Surface 3 vs 2

[WillBthr]

Tbsteph,
Suggestion-Try to stay on subject and stick with facts rather than personal attacks.
Hope you're having fun at summer camp.

 

[P_Devil]

If you are interested with actual goalpost - Suggested reading on the Bluetooth audio quality is here:

Does Bluetooth Audio Still Suck?

I'm not going to open the link (definitely not visiting a place called Lifehacker, sounds like a click bait website) but it's meaningless if they didn't test Bluetooth 4.0 along with the new audio protocols such as AAC and aptX. Additionally, unless the tests were conducted in a proper blind, volume matched, ABX, their results will be completely meaningless. Hence my original statement of: "I doubt you would even be able to ABX the older ones from their wired counterparts." Audio quality claims can be chocked up to placebo unless you've conducted a real test. Hence why I also said "moving the goalposts" which is what you have done and continue to do.

We get it, you don't like the Surface 3.

 

[WillBthr]

So you don't read the article and it is "meaningless if...".
Just read anywhere the latest technical specifications of Bluetooth audio and then you'll understand the compromises.
Blind testing comparisons need not apply.

"We get it, you don't like the Surface 3" Who is "we"?

Say "Hi" to tbsteph.

Written on my Surface 3

 

[WillBthr]

FYI: Today's S3 June firmware updates includes improvements to audio in addition to five other updates.
Now the S3 is at the least on par or better than S2 on audio clarity and lack of distortion via wired headphone output.

 

[seremify]

FYI: Today's S3 June firmware updates includes improvements to audio in addition to five other updates.
Now the S3 is at the least on par or better than S2 on audio clarity and lack of distortion via wired headphone output.

Is it a significant improvement for the audio output?

 

[P_Devil]

Blind testing comparisons need not apply.

"We get it, you don't like the Surface 3" Who is "we"?

Blind testing certainly needs to be used, otherwise all audio quality claims fall ill to the placebo affect. Additionally, we all know the "technical limitations" of lossy formats such as mp3 and mpeg-4 AAC. We even know the "technical limitations" of 16-bit, 44.1KHz lossless and uncompressed audio. Still, all audio quality claims, if they are to be taken seriously, need proper testing. Otherwise placebophiles' and audiophools' claims can be taken as accurate. They are the people that say a 16-bit, 44.1KHz PCM WAV file sounds better than the FLAC version or that they can absolutely hear the difference between 16-bit, 44.1KHz audio and 24-bit, 192KHz audio.

As for the "we," I'm pretty sure everyone here knows you don't like the S3 after the last couple of diatribes you went on.

 

[mathsisbest]

"We get it, you don't like the Surface 3"
Who is "we"?

I'm part of the "we". If you want to complain about something, at least make it factually correct. Stop moving the goalposts.

 

[WillBthr]

By accurately describing specific shortcomings/faults in a product manufactured by Microsoft I've hurt your feelings.
My "micro-aggressions" (Univ of Calf PC speak) have threatened you. Come up out of the parents basement every once in a while and take a deep breath of fresh air. Try joining a Apple Cult Club forum.
I can take solace in a wonderful product that Microsoft is actively improving (June Firmware Update).

 

[tbsteph]

In response to WillBthr post# 24?

Personal attacks? (Summer camp?) I merely noted that you appear to want to be unhappy about something related to the Surface 3.
As for staying on topic, please reread your posts - they meander between several different issues which tend to change when someone offers a solution or different opinion. FWIW, the last time I was at "summer camp" was in the 1950's.

 

[P_Devil]

By accurately describing specific shortcomings/faults in a product manufactured by Microsoft I've hurt your feelings.

Except when the problem was with the actual software and not the Surface 3... Still, each and every post, even the one about the June update, has a negative tone. It's as if you are trying to find something negative to complain about and the beginning of this thread, saying that the Surface 3 wasn't much of an upgrade (if any) over the Surface 2, is evident of that. Your other diatribe post, in regards to the software not working, wasn't even a problem with the Surface itself. Your continued lack of acknowledging any basic scientific reasoning in this thread (when it comes to audio quality) is further astounding and is more akin to comments from people who generally stick their heads in the sand instead.

