On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/06/2014 09:23 AM, John McGaw wrote:

On 4/4/2014 11:55 AM, Danny D. wrote:
Long story short, I believe T-Mobile lied to the consumer by claiming
the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 have both 4GB of internal memory
and that they can use up to a 32 GB external microsd card.

Without arguing why I feel that way, I just wish to ask here whether
the complaint rightly goes to the FTC or to the FCC?

On the one hand, it's (grossly) false and misleading advertising.
On the other hand, it's a communication device.

Whom would you file the complaint to?
How?

I would complain to neither since both claims seem to be literally true. If
I made such a purchase and wanted somebody to blame for the results then
I'd have to start by blaming myself for not doing a bit of basic research
before the act. Whinging afterward seldom does any good.

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations -- motor,
wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these specifically
because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When was the last time
you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you be wanting headlights
with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different. First-time
buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is relatively new
technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the decent thing is to
provide more and better explanation.

Well that's one reason to buy used or cheap to begin with, so you can
learn through experience what's needed (what can be left as options).
Once you have some hand on experience, then it's much easier to evaluate
what you need, and what you may want.

Michael

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:54:04 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

they should make it clear that you can't use the
SD card for storage of apps!

On the contrary: the SD card is a *great* place to store your apps.
But it's a terrible place to try to run them from :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:22:06 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, The Real Bev wrote:

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different. First-time
buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is relatively new
technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the decent thing is to
provide more and better explanation.

Well that's one reason to buy used or cheap to begin with, so you can
learn through experience what's needed (what can be left as options).
Once you have some hand on experience, then it's much easier to evaluate
what you need, and what you may want.

I went another way when I bought my first smart phone and got what was then
a better-than-average device, the Galaxy S3. As it turned out, I like it
quite a lot, but there are obvious risks associated with not buying cheap.

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 06:01:30 -0700, dave wrote:

but in 10 years I will still have clean copies of my music, and my
hearing, which is fine.

Your music, very possibly. Your hearing? You can never be sure. Hearing
acuity in my right ear dropped a good 20 dB at 10 kHz over the past 10
years, and rather more at 15 kHz and higher. Of course, YMMV. -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:48:11 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:52:55 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

I did a lot of reading about cellphones, but NOWHERE did I see it
mentioned that external sdcards couldn't run applications.

I think most reviewers don't even know this fact!

Based on what? And what reviewers?


Certainly, I didn't know it before I bought the phones.

I only learned after the phones came back to me to 'fix',
when I found out, sadly, without rooting, that it would
be very difficult (if not impossible) to move the
pre-installed apps or to install new apps, to the sdcard.

I admit, I was an idiot. I had trusted that the reviewers
actually knew what they were doing. Now, I belatedly realize,
they're all shills, CNET & PC Magazine (sadly) included.

PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

CNET:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/05/2014 04:49 AM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 03:01:39 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

From my experience of the Android platform on phones, you won't find it is
much different from your experience with the T-Mobile phone, right across
the board.

I think the "problem" is that the "little lie" becomes a "big lie" the
closer your internal memory gets to 4GB.

For example, if they lie by 4GB in a 32GB phone, you still have a usable
28GB of "usable" memory.

Likewise, if they lie by 4GB in a 16GB or even 8GB phone, you still have
a usable 12GB and 4GB respectively.

But, if they lie by 4GB in a 4GB phone, you end up with a useless phone.

Compound that lie with the lie of the promise of the SD card, and you
are dead in the water with a phone you never would have bought, had the
carrier provided the truth when you looked up the specs and asked on
the phone about the "usable" memory.

A knowledgeable person might have defined 'usable' as 'usable for
downloading and running additional applications'; the problem is that
NOBODY is knowledgeable the first time they buy a smartphone...or
computer...or anything else that's fairly complex; there's always SOME
nasty surprise no matter how much research you do

NObody is "knowledgable" the first time they buy a car either. Do they
just pick one out to buy without doing any research?

