|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > May 2007 > MP3 audio quality/capabilities of Motorola RAZR V3xx (aka IZAR)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
MP3 audio quality/capabilities of Motorola RAZR V3xx (aka IZAR)
|
|
| John Navas 2007-04-08, 10:33 am |
| 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Lyman Green 2007-04-13, 12:33 pm |
| 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
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
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-13, 3:33 pm |
| 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:
[color=darkred]
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 10:27:47 -0700, "Lyman Green" <lymang@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1176485267.008485.267240@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> The screen is really, really small.
>
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-04-15, 3:33 pm |
| 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
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.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-04-15, 10:33 pm |
| On Apr 15, 3:43 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 3Gfreak wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-04-16, 10:33 pm |
| 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.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-04-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Apr 15, 10:23 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1176692659.415808.35...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "3Gfreak" <tastybre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-17, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:43:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46228e6f$0$27160$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>3Gfreak wrote:
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-17, 12:33 pm |
| 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:
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-04-17, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-04-17, SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> 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.
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-04-19, 10:33 pm |
| 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$742
ec...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
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
| |
| Todd H. 2007-04-19, 10:33 pm |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: shell3.ripco.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1177037831 10898 209.100.225.244 (20 Apr 2007 02:57:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.motorola:118327 alt.cellular.cingular:78622
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/
| |
|
| User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:03:15 -0700
Message-ID: <labolide-5C71EE.20031519042007@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Trace: sv3- XBLYIDatH4d+ZjCNN2U6
SQGkrTr98UUqk5HEq8vM
d6GUWG3jN/ Pndblfum7i0S9uN0X126
a3I7XpNW3!RN3AAxB1IL
lqYDB2eaw1l76cverr36
hySj5HV1feNCKn0WoQZv
ITtH5aglOQgQ0Knl22R2
bZMQBW!mxw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.34
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.motorola:118328 alt.cellular.cingular:78623
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:
>
> 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"
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-20, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:19:31 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46281526$0$27177$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| 3Gfreak 2007-05-20, 10:33 am |
| 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$742
ec...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
You have only showed that the bit rate it to slow thus resulting in
poor sound quality. Lets move forward!
3GFreak
|
|
|
|
|