Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Mar 2014 17:13 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

HTC has released the new HTC One, the updated version of the last year's best Android phone nobody bought. The Verge already has its review up, and its conclusion is exactly as you expect.

There are a lot of great Android phones on the market right now, but two stand out: the Nexus 5 and the new HTC One. The Nexus 5 is Google's purest vision for Android, the One the platform's most mature and developed form. I desperately wish it took better pictures, and I'm reluctant to buy or recommend it until it does, but I like absolutely everything else. It's fast, long-lasting, does everything a phone should, and does it all with totally unparalleled class and style. From motion gestures to the Dot View case, it has genuinely new, genuinely useful features.

It may not outsell Samsung and the relentless marketing sure to follow the feature-rich Galaxy S5, but HTC executives say they don't care. They say they just want to build a phone for people who like nice things.

It's really hard to argue with that quality feel that last year's One had, and which this year's model improves. I think it's pretty much the only Android phone that can measure up to the iPhone in this department - and now, it also has an SD card slot.

Thread beginning with comment 585283
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Audio specs
by vault on Tue 25th Mar 2014 21:02 UTC in reply to "Audio specs"
Member since:

We win nothing by going to 24/96. Pornoplayer is mostly a scam.

Edited 2014-03-25 21:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Wed 26th Mar 2014 11:47 in reply to "RE: Audio specs"
ezraz Member since:

You win nothing believing computer compression programmers over audio professionals and musicians. verse every legendary record producer? I listen to real experts.

Thinking we can't hear anything more than 16/44 is BS. We hear WAY more than they can measure. Look up timbre and explain to me how digital audio lives without it.

You probably can't see the extra resolution in your TV or camera, either correct? Of course you can. Guess what -- your ears smoke your eyes in regards to sensitivity and spatial awareness.

See the latest story published in journal of science about how olfactory researches just determined that we can actually smell in 100x more detail than what they initially thought. Science is barely scratching the surface on our human senses.

But since we misunderstand our ears and there is so much bad science pushed out by (the people who claim there's no loss in lossy), links like this get posted about and internet people believe them.

There's all kinds of flaws in their assumptions.

Watch the testimonials from musicians over at and tell me all those people's ears are emotions are deceiving them.

no link from monty to programmers at xiph can change that.

audio is analog, digital is just a recreation. for more thoughts....

Edited 2014-03-26 11:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Wed 26th Mar 2014 23:02 in reply to "RE: Audio specs"
ezraz Member since:

....types the guy surrounded by HD digital screens and HD digital cameras. why the hatred of your hearing? our sense of sound is perhaps our most advanced and nuanced yet we continue to listen to crappy compressed digital audio likes dial-up modems are still around.

you have many false assumptions led by these people. what records have they produced? how many recording studios have they been in? where are their grammies?

read and learn, friend -- you gain much by not reducing to 16 bits in the first place. the present is already higher bitrate than that. go outside and listen - that's unlimited resolution.

you also gain much keeping data outside of 20-20k, instead of throwing them away to ship to consumers (as they have been doing for 30 years now).

just because our inner-ear instrumentation doesn't pick it up when soloed, we can hear it there through masking and other hard to quantify natural phenomena.

look up "timbre". have or anyone telling you about digital audio explain it and show how it's measured.

here's a hint - it's not. they can't quantify how we can tell the difference between instruments, and they can't quantify how we can tell the difference between how well that instrument is played. how is it the MOST IMPORTANT part of listening to music, or any sound, is the very thing that science just throws out?

the red-book cd standard is built on half-truths and market-speak science from 1978. mp3 was developed for dial-up modems. both standards are ridiculously outdated and the real snake-oil are the people selling you mp3 or compressed digital in 2014.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Audio specs
by leos on Thu 27th Mar 2014 05:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Audio specs"
leos Member since:

Don't forget about those gold plated $500 cables!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Audio specs
by bassbeast on Fri 28th Mar 2014 09:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Audio specs"
bassbeast Member since:

Dude its Neil Young...did you even WATCH the Xiph video? Neil still brags about recording on analog 24 track but any musician who knows even a little about music can tell you that analog tape has a lower bandwidth than a $300 AIO recorder thanks to the fact that tape degrades with each pass.

You can go buy some monster cables to hook to your porno player and think you are getting something magical but IRL all you are getting is some extra dead space at best and distortion at worst. Can you hear a dog whistle? If not then having those extra bits is gonna do nothing but waste space and help empty your wallet.

At the end of the day? Math doesn't lie. the human ear is one of the most well understood organs on the human body, it and sight have been completely mapped out for ages. For you to argue that you can actually hear in the type of ranges we are talking about would be like saying all video that doesn't provide infrared and ultraviolet is shit.

As someone who has been recording the bands he plays with since the days of 2 inch tape I can tell you Neil is wrong and moreover I can tell you HOW he got it wrong....he listened to some shitty MP3s and low bit AACs and decided that it wasn't the shitty encoder that must be the trouble, it HAD to be the bitrate. But I bet my last dollar if you had a friend run a blind listening test for you with 16bit 320k MP3, FLAC, and Vorbis and played the 16bit versus say a DVD-Audio at 24/192? I guarantee you you will NOT be able to hear a difference.

Look up "bitrate listening test" if you don't believe me, plenty have done blind listening tests and placed the results on the net. BTW the above DOES NOT APPLY TO RECORDING where higher sampling rates allow for finer noise reduction and smoother compression effects. THAT is why studios record at high rates NOT because its making the audio magically "fuller", no matter what Neil says.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Wed 26th Mar 2014 23:06 in reply to "RE: Audio specs"
ezraz Member since:

the "science" behind and most digital audio is the real scam. learn to identify real experts and ignore the wannabes trying to convince you that something less is more.

they have been lying to us, depriving us of our true music, for many years now.

you can continue to accept sad, flat, xerox copies of real music at your own risk. everyone benefits from better sound.

Edited 2014-03-26 23:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Audio specs
by zima on Tue 1st Apr 2014 20:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Audio specs"
zima Member since:

It is far more likely that ~musicians simply don't understand sampling theorem, and digital audio in general. And BTW, the science which led to (yes, in that order) 16/44 is the same as the one behind 24/96 (which can be very useful for editing, but that's all) - if you disregard one, you also claim the second is flawed.

Anyway, crappy audio quality nowadays is due to loudness war, and that won't go away with the move to "HD" audio... (actually, a form of loudness war was already present on vinyl)

Time and time again, during blind ABX listening tests, the "golden ears" are unable to tell the difference between SACD or DVD-Audio and Red Book CD. That's also largely because ~musicians are people with among the highest incidence of hearing damage.

Reply Parent Score: 2