Apple's iPhone 4: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Brian Klug & Anand Lal Shimpi on June 30, 2010 4:06 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- iPhone 4
- Gadgets
- Mobile
Speakerphone Volume
In my N900/Motorola Droid piece, I alluded to an interesting note I made about the iPhone 3GS's speaker volume. For a long while, people have complained that the iPhone's speakerphone volume was too quiet, complaining that even at the maximum volume it was nowhere near loud enough. The same applied to noise level over the handset through the earphone speaker.
I've noticed a similar issue, but picked out another detail while testing the AT&T MicroCell - calls on 2G are louder than calls on 3G. After I got my soundmeter, I set out about measuring, and found that my suspicions were confirmed. Calls on 2G GSM are indeed significantly louder than calls on 3G UMTS on the iPhone, and curiously not so on the Nexus One. The reason? Dynamic range compression.
If you're familiar with the FM loudness war, than you'll instantly understand what's at play with 2G versus 3G call loudness. Calls placed over GSM have a smaller dynamic range, while 3G calls over UMTS have greater dynamic range (and fidelity). The dynamic range of GSM is roughly equivalent to CDMA 1xRTT (which is what all calls on Sprint and Verizon are placed over - not over 3G Ev-Do), though that's a whole other can of worms to discuss. Regardless, when users unfamiliar with the inherent difference in fidelity hear a 3G call after getting accustomed to 2G loudness from 1xRTT or GSM, it sounds notably quiet on the iPhone.
This is a problem that's existed since the iPhone 3G, and has gone unchecked in the 3GS, and 4. For whatever reason, Apple isn't increasing the gain on 3G to match the same loudness, possibly to preserve fidelity, and the result is that the speakerphone and earpiece are never as loud as they really could be compared to a 2G call. As I mentioned before, Android on the Nexus One appears to use an automatic gain algorithm to normalize loudness. If you place a 3G call and listen carefully, you can actually hear the gain ramp up to meet the same loudness as the 2G GSM call.
The difference between these phones might not look like much, but keep in mind the logarithmic nature of dB: -3 dB is half the loudness.
On the iPhone 3GS, the difference is 7.36 dBA, while the iPhone 4 somewhat lowers it down to a still-audibly-different 3.31 dBA. The Nexus One shows no difference in loudness between 2G and 3G, correcting both to a (likely purposefully exact) 80 dBA. The iPhone 4 is indeed louder than the 3GS, by 4 dBA. It's a difference, but not an overwhelming one. I'd say the iPhone 4's speakerphone is still loud enough, though calls over 3G are still a bit too quiet. Until Apple increases the gain on 3G calls, iPhone 4 customers who are hard of hearing should invest in a bluetooth headset.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
270 Comments
View All Comments
Belard - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
On the back of all iPhones... whats with the ugly logos on the back of the phones?I don't know another phone that has such things and you'd think on a style-brand such as Apple, they really would work to NOT put such things on.
Look at the HTC-EVO review. Other than HTC & Sprint logos, its all nice and clean looking.
My SONY phones... only say Sony. Even the bottom of my Logitech mouse only has a CE logo and product text "DUAL LASER".
mikelward - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
The Nexus One photos looked much better to me. The iPhone 4 was too yellow and the Evo was too noisy.Out of interest, is this something that could be fixed in a firmware update, and what version of Android was the N1 running?
Thank you very much for the review, especially the antenna section.
QuantumForce - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
Did you average dBs as if they were linear numbers? Really? They are a log transform of a ratio between measured and standard linear intensity or pressure. 20 dB * 2 is not equal to 40 dB. Just how did you deal with the math here in your sample analysis of six readings?
metalev - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
I re-charted the signal strength quoted in this article to make the huge signal strength range given to 5 bars much more obvious:http://www.metalev.org/2010/07/apple-caught-red-ha...
KOTULCN - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
You said you restored your iPhone 4 to a back-up of a jail broken 3.1.3? Alittle bit more explanation is due!MrBrownSound - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
Very detailed review. In the end with Froyo coming I'd have to choose Evo no matter the extended wait because of integration with sense UI. Although I will have to compromise battery life, stunning display and sheer expensive look and feel compared to the iphone. To make up for it I will be able to make calls, have a bigger screen, and also have the all open android OS. trade-offs trade-offs. I'll take it over being locked to at&t for two years with three hundred something termination fee.Again very thorough review. This is why i read Anandtech
spiritu - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
I note that some subtle but significant changes have been made to your article since it was first published.In particular, the following line:
It originally said:
"Apple should add an insulative coating to the stainless steel band (which implies a recall), or subsidize bumper cases." (which implies apple should pay for the cost of the bumper)
Now it says:
"The most sensitive region of the antenna should have an insulative coating (next time round?), or everyone should use a case. (which implies the user should buy a bumper).
I can only presume that you made these changes under duress.
orangpelupa - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
great review. very in-depth. Nice knowing what the reason behind iPhone 4 "signal problem".btw
seeing this
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/3794/iPhone4-3422...
i got struck by nostalgic feeling :D
it really looks like my 4 years old cellphone. (now its dead lol)
Sony Ericsson M600i.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9964/030720101018...
the "sides" design really remind me of my old phone :)
drwho9437 - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
"The Antenna is Improved" is a subheading. The content is more or less fine, but it shouldn't be called the Antenna is improved. If the software is correctly reporting the number of dBm and it just works at lower levels because of a lower noise floor in the RF amplifier, then you should say "reception is Improved" or something.The improvement in the signal is down to the mixer, amp or filters not the antenna gain as you note from your dBm level measures.
Axelband - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
This is simply the best and most thorough product review I have ever read. It had just enough technical information to satisfy an engineer like me but not too much to bore a layman. Bookmarking your site now.