Had that been done I think T-Mobile wouldn't have had a leg to stand on,
especially if you'd recorded the conversation. I also think that the
helpdroid would have said exactly the same thing -- "Sure you can do it"
-- because he didn't expect to hear the qualifier. Sort of like WW2
'dazzle' paint on ships :-)

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:47:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , dave
wrote:

there certainly isn't an audible difference on headphones or with the
built-in speakers of a device.

I would not put headphones in the same category as built-in speakers.

they're in the same category in that neither is particularly good and
they aren't used in situations where perfect sound matters, such as
jogging, walking or riding on a train or airplane.

Perhaps the average schmuck in a test can't tell, maybe I can't tell,
but in 10 years I will still have clean copies of my music, and my
hearing, which is fine. If you do MP3 at 256k or 320k why not just
record the PCM as a .wav? What is the advantage of using MPEG
compression? H264 aac? Or Apple aac?

the reason to use compressed audio is because it's significantly
smaller than uncompressed audio, with no audible difference.

typically, one can get around 5-10x as much music in the same space or
have the same amount of music with plenty of room to spare for other
stuff, such as apps, photos, videos and whatever else you might want.

why waste the space on something that can't be heard?

and aac is not apple's. it's an industry standard that's better than
mp3.

"Space" is cheap, hearing is not.

space is cheap for a desktop computer. it's not that cheap for a mobile
device in your pocket which has a hard upper limit (typically 32-64 gig
internal), and for devices that accept cards, it becomes a nightmare
swapping them and keeping track of which one has what on it.

Perceptual coding is audible to lots
of people who listen for a living. These include musicians and audio
engineers.

no it isn't.

people *think* they can hear a difference but in countless double-blind
tests, they consistently do no better than chance. they are *guessing*
at which is which.

there's a famous test where audiophiles, who claim they can hear subtle
differences, could not tell the difference between monster cable and
ordinary coat hangers (and they didn't even know that a coat hanger was
being used).


But they can tell MP3 from FLAC. It;s a bad analogy.

FLAC is free lossless audio codec.

as is alac, apple's open source lossless compression.

however, both are a complete waste of space on a mobile device where
one typically listens to music on headphones or the internal speakers
and in environments where any differences if they did exist, would not
matter and could not be heard. nobody is going to notice artifacts
while jogging or listening on a train.

you *might* have a point if it was hooked to a high end audio system,
but it isn't (and even then, you couldn't tell a difference - see above
for double-blind tests).

Compression and lossy
compression are 2 different things.

nobody said otherwise.

however, there's no *audible* difference.

this has been proven time and time again.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...dd000110.shtml

Apple is where I was first exposed to aac. Sorry if I upset you.

you didn't upset me. a lot of people mistakenly think aac is an apple
proprietary codec and it is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

AAC has been standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and
MPEG-4 specifications. Part of the AAC known as High Efficiency
Advanced Audio Coding (HE-AAC) which is part of MPEG-4 Audio is also
adopted into digital radio standards like DAB+ and Digital Radio
Mondiale, as well as mobile television standards DVB-H and ATSC-M/H.
...
AAC is the default or standard audio format for YouTube, iPhone,
iPod, iPad, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS, iTunes, DivX Plus Web Player
and PlayStation 3. It is supported on PlayStation Vita, Wii (with the
Photo Channel 1.1 update installed), Sony Walkman MP3 series and
later, Sony Ericsson; Nokia, Android, BlackBerry, and webOS-based
mobile phones, with the use of a converter. AAC also continues to
enjoy increasing adoption by manufacturers of in-dash car audio
systems.

And you
have obviously never listened to a pair of Grados so I don't know what
to think about your opinions regarding listening to hifi.

this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/06/2014 09:23 AM, John McGaw wrote:

On 4/4/2014 11:55 AM, Danny D. wrote:
Long story short, I believe T-Mobile lied to the consumer by claiming
the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 have both 4GB of internal memory
and that they can use up to a 32 GB external microsd card.

Without arguing why I feel that way, I just wish to ask here whether
the complaint rightly goes to the FTC or to the FCC?

