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 585605
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Audio specs
by ezraz on Sun 30th Mar 2014 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Audio specs"
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

Dude...the absolute BEST ANALOG TAPE EVER CREATED was Ampex 8 inch which recorded at a resolution of....drumroll...9-13bits. BTW the 13bits was theoretical and I seriously doubt anybody ever managed to hit that. Oh and don't forget an analog recording degrades with each play so the absolute best recording master ever made by the time it was mixed was AT BEST around 9 bits. So you are saying that you require 24 bits to capture 9?

And again you are making the mistake of comparing RECORDING to playback and they are as different as light is to sound. When you are recording you NEED that extra resolution so that your noise leveling and compression don't chop off the highs. The more bits the smoother your compression curve is, once it has been actually mixed? Completely useless as the compression and limiting is already done and in the final product, adding resolution will do nothing but add wasted space.

And yes I am a bass player, both 4 and 5 but lately more 5 as I've found playing in a hard rock trio I need the extra low end to "fill in the gaps". I have played on 3k basses and $300 instruments and have found it all comes down to lucking out into that exact right mix of wood and electronics to get that really sweet tone. My current gear is as follows..

Fender Squire Pro Tone V5 1996 (great bass, Fender quit making these after just 2 years as they were stealing sales from the Fenders, a heavy instrument but it has a hell of a growl), Rogue 5 string (this is the "I don't give a shit if it gets bashed around" bass,strictly for practice NOT recording), 1990 Fender JP90 (great bass, poplar makes it light and super hot pickups give it real punch), 1983 Washburn 4 string (my "DIY showoff" bass, glitter pickguard with 1940s pinup girl art on the body and dice knobs) and these are going into a Zoom B1X (mainly used for nice clean compression, although I've been grooving to the fuzz a little more lately, a really great bass pedal for stage) and my baby, a pre-buyout Trace Elliot 250. You just can't beat British quality. I have put her up against an Ampeg SVT all tube stack and just smoked it.

This of course doesn't count all the studio stuff I've used, from Alembic fretless to early 70s Magnavox tube guitar amps, if it sounds good I'll use it. We are working on the first video for the new album, hoping for a mid September release for both and I'll try to remember to post links in my profile on release.



You are losing me in the first part -- how can anyone figure a bit depth of analog tape? bit depth is data space once the audio data has been digitized, there is no bit depth on analog audio tape, at least no figure that i would trust. this is apples and oranges.

if the tape was being used to hold digital data you'd be able to give me a maximum throughput on the read head, sure, but the tape is holding audio data encoded magnetically


i agree with you about recording and playback being different. but digital playback no longer needs to be on a system that is less capable in basic AD/DA as the recording environment was. tracking is different than mixing is different than mastering. i've been a part of all of these stages. hopefully the final stage is release to consumer, and for the past couple of decades that standard has been going down in the name of convenience.

if my next recording rig could actually do higher than 24/192 i would try it. if i heard no difference i'd use something else.

my whole point is that producers and musicians have been making this decision for years, and most work at higher than 16/44, and most don't like the overall sound of their finished product once it's been reduced to 16/44 and then reduced again to mp3.

this is 2 levels of data loss on the way to the consumer that no longer needs to happen in 2014. if an mp3 is $1 then the full total version can be $2. i will slowly add HD digital to my massive music collection.


as far as your basses -- that washburn sounds nice, i kinda like old washburns. you know bootsy played one back in the day!
most fender basses do the trick just right for me, was just playing my buddy's mustang bass last night. i have an epi/gibson bass thats my beater that sits around to jam on but i have been playing more drums and keys lately.

you gotta sit behind a drumset and hit the cymbal and listen, or smack the snare and listen to all the attack, decay, and layers of sound that can come out of one drum or one cymbal. that's where i can really hear digital degradation in my music. a simple hi-hat exposes most digital magic.

also on voice, like opera or aretha or sly stone, and also on busy drummers with lots of cymbals like stewart copeland or p-funk. i hear all kinds of artifacts in even hi-rate mp3, and i can tell things are missing at 16/44 compared to higher digital rates.

this does not make me crazy or unusual or wealthy, it just means I try to understand and trust my ears. deprivation is deprivation and i don't want computers or computer programmers deciding what i don't need to hear. that's the artist and producers job.

Edited 2014-03-30 17:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Audio specs
by zima on Tue 1st Apr 2014 20:22 in reply to "RE[6]: Audio specs"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You seriously don't know what bassbeast is talking about there? The dynamic range of best analog tape is so low that 9-13 bits digital medium is enough to reproduce it. Noise floor of analog tape makes it like x-bit digital audio. That's all you record after going to ever higher bitness, just noise.

BTW, the absolute best AD converters are 20-22 bits - and we're talking here cryogenically cooled units used in radiotelescopes. Best gear actually used in audio production doesn't even have 18 real world performance. 24 bits is useful in mastering to avoid rounding errors, that's all.

Generally, I wonder if you ever did any proper ABX testing...

And it's not "programmers" who decided 16/44 is enough, but researchers dealing with human hearing.

Reply Parent Score: 2