 

[mathsisbest]

By accurately describing specific shortcomings/faults in a product manufactured by Microsoft I've hurt your feelings.
My "micro-aggressions" (Univ of Calf PC speak) have threatened you. Come up out of the parents basement every once in a while and take a deep breath of fresh air. Try joining a Apple Cult Club forum.
I can take solace in a wonderful product that Microsoft is actively improving (June Firmware Update).

Yo bro, I'm just kidding.

 

[WillBthr]

Except when the problem was with the actual software and not the Surface 3... Still, each and every post, even the one about the June update, has a negative tone. It's as if you are trying to find something negative to complain about and the beginning of this thread, saying that the Surface 3 wasn't much of an upgrade (if any) over the Surface 2, is evident of that. Your other diatribe post, in regards to the software not working, wasn't even a problem with the Surface itself. Your continued lack of acknowledging any basic scientific reasoning in this thread (when it comes to audio quality) is further astounding and is more akin to comments from people who generally stick their heads in the sand instead.

Regarding your ignorance of audio in general and Bluetooth headphones specifically:
CNET has an article/comparison test on this very subject, dated last week, so you can't whine about that, and since you didn't want to read my previous link on the subject (yet you commented on it) I thought I would paste the intro paragraph from CNET for your education. If you prefer not to read this information then STOP reading this thread NOW. Ignorance is bliss. Price range was up to $500. The last sentence say's it all. Share with the forum your argument/justification against this and every other knowledgeable persons conclusions. Hate to disappoint you or hurt your "feelings" but face the facts. Bluetooth headphones are inferior.

"Portable Bluetooth headphones represent the next evolution in headphone technology. If you have a compatible smartphone with Bluetooth, the obvious benefit is that you can get rid of the wires snaking from your backpack, purse, or pocket. Many of the models collected here also include track navigation features on the ear cup as well as a built in microphone for taking calls hands-free. However, keep in mind that Bluetooth sound quality still isn't up to wired standards, so you'll have to sacrifice fidelity for the convenience."

 

[seremify]

"Portable Bluetooth headphones represent the next evolution in headphone technology. If you have a compatible smartphone with Bluetooth, the obvious benefit is that you can get rid of the wires snaking from your backpack, purse, or pocket. Many of the models collected here also include track navigation features on the ear cup as well as a built in microphone for taking calls hands-free. However, keep in mind that Bluetooth sound quality still isn't up to wired standards, so you'll have to sacrifice fidelity for the convenience."

Even if that's the case, on a practical level, how good is your source, and what are your headphones options anyway? If you're watching a downloaded movie with compressed audio and you're comparing inexpensive (subjective of course) headphones, then the difference is less pronounced. If audio quality really is the be-all/end-all you'd probably be using something a bit more premium than a Surface 3 alone I'd guess.

 

[P_Devil]

Cnet is the last place to look for audio advice. Their main audio guru is nothing more than a placebophile who perpetuates the notion that people need 24-bit, 192KHz lossless files or, better yet, vinyl LP records and a $15,000 sound system to enjoy them. Additionally, their main headphone reviewer has already made comments regarding Bluetooth headphones and their audio quality. So, if you are going to quote Cnet, you should quote reviews of Bluetooth headphones instead of a general ignorant comment regarding the technology that they came up with without proper testing. It doesn't matter what Cnet says, if they didn't use proper testing, it's all for nothing.

So again, your ignorance regarding science, proper testing, and understanding of basic audio quality analysis is still astounding.

 

[WillBthr]

Cnet is the last place to look for audio advice. Their main audio guru is nothing more than a placebophile who perpetuates the notion that people need 24-bit, 192KHz lossless files or, better yet, vinyl LP records and a $15,000 sound system to enjoy them. Additionally, their main headphone reviewer has already made comments regarding Bluetooth headphones and their audio quality. So, if you are going to quote Cnet, you should quote reviews of Bluetooth headphones instead of a general ignorant comment regarding the technology that they came up with without proper testing. It doesn't matter what Cnet says, if they didn't use proper testing, it's all for nothing.

So again, your ignorance regarding science, proper testing, and understanding of basic audio quality analysis is still astounding.

