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 585423
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Wed 26th Mar 2014 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Audio specs"
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

....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 xiph.org 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 xiph.org 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:
2005-09-21

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Thu 27th Mar 2014 18:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Audio specs"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

nice dodge leos - but i never mentioned cables! any old cable will do just fine. don't try to write off everyone who cares about what they hear as a rich audiophile. you don't need to be a "food-o-phile" to want something better than fast food.

audio pros have a simple rule: garbage in = garbage out.


improving the source quality is always the best and most complete way to improve playback. this is fundamental.

everything between the source and the room is secondary when it comes to improving the sound. also, these days basic amps, cables, and speakers are plenty capable of their duties. it's the source files that are greatly compromised.

this argument isn't about frequency range or speakers or cables, it's about digital resolution.

yet only AUDIO makes computer people swear we don't need any more resolution, 1978 resolution should be fine.

or another question for you -- why don't you want to hear what they are hearing in the recording studio? you can't handle the truth ?!?

you couldn't carry 2" tape reels and a multitrack deck in your pocket 40 years ago. early iPods 10 years ago would have maxed out at 18 songs in digital HD.

But in october 2014 the pono player will hold 800 HD songs (with 128gb removable cards right around the corner) along with a high-end DAC and amp, so you can take hifi around with digital convenience.

OH By the way -- Sony disagrees with you. I'm a crazy random, of course, me and sony.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/25/sony-unveils-bevy-of-walkman-dev...

Edited 2014-03-27 19:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Audio specs
by bassbeast on Fri 28th Mar 2014 09:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Audio specs"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

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[4]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Fri 28th Mar 2014 12:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Audio specs"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

Bassbeast - i love your name, we might be on the same team! But you are still missing some of my key points.

It's not the frequency range, it's the resolution. Repeat -- this is about resolution, not range. 24/44 would sound much better than 16/44, theoretically.

It's not about dog-whistle highs, it's about the detail and the depth of the music as it was recorded and mixed. The ADC has to then translate that into a string of digital data. It's about soundstage, it's about detail, it's about balance, precision, clarity, reverbs, rooms, etc. I was there in the early 80's listening to my first CD and I will never forget my impressions -- they took things out. Hard to quantify, but they took things out. Many of us heard it then regardless of what studies the electronics companies could point to.

The real snake-oil here is the term "lossless" since they've already lost so much when they went to 16/44. Consumers can have mp3 lossy or CD lossless. Both have lost, it's a false choice meant to confuse consumers.

There is no reason to strip and compress music down for the consumer anymore. The customer can reduce it's size further if needed - why sell them an initially degraded product? Red-book was developed for 1978 chips and mp3 was designed for dial-up modems. Why stick to bad standards?

Have you ever had a car stereo where the dial won't go to the volume you want? How about your smartphone, does the volume go to exactly where you want it, or do you have to pick between two stops, whichever is closer to what you want.

This is a lack of resolution. This is the crux of HD audio -- the 24 bit. Sampling 48k or 96k does give you more range and more data, and some can hear that. But I know what I can hear is the lack of resolution. I can pick out almost any mp3 ripped anywhere, at any rate as compared to a "lossless", if I know the song. Most people can. If you mix music and you can't you need ear repair. This is in cymbals, hi-hats, stringed instruments, especially voice. Listen to Aretha Franklin, opera, or classical through anything below HD and you should hear obvious limitations and degradations.

Finally -- I believe the ear and our sense of hearing is the least understood of our human senses. The fact that any so-called audio scientist simply ignores everything happening outside of the inner ear shows they are clueless. It's practically junk science, especially the xiph guys, who want it all ways. Mono listening? No loudspeaker? No room? That's over 50% of what we hear, our environment and how the music interacts in that environment.

[btw Computer programmers are not audio experts - never have been, never will be. Audio is analog and has limitless resolution and this confuses and scares digital programmers. You really do yourself a disservice by listening to any digital programmer over your own ears.]

From the xiph.org website: "While lossy codecs can achieve ratios of 80–90+%, they do this at the expense of discarding data from the original stream. Though FLAC uses a similar technique in its encoding process, it also adds “residual” data to allow the decoder to restore the original waveform flawlessly. FLAC has become the preferred lossless format for trading live music online. It has a smaller file size than Shorten, and unlike MP3, it’s lossless, which ensures the highest fidelity to the source material, which is important to live music traders. It has recently become a favorite trading format of non-live lossless audio traders as well."

There really are 2 arguments pono is trying to make --- first is that we need more resolution to really feel the music, not just recognize it. Since every pro recording studio has been working at 24 bit for over a decade now, and even home producers work at 24 bit these days, that's kinda obvious.

The second is that mp3's time has passed for primary listening of music. It is an awesome compression spec for voice, youtube, etc. and will probably last 20 more years. But it never did and never will sound good enough to be the purchased copy of the art.

Just remember man - audio is analog and 16 bits is not enough to store what your ears are capable of and do every day. 16 bit won't tell you how far apart, how big, or how far something is from you. It won't tell you the shape of the room it was recorded in. And it generally just throws out timbre.

Final word --- look up "timbre" and let it lead you to further understanding of digital audio's folly's.

http://wfnk.com/blog/save-the-audio for further discussion...

Edited 2014-03-28 12:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0