MP3 audio quality/capabilities of Motorola RAZR V3xx (aka IZAR)

To check out contradictory (and some negative) statements about the MP3
audio capabilities of the new Motorola RAZR V3xx, I've run careful tests
to see what it can and cannot handle, and how it sounds. My encoding
was done with LAME 3.97 from high-quality CD originals.

What I found is that the V3xx supports MP3 bitrates up to an _average_
of 256 Kbps (320 Kbps peak).

According to MP3'Tech <http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb>):

256kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is
impossible to make the difference with the original recording.

The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the
original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast
majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements.

Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbs rate produces a quality
equal to an audio CD. But in the case of an MP3 use in advanced
Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbs bitrate to reach an identical
result to the CD sound.

In blind A-B listening tests of 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx against the
original CD source through a high-end home audio system, none my
audience could hear any difference.

I also compared 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx to iTunes AAC encoding played back
from a current generation video iPod. The V3xx was better than 128 AAC,
and as good as 192 Kbps AAC.

Hopefully that will put to rest claims that the V3xx isn't a good audio
player.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In addition to MP3, the Motorola RAZR V3xx supports (unprotected) AAC
audio. To test its AAC capabilities I encoded with Windows iTunes
7.1.1.5 from the same high-quality CD originals. The V3xx properly
played all bitrates (constant and variable) up to (and including) 320
Kbps.

Playback options for both MP3 and AAC audio include playlists, albums,
artists, genres, and composers, with optional auto-repeat and shuffle,
plus recently played, with the usual playback controls (skip
forward/back, fast forward/back, volume, play/pause). It also feature
external play/pause and volume with the flip is closed, with album and
track info on the external display.

In short, it's an excellent portable audio player.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:49:07 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<33uh13htrgdlrv1iju4t5r627q27dp8f73@4ax.com>:

>To check out contradictory (and some negative) statements about the MP3
>audio capabilities of the new Motorola RAZR V3xx, I've run careful tests
>to see what it can and cannot handle, and how it sounds. My encoding
>was done with LAME 3.97 from high-quality CD originals.
>
>What I found is that the V3xx supports MP3 bitrates up to an _average_
>of 256 Kbps (320 Kbps peak).
>
>According to MP3'Tech <http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb>):
>
> 256kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is
> impossible to make the difference with the original recording.
>
> The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the
> original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast
> majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements.
>
> Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbs rate produces a quality
> equal to an audio CD. But in the case of an MP3 use in advanced
> Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbs bitrate to reach an identical
> result to the CD sound.
>
>In blind A-B listening tests of 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx against the
>original CD source through a high-end home audio system, none my
>audience could hear any difference.
>
>I also compared 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx to iTunes AAC encoding played back
>from a current generation video iPod. The V3xx was better than 128 AAC,
>and as good as 192 Kbps AAC.
>
>Hopefully that will put to rest claims that the V3xx isn't a good audio
>player.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ne6i13hq79pp3h1bpv5ii7u78id862o4is@4ax.com:


What was the frequency response of all units tested? What was the
compression factor of each recording? Were the same speakers used to
playback each device, and if so, were they rated to work with each of the
devices? What is the advertised distortion rate for each amplifier used
(whether it be internal or external) and what was the advertised wattage of
each amplifier? How did the test devices compare to the advertised specs?
How many different acoustical test environments were used?

I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as your tests
never have any controls associated with them. My fifth grader's last
science project had more controls than your precious little experiment.

But then again, he's not trying to shill for Motorola or Cingular.

Scott wrote:

> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as your tests
> never have any controls associated with them. My fifth grader's last
> science project had more controls than your precious little experiment.

I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is to
emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing measurements,
in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental results. Had I not been
subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled tests in this newsgroup, I
might have been less resolute in insisting that the students pay close
attention to the controls, and how they compare their experimental
results to the theoretical results.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as your tests
>> never have any controls associated with them. My fifth grader's last
>> science project had more controls than your precious little experiment.
>
>I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
>graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is to
>emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing measurements,
>in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental results. Had I not been
>subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled tests in this newsgroup, I
>might have been less resolute in insisting that the students pay close
>attention to the controls, and how they compare their experimental
>results to the theoretical results.


