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
JAS - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
The build quality of the iPhone 4 is outstanding. It reminds me of Nagra (Swiss-made) professional tape recorders I have used. Very solid.The edges of the iPhone 4 are not as smooth as those on the iPhone 3GS; but they aren't "sharp" or prone to cutting your pants when you slide the device into your pocket.
Still, I would want to use a rubber/silicone "skin" on the iPhone 4, not just a bumper, primarily to improve its grasp.
jsbruner - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
I see the reception bar issue as well but do not experience any dropped calls because of it. However the biggest issue I have is with the proximity sensor. I have accidentally hung up numerous times because the screen lock turns off and the buttons become active. I watched myself in a mirror talking and I see the phone flickering on and off. Have you seen this issue at all? Would the bumper minimize this issue?Great article.
Wolfpup - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
While in theory I'd love higher resolution displays on monitors, in practice they're already too high, and can't get any higher until somehow operating systems are able to offer true resolution independence where ANY program (even if it's written in 1988) will be flawless scaled so it's the right size at a given resolution. So far the ONLY example in the computer world of this being done right is on Palm devices, where they just quadrupled the resolution and on older programs 1 pixel = 4 real pixels. Presumably it's the same on iOS.But until OSes can do that that successfully on ANY content on ANY monitor at ANY resolution, raising the resolution is a TERRIBLE idea, as we're already WAY past the point of usability on a lot of displays, since stuff just keeps shrinking rather than adding detail.
inperfectdarkness - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
"If there's one thing I hope the iPhone 4 display does, it's generate demand for 300 PPI level desktop displays - the era of 110 PPI displays being the norm needs to end now."i could not have said it better. 1080p on a 17" screen is pathetic for a laptop.
minememy21 - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
I registered just for the sole purpose of saying thank you to Brian and Anand.I really appreciate the amount of work and objectivity you've put in this review. I don't know of any other site with the same level of dedication and thoroughness.
Please don't pay attention to the few, vocal, and overly sensitive anti-apple crowd and just continue writing the way you do.
HilbertSpace - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
"Perhaps even use diamond vapor deposition (like they did with the glass screen atop the iPhone 3GS) to insulate the stainless steel from users." -The Real Story on iPhone 4's Antenna.There's no way apple used physical vapor deposition (PVD) on the iPhone 3GS, way too expensive! Supposedly a Nokia Vertu phone adds a TiC coating - the cost - oh only ~$15000!
gronkman - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
The word on the grapevine is that the antenna issue will be dealt with by an upcoming software update. What I am interested in is whether it will really change the antenna attenuation, or whether it will "fix" the bars just by not showing the bar degradation. I'm hoping AT will do an in-depth look at the update when/if it comes out.thomas.magnum - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
I am not sure what you mean when using 40% in the context of the bar. But I think you need to improve the discussion of dB. Because it runs on a log scale, changes in dB are more complex than just looking at dB1-dB2 and computing percentage. You really need to think about 10^(dB/10). I would bet that the bars are setup to be representative of a dB scale. NOT simple percentages base on dB numbers, like you're trying to do.The0ne - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
Your comment reminds me of richter scale :) Most people will look at 6.0 and 7.0 and say oh that's nothing hahaha If only they knew they'll be completely shocked. Sorry, I had a good laugh out of this.strikeback03 - Thursday, July 1, 2010 - link
Of course that is also assuming they think the Richter scale is still in use.