don’t know why webcams are always so insanely wide; we don’t need to see your whole room with your head only taking up 5% of the frame. Just like audio, I wish everyone else would use this camera setup so I can see everyone clearly.
- ghaff 6y agoAs I said in another comment, I do have my DSLR setup. But for most purposes, I use my external webcam because it's just easier. I do zoom it in a bit (and agree with your general comment on field of view) but for routine video calls I also don't want to be tightly framed as I'm probably moving around a bit.
- asimpletune 6y ago“Why so wide” Maybe because the laptop case can only be so thick, which would limit focal length? I guess that could be improved by reducing sensor size but then it may affect performance in realistic lighting conditions.
- josephg 6y agoDo you have any recommendations for cameras? I've been using a macbook camera all year because all the cheapo logitech webcams on the market are clunky and look awful. What do you recommend?
- monkey_monkey 6y agoIf you have an iPhone, you could use that in conjunction with something like Reincubate's Camo. There was an interesting discussion about it on HN recently [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25869460 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25869460
- jon-wood 6y agoNot the GP, but I've been using a Razor Kiyo because it was about the only good quality camera available for a reasonable price back at the start of last year. The microphone on it is predictably terrible, but video quality is fantastic, and it has a ring of LEDs around which are suprisingly effective at dealing with the usual unhealthy glow given by sitting in front of a monitor.
- slantyyz 6y agoI'm using my retired Samsung A5 Android phone's rear facing camera connected via USB to my PC using DroidCam (costs a few bucks). DroidCam also does wifi, but I find USB to be better. The quality is pretty good from the A5, but if I need even better, I use my current phone's rear camera outputting to HDMI to an El Gato CamLink using Filmic (which outputs clean HDMI on Android or IOS, but isn't cheap as DroidCam). Filmic is definitely a step up from DroidCam, but fussier in terms of getting set up.
- justincormack 6y agoI tried using Filmic with iphone and hdmi capture but the latency was terrible. Is it ok with Android?
- slantyyz 6y agoIt's been a while since I used it, but IIRC, it seemed OK to me when I tested it, but you can always try lowering the resolution to reduce the latency.
- Tepix 6y agoIf you use a real camera with a fixed focus lens, the background will be blurry! You can use most photo cameras as a webcam with a cheap (less than $20) HDMI capture USB cable.
- bonoboTP 6y agoUse background replacement. Most videoconf software like Zoom have them.
- ghaff 6y agoUnless you have a green screen and proper lighting, my observation is that background replacement is often obvious and distracting. (Background blurring is somewhat better.) My observation is that, once people got over the novelty, many stopped using it.
- bonoboTP 6y agoNoticeable yes, but you get to display a nice full bookshelf behind you instead of your messy bedroom. You'll look smart.
- ghaff 6y agoFortunately I have an office I was able to more or less stage manage. You're right that in a lot of circumstances virtual backgrounds will still be better than reality.
- Macha 6y agoWhy? The audio component, if it's bad, makes you hard to understand and makes its harder to contribute. The visual component is basically just a way for people to know that I'm there and a backup channel to indicate that yes, I am aware meet has once again decided not to recognise my mic and that I'm working on it. If I find a workplace that's ergonomic and works with my home environment, then the fact that there's a window with bright objects visible behind it that screws with the auto balance on the webcam 2 hours a day is a distant concern. I'm not going to compromise on the prior points to fix that.
- ghaff 6y ago>Why? First of all I agree that if you could only fix one thing, audio should take priority. Fortunately that's pretty easy. I guess my context is that I'm on video a lot including with large audiences and for external consumption. So, yes, it matters to me whether my video is good. I also know people whose video is routinely terrible that they could likely improve significantly with very little effort.
- curryst 6y agoI don't have data, but I strongly suspect it has an impact in the same way audio does. That person who's office is so dark their webcam gets grainy trying to compensate just looks less professional. Like it or not, videoconferencing is becoming more and more a professional skill, and part of that skill is being able to get decent audio and video quality. > there's a window with bright objects visible behind it that screws with the auto balance on the webcam 2 hours a day is a distant concern On the other hand, those are the only two hours a day where you have anything approximating in-person contact with your coworkers. Those two hours probably have an outsized effect on what your coworkers think of you.