Well John, I suppose you expected such a response from Larry and Moe!
In making the comparison you made between the CD and the V3xx
using the same Amplifier and Speaker systems it makes no difference
what the specific responses are for them. These are common for both
devices!

Jack Mac <camkcaj@parkspringscommunities.com> wrote in
news:966j1398v8q2j02pb9dj3be19k6neek9uh@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as
>>> your tests never have any controls associated with them. My fifth
>>> grader's last science project had more controls than your precious
>>> little experiment.
>>
>>I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
>>graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is
>>to emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing
>>measurements, in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental results.
>>Had I not been subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled tests in
>>this newsgroup, I might have been less resolute in insisting that the
>>students pay close attention to the controls, and how they compare
>>their experimental results to the theoretical results.
>
>
> Well John, I suppose you expected such a response from Larry and Moe!
> In making the comparison you made between the CD and the V3xx
> using the same Amplifier and Speaker systems it makes no difference
> what the specific responses are for them. These are common for both
> devices!
>

If by Larry and Moe, you are asserting our inability to take anything
Novice says at face value- thank you! If, OTOH, you are trying to slam us
for actually having more than pedestrian consumer experience in many of the
areas that Johnny tries to show expertise in- too bad, you missed your
mark.

To explain it to you- any amplification that was done would inevitably
produce distortion, as all of the playback devices he mentions using have
no line level output available and any device that is desined to handle the
amplified signal of one of these devices is biased towards that product.

If that confuses you (which I'm sure it does), try this little experiment.
Take an old home (not portable) CD player. Using the necessary adapters,
take the analog "line out" signal from the back of the unit and try to
listen to it either straight through speakers or headphones and let us know
how that works for you. That line level signal is free of any
amplification. Unlike the headphone jack on a Razr ot iPod, it not subject
to the exponential rate of distortion that they are when their amplified
signal is amplifeied again. The Razr has no such line level output
available.

The test is horrible flawed.

Now, Jack- wanna explain your take on the testing, or shall you simply
continue to look like Navas's lover?

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:42:12 -0400, Jack Mac
<camkcaj@parkspringscommunities.com> wrote in
<966j1398v8q2j02pb9dj3be19k6neek9uh@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as your tests
>>> never have any controls associated with them. My fifth grader's last
>>> science project had more controls than your precious little experiment.
>>
>>I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
>>graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is to
>>emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing measurements,
>>in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental results. Had I not been
>>subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled tests in this newsgroup, I
>>might have been less resolute in insisting that the students pay close
>>attention to the controls, and how they compare their experimental
>>results to the theoretical results.

LOL

>Well John, I suppose you expected such a response from Larry and Moe!

Yep. As usual, they just stoop to ad hominems, having nothing
substantive to offer in rebuttal, just resentment and jealousy.

>In making the comparison you made between the CD and the V3xx
>using the same Amplifier and Speaker systems it makes no difference
>what the specific responses are for them. These are common for both
>devices!

True. Although a poor audio system could mask some differences, the
V3xx is a _portable_ audio player, and should be judged as such, driving
speakers typical of portable audio players. What I did was thus
overkill, since I used high-end home audio gear (quite a bit better than
the great majority of home audio systems, not to mention speakers
typical of portable audio players) in order to make any differences as
apparent as practical and possible, as noted in my report.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:3f0l13dfhhf8r7psfulop2r1gp8pskv6lh@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:42:12 -0400, Jack Mac
> <camkcaj@parkspringscommunities.com> wrote in
> <966j1398v8q2j02pb9dj3be19k6neek9uh@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as
>>>> your tests never have any controls associated with them. My fifth
>>>> grader's last science project had more controls than your precious
>>>> little experiment.
>>>
>>>I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
>>>graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is
>>>to emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing
>>>measurements, in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental
>>>results. Had I not been subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled
>>>tests in this newsgroup, I might have been less resolute in insisting
>>>that the students pay close attention to the controls, and how they
>>>compare their experimental results to the theoretical results.
>
> LOL
>
>>Well John, I suppose you expected such a response from Larry and Moe!
>
> Yep. As usual, they just stoop to ad hominems, having nothing
> substantive to offer in rebuttal, just resentment and jealousy.

