Why flip-phones?

In message <[email protected]> Joseph
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:14:11 -0600, DevilsPGD <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]> Joseph
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>People may be more comfortable with clamshell/flips since talking on
>>>them is a lot more similar to talking on a regular phone. I don't
>>>believe voice quality is any better on Flip/clamshells than it is on
>>>candybar types.
>>
>>To me it has the potential to be better sound, since the microphone is
>>closer to my mouth.
>>
>>Whether it works that way in practice or not, I don't know.
>
>But you *don't* know do you?

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your reading
skills. You successfully read and repeated what I wrote not more then
one quoted line above.

>Unless you've done study to see whether
>that's the case it's just your own unfounded supposition. Have you
>ever looked at mobile headsets? Most of them have a "boom" that only
>comes down two or three inches from your ear. Somehow they give good
>speach. Unless you have proof you're just making an unfounded
>supposition.

I have probably owned more headsets then anyone else in this group,
including over a dozen prerelease units, some of which were scrapped and
never made it to the market.

I can tell you from experience that longer booms definitely do result in
better sound (as measured by the number of "Did you get another new
headset? That one sounds like crap, I can barely hear you!" comments I
get whenever I try a short boom one)

It's certainly not impossible to make a microphone designed to pick up
on sound that is a few additional inches away, but you will almost
always increase the likelyhood of picking up background noise when the
caller isn't speaking unless the microphone is a parabolic design.


--
"I think women and sea men don't mix"
-- Smithers, Simpsons

---

› See More: Why flip-phones?

In message <[email protected]> Joseph
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:14:11 -0600, DevilsPGD <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, my dad had a candybar that needed to be unlocked to be
>>answered. It might have been configurable, we never looked.
>
>In other words you don't really know. Of course if you read the
>owner's manual it might tell you of features that are on the phone
>which you've never bothered to take advantage of as well. Why people
>have such a phobia about reading owner's manuals is beyond me.
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

As I indicated in my message, the phone was going back for a critical
design flaw.

Since it was going back anyway, why bother reading the manual?

On that topic, I've owned 8-10 phones in the past few years (since 99,
anyway), and I've read the manual for every one. I've also researched
them online to get into the debug menus (just in case I found anything
interesting -- For the most part, not much came up, but it's nice to get
more accurate signal information then a 3-5 bar signal graph)


--
"I think women and sea men don't mix"
-- Smithers, Simpsons