On the one hand, it's (grossly) false and misleading advertising.
On the other hand, it's a communication device.

Whom would you file the complaint to?
How?

I would complain to neither since both claims seem to be literally
true. If
I made such a purchase and wanted somebody to blame for the results then
I'd have to start by blaming myself for not doing a bit of basic research
before the act. Whinging afterward seldom does any good.

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

Then blame the EPA who decided how to measure it.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:33:42 -0500, Paul Miner
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

If enough L9 customers cared, there'd be a groundswell for a class
action suit. I guess I missed it.

On 04/08/2014 08:47 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , dave
wrote:

there certainly isn't an audible difference on headphones or with the
built-in speakers of a device.

I would not put headphones in the same category as built-in speakers.

they're in the same category in that neither is particularly good and
they aren't used in situations where perfect sound matters, such as
jogging, walking or riding on a train or airplane.

Perhaps the average schmuck in a test can't tell, maybe I can't tell,
but in 10 years I will still have clean copies of my music, and my
hearing, which is fine. If you do MP3 at 256k or 320k why not just
record the PCM as a .wav? What is the advantage of using MPEG
compression? H264 aac? Or Apple aac?

the reason to use compressed audio is because it's significantly
smaller than uncompressed audio, with no audible difference.

typically, one can get around 5-10x as much music in the same space or
have the same amount of music with plenty of room to spare for other
stuff, such as apps, photos, videos and whatever else you might want.

why waste the space on something that can't be heard?

and aac is not apple's. it's an industry standard that's better than
mp3.

"Space" is cheap, hearing is not.

space is cheap for a desktop computer. it's not that cheap for a mobile
device in your pocket which has a hard upper limit (typically 32-64 gig
internal), and for devices that accept cards, it becomes a nightmare
swapping them and keeping track of which one has what on it.

Perceptual coding is audible to lots
of people who listen for a living. These include musicians and audio
engineers.

no it isn't.

people *think* they can hear a difference but in countless double-blind
tests, they consistently do no better than chance. they are *guessing*
at which is which.

there's a famous test where audiophiles, who claim they can hear subtle
differences, could not tell the difference between monster cable and
ordinary coat hangers (and they didn't even know that a coat hanger was
being used).

FLAC is free lossless audio codec.

as is alac, apple's open source lossless compression.

however, both are a complete waste of space on a mobile device where
one typically listens to music on headphones or the internal speakers
and in environments where any differences if they did exist, would not
matter and could not be heard. nobody is going to notice artifacts
while jogging or listening on a train.

you *might* have a point if it was hooked to a high end audio system,
but it isn't (and even then, you couldn't tell a difference - see above
for double-blind tests).

Compression and lossy
compression are 2 different things.

nobody said otherwise.

however, there's no *audible* difference.

this has been proven time and time again.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...dd000110.shtml

Apple is where I was first exposed to aac. Sorry if I upset you.

you didn't upset me. a lot of people mistakenly think aac is an apple
proprietary codec and it is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

AAC has been standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and
MPEG-4 specifications. Part of the AAC known as High Efficiency
Advanced Audio Coding (HE-AAC) which is part of MPEG-4 Audio is also
adopted into digital radio standards like DAB+ and Digital Radio
Mondiale, as well as mobile television standards DVB-H and ATSC-M/H.
...
AAC is the default or standard audio format for YouTube, iPhone,
iPod, iPad, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS, iTunes, DivX Plus Web Player
and PlayStation 3. It is supported on PlayStation Vita, Wii (with the
Photo Channel 1.1 update installed), Sony Walkman MP3 series and
later, Sony Ericsson; Nokia, Android, BlackBerry, and webOS-based
mobile phones, with the use of a converter. AAC also continues to
enjoy increasing adoption by manufacturers of in-dash car audio
systems.

And you
have obviously never listened to a pair of Grados so I don't know what
to think about your opinions regarding listening to hifi.

this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

On 04/08/2014 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

Then blame the EPA who decided how to measure it.

More likely I should blame my driving out in the Real World, where there
are slopes, headwinds, rain, snow, fog, dust, and other drivers.

