Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth
somewhere in the link.

On Saturday, 2 May 2020 14:05:29 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth
somewhere in the link.

And a lot of people are finding that the 16 Mbps ADSL connection that is fine for downloading doesn't cope very well when the upload speed is only 1 Mbps or lower, which they don't normally do, but videoconferencing taxes both directions of the link.

At 1 Mbps up I find even sending large emails can cause connection timeouts.

Owain

On 02/05/2020 20:56, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 14:05:29 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth
somewhere in the link.

And a lot of people are finding that the 16 Mbps ADSL connection that is fine for downloading doesn't cope very well when the upload speed is only 1 Mbps or lower, which they don't normally do, but videoconferencing taxes both directions of the link.

At 1 Mbps up I find even sending large emails can cause connection timeouts.

Owain

Ah yes, but some of us remember dialup, when we could only dream of 56kb/s

On Saturday, 2 May 2020 21:34:46 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Ah yes, but some of us remember dialup, when we could only dream of 56kb/s

Hah. I remember the first time I saw a dialup connection.

300/300 was a dream then. Most of us walked to the terminal rooms on campus.

Owain

On Saturday, 2 May 2020 21:34:46 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 02/05/2020 20:56, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 14:05:29 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth
somewhere in the link.

And a lot of people are finding that the 16 Mbps ADSL connection that is fine for downloading doesn't cope very well when the upload speed is only 1 Mbps or lower, which they don't normally do, but videoconferencing taxes both directions of the link.

At 1 Mbps up I find even sending large emails can cause connection timeouts.

Owain

Ah yes, but some of us remember dialup, when we could only dream of 56kb/s

And I remember broadband with only 0.07 Mbps download. That was on 02/12/2019. The day before we got FTTP installed.

Thank heaven for having fibre made available - because I invoked political routes to put pressure on Openreach. It wasn't always as bad as 0.07, but it was very often appalling and never higher than 5 Mbps. With correspondingly awful upload. At least having usable broadband has helped hugely.

On 03/05/2020 08:05, polygonum_on_google wrote:

And I remember broadband with only 0.07 Mbps download. That was on 02/12/2019. The day before we got FTTP installed.

Thank heaven for having fibre made available - because I invoked political routes to put pressure on Openreach. It wasn't always as bad as 0.07, but it was very often appalling and never higher than 5 Mbps. With correspondingly awful upload. At least having usable broadband has helped hugely.


I suppose we have to be thankful for a interest topic that spurred the
developments of home cine & video, home computer graphics, a deregulated
'free' internet and got us this high speed broadband.

If Mary Whitehouse ...

--
Adrian C

On 02/05/2020 20:56, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 14:05:29 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth
somewhere in the link.

And a lot of people are finding that the 16 Mbps ADSL connection that is fine for downloading doesn't cope very well when the upload speed is only 1 Mbps or lower, which they don't normally do, but videoconferencing taxes both directions of the link.

At 1 Mbps up I find even sending large emails can cause connection timeouts.


Even on higher bandwidth links you can run into problems with VoIP and
video conferencing applications, when other applications are competing
for the same data link. Even though the actual total throughput required
may not necessarily be that high, it is very latency sensitive.

Hence you might have perfect chat / video quality until one of the
computers decides to check for email, or someone has a quick browse of a
web page. That can be enough to introduce a glitch in the flow of data
that is visible or audible.

To fix this properly, you need a router that understands concepts like
bandwidth reservation, and tuneable Quality of Service bands. So that it
can recognise these real time protocols being run through
them, and prevent other applications having their packets gain priority
over the real time ones.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are
notoriously crap and of course too far away to be very good. Use separate
mikes close to the speaking personage.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

Unless using *very* ancient hardware, almost certainly bandwidth somewhere
in the link.

Brian Gaff wrote:

One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are
notoriously crap and of course too far away to be very good. Use separate
mikes close to the speaking personage.

Counter-intuitively I've found the exact opposite ...

When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an
external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first
tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too
quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe
I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni.

Later I updated my webcam to HD logitech C920 I tried using its built in
(array of?) mics and haven't had a single complaint since, the behringer
box is relegated to being a headphone amp.

On 03/05/2020 09:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

One other thing is try to stop other people using webcam mikes they are
notoriously crap and of course too far away to be veryÂ* good. Use
separate
mikes close to the speaking personage.

Counter-intuitively I've found the exact opposite ...

When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an
external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first
tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too
quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe
I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni.

Later I updated my webcam to HD logitech C920 I tried using its built in
(array of?) mics and haven't had a single complaint since, the behringer
box is relegated to being a headphone amp.

As I it here my webcam mike is about 12" away. Perfect distance in a
quiet environment.

Any closer and breath noise starts to be an issue.

Also for vocal clarity one wants to curtail the bass and extreme
treble. We are not recording opera, we are trying to talk to people

It is a constant surprise to me how good modern microphone capsules are

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an
external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first
tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too
quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe
I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni.

My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and
a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth.

I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is
accessing it.

However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if
this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be
nearer flat.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an
external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first
tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too
quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe
I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni.

My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and
a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth.

I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is
accessing it.