- CharlesW 6y ago> I think a lot of people get wrapped around the axle of having the "right" $500 microphone whereas there are a ton of decent USB mics under $100 that will make a big difference. Yes! Even a Monoprice $20 dynamic mic is probably not going to be the weak point in your audio path. > Also consider a good external webcam and doing something about lighting if you can. Another great point. An Elgato Key Light Air is $130, and made a huge difference for me.
- ghaff 6y agoI got one of those lights as well. The lighting in my office is pretty good and I could probably use one of my dual monitors as effectively a lightbox if I had to. But the Key Light makes it really easy to adjust frontal lighting so it's balanced with my track lights and natural light coming into the room. (Both of which I tend to ratchet down when I'm doing video for more even lighting.)
- hctaw 6y ago> I think a lot of people get wrapped around the axle of having the "right" $500 microphone whereas there are a ton of decent USB mics under $100 There are diminishing returns for sure. But something worth considering is anything priced over $200 is likely closer to "pro" than "sumer' and is priced accordingly. You don't need an SM7 if you're not making money with it... and it's priced for those folks. It's actually remarkable how much better all-in-one USB mics have gotten in the last 5-ish years since everyone began streaming - a Blue Yeti has an integrated ADC/preamp, its own stand, and comes with a cable. A SM58 ($100) will require an XLR cable ($10-15), audio interface ($50-100), and mic stand ($10-20) to have the same experience. Granted, that 58 will outlive you and you can mic anything with it anywhere, the cable will probably last a long time and can be repaired by hand, and the cheapest USB audio interfaces have lower noise and better preamps than any USB mic. So you get what you pay for.
- ghaff 6y agoI usually use a Blue Snowball although I also have Behringer XLR mics that plug into my mixer for specific purposes (mostly recording podcasts whether remote or in-person).
- hctaw 6y agoI know they've made great strides but "Behringer" is a bigger indicator of quality than XLR or USB in that sentence. Blue at least has been making good mics for their entire existence (I use a Snowball too, it's great for my day to day calls). They've managed to stay pretty good since the Logitech acquisition, and prices have come down with scale.
- ghaff 6y agoI don't know. I don't exactly have a "radio voice" and my Behringer mics seem to work fine--together with a mixer that is way higher-end than the mics in general. Again, for most people, there's a huge leap from built into laptop to just about anything else.
- kps 6y ago
- enragedcacti 6y agoIn my discord calls we have effectively resorted to shaming people into accepting a gifted clip-on amazon mic if they have an awful microphone. $10 every couple of months and no ear bleeding. That said, I really think some people are just immune to it. My mom for instance prefers to use the standard definition channels because the channel numbers are easier to remember and type. She says she can't tell the difference between that and full HD so :shrug:
- Al-Khwarizmi 6y agoAnd that's why I move the HD channels to the numbers of the traditional ones.
- andrewnicolalde 6y agoHow are you doing that?
- Al-Khwarizmi 6y agoOh, sorry, I was talking about the traditional TV that comes through the old standard antenna cable. In those, the TV itself lets you do it, but I realize that it may not be possible in paid TV services. I wonder why they don't themselves move the HD channels forward, though... I suppose by now, an overwhelming majority of TVs have HD.
- hnlmorg 6y agoI don't understand why those TV services don't have channel translation. Where the HD boxes default to the HD channels and the SD boxes default to the SD channels.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoYour television probably lets you remap it, in the settings near retune.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
- ryankrage77 6y agoTomska used to have a video mentioning this (though in the context of making YouTube videos), in which he demonstated that video from a iPhone camera in conjunction with a professional mic was much more watchable than video from a professional camera with an iPhone mic. Sadly the video seems to have been removed, the only reference I could find was the last paragraph of this Wired Article, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tomska-wired-2015 https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tomska-wired-2015. "use any camera, but get a good microphone. 'I started with a camera that's probably about ten times worse than the one in my phone,' he said. 'Bad sound will make anyone close a video in three seconds flat. Get a good microphone before you get a good camera.'"