TJ

In article , dave
wrote:

And you
have obviously never listened to a pair of Grados so I don't know what
to think about your opinions regarding listening to hifi.

this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds?

that's what i meand, since that's what the majority of people use when
listening to mobile devices.

I never said Apple owned
aac.

you said apple aac.

aac is not apple's format. it's an industry standard format that apple
and numerous other companies use.

apple didn't modify anything.

I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag.

then you must have done something wrong.

were these aac files you made or ones made by others?

it's possible to make crappy aac files, just as it's possible to make a
crappy cd. anything can be crap.

it's also possible to do a good job and make quality aac (or mp3)
files.

a valid comparison is between the best of each medium, not the best of
one and the worst of the other.

Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening.

that's the whole point. you get a substantial size benefit with no
audible artifacts at the higher bit rates.

at lower bit rates there are more artifacts. at some point, the amount
of artifacts becomes a problem, depending on the sounds. voice files,
for instance, don't need as high of a bit rate as music.

The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files).

yes it most certainly will.

there are numerous ios apps that play flac or vorbis directly.

there are also flac plug-ins for itunes, although that won't help on an
ios device.

you could also convert the files to apple lossless and use the native
ios music app rather than a separate app. converting from one lossless
format (flac) to another lossless format (alac) is lossless.

or just play them as-is with one of many apps.

plenty of options.

If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

i'm not having any storage problems at all and cloud solutions don't
work when there's no network connection or if someone doesn't have
unlimited data bandwidth.

snip


To its credit, it does say "Unfortunately, bloatware runs
rampant. You get nine pieces of bloatware from T-Mobile
alone, and you can't delete any of it."

But, it NEVER SAID that you can't use the SD card for
app storage. And, it never said you only get 600MB
in toto, for app storage!

I don't think that it is strictly true that you *can't* use the SD card for
app storage as a function of Android or whatever stopping you. It seems to
be a restriction placed by some of the app writers. I have several apps that
I've downloaded to my Samsung that did allow me to put them onto the SD
card. However, I also have a couple that insisted on loading to the internal
storage, and won't let me move them. From what I could gather, some apps
will not run fast enough from the SD card, and that is the reason that their
writers will not allow them to be placed on the card, but I'm pretty sure
that this restriction for 'technical' reasons, is not the same as the
pre-installed bloatware not being moveable. I think that is more to do with
them not wanting that to be /re/ movable, which of course it would be if you
could shift it to the card ...

Arfa

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:48:11 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:52:55 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

I did a lot of reading about cellphones, but NOWHERE did I see it
mentioned that external sdcards couldn't run applications.

I think most reviewers don't even know this fact!

Certainly, I didn't know it before I bought the phones.

I only learned after the phones came back to me to 'fix',
when I found out, sadly, without rooting, that it would
be very difficult (if not impossible) to move the
pre-installed apps or to install new apps, to the sdcard.

I admit, I was an idiot. I had trusted that the reviewers
actually knew what they were doing. Now, I belatedly realize,
they're all shills, CNET & PC Magazine (sadly) included.

Cripes. You must be a lot younger than i thought. Those two have been
nothing but industry shills for over 30 years.

PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

CNET:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

kom med følgende:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

Then blame the EPA who decided how to measure it.

This number shouldn't be called mpg or km/l, it should be called Fuel
Consumption Index, because it is not the real life consumption; it is
measured in a reproducible and comparable way to allow for the
comparing (sp?) of different cars.

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:51:05 -0700, dave wrote:

On 04/08/2014 07:07 AM, nospam wrote:

there certainly isn't an audible difference on headphones or with the
built-in speakers of a device.

I would not put headphones in the same category as built-in speakers.

they're in the same category in that neither is particularly good and
they aren't used in situations where perfect sound matters, such as
jogging, walking or riding on a train or airplane.

