![Home](../_derived/home_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Recent Changes](../_derived/Recent%20Changes.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Site Maps](../_derived/Site%20Maps.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Phone Reviews](../_derived/Phone%20Reviews.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Useful Info](../_derived/Useful%20Info.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Photo Galleries](../_derived/Photo%20Galleries.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Links](../_derived/Links.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![History](../_derived/History.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![FAQ](../_derived/FAQ.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![Contact Me](../_derived/Contact.htm_cmp_blueprnt000_vbtn.gif)
![](../_borders/steve_big_transparent.gif)
![](http://www.UltimateCounter.com/count/count.cgi?209092&r=&d=32&s=1024&t=2&j=true)
| |
Along with RF performance<Need
to add link>, one of the biggest differences between cell phone
models is their audio quality. Unlike RF however, audio is much harder to
quantify. For starters, there is absolutely no industry-accepted standard for
how a cell phone should sound, and few in the industry seem to take it very
seriously. Some companies seem to have a total disregard for how their phones
actually sound, while others seem to try very hard to produce phones that have
excellent aural properties.
Audio quality can actually be broken down into two very distinct facets. The
first is the phone's ability to reproduce the audio without adding distortion or
unwanted noise. The second is the tonal balance of the resulting audio. Note
that a phone's ability to reproduce a true rendition of the audio will vary from
technology to technology, simply because GSM, CDMA, IS-136, and iDEN use
different CODECs. A CODEC in the cell phone world is always a compromise between
quality, and sending audio using the fewest possible bits. It is rarely possible
to compare phones that use different technologies, but we can compare phones
that use the same technology (GSM vs GSM, CDMA vs CDMA, etc).
Tonal balance is probably the most subjective of all, since different people
have different ideas about what constitutes good tonal balance. My opinions on
this matter are just as subjective as the next guy's, but I do pride myself on
being an audiophile, so I do believe that I have a fairly good handle of what's
balanced and what's not. However, that doesn't mean that my opinion is necessary
in keeping with what you personally want from a phone.
When reading my reviews, your best best is to use my tonal balance comments as a
guideline, and compare them to what I've said about other phones (some of which
you may already be familiar with). As for the phone's ability to reproduce the
audio however, that's much less subjective, and I do believe that my ability to
detect distortion and other unwanted audio maladies is reasonably well honed.
Once a flaw is recognized, the problem isn't whether it exists, but to what
extent it really matters. This will depend upon your own personal threshold of
tolerance when it comes to such matters.
Much of what we accept as good audio quality from a phone is merely relative to
what we were used to before. For example, when I first switched from the analog
world to the digital world, I bought a Nokia 2190 on Fido. I thought that phone
sounded incredibly good, since it was better than what I'd been accustomed to up
to that point. I still have that 2190 sitting around, and sometimes I charge the
battery and pop my SIM into it just to hear what it sounds like. If I were
rating that phone today I would probably give it such low marks for audio
reproduction that I'd be recommending that no one wasted their money on it.
So even on less subjective matters as audio reproduction, background noise, etc,
it still comes down to your own personal likes and dislikes. As with tonal
balance, it is best to read my comments simply as a guideline. If you're one of
those people to whom all phones sound just fine, then consider yourself
fortunate that audio quality isn't an issue you have to be concerned with when
you buy a phone. If audio quality is an important issue to you, then I can only
hope that my comments help you to make the right decision for you.
When it comes to testing audio quality of a phone, I try to subject the model to
as many different types of voice as possible. For example, some phones might
sound great on female voices, but muddy on male voices. I phone a variety of
pre-recorded messages, and I carry on two-way conversations. As for outgoing
audio, I do ask callers to give me their opinion of the sound, but I don't rely
on that. Instead, I call my voicemail using the test phone and I compare the
overall quality against a reference phone (such as my Motorola P280).
Outgoing audio tests are carried out under a variety of background conditions,
ranging from quiet rooms, to noisy shopping malls, to noisy vehicles. I do this
to see how well the phone in question copes with the background noises, and how
clearly the user's voice is reproduced in each situation. Many CDMA phones for
example are horrendous when background noises are quite loud, but they sound
great in quiet environments.
Audio Glossary
Tonal Balance: This refers to the balance of sound levels across the full
range of audio frequencies. If we say that a phone has good tonal balance, we
mean that it doesn't enhance or suppress any particular set of frequencies. The
audio is said to be "natural sounding".
Peaky: This is a sign of poor tonal balance. It means that one particular
set of frequencies has been greatly enhanced such that elements of speech that
fall within that range sound far more pronounced.
Shrill: This is a specific type of peakiness, in which the sound contains
too much high frequency energy. The most obvious facet of a shrill sound is that
it often has a piercing quality to it that makes you pull the phone away from
your ear.
Tinny: This is when audio contains too much "high end" and too little
"low end". A cheap AM radio with a small speaker would be an example of a tinny
sounding device.
Boomy: This is when audio contains too much "low end". If you were
listening to music through a boomy sound system, the bass instruments (like
drums and bass guitars) would sound overly loud, and they would produce odd
sound effects reminiscent of a huge drum.
Muddy: This is quite similar to Boomy, but it lacks the "big drum"
effect. It is usually rather indistinct sounding because of its lack of higher
frequency components. Nuances of speech are much more difficult to discern.
Thin: This refers to sound that lacks many of the important frequencies
necessary for voice reproduction. Even though the resulting sound might be
perfectly understandable, you are aware that the voice is somehow "incomplete".
Distorted: This is when the audio is changed in some way. Distortion
comes in many forms, but all of them alter the way the waveform is recreated.
Scratchy: This is a particular type of distortion in which a sort of
scratching (or high-rate crackling) sound can be detected beneath the spoken
words.
Coarse: This is when the voice reproduction seems to be less than smooth.
It is hard to put into words, but it is best described as the audible equivalent
of a grainy photograph.
Grainy: Same as Coarse.
Harsh: Usually the same as Grainy, but it can also encompass other audio
problems that make the voice quality less-than-natural.
Hiss: A background noise that doesn't directly affect the overall sound
quality. Hiss is the result of random energy across the entire audio spectrum.
It is generally referred to as "white noise". When the hiss is composed
primarily of higher frequency components, it is referred to as "pink noise".
Crackling: This is another type of background noise that doesn't directly
affect the overall sound quality. It is similar to hiss, but it contains random
noises that make it sound a bit like an old phonograph record.
Rustling: A muted example of Crackling.
|