- criddell 6y agoIs there some way on the iPhone / iPad to shoot video with a Bluetooth mic? I bought a BT lapel mic and whenever it was connected to the phone, it showed up as headphones and audio wouldn't play from the phone until I disconnected it. If Bluetooth is the wrong technology, what would you recommend?
- jtbayly 6y agoBluetooth is wrong because it is almost always low quality. You need a wired mic.
- criddell 6y agoIs the audio quality recorded from a Bluetooth microphone worse than audio played through Bluetooth headphones? (ie is recording worse than playback?) If not, then that's okay because Bluetooth headphones sound fine. A wired mic isn't really an option in the environment I want to film in but I want something better than the on-camera mic because I'm occasionally pretty far away from the camera. I also don't want the hassle of recording audio on a separate audio recorder and then mixing that into my video. I want decent audio from a wireless mic recorded onto the phone video. I didn't think that was a big ask...
- 6y ago
- jiggawatts 6y agoBecause in most cases, people can't hear their own audio quality. They only hear the poor audio quality of other people in the conference.
- BeFlatXIII 6y agoTo add to the audio quality discussion, well-meaning people who want to improve their quality often make the mistake of buying the mic with the best spec sheet. That ultra-sensitive microphone will make you sound more natural than your built-in mic, but it will also pick up dogs barking down the street and your neighbor mowing her lawn. If you’re not in a studio-like office, a less-sensitive dynamic microphone is often better than the condenser with better specs. That said, both options will greatly improve your voice.
- jtbayly 6y agoNot sure why this was flagged dead, but it seems like a reasonable comment to me.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoAs someone who knows nothing about audio: wouldn't it make more sense to get a top quality microphone and apply post-processing, rather than deliberately getting inferior hardware?
- bberenberg 6y agoMade for purpose is not the same thing as inferior. You can dig with a shovel or a spade. Each was made for a purpose. Buying a mic with the right pickup pattern is buying a tool that is there for your specific purpose.
- dr_zoidberg 6y agoYou have to run that postprocessing somehow, and sometimes videoconferencing software doesn't give you that flexibility. So then you have to set a up a virtual microphone, which might be a hassle in your platform. At that point, and as you said, considering that you may not know enough about audio on how to set that up, you're much better with an easy-to-use, dynamic microphone that does much of what you need on its own.
- AstralStorm 6y agoWell, given that most people still use Windows, VB-Audio software mixer and virtual soundcard plus Cantabile as effect host together work exceedingly well. And cost nothing or very little. (But do support the authors.) Hardware has ease of setup and excellent knobs going for it, but if you're going for cheap, you should spend money on a condenser microphone, some mounting hardware (e.g. gooseneck, spider mount, maybe pop filter) and audio interface first. $200 put there makes for professional quality audio. t.bone SC 400 and an interface that does phantom power, like one of the cheaper Focusrite or Presonus ones. (If you feel extra cheap, you can go lower price on interfaces but it's not worth it.)
- hn8788 6y agoI feel the same way about audio quality. There are enough people making informative videos on similar topics that bad audio is a deal breaker, so I'll look around until I find one that doesn't sound like it was recorded on a 5 dollar walmart microphone.
- himinlomax 6y ago> People vastly undervalue good audio quality Providers of conferencing tools undervalue audio quality as well, as evidenced by the fact that they don't provide tools that have been common for audio recording for nearly a century, such as simple vu-meters.
- formerly_proven 6y agoOkay, you are suggesting something (level meters, "you are clipping the shit out of your input"-indicators) that would actively improve things. Let me suggest instead that they shall start by not actively harming things. Microsoft Teams is an excellent study subject for "how on earth do you make something this bad while owning all of Skype's IP?".
- xenocratus 6y ago> my ears will continue to bleed from the awful audio people broadcast into this world. I wonder, most people must notice how terrible everyone in e.g. video conferences sounds; If it is physically hurting your ears or being difficult to follow then it's understandable, but otherwise (as you mention with the masks) this sounds very superficial. Do you also complain about people wearing the wrong kind of clothes (and I don't mean tailored confederate flags)? I hope to one day see the day when most people realise it's none of their business how others present themselves.