Perhaps the average schmuck in a test can't tell, maybe I can't tell,
but in 10 years I will still have clean copies of my music, and my
hearing, which is fine. If you do MP3 at 256k or 320k why not just
record the PCM as a .wav? What is the advantage of using MPEG
compression? H264 aac? Or Apple aac?

the reason to use compressed audio is because it's significantly
smaller than uncompressed audio, with no audible difference.

typically, one can get around 5-10x as much music in the same space or
have the same amount of music with plenty of room to spare for other
stuff, such as apps, photos, videos and whatever else you might want.

why waste the space on something that can't be heard?

and aac is not apple's. it's an industry standard that's better than
mp3.

"Space" is cheap, hearing is not. Perceptual coding is audible to lots
of people who listen for a living. These include musicians and audio
engineers. FLAC is free lossless audio codec. Compression and lossy
compression are 2 different things.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/f...dd000110.shtml

Apple is where I was first exposed to aac. Sorry if I upset you. And you
have obviously never listened to a pair of Grados so I don't know what
to think about your opinions regarding listening to hifi.

Oh drear, another Mr. golden ears.

?-(

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave wrote:


this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:


Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ

Real bad leadfoot eh?

?-)

On 04/10/2014 12:42 AM, josephkk wrote:

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

Have there been any scientific tests on the effects of listening
fatigue, over hours, from listening to PAC and SBR compressed files? It
is a real consideration as any broadcast engineer worth his Rohde and
Schwarz can tell you. I can listen to 128k MP3 all day long in the car
but once I get in a quiet place the same files sound like wire recordings.

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

It is acknowledged that some of us hear better. I have not read a
magazine in years.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:03:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

A knowledgeable person might have defined 'usable' as 'usable for
downloading and running additional applications'; the problem is that
NOBODY is knowledgeable the first time they buy a smartphone...or
computer...or anything else that's fairly complex; there's always SOME
nasty surprise no matter how much research you do

NObody is "knowledgable" the first time they buy a car either. Do they
just pick one out to buy without doing any research?

I know someone who freely admits to buying a car because "it was white, had
two doors, and a spoiler". :-)

Your point is still valid, of course.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:37:20 -0500, Paul Miner
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:03:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

A knowledgeable person might have defined 'usable' as 'usable for
downloading and running additional applications'; the problem is that
NOBODY is knowledgeable the first time they buy a smartphone...or
computer...or anything else that's fairly complex; there's always SOME
nasty surprise no matter how much research you do

NObody is "knowledgable" the first time they buy a car either. Do they
just pick one out to buy without doing any research?

I know someone who freely admits to buying a car because "it was white, had
two doors, and a spoiler". :-)

Your point is still valid, of course.

I didn't mean people don't do that, just that doing it is stupid.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave wrote:


this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)


And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

On 04/11/2014 01:16 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
wrote:

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)


And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.


I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not. And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

In article , dave
wrote:

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

aliasing is due to undersampling, not a codec, and the sampling rate is
high enough to reproduce all audible frequencies (and then some),
especially for anyone past about 20-30 years old.

i guarantee that in a double-blind test you won't be able to tell the
difference between an original aiff and an aac. countless such tests
have shown this to be true for others.

In article ,
wrote:

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds
already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would
sound the same as the sacd.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

that's a very simplistic view.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3
versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the
differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads.
dogs might enjoy the difference though.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

whether something is open source or not has nothing whatsoever to do
with how it sounds.

in a double-blind test, you won't be able to tell which is which.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:53:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds
already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would
sound the same as the sacd.

That was my point.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

that's a very simplistic view.

You have a better way to describe it in a single post? I didn't mean
that the middle is empty.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3
versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the
differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads.
dogs might enjoy the difference though.

Yes, when they are beyond what humans can hear they can't be heard.
Your point? What they can hear depends on the source material, the
reporuction system, and the person.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

In article ,
wrote:

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

they're guessing which is which, which means there's no difference.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/06/2014 09:23 AM, John McGaw wrote:

On 4/4/2014 11:55 AM, Danny D. wrote:
Long story short, I believe T-Mobile lied to the consumer by claiming
the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 have both 4GB of internal memory
and that they can use up to a 32 GB external microsd card.