Yea yea yea...You make me laugh. Personally I don't care about Bluetooth headphones. You brought them up for some insane reason. Why? No clue. This thread is not about them. Sounds as if you bought into some companies marketing campaign hook line and sinker. Spent the $$ and now you are married to the PR and will defend till the end! More power to you. ABX till your ears say stop. There is one reason to buy/use BT phones and it is not for sound quality/accuracy. It is convenience. Hearing check, anybody.
Which sounds better? Audio - Encode & decode to transducer. Audio - down a straight wire to transducer.
I was going to avoid even responding to your spews BUT I was just reading comments on another tech site and read what I'll paste below because it reminded me of you and the "we". Certainly does not apply to the people here on these forums that actually post for information such as found issues or to help others with issues. I thought that was the purpose of WC forums.

"Windows Central comments are the absolute worst of any tech site I have read. It’s hilarious and frustrating at the same time. I feel so bad for Daniel Rubino and the rest of the team because they produce great content only for the dumbest tech enthusiasts on earth to comment non-sense on their articles.

Posted on Jun 25, 2015 | 6:41 PM"

 

[P_Devil]

Yea yea yea...You make me laugh. Personally I don't care about Bluetooth headphones. You brought them up for some insane reason. Why? No clue.

You brought them up initially and then falsely slammed them. But please, go on thinking I brought them up out of the blue.

This thread is not about them.

It is when they are a viable option that you stubbornly ignore because you refuse to actually have some common sense and acknowledge the very foundations for basic audio testing. Bluetooth headphones could be a solution if you just pulled your head out of the sand.

Sounds as if you bought into some companies marketing campaign hook line and sinker. Spent the $$ and now you are married to the PR and will defend till the end! More power to you. ABX till your ears say stop. There is one reason to buy/use BT phones and it is not for sound quality/accuracy. It is convenience. Hearing check, anybody.

I have checked. Placebophiles and audiophools say one thing (what you keep repeating), people who have actually conducted proper tests (and websites that pool those results) say something else. Am I going to believe someone who preaches the validity of their $3,000 RCA cable purchase by using magic or am I going to believe a someone (and a website) that has some foundations of practical science? Hmmm... That's a tough one.

Certainly does not apply to the people here on these forums that actually post for information such as found issues or to help others with issues. I thought that was the purpose of WC forums.

The three of us aren't the only ones who noticed your overall negative feelings towards the Surface 3 and its inability to please you. Just look at your other diatribe thread. People tried to help you but you still went negative only for the problem to be with the program you were using, not the actual Surface 3. Maybe you should take that quote you put up and actually read it since it definitely applies to you.

 

[InspectHerGadget]

I think it is a shame about the Surface 2. I always thought Windows RT was special since none of the normal nasties would run on it and that, in itself, was just great. It then included Office free which is another terrific point. The lack of apps for most users was probably immaterial I felt.

I definitely have mixed feelings about the Surface 3. Enough so that I will wait for the Surface 4 which will hopefully pack more performance. It is probably asking a bit much to get great performance in a package this size, on the other hand, I'd rather get the performance in something slightly bigger called the SP3, and I have! The weak link currently is definitely read/write speeds. I had the S3 for one week (it had some weird anomalous behaviours so I sent it back for a refund - and haven't missed it).

 

[ng4ever]

:unhappy:

I think it is a shame about the Surface 2. I always thought Windows RT was special since none of the normal nasties would run on it and that, in itself, was just great. It then included Office free which is another terrific point. The lack of apps for most users was probably immaterial I felt.

I definitely have mixed feelings about the Surface 3. Enough so that I will wait for the Surface 4 which will hopefully pack more performance. It is probably asking a bit much to get great performance in a package this size, on the other hand, I'd rather get the performance in something slightly bigger called the SP3, and I have! The weak link currently is definitely read/write speeds. I had the S3 for one week (it had some weird anomalous behaviours so I sent it back for a refund - and haven't missed it).

I had the same problem with my Surface 3. :unhappy:

 

[Cruncher04]

Same here. Still rocking my Surface 2. Unfortunately Surface 3 is barely an upgrade so i am going to skip it. The Cherrytrail CPU is too small of an upgrade, while at the same time 64bit ARM Cortex A57 like Exynos 7420 is running in circles around the Atoms.
On top of this going with Surface 3 would make me vulnerable against malware and trojans, which i am perfectly protected from with Windows RT.
On the bright side, my Surface 2 is still alive an kicking.