Hi Virginia,
The discrepancy is "studio quality" I actually meant "broadcast quality."
It should be pretty obvious from the conversation and presentation (listen/view above) that the discussion is about "broadcast" and not in studio recording where both participants are in studio.
In other words this thread is about how to improve interviews where the host and interviewee are in two different locations and not in studio.
If they were both in studio or even both in different studios then you are definately right... you can improve quality by using studio mics and recording systems.
But in this case this discussion is not about Studio recording but rather why Skype is a better choice for broadcast interviews than the traditional phone methods and not about "studio" based interviews.
"1st of all, as a consumer, I truly hate it when I purchase an interview and the "guest expert" is on the telephone or voip. The audio just plain sucks."
Most of the time you are correct... but if you listen to the (whole) presentation above which was created using voip you will see that they were able to obtain excellent broadcast quality using voip.
A majority of the time in radio broadcast the interview is not done in the studio... and the average web publisher cannot travel to or bring their interviewee in studio and usually both parties do not have access to a studio.
So I suggest reviewing the presentation above because it is a great example of "broadcast" quality for remote interviews far beyond the traditional methods and above the norm

When you can produce "studio quality" on both ends... but when you cannot... which is a majority of the time in the broadcast industry... why not use this method that from the example above produced great results.
If you want to post and explain how you are able to get "studio quality" results on both ends I am sure people reading this thread will be very interested in that as well