Without arguing why I feel that way, I just wish to ask here whether
the complaint rightly goes to the FTC or to the FCC?

On the one hand, it's (grossly) false and misleading advertising.
On the other hand, it's a communication device.

Whom would you file the complaint to?
How?

I would complain to neither since both claims seem to be literally
true. If
I made such a purchase and wanted somebody to blame for the results then
I'd have to start by blaming myself for not doing a bit of basic research
before the act. Whinging afterward seldom does any good.

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ
The last two cars I bought actually do better than the EPA estimate
most of the time. But I'm not a leadfoot most of the time.
Eric

On 04/11/2014 05:47 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/08/2014 07:58 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 05:52 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

I should have read this newsgroup before buying the phone. I've found
that people who review products in various "forums" and
sales/manufacturers' websites generally don't have a clue.

Straying a bit off-topic, but the same thing can be said for most user
reviews. Some are done by shills paid by competitors to pan the item.
Some are done by people who have purchased it but haven't even opened
the "box" yet. And some are done by kids, who by definition think they
know everything. Maybe 10% are honest reviews. Trouble is, it can be
hard to find which 10% that is.

I automatically disbelieve any with ****-poor grammar, spelling,
punctuation, etc., as well as those who just sound stupid. I'd guess
less than 10%, but I'm a hopeful pessimist at heart :-(

I'm a farmer. Except for four years at a state university and a two-year
stint in the military at the request of Richard Nixon and The Congress
of The United States, I've always been a farmer.

If you were to look up the word "optimist" in an illustrated dictionary,
you'd probably see a picture of a farmer.

TJ

On 04/11/2014 05:44 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/08/2014 06:05 AM, dave wrote:

Use Youtube video tutorials.

Sorry, unless for something truly simple I regard youtube instructional
videos as barely more reliable than advertisements or reviews. I looked
at several claiming to show how to bend some parts of my Canon A720is
camera so it would not constantly be signaling 'low battery'. Theirs
didn't even look like mine.

I found one on using a Harbor Freight Chain Saw Sharpener to be rather
helpful. It showed me how the thing was supposed to work, so I could see
what had to be modified on mine to make up for the shoddy workmanship of
its construction. It did a fine job once I fixed it.

TJ

On 04/11/2014 05:58 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/08/2014 08:16 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

That number is actually dependent on the kind of driving you do -- the
only value the mpg rating has is as a comparison tool with other
vehicles rated by the same entity. That's very different.

Never having bought a new car, I'll take your word for the miles/tank
thing. All things considered, I've been satisfied with the cheap used
cars I've purchased. You can test drive them, sniff, listen, look at
the oil and transmission fluid, bounce them, push buttons, etc. I would
never buy a car -- even a new one -- just by reading the spec sheet or
instruction manual.

OTOH, I don't have much confidence in my ability to choose or fix a car
with electrical/computer-driven works. In this case I have to trust the
manufacturer based on previous experience. This means I buy only
Toyota, or maybe Mazda. GM and Nissan cars have been disappointing, and
a friend says he would never own a BMW if his son wasn't a BMW mechanic
and could get him free repair and discounts on purchases. Toyotas,
however, have been bulletproof no matter how badly they were abused.

I didn't say the cars were new.

TJ

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:56:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

they're guessing which is which, which means there's no difference.

They are probably guessing so there is probably no difference. If you
do a vaild statistical analysis, you can compute the "probability".

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:19:54 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/08/2014 05:33 PM, Paul Miner wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Until they get slapped in the face with the Trout of Truth :-)


Or they really don't care because it does what the need it to do.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

On 04/11/2014 08:30 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , dave
wrote:

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

aliasing is due to undersampling, not a codec, and the sampling rate is
high enough to reproduce all audible frequencies (and then some),
especially for anyone past about 20-30 years old.

i guarantee that in a double-blind test you won't be able to tell the
difference between an original aiff and an aac. countless such tests
have shown this to be true for others.


I am referring to SBR, which you edited away.

On 04/11/2014 08:53 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.