David Webster. April 2012.
One thing that has always puzzled me is the way audio is treated by many A/V integrators. Why is audio always seen as the underdog to video? Or putting it another way; why is ‘AV’ more often a little ‘a’ and a large ‘V’?
Of course it can be argued that for typical business applications such as boardrooms concerned mostly with displaying computers for presentations, that audio is irrelevant. However we live in a multimedia age where there is often a requirement to watch TV or other video content accompanied by sound, as well as audio only applications such as telephone conferencing.
The move towards network based Unified Communications (UC) is accelerating amongst individuals or groups of people and has the potential to deliver higher than old analogue telephone audio quality provided the end points are capable of it. Most laptops and desktop PCs can already benefit from simple microphone and speaker upgrades and transform the user’s experience.
So how important is the audio? Try following a TV program or video conference with the sound muted. How often do you walk out of the room during a program, just listening to follow the plot?
But it is not enough to just have basic audio as poor quality can seriously affect intelligibility, especially if the listener looks away from the person speaking or the video.
So why is audio the poor relation? The budgets are smaller, perhaps because business customers behave like home consumers? The best example being HD TVs where the trend is for people to spend £’000s for a new large screen TV with poor quality built-in audio but they don’t want to spend more on amplifiers and speakers that take up valuable space. The reason is perhaps simple, more people can appreciate the difference with improved picture quality than improved sound quality yet there is no video or presentation so good that the viewing experience couldn’t be rendered almost ineffective by the voice not being heard.
It is also true that achieving good audio means more than just using quality products (although that is always good start) – room acoustics need to be taken into consideration. As this can require knowledge and experience of dealing with many factors such as room volume, reverberation time and echo, absorption and reflection, background noise, etc. perhaps some integrators duck the issue all together?
If it really comes down to it, people can tolerate mediocre sound quality and tend not to even notice it until something is really wrong with it (or it is missing entirely!) or they can compare it with something better. On the other hand there are people who prioritize optimum audio fidelity above all else, and would watch a movie in artefact-ridden standard definition if it had a great soundtrack!
As AV professionals isn’t our duty to at least explain and demonstrate the advantages of investing in higher quality audio and to offer a range of solutions and budgets – not just one economy size that fits all and then keeping our fingers crossed for no complaints and repeat business?