
Ask HN: Why is Zoom audio quality better? - miohtama
I am regularly having video and audio calls with participants all around the world, often having participants from three different continents on the same call. I have experience on Google Meet, Skype, Zoom, WhatsApp and many others.<p>Though I have had a subjective experience that Zoom has better audio quality, yesterday we did a test by having the same meeting in both Meet and Zoom. All participants agreed the audio quality was better for them (even with video turned on).<p>Why is this? Are Zoom&#x27;s codecs superior? Does Zoom have an internal network which routes better than public internet WebRTC? Do they have better voice picking and echo cancellations?
======
user_agent
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
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
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!

