A Question About Chromebox-For-Meetings and USB Conference Phones
Not long a reader posed this question about USB speakerphone devices;
“Hi Michael – I read your blog article about chromebox for meetings. I’m in the UK and I think there will be good takeup when its launched here but I’m concerned about sound quality mic and speakers in untreated rooms. Have you found any USB table top devices matrix mics with high quality speaker that could be integrated at proportionate cost? – Thanks, John”
It’s an interesting question. As I was answering him via IM it occurred to me that the answer might be worth sharing.
There are a lot of USB attached speakerphones available. I’ve tried quite a number over the years. Some are good. Some are cheap. As you can imagine, rarely are the good ones cheap. The major difference to be considered is whether the device undre consideration is intended for use by an individual or a small group.
In assembling Chromebox-For-Meetings Google has selected the Jabra Speak 410 UC Speakerphone
Prior to the SPEAK 410 I used a ClearOne Chat 50. The two devices are an interesting contrast. Both are completely adequate when the requirement is to service a single person making use of Skype, Jabber, Hangouts, etc at a desk.
Chromebox-For-Meetings is more likely to be used by a small group. That means that the audio device should go louder and provide omnidirectional audio pickup. The SPEAK 410 is a better choice for this situation. At its price point it may well be the best choice they could have made.
One potential alternative to consider is the new Logitech Mobile Speakerphone P710e
If you really want to do better than the SPEAK 410, but stick with a USB attached audio device, I suggest looking at the ClearOne Chat 160 Group Speakerphone
If you really want to improve the audio experience, or face an especially challenging environment, I’d suggest you look at the Polycom SoundStation Duo
The SoundStation Duo is especially flexible in its interface options. It has network connectivity to act as a SIP end-point. It has an analog line jack to accommodate direct access to the PSTN. Finally, it has 2.5mm analog audio connection allowing it to plug into a PC, cell phone or even DECT cordless phone.
Presuming that the Chromebox has traditional analog audio I/O, and the ability to select that as its default, the SoundStation Duo could be a superior way to handle it’s audio requirements. This combination of performance and flexibility is not without its price. The Polycom SoundStation Duo costs around $490.
There are some practical concerns to be considered. Where the Chat 160 is just a USB attached device, the SoundStation Duo require a rather hefty tether that provides ethernet, analog POTS connectivity and power. Even with that tether the analog audio connection is via a jack on the side of the device itself, necessitating another wire to connect to the Chromebox.
All of this begs the question of how much might one spend to augment the I/O of what is intended to be a low-cost, no muss, no fuss, end-point like Chromebox-for-Meetings? That you must answer for yourself. It depends upon what you decide is an acceptable user experience, and whether you desire, or even require, a superior use experience.
I expect that many people will find the default audio device and webcam to be acceptable in most use-cases. However, there will be unusual situations and more demanding users. Those cases may benefit from improved I/O.
The platform and the service may be commodities, but the I/O remains a critical aspect of the user experience. The presence of video, even HD video, is absolutely pointless if the audio is flawed or unreliable.
I’ll close with a curious thought. Let’s say that you are trying to help someone improve their experience using Chromebox-for-Meetings. You have a budget of $250 specifically to improve the audio experience. Do you choose a different device for hardware I/O? Or do you purchase some acoustic foam tiles, or perhaps curtains for their little meeting space?
Like medicine, selecting an optimal strategy requires considering the state of the patient. Deciding upon the right solution requires taking a comprehensive look at the situation. A modest amount of acoustic foam could be a better solution than a more costly new I/O device.
Comments are closed.
Unfortunately, the only person who needs to hear what he sounds like on a conference call can’t hear himself, yet everybody else on the call must suffer along. As a result, too many people use speakerphones yet sound awful on them. And since the overwhelming majority of conference calls cater to business purposes where people are reluctant to point out the crappy audio, the problem goes unreported, resulting in no awareness that improvement is needed.
You are quite correct to point out that acoustic design of the room is of prime importance as it affects the quality of whatever hardware you employ. This is a similar notion to providing clean a.c. mains power from a u.p.s. so that whatever computerized device you operate doesn’t suffer from power glitches. Basics matter.
Knowing how the least expensive product usually wins, I vote for improving room acoustics to get the biggest bang for the buck from whatever device you choose.
tl;dr = Please, God! Not another conference call!!!
