 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 10:00 AM, scott wrote:
>> Making a DAC what "works" is probably quite trivial. Making one that can
>> isolate all the signal noise from the rest of the phone, handle sudden
>> transients while being powered only by a feeble half-flat battery, and
>> so on and so forth is probably much harder.
>
> But you're still only talking about 20 kHz signals, the rest of the
> phones deals with exactly those same issues for frequencies many orders
> of magnitudes higher.
I was under the impression that GSM broadcasts don't care particularly
about 10% THD, and only need to generate constant-amplitude carrier
waves. (Then again, I don't design GSM transmitters...)
> The audio DAC is probably one of the simplest
> parts in the phone for the designers to do.
The audio DAC (and the ADC, for that matter) is presumably an
off-the-shelf component.
>> Then again, it's MP3, so it probably won't sound fantastic anyway.
>> Certainly most people are going to plug in those horrid £2 things from
>> the market, so the quality of the electronic signal is quite irrelevant.
>
> Exactly, they're not really expecting Mr Hi-Fi to connect up his 30 quid
> Nokia to a 20k hi-fi with a gold-plated half-inch-thick 2xphono to 3.5mm
> cable. At best they are expecting you to connect a 100 quid pair of
> headphones to it and listen on the train, and in that case I doubt most
> people would be able to tell the difference between having a phone or an
> mp3 player connected up.
You're talking to somebody who actually owns a £100 pair of headphones.
;-) And they're not just for show. (They never leave the house, in fact.)
But yes, I'm never quite sure why these small portable devices pretend
to be able to produce hi-fi sound when it's perfectly obvious that they
cannot possibly do so.
>> Far more problematic than carrying the player is carrying the large £30
>> headphones I usually use it with.
>
> Invest in a smaller pair?
I could buy a smaller pair, but then what would be the point of listening?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 10:05 AM, scott wrote:
>> Of course, you can't actually fit an audio book onto a phone with 10MB
>> of flash RAM, but nice idea.
>
> Can you even buy phones without memory card slots nowadays?
I have no idea.
If my phone has a card slot, it must be under the battery, and I'm not
rebooting it now to find out.
PS. Why is there a 20-minute delay between turning a phone on and being
able to use it? Even my PC isn't /that/ slow...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 9:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Of course, you can't actually fit an audio book onto a phone with 10MB
>>> of flash RAM, but nice idea.
>>
>> If you will buy a cheap phone, what do you expect?
>
> A device that can make and receive phone calls?
>
Be happy, that is what you've got. :-)
> Still, presumably all the unnecessary gadgetry is there merely to make
> the product summary sound better. I can't imagine that anybody purposely
> chooses the cheapest phone they can find and actually /wants/ to use it
> as an MP3 player or a video camera.
>
To true.
> (Come to think of it, I find it hard to believe that anybody actually
> wants a phone with a camera in it at all, but anyway...)
particularly but I know people who take a photo then email it to someone
to ask their opinion about it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PS. Why is there a 20-minute delay between turning a phone on and being
> able to use it? Even my PC isn't /that/ slow...
Probably because they don't anticipate you doing it very often, so don't
bother to optimise it much. The only time mine gets rebooted is when I
go on a plane or I forget to recharge it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/2011 11:18 AM, scott wrote:
>> PS. Why is there a 20-minute delay between turning a phone on and being
>> able to use it? Even my PC isn't /that/ slow...
>
> Probably because they don't anticipate you doing it very often, so don't
> bother to optimise it much. The only time mine gets rebooted is when I
> go on a plane or I forget to recharge it.
Yeah, I guess. About the only time I reboot mine is when the software
starts being strange, which fortunately is quite rare. Also, the battery
life is quite impressive. I can usually get away with charging it once
per month.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>> (Yes, I typically do strip the
>> DRM from my purchases; they're my purchases, after all).
>
> 2. Isn't that illegal?
yes, DRM is illegal.
> Riiight. So I can pay £40 or more for the headphones with the special
> phone-specific plug and listen to low-quality MP3 playback.
why low-quality? are you still in the 56kb/s era?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> yes, DRM is illegal.
In which legal system? :-P
>> Riiight. So I can pay £40 or more for the headphones with the special
>> phone-specific plug and listen to low-quality MP3 playback.
>
> why low-quality? are you still in the 56kb/s era?
What, you think they're going to put a top-of-the-range DAC into a cheap
device intended for relaying speech?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:16:16 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Besides, who wants a system that can delete the books you've paid for
>>> at any time, for no defined reason?
>>
>> That's what backups are for.
>
> Can the Kindle actually do that? I know Amazon automatically lets you
> download items again if they have a record of you purchasing them, but
> that's still no help if they delete it from the catalogue.
I don't know, I have a Nook, and I can do it on there.
>> (Yes, I typically do strip the
>> DRM from my purchases; they're my purchases, after all).
>
> 1. How is that possible?
GIYF. With Nook purchases, you need to know the name and credit card
number to strip the DRM.
> 2. Isn't that illegal?
Debatable. Are there laws that say circumventing electronic protections
on content is illegal in the US? Yes. (actually, DMCA specifically
prohibits the publication of code that breaks DRM) Does that mean I
can't do that for my own personal use? That's debatable. I bought the
content, and I'm not breaking the DRM to profit from it - but to preserve
my access to the content in the event that I cannot get it back again.
That's something that hasn't been challenged in court (from either side).
>>> It also thinks its am MP3 player. I have no idea why. The sound
>>> quality of a 2mm speaker is, obviously, abysmal.
>>
>> That's what headphones or speakers are for.
>
> Riiight. So I can pay £40 or more for the headphones with the special
> phone-specific plug and listen to low-quality MP3 playback.
Well, on my phone and on my Nook, they use a standard headphone jack.
> Or I could, I don't know, use my MP3 player...
Sure, you could. Or you could have bought a device that uses a standard
jack instead of having something weird that is only compatible with one
device.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:42:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Making a DAC what "works" is probably quite trivial. Making one that can
> isolate all the signal noise from the rest of the phone, handle sudden
> transients while being powered only by a feeble half-flat battery, and
> so on and so forth is probably much harder.
>
> Then again, it's MP3, so it probably won't sound fantastic anyway.
> Certainly most people are going to plug in those horrid £2 things from
> the market, so the quality of the electronic signal is quite irrelevant.
Actually, I've plugged my phone into my 7.1 stereo system and listened to
music on it. Works beautifully, with no extraneous noise from the CDMA
signal at all.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 13/01/2011 05:22 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> That's the link I was looking for.
>>
>> http://www.slashgear.com/qualcomm-mirasol-color-ereader-hands-on-0869191/
>
> That display looks very, very dark. Maybe it's just a bad picture, but
> it looks almost unreadable.
I was thinking as I looked at it that it didn't really show off the product
too well. Hard to say whether it's the photography or the device.
Altho around 15 to 25 seconds, it looks pretty good.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