However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if
this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be
nearer flat.

when I use Zoom, I am offered a "check mic level" screen

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
When I started using skype for business about 3 years ago, I bought an
external USB audio interface providing phantom power for XLR mics, first
tried a large cardioid mic, got endless complaints about it being too
quiet (I do speak quietly) also tried a lav mic, not much better, maybe
I got the "wrong" type i.e. directional vs omni.

My laptop sets the gain automatically. Works on both the internal mic and
a headset - where the mic is very close to the mouth.

Maybe the OP's mic was a real capacitor mic, rather then an electret
one; I doubt the automatic level control would work with that.




I'd expect it to do the same with any mic - assuming the same software is
accessing it.

However 'web' mics seem to have a very bright frequency response. Dunno if
this is the mic itself or tweaked in software. A decent studio mic will be
nearer flat.


--

Roger Hayter

On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

Internet congestion or other issue that affects latency or transfer rate
mostly. Live video and sound are highly timing-dependent, obviously.

If you use pro videoconferencing or proper IP telephony you'd generally
set up QoS (quality of service) to prioritise the traffic over any other
stuff, but of course, over the Internet as a whole that cannot be
quaranteed. Every bit of pixelisation or garbled bit of speech is
basically packet loss, because as it is real time, if something arrives
out-of-order or too late, it has to be thrown away. In a normal
download, or streaming music, you can just build up a buffer and wait
for re-transmission, but that's no good for real-time, so compression
increases to try to reduce data rate (and therefore hopefully improve
latency a bit). If we use the videoconference equipment at work over a
LAN it is amazingly clear, if it goes over the Internet quality drops
accordingly.

On some video meetings with colleagues over the last few weeks, it's
been noticeable that the ones on the same ISP as I am are that bit
clearer, as the latency is lower and the bitrate better. Generally even
a cheap smartphone or laptop has a camera good enough for decent quality.

Its normally the other ends bandwidth according to zoom themselves. It
improves if you use audio only but then I guess that would be so. Pity there
is no way of trading one off against the other. Its not just zoom though is
it, MS teams GoogleLook and Skype are just the same. I don't recall hearing
what the minimum specs are though.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't much
used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not bad,
sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing to suffer
the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can barely understand
what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

You don't give any indication of what your link speed to the internet
is, but mine is a poxy 5Mpbs and that will just about support full HD
live streaming with the occasional breakup of voice but most aggro is
caused by inexperienced people typing whilst using a laptops built in
mike or background noises off.

One mystery I have yet to fully understand is that every now and then a
random wiggly doodle in a primary colour usually green or red appears on
the shared screen to the mystification of the speaker. Looks like
someone's randomish mouse movements being shared with all and sundry.

Sometimes they vanish again and other times they persist until the end.

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

I have seen some pretty poxy webcams at the far end. Most often though
blasts of radio or TV in Zoom events where the host has unwisely unmuted
all participants and there are many including novices online at once.

The uplink speed ~1Mbps limits the video quality I can send back but
since it is only used as a thumbnail it hardly matters. The downlink is
more than adequate for a full HD presentation - although mostly of
static images being talked about rather then live action sports video.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't
much used before.

Picture and sound quality seems to vary dramatically. Sometimes not
bad, sometimes very poor. With the important part, the sound, seeing
to suffer the worst. Not much point in seeing someone if you can
barely understand what they're saying, due to a low data rate.

You don't give any indication of what your link speed to the internet
is, but mine is a poxy 5Mpbs and that will just about support full HD
live streaming with the occasional breakup of voice but most aggro is
caused by inexperienced people typing whilst using a laptops built in
mike or background noises off.

Sorry - FTC and about 70 Mbps

One mystery I have yet to fully understand is that every now and then a
random wiggly doodle in a primary colour usually green or red appears on
the shared screen to the mystification of the speaker. Looks like
someone's randomish mouse movements being shared with all and sundry.

Sometimes they vanish again and other times they persist until the end.

Not an raised hand symbol to ask the host to unmute that mic?

Is it their equipment (phone or whatever) or the internet links that are
making all the differences?

I have seen some pretty poxy webcams at the far end. Most often though
blasts of radio or TV in Zoom events where the host has unwisely unmuted
all participants and there are many including novices online at once.

The uplink speed ~1Mbps limits the video quality I can send back but
since it is only used as a thumbnail it hardly matters. The downlink is
more than adequate for a full HD presentation - although mostly of
static images being talked about rather then live action sports video.

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/05/2020 14:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/05/2020 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Like many, I'd guess, I'm now using apps like Zoom now that I hadn't
much used before.
[snip]

Sorry - FTC and about 70 Mbps

That should be more than enough unless there are terrible latencies.

What is the ping latency? Mine is a horrid 40ms so if there is any kind
of network stall the video freezes and then jumps. Sound usually buffers
OK or breaks up completely - most times for all participants.

One mystery I have yet to fully understand is that every now and then a
random wiggly doodle in a primary colour usually green or red appears on
the shared screen to the mystification of the speaker. Looks like
someone's randomish mouse movements being shared with all and sundry.

Sometimes they vanish again and other times they persist until the end.

Not an raised hand symbol to ask the host to unmute that mic?

No.
Literally more like someone randomly doodling squiggles on the screen.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown