Research suggests that poor audio quality during video calls can negatively impact how others perceive us. A study found that "tinny" or distorted audio leads to participants being judged as less competent, less influential, and less likeable, regardless of the actual quality of their contributions. This "zoom bias" stems from our brains associating poor sound with lower status, mirroring how we perceive voices in the natural world. This effect can have significant consequences in professional settings, potentially hindering career advancement and impacting team dynamics.
The article explores YouTube's audio quality by providing several blind listening tests comparing different formats, including Opus 128 kbps (YouTube Music), AAC 128 kbps (regular YouTube), and original, lossless WAV files. The author concludes that while discerning the difference between lossy and lossless audio on YouTube can be challenging, it is possible, especially with higher-quality headphones and focused listening. Opus generally performs better than AAC, exhibiting fewer compression artifacts. Ultimately, while YouTube's audio quality isn't perfect for audiophiles, it's generally good enough for casual listening, and the average listener likely won't notice significant differences.
HN users largely discuss their own experiences with YouTube's audio quality, generally agreeing it's noticeably compressed but acceptable for casual listening. Some point out the loudness war is a major factor, with dynamic range compression being a bigger culprit than the codec itself. A few users mention preferring specific codecs like Opus, and some suggest using third-party tools to download higher-quality audio. Several commenters highlight the variability of audio quality depending on the uploader, noting that some creators prioritize audio and others don't. Finally, the limitations of perceptual codecs and the tradeoff between quality and bandwidth are discussed.
Summary of Comments ( 105 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43495465
HN users discuss various aspects of audio quality affecting perceived competence in video calls. Several point out that poor audio makes it harder to understand speech, thus impacting the listener's perception of the speaker's intelligence. Some commenters highlight the class disparity exacerbated by differing audio quality, with those lacking high-end equipment at a disadvantage. Others suggest the issue isn't solely audio, but also includes video quality and internet stability. A few propose solutions, like better noise-cancellation algorithms and emphasizing good meeting etiquette. Finally, some note that pre-recorded, edited content further skews perceptions of "professionalism" compared to the realities of live communication.
The Hacker News post titled "Zoom bias: The social costs of having a 'tinny' sound during video conferences" has a moderate number of comments discussing the linked article's findings. Several compelling threads of conversation emerge.
Some users corroborate the study's findings with their own anecdotal experiences. One commenter mentions that they consciously try to make their audio sound better for important meetings, acknowledging the perceived link between audio quality and perceived competence. Others describe situations where poor audio quality has led to miscommunication, frustration, and a diminished perception of the speaker. These personal accounts lend credence to the study's claims, highlighting the real-world impact of "tinny" audio.
Another line of discussion revolves around the technical reasons behind poor audio quality and potential solutions. Commenters discuss the limitations of built-in laptop microphones and the benefits of using external microphones, headsets, and noise-cancelling software. Some also point out the role of internet bandwidth and connection stability in affecting audio quality. This technical discussion offers practical advice for mitigating the issues raised in the article.
A few commenters express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability. They question whether the specific audio manipulations used in the study accurately reflect real-world scenarios and if the results can be extrapolated to broader populations. This critical perspective adds nuance to the discussion, encouraging a more cautious interpretation of the study's conclusions.
Finally, some comments touch on the broader implications of the study's findings, connecting them to existing biases related to accents, speech impediments, and technological access. This broader perspective highlights the potential for audio quality to exacerbate existing inequalities and emphasizes the importance of addressing these issues in a thoughtful and equitable manner. The conversation also touches upon the increasing importance of audio quality in the modern workplace and the need for employers to provide adequate resources to ensure clear communication.