Wrong, Zippy- I wrote an entire post in this thread that is very
substantive and in typical fashion you are incapable of responding to
it. You can't deal with facts anymore and act more and more like a
senile old man.

>
>>In making the comparison you made between the CD and the V3xx
>>using the same Amplifier and Speaker systems it makes no difference
>>what the specific responses are for them. These are common for both
>>devices!
>
> True. Although a poor audio system could mask some differences, the
> V3xx is a _portable_ audio player, and should be judged as such,
> driving speakers typical of portable audio players. What I did was
> thus overkill, since I used high-end home audio gear (quite a bit
> better than the great majority of home audio systems, not to mention
> speakers typical of portable audio players) in order to make any
> differences as apparent as practical and possible, as noted in my
> report.
>


Your third grade science project is far from the great thing you are
making it out to be.

On 4/9/2007 6:32 PM, Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:3f0l13dfhhf8r7psfulop2r1gp8pskv6lh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:42:12 -0400, Jack Mac
>> <camkcaj@parkspringscommunities.com> wrote in
>> <966j1398v8q2j02pb9dj3be19k6neek9uh@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I already know that you are unable to answer these questions, as
>>>>> your tests never have any controls associated with them. My fifth
>>>>> grader's last science project had more controls than your precious
>>>>> little experiment.
>>>> I'm in the process of preparing a science presentation for fourth
>>>> graders for the school's enrichment day, and one key aspect of it is
>>>> to emphasize how important it is to use controls when doing
>>>> measurements, in order to ensure accuracy of the experimental
>>>> results. Had I not been subject to the claims of so many uncontrolled
>>>> tests in this newsgroup, I might have been less resolute in insisting
>>>> that the students pay close attention to the controls, and how they
>>>> compare their experimental results to the theoretical results.
>> LOL
>>
>>> Well John, I suppose you expected such a response from Larry and Moe!
>> Yep. As usual, they just stoop to ad hominems, having nothing
>> substantive to offer in rebuttal, just resentment and jealousy.
>
> Wrong, Zippy- I wrote an entire post in this thread that is very
> substantive and in typical fashion you are incapable of responding to
> it. You can't deal with facts anymore and act more and more like a
> senile old man.
>
>>> In making the comparison you made between the CD and the V3xx
>>> using the same Amplifier and Speaker systems it makes no difference
>>> what the specific responses are for them. These are common for both
>>> devices!
>> True. Although a poor audio system could mask some differences, the
>> V3xx is a _portable_ audio player, and should be judged as such,
>> driving speakers typical of portable audio players. What I did was
>> thus overkill, since I used high-end home audio gear (quite a bit
>> better than the great majority of home audio systems, not to mention
>> speakers typical of portable audio players) in order to make any
>> differences as apparent as practical and possible, as noted in my
>> report.
>>
>
>
> Your third grade science project is far from the great thing you are
> making it out to be.
Please don't give senility a bad rep.

--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)

Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

On Apr 8, 10:49 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> To check out contradictory (and some negative) statements about theMP3
> audio capabilities of the new Motorola RAZR V3xx, I've run careful tests
> to see what it can and cannot handle, and how it sounds. My encoding
> was done with LAME 3.97 from high-quality CD originals.
>
> What I found is that the V3xx supportsMP3bitrates up to an _average_
> of 256 Kbps (320 Kbps peak).
>
> According toMP3'Tech <http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb>):
>
> 256kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is
> impossible to make the difference with the original recording.
>
> The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the
> original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast
> majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements.
>
> Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbs rate produces a quality
> equal to an audio CD. But in the case of anMP3use in advanced
> Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbsbitrateto reach an identical
> result to the CD sound.
>
> In blind A-B listening tests of 256 Kbps ABRMP3V3xx against the
> original CD source through a high-end home audio system, none my
> audience could hear any difference.
>
> I also compared 256 Kbps ABRMP3V3xx to iTunes AAC encoding played back
> from a current generation video iPod. The V3xx was better than 128 AAC,
> and as good as 192 Kbps AAC.
>
> Hopefully that will put to rest claims that the V3xx isn't a good audio
> player.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

All I care about is that the stupid phone (my V3XX) won't play any of
the stuff I ripped at 320Kbps CBR. It seems to handle 256Kbps CBR
just fine.

