The Matter of Microphone Quality Apology
A person has apologized for their microphone quality on a call where their microphone quality was acceptable. The apology preceded any complaint and may have introduced the possibility of a complaint that would otherwise not have existed.
Preliminary Findings: Microphone Quality Apology April 28, 2021
Presenting Behavior
A person joined a scheduled video call and, within the first fifteen seconds, said "sorry if my audio is bad, my microphone is not great." Their audio was audible, consistent, and of sufficient quality for the conversation to proceed without difficulty.
The other participant said "sounds fine to me."
The apology had been delivered. The findings were inconclusive.
Finding 1: The Structure of the Apology
The apology functions as a pre-emptive management of an expectation that the other party had not formed. By raising it, the apologizer installs the expectation and then immediately apologizes for failing to meet it.
When the first person on a call says "sorry for the audio," and the audio is fine, the second person on the call has now been asked to evaluate audio they would not have evaluated otherwise. They evaluate it. It is fine. They say so. This takes seven seconds and produces no information.
Finding 2: Why the Apology Occurs
The apologizer has a microphone that is not a dedicated quality microphone. Fourteen months of video calls have produced a working knowledge of what quality microphones sound like, and the apologizer has assessed their own equipment as below that standard.
The assessment may be accurate. The apology predates any opportunity to confirm it. The preemptive nature of the apology allows the apologizer to define their own equipment before the other party forms an independent judgment, which is a form of narrative control that is not typically labeled as such.
Finding 3: The Propagation Pattern
One person apologizes for audio. This prompts the other person to evaluate their own audio. The second person says "mine might not be great either." They are now two people apologizing for audio that is, by the standards of a conversation conducted over a residential internet connection, adequate.
The call continues. Neither party's audio degrades. The apology structure is complete.
Governing Rule
The microphone quality apology is in wider use in 2021 than in 2019, when the same microphone would have been used for fewer calls and would not have been evaluated relative to a field of other microphones. The pandemic created a microphone quality awareness that the equipment did not change to match.
The microphone is the same. The standards against which it is measured have shifted upward. The gap is real. The apology is for the gap.
Status
Preliminary finding: the apology is accurate in its self-assessment and unnecessary as a communication. Both things continue to be true on every call.