[LINK] Government teleconferencing

[Paul Brooks]

Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 12/03/2009, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>   
>> Lindsay Tanner said: "Gone are the days of poor sound quality and fuzzy
>> images making video conferencing more trouble than it's worth.
>> TelePresence offers big screens, with high definition sound making the
>> option of actually choosing to hold a meeting using this technology a
>> real and cost-effective alternative to getting on a plane."
>>     
>
> Have any linkers seen this particular technology [Telstra/Cisco] in 
> use? [BTW, I'm copying Lindsay Tanner into this message]
>
> I've been around videoconferencing for -- goodness! -- 20 years! 
> Gawd, I'm getting old. Anyway, it's not the picture that is generally 
> the problem, it's the AUDIO. Unless these installations pay attention 
> to proper mic and speaker placement, having HD pictures won't matter 
> diddly-squat. Without clear and consistent audio, you might as well 
> shut it down. No communication will take place -- full stop.
>   
Jan - I've used the Cisco telepresence system, and it really is as good 
as they make out, including the positional audio - I think they use an  
surround sound- system with somewhere around 11 speakers.

"Facing" 3 people on the other side of the screens, the audio did appear 
to be coming directly from their mouths - no matter where we sat on our 
side.
When someone on the other side dropped their pen under the desk, one of 
the people on our side unconsciously bent down under the desk to pick it 
up for them.
When someone on the other side suddenly opened the door to their 
conferencing suite - off-camera - every eyeball and head on our side 
automatically followed the audio cue of the door latch and 
snap-swivelled instantly to look at the wall where the 'virtual door' 
would have been - the spookiest thing I've done for a long time.

Jan - I completely agree that the audio is more important than the video 
- and the audio really has been Done Right.

Paul.