I guess that I will only be able to listen to my eMusic downloads on
my phone, as I'm NOT re-ripping all my stuff from CD or wasting the
time to convert many, many MP3's from 320Kbps CBR to something less
for the phone.

Hmph.

Oh plus, what's the stupid 32 character filename limit? That's
really, really annoying.

Lyman Green

On 13 Apr 2007 10:27:47 -0700, "Lyman Green" <lymang@gmail.com> wrote in
<1176485267.008485.267240@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>:

>On Apr 8, 10:49 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>[SNIP]

>All I care about is that the stupid phone (my V3XX) won't play any of
>the stuff I ripped at 320Kbps CBR. It seems to handle 256Kbps CBR
>just fine.
>
>I guess that I will only be able to listen to my eMusic downloads on
>my phone, as I'm NOT re-ripping all my stuff from CD or wasting the
>time to convert many, many MP3's from 320Kbps CBR to something less
>for the phone.

Why use 320 CBR? 256 CBR is indistinguishable from the original, and
you can use 256 ABR (320 peak) if you want better.

If you really care that much about ultimate fidelity, you should
probably be using a form of lossless compression.

'Course CDs aren't all that incredible to begin with.

>Oh plus, what's the stupid 32 character filename limit? That's
>really, really annoying.

The screen is really, really small.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 10:27:47 -0700, "Lyman Green" <lymang@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1176485267.008485.267240@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>:
>
>> On Apr 8, 10:49 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>
>> All I care about is that the stupid phone (my V3XX) won't play any of
>> the stuff I ripped at 320Kbps CBR. It seems to handle 256Kbps CBR
>> just fine.
>>
>> I guess that I will only be able to listen to my eMusic downloads on
>> my phone, as I'm NOT re-ripping all my stuff from CD or wasting the
>> time to convert many, many MP3's from 320Kbps CBR to something less
>> for the phone.
>
> Why use 320 CBR? 256 CBR is indistinguishable from the original, and
> you can use 256 ABR (320 peak) if you want better.

Given the nature of the equipment relevant to this thread, I agree.
Given the nature of most mp3 downloads so popular with the younger
crowds of today, I think 64Kb VBR rips would likely be sufficient within
the subjectiveness of the typical listening audience on cheap ear buds.

Personally, I have over 28Gb of 320Kb CBR rips stored on my rather
extensive home system, but like Lyman, they're staying where they are
for the same reasons he's already mentioned. Besides, my own
subjectiveness says jazz and classical is best enjoyed when one is not
engaged in something (anything) else.

>
> If you really care that much about ultimate fidelity, you should
> probably be using a form of lossless compression.

True, but mp3 is good enough if the bitrate is kept high enough to not
notice.

>
> 'Course CDs aren't all that incredible to begin with.

The error correction genie can be quite busy.


>
>> Oh plus, what's the stupid 32 character filename limit? That's
>> really, really annoying.
>
> The screen is really, really small.
>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Apr 8, 9:49 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> To check out contradictory (and some negative) statements about the MP3
> audio capabilities of the new Motorola RAZR V3xx, I've run careful tests
> to see what it can and cannot handle, and how it sounds. My encoding
> was done with LAME 3.97 from high-quality CD originals.
>
> What I found is that the V3xx supports MP3 bitrates up to an _average_
> of 256 Kbps (320 Kbps peak).
>
> According to MP3'Tech <http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb>):
>
> 256kbs: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is
> impossible to make the difference with the original recording.
>
> The quality at 128kbs is also indentical to the one obtained with the
> original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast
> majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements.
>
> Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbs rate produces a quality
> equal to an audio CD. But in the case of an MP3 use in advanced
> Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbs bitrate to reach an identical
> result to the CD sound.
>
> In blind A-B listening tests of 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx against the
> original CD source through a high-end home audio system, none my
> audience could hear any difference.
>
> I also compared 256 Kbps ABR MP3 V3xx to iTunes AAC encoding played back
> from a current generation video iPod. The V3xx was better than 128 AAC,
> and as good as 192 Kbps AAC.
>
> Hopefully that will put to rest claims that the V3xx isn't a good audio
> player.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
(except Ipod) out of the water.