- gbrown 6y agoThis isn’t an issue of fashion, it’s an issue of cognitive load. Bad audio is distracting, and requires more mental work to process. It’s fatiguing, and as someone who spends an absurd amount of time doing video conferencing, it makes a huge difference. I’m also a teacher, so I bought a nice microphone and some acoustic panels to help my students focus on the material.
- simplyinfinity 6y agoAcoustics & audio quality is important when trying to pay attention. Crappy acoustics can fatigue you and give you headache. Crappy audio can distract you, make you mishear things and overall is tiring to listen to. I've skipped online videos and lectures due to crap audio. I've gotten headaches and sore throat after sitting & talking in echo-y rooms for 30 mins.
- xenocratus 6y agoFair, though I meant complaining about understandable (but low-quality) audio or video.
- recursive 6y agoComprehensibility isn't yes/no. There are a lot of recordings that are possible to understand, but are a lot more work. I have this complaint about phone calls all the time. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because people on a phone call are so hard to understand. Yet voice memos I record on my own phone are basically fine. I assume it's because phone audio goes through some tortured path with 12 layers of translation and compression or something, but it's irritating to me.
- PascLeRasc 6y agoFor me it’s because we aren’t allowed to have nice audio. I’ve been working from my music desk all pandemic, with several microphones, preamps, sound insulation panels, boom stands and pop filters, and I can’t use any of them with my work computer. I’ve bought and returned several interfaces and can’t get Windows to connect to any of them. I have Airpods Pro as well and Microsoft Teams won’t allow me to join meetings with them connected. I finally found one interface that works with Windows and Teams permits me to join with, and when I speak Teams detects it and pops up a “your microphone doesn’t work with Teams” error. So laptop mic is what I’m stuck with.
- delecti 6y agoIs it possible there are corporate policies affecting accessory compatibility? I've never had an issue with literally any audio device I've tried to use Teams with, and I've tried a decent variety.
- formerly_proven 6y agoMaybe some corpo bullshit fiddling with drivers? One of the bottom-of-the-barrel-but-actually-still-ok interfaces might be worth a try. E.g. the Behringer UMC22 has a PCM2906 clone in it, which doesn't even have any drivers, it's just straight USB audio class, supported right out of the box in Windows.
- scottious 6y ago> It also often makes the difference (given equal visuals) between great amateur and pro in e.g. the YouTube scene. Good audio and good lighting can really make all the difference. It pains me because it's actually a very cheap problem to solve. Lighting, an audio interface, and a decent mic could cost no more than a few hundred dollars for a starter pack. I'm on conference calls all the time where people have overhead lighting that makes them look like a sith lord and their mic is trash and picks up way too much room sounds and echos. It makes them look and sound bad. People notice that stuff.
- augustk 6y agoI have always found it fascinating (and strange) that sound reproduction needs to be really bad before people in general complain. Compare this to image and video reproduction where most people are much more aware of the quality. It seems like most people have trained eyes but not ears.
- diarrhea 6y agoMy theory is that people have been conditioned to dirt poor audio quality from telephones, over many decades. Phone quality can still be bad.
- kingsuper20 6y ago"People vastly undervalue good audio quality." Absodamnlutely. Perhaps I'm over sensitive to video and audio quality issues due to my work life, but I absolutely can't believe how poor audio quality can be in the wild. Lack of full duplex, latency on phones and conference gizmos are bad enough, but I'm always blown away by the shite quality you run into for recorded university lectures and speeches. It makes you want to shake people like a rag. Also, people don't appreciate how much more important audio quality is then video. You can get away with a lot in video, it's true to the extent that audio data flow is used as the master clock. note to self: I wonder how far we are from improving recorded lectures/speeches via speech->text followed by text->speech as opposed to post-processing the audio. By passing through timing information you could even keep the cadence of the talking.
- hardwaregeek 6y agoAgreed. My experience from watching some...challenging films in small film festivals is that bad picture can be tolerated, while bad audio will utterly ruin a film.
- Turing_Machine 6y agoJust about every resource (books, websites, videos...) for indie film makers makes a point of stressing the absolute importance of good audio, but it's still often ignored. As you say, people will forgive bad image quality before they will forgive bad audio.