Ask HN: Why is Zoom audio quality better?
What? After getting a proper audio setup for videoconferencing (studio quality) my jaw dropped on the floor when I realized how BAD Zoom&#x27;s audio quality is. It&#x27;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.<p>A lot of WebRTC software made by hobbyists has usually much better quality than Zoom has.<p>PS: Zoom also sucks in their over-compressed 720p. I use a Canon camera with a separate HDMI-&gt;USB encoder and what I get straight from that setup vs what Zoom can handle are two different worlds. Shame, again.<p>PS2: I&#x27;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&#x27;t even comparable to something like mid-range Polycom ;&#x2F;<p>I use Zoom a lot, but let&#x27;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&#x27;t want to pay for bandwidth...<p>I can understand, though, that someone who uses only a laptop for calls might be in love with Zoom. Myself I&#x27;ll rather zoom out of that product toward something better focused on quality, especially audio. Immersive experience is important to me. I don&#x27;t expect that much. Just a stable 1080p (sharp!) and a RedBook audio.<p>(before anyone is going to ask: I sit on a 1 Gbps fiber... And my PC is an i7 with 16GB RAM)