3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

3Gfreak wrote:

> Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> (except Ipod) out of the water.

It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.

The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
or a Sandisk Sansa.

The reason to avoid the V3xx is that it's not really usable in Europe
and Asia, as Motorola forgot to include 900 MHz GSM which is the most
used band in Europe and Asia. 1800 MHz in Europe and Asia is like 1900
MHz in North America, the latecomer carriers ended up with it, and the
coverage is not as good as the more popular 900 MHz.

On Apr 15, 3:43 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 3Gfreak wrote:
> > Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> > device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> > (except Ipod) out of the water.
>
> It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
> either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
> and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
>
> The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
> or a Sandisk Sansa.
>
> The reason to avoid the V3xx is that it's not really usable in Europe
> and Asia, as Motorola forgot to include 900 MHz GSM which is the most
> used band in Europe and Asia. 1800 MHz in Europe and Asia is like 1900
> MHz in North America, the latecomer carriers ended up with it, and the
> coverage is not as good as the more popular 900 MHz.

The SYNC does blow it out of the water - read the reviews! The bit
rate is of the V3xx is way to low ( just download some tones from
American Idol and see for yourself ) and the quality is below par.

3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

In article <1176692659.415808.35540@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups. com>,
"3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 15, 3:43 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > 3Gfreak wrote:
> > > Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> > > device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> > > (except Ipod) out of the water.
> >
> > It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
> > either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
> > and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
> >
> > The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
> > or a Sandisk Sansa.
> >
> > The reason to avoid the V3xx is that it's not really usable in Europe
> > and Asia, as Motorola forgot to include 900 MHz GSM which is the most
> > used band in Europe and Asia. 1800 MHz in Europe and Asia is like 1900
> > MHz in North America, the latecomer carriers ended up with it, and the
> > coverage is not as good as the more popular 900 MHz.
>
> The SYNC does blow it out of the water - read the reviews! The bit
> rate is of the V3xx is way to low ( just download some tones from
> American Idol and see for yourself ) and the quality is below par.
>
Given your high standard of download material, I'll pass on your
review...

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

3Gfreak wrote:

> 3GFreak
> www.mobilevertigo.com

The V3xx is 256 kb/sec. The Samsung Sync is 320 kb/sec. Okay, the
Samsung has a 20% higher bit rate. I bet that the difference in bit rate
is not even noticable, if you compared the different bit rates on the
same device. If it sounds better than the V3xx then it's likely because
of the amplifiers or other circuitry. There were big differences in
different iPods as well, even though the bit rates were the same (and it
wasn't always the more expensive iPods with the better sound).

I like the Sync's better camera than the Motorola, but in reality these
are still toy cameras.

I'd choose the Sync over the V3xx because the Sync is a world phone,
while the V3xx is not, and I try to keep the number of things I carry to
a minimum when traveling. I'm thinking of buying an unlocked Sync for
travel, to get rid of carrying the separate music player. The V3xx isn't
a contender because of the lack of GSM 800 MHz (they should have just
left off 1800 MHz as well, since it's not a phone that any Asian or
European traveler would buy anyway). However it's unclear if the
SGH-A707 will even work with the prepaid SIM cards sold in Europe and
Asia, it appears as if it needs a special SIM card.

On 2007-04-16, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I'd choose the Sync over the V3xx because the Sync is a world phone,
> while the V3xx is not, and I try to keep the number of things I carry to
> a minimum when traveling. I'm thinking of buying an unlocked Sync for
> travel, to get rid of carrying the separate music player. The V3xx isn't
> a contender because of the lack of GSM 800 MHz (they should have just
> left off 1800 MHz as well, since it's not a phone that any Asian or
> European traveler would buy anyway). However it's unclear if the
> SGH-A707 will even work with the prepaid SIM cards sold in Europe and
> Asia, it appears as if it needs a special SIM card.