Most VC systems allow the camera to be show to the person so they can see how they look. There should be a feature that allows you to record a short audio clip to be played back and give you sense of how you sound.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for this post!
I took on a “budget” video conferencing project built around a Chromebox for Meetings device and thought the SoundStation Duo seemed like a good option for audio input/output. When this works, it works very well!
I purchased a lightly used Duo and 2 expansion mics for a total of $184.74. You mention “hefty tether” as a drawback of the Duo, but I don’t find it so bad. The expansion mics connect using modular (“phone style”) plugs. The Duo is 802.3af PoE compliant; ours gets its power and network connectivity over a single Ethernet cable. The Duo has cable management “channels” on its belly, helping keep cables tidy and the Duo resting flat. The 2.5mm audio input/output jack is on the side.
This setup is in a conference room. The conferencing display, Chromebox and Logitech PTZ Pro “live” on a Loctek cart. We wanted a professional setup…no cables simply strung across the floor, so we have wall and floor (under conference table) audio jacks. The Chromebox also has a 2.5mm combined audio in/out port. So the Chromebox and Duo audio ports are connected via:
2.5mm to 3.5mm Y M/F splitter cable (Chromebox side): http://ebay.to/2isTS1o
Polycom 2.5mm to 3.5mm Y M/M splitter cable (Duo side): http://bit.ly/2j7pN8o
3.5mm F/F keystone jack couplers: http://ebay.to/2i40xTr
Monoprice 3.5mm F/F adapters: http://bit.ly/2j7hZDr
FosPower 6-ft and 15-ft 3.5mm M/M cables: http://amzn.to/2iSVLp2
This diagram illustrates audio connections between the Chromebox and Duo: http://i.imgur.com/HF1HuY9.png
We would like to get this to work because the audio quality (when it works) is good and the Duo can be configured as an extension of our Mitel 3300 ICP phone system. When it doesn’t work, the Chromebox won’t detect any mic (audio input) source. Audio out to the Soundstation Duo speaker from the Chromebox works reliably.
As a test, I connected a smartphone to the Duo, using just the 2 Y cables. Both mic and speaker seemed to work reliably. To more closely compare results, I temporarily connected the Chromebox using just the 2 Y cables, but had the same results as before: speaker works reliably; mic (detection) is hit or (mostly) miss. Not a definitive conclusion, but the tests suggest a weakness/problem on the Chromebox side. The problem doesn’t seem to be related to the various cables/connectors–testing with only the 2 Y cables eliminated much of that.
Chromebox audio works reliably with USB speakerphones such as the Jabra unit that was included with the Chromebox or a Phoenix Audio Technologies Quattro3 speakerphone. However, we would prefer to stay with the Soundstation Duo if possible. We think the audio quality is better: the speaker is clear and we think the microphones are less sensitive (and pick up less extraneous noise)–but offer sufficient coverage with the expansion mics–than some of the USB alternatives. If we can get this setup to be reliable, it would also help us to keep costs lower and eliminate clutter: fewer devices needed in the conference room and/or on the table.
The newer Phoenix Audio Technologies Spider line of products look promising but are very expensive!
Any ideas/suggestions?
Thank you!
If the Chromebox seems to prefer USB audio devices I’ve simply use a small USB audio interface instead of the built-in analog jack.
In fact, I’d prefer a long USB cable, locating the audio adapter closer to the SoundStation. That way you minimize the length of the low-level microphone cable. Unbalanced mic level signals over light wires are prone to noise and interference. Once converted to a digital signal, it travels the USB bus impervious to analog noise.
Thanks for your response — that was helpful! I ended up swapping out the SoundStation for a Revolabs FLX UC 1500 _and_ using an active USB extension cable. I tried a (USB 3.0) cable by Tripp Lite: http://bit.ly/2lRPtd2. The Chromebox didn’t detect anything. A (Windows 10) laptop seemed to detect something connected, but couldn’t identify the device. I plugged a flash drive into the far end of the cable. That worked just fine with the Windows 10 laptop. Using a short USB cable with the FLX UC 1500 and Chromebox or laptop worked just fine. At some point, I exchanged the Tripp Lite cable with a USB 2.0 cable I no longer needed in another application. The setup worked fine!