This is a tough tradeoff. The Sync is 1.8 Mbps HSDPA instead of 3.6, and
I've always had a lot more trouble tethering Samsung phones compared
to Motorola (this my be influenced by the fact I'm a Mac user, though the
fact that the Sync doesn't come with a USB cable doesn't bode well...).
More than this I've begun to think it isn't a "world phone" if it
doesn't support 2100 MHz UMTS as well; you can't use the phone in
some countries without it, your choice of local SIMs is restricted
in other countries, and in a few places 3G Internet access with
a local SIM can be significantly cheaper than the prices hotels usually
ask for Internet service (the UK being one).

I have a European V3xx for travel to 900/1800/2100 countries now. I
don't think I'll be able to go back to a single phone until they
start building 5-band phones.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I have a European V3xx for travel to 900/1800/2100 countries now. I
> don't think I'll be able to go back to a single phone until they
> start building 5-band phones.

Doesn't the HTC 8525 qualify? Unfortunately its 1.8 Mbps HSDPA, not 3.6.

On Apr 15, 10:23 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1176692659.415808.35...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups. com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "3Gfreak" <tastybre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 3:43 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > 3Gfreak wrote:
> > > > Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> > > > device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> > > > (except Ipod) out of the water.
>
> > > It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
> > > either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
> > > and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
>
> > > The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
> > > or a Sandisk Sansa.
>
> > > The reason to avoid the V3xx is that it's not really usable in Europe
> > > and Asia, as Motorola forgot to include 900 MHz GSM which is the most
> > > used band in Europe and Asia. 1800 MHz in Europe and Asia is like 1900
> > > MHz in North America, the latecomer carriers ended up with it, and the
> > > coverage is not as good as the more popular 900 MHz.
>
> > The SYNC does blow it out of the water - read the reviews! The bit
> > rate is of the V3xx is way to low ( just download some tones from
> > American Idol and see for yourself ) and the quality is below par.
>
> Given your high standard of download material, I'll pass on your
> review...
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is because the bit rate of the MP3 files are so much higher than
normal MP3's on the AI site. I guess you don't test many handsets.

Cheeers!
3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I have a European V3xx for travel to 900/1800/2100 countries now. I
> don't think I'll be able to go back to a single phone until they
> start building 5-band phones.

Check out the new Nokia N95. Much more fully featured than the iPhone,
and more expensive too ($750). But it's a real PDA, can sync with
Exchange, is HSDPA, has a good camera, and has a GPS.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I have a European V3xx for travel to 900/1800/2100 countries now. I
> don't think I'll be able to go back to a single phone until they
> start building 5-band phones.

Check out the new Nokia N95. Much more fully featured than the iPhone,
and more expensive too ($750). But it's a real PDA, can sync with
Exchange, is HSDPA, has a good camera, and has a GPS.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:43:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46228e6f$0$27160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>3Gfreak wrote:
>
>> Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
>> device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
>> (except Ipod) out of the water.
>
>It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
>either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
>and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
>
>The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
>or a Sandisk Sansa.

V3xx audio quality is actually excellent, as I've shown here previously,
and as you would know if you'd actually ever used one.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 15 Apr 2007 20:04:19 -0700, "3Gfreak" <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote
in <1176692659.415808.35540@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups. com>:

>On Apr 15, 3:43 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> 3Gfreak wrote:
>> > Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
>> > device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
>> > (except Ipod) out of the water.
>>
>> It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
>> either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
>> and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
>>
>> The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
>> or a Sandisk Sansa.
>>
>> The reason to avoid the V3xx is that it's not really usable in Europe
>> and Asia, as Motorola forgot to include 900 MHz GSM which is the most
>> used band in Europe and Asia. 1800 MHz in Europe and Asia is like 1900
>> MHz in North America, the latecomer carriers ended up with it, and the
>> coverage is not as good as the more popular 900 MHz.
>
>The SYNC does blow it out of the water - read the reviews! The bit
>rate is of the V3xx is way to low ( just download some tones from
>American Idol and see for yourself ) and the quality is below par.

As my previous posts here have shown, the V3xx actually supports
bitrates sufficiently high to be indistinguishable from high-quality CD
originals, and the quality of output on a suitable device is actually
excellent.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2007-04-17, SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> I have a European V3xx for travel to 900/1800/2100 countries now. I
>> don't think I'll be able to go back to a single phone until they
>> start building 5-band phones.
>
> Check out the new Nokia N95. Much more fully featured than the iPhone,
> and more expensive too ($750). But it's a real PDA, can sync with
> Exchange, is HSDPA, has a good camera, and has a GPS.

Yes, the high end of the market is beginning to see 5-band phones and
the Nokia N-series phones in particular are really, really pretty. I've
not yet bought a phone for much over a couple of hundred dollars (the V3xx
was about $100), however, and don't want to particularly now because when
they have 7 (or 14) Mbps HSDPA phones and service with which they are useful
I'll want to upgrade. I'll wait until the functionality gets down
to my price range. Give it a year.

For the iPhone all I can say is I hope they've got a bunch of better
featured models in the design pipeline right behind the first one.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> For the iPhone all I can say is I hope they've got a bunch of better
> featured models in the design pipeline right behind the first one.

The market for the iPhone is totally different than the market for
something like the N95. The N95 is for business users. I don't think
Apple has any intention of going after the business market with the
iPhone. No business user is going to put up with a soft keyboard,
non-replaceable battery, or lack of the PDA functions.

On Apr 17, 10:52 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:43:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <46228e6f$0$27160$742ec...@news.sonic.net>:
>
> >3Gfreak wrote:
>
> >> Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> >> device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> >> (except Ipod) out of the water.
>
> >It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
> >either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
> >and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
>
> >The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
> >or a Sandisk Sansa.
>
> V3xx audio quality is actually excellent, as I've shown here previously,
> and as you would know if you'd actually ever used one.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

I owned one, learned about it's sub-par performance then quickly sold
it. As a matter of fact, I currently own each phone Cingular currently
offers except for the Palm Series.

Cheers!
3GFreak
www.mobilevertigo.com

3Gfreak <tastybreeze@gmail.com> writes:

> I owned one, learned about it's sub-par performance then quickly sold
> it. As a matter of fact, I currently own each phone Cingular currently
> offers except for the Palm Series.

Which one do you like for RF and call quality?

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

In article <1177037435.471804.111180@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups. com>,
3Gfreak <tastybreeze@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 10:52 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:43:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> > wrote in <46228e6f$0$27160$742ec...@news.sonic.net>:
> >
> > >3Gfreak wrote:
> >
> > >> Finally something you are right on John, the V3xx is a horrible music
> > >> device. If you own one trash it and get a SYNC. Blows everything else
> > >> (except Ipod) out of the water.
> >
> > >It doesn't blow a lot of the other music players out of the water
> > >either. The Sync audio quality is acceptable. The wired headset sucks,
> > >and a Bluetooth stereo headset costs as much as the phone.
> >
> > >The V3xx audio quality is also acceptable, though nothing like an iPod
> > >or a Sandisk Sansa.
> >
> > V3xx audio quality is actually excellent, as I've shown here previously,
> > and as you would know if you'd actually ever used one.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> I owned one, learned about it's sub-par performance then quickly sold
> it. As a matter of fact, I currently own each phone Cingular currently
> offers except for the Palm Series.
>
Why?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:19:31 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46281526$0$27177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> For the iPhone all I can say is I hope they've got a bunch of better
>> featured models in the design pipeline right behind the first one.
>
>The market for the iPhone is totally different than the market for
>something like the N95. The N95 is for business users. I don't think
>Apple has any intention of going after the business market with the
>iPhone. No business user is going to put up with a soft keyboard,
>non-replaceable battery, or lack of the PDA functions.

The non-replaceable battery is a total non-issue for most business
users, and the lack of PDA functions will only matter to some.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>