Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 329 posts

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#241

Post by rplst8 »

daphreak wrote: post #206
rplst8 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose long term FM is dead, but meanwhile it has its uses. If true, this is really unfortunate. I've written about this before, but FM is a really great technology, and in a lot of ways it's only suffering because of the content. The sound quality of digital "equivalents" (XM Radio, HD Radio, Internet Radio, etc.) doesn't even come close to a clear FM station. Not to mention there are millions of vintage radios…

HD Radio really grinds my gears. They hijacked the HD acronym for marketing: it stands for Hybrid Digital. As you mention the quality is not comparable when you have a strong analog FM signal. On top of that the encoding is proprietary and one company holds the IP for the codecs. I can't believe the FCC allowed it to become a "standard".

It's only saving grace is that works alongside existing FM without much intrusion into the way FM already works.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#242

Post by 91bananas »

jon-wood wrote: post #207
LeoPanthera wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends what country you're in. In the UK, by far the most-listened-to FM stations are from the BBC, which are of course ad-free. Radio 1 (for younger people) and Radio 6 (for less-young people) are great places to listen to new music. And you can stream them over the web, for free, even if you're not British: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio

When the BBC have such a wide range of music stations I can never comprehend why commercial radio is still a thing, and still so popular here. I'm probably not the target market though, since I also get irritated at the way all radio stations have about 15 minutes of music per hour, and the rest is filler from some smug DJ pretending to be your friend, and people calling in because they've got no one better to talk t…

I think it's from commuting here in the US. A lot of people commuting here in Southern California are older driving junk cars with no features. But they always have FM radio.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#243

Post by dacohenii »

alsetmusic wrote: post #53
Frondo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, I really like listening to a number of local stations for the variety of music I get introduced to; but somehow, the fact that there is a real person curating it makes me enjoy it. Listening to spotify, it doesn't do it for me. Something about having someone come on, make a little human conversation, that's part of the experience for me. Algorithms don't cut it.

It's strange to me to read a positive comment about terrestrial radio broadcast amid so many complaints about ad blocking on the web. I stopped listening to radio many years ago and now I have an irrational resentment when I hear car stereos blasting pointless, noisy ads at traffic stops. I always wonder what allows people to mentally tune them out rather than decreasing the volume until music resumes. This is in no…

Not the case (in the US) for all frequencies; 88.1 MHz - 90.9 MHz is reserved for noncommercial educational radio stations. (This is where you'll find NPR, college radio, etc.)

See here for more details: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/how-to-apply#NCE

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#244

Post by panglott »

therein wrote: post #106
alsetmusic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to me to read a positive comment about terrestrial radio broadcast amid so many complaints about ad blocking on the web. I stopped listening to radio many years ago and now I have an irrational resentment when I hear car stereos blasting pointless, noisy ads at traffic stops. I always wonder what allows people to mentally tune them out rather than decreasing the volume until music resumes. This is in no…

I only listen to KQED/NPR on the radio and donate to them as well. Ad-free, and really high quality content. I actually look forward to a lot of their programs in the morning.

Not ad-free, but the ads are not intrusive.

Pledge week is still annoying of course.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#246

Post by TeMPOraL »

kuschku wrote: post #234
imtringued wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should create screenshots instead.

Those don't scale with resolution changes. A saved webpage can stay as responsive as an ebook.

Screenshots are also bigger than necessary (image instead of text + metadata), and are not greppable.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#247

Post by DigitalJack »

jon-wood wrote: post #207
LeoPanthera wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends what country you're in. In the UK, by far the most-listened-to FM stations are from the BBC, which are of course ad-free. Radio 1 (for younger people) and Radio 6 (for less-young people) are great places to listen to new music. And you can stream them over the web, for free, even if you're not British: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio

When the BBC have such a wide range of music stations I can never comprehend why commercial radio is still a thing, and still so popular here. I'm probably not the target market though, since I also get irritated at the way all radio stations have about 15 minutes of music per hour, and the rest is filler from some smug DJ pretending to be your friend, and people calling in because they've got no one better to talk t…

I can't speak for the UK market, but in the US, public radio is biased left. I'm biased right, so it annoys me, but I love the stuff that isn't political, like Click'n'Clack (did that come back or is it being rebroadcast?).

Commercial Radio has a non-government business benefactor, and so they cover what is of interest to them. Public Radio has government as it's benefactor, and so they cover their interests. Now it's not necessarily blatant, but whoever pays your bills, you have a self interest in seeing them in a positive light. If you are unable to do so, I'm sure you would move on to someone who you can see in a positive light. Bit of selection bias going on there, which is another slant maker.

I am fine with NPR, for example, having a bias to the left, but I wish they would stop pretending they didn't. Recognizing self bias is incredibly difficult, so it's not surprising when people don't see their own. This difficulty is as old as the bible (cf Matthew 7:3), and probably as old as thinking (I haven't read Plato or Aristotle but I would be surprised if they didn't talk about it.)

I have the same problem with Fox news, and really all the major news networks pretending to be unbiased, stating opinions as fact. I cut the cord a long time ago.

The more certain you are that you understand something, the less likely you are to examine it in depth. Do yourself a favor today, pick one of your beliefs, and take some time to examine why you believe it. Seek out some opposing positions, see if there is something to learn from them.

Do your best to find something other than "common sense" as the basis for believing what you believe.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#248

Post by hx87 »

91bananas wrote: post #242
jon-wood wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the BBC have such a wide range of music stations I can never comprehend why commercial radio is still a thing, and still so popular here. I'm probably not the target market though, since I also get irritated at the way all radio stations have about 15 minutes of music per hour, and the rest is filler from some smug DJ pretending to be your friend, and people calling in because they've got no one better to talk t…

I think it's from commuting here in the US. A lot of people commuting here in Southern California are older driving junk cars with no features. But they always have FM radio.

"Older junk cars" almost always have a single- or double-DIN form for their radios, and aftermarket radios are available for ~$50, so it's not like they can't get other forms of audio.

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#249

Post by [deleted] »

dacohenii wrote: post #243
alsetmusic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to me to read a positive comment about terrestrial radio broadcast amid so many complaints about ad blocking on the web. I stopped listening to radio many years ago and now I have an irrational resentment when I hear car stereos blasting pointless, noisy ads at traffic stops. I always wonder what allows people to mentally tune them out rather than decreasing the volume until music resumes. This is in no…

Not the case (in the US) for all frequencies; 88.1 MHz - 90.9 MHz is reserved for noncommercial educational radio stations. (This is where you'll find NPR, college radio, etc.) See here for more details: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/how-to-apply#NCE

[deleted]

Re: Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?

#250

Post by DigitalJack »

lostlogin wrote: post #136
phreaky wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Could give a damn" and "couldn't give a damn" can be used as synonyms in American slang. Or it might just be the South.

Thanks, now this says something that squares with what I would expect it to mean. Strange how dropping that very key word leaves the same meaning. Still, English has many strange quirks.

It's super annoying but it has to do with misunderstandings and mispronunciations finding their way into common language. Another terrible one is "I could care less" vs "I couldn't care less." Both mean the same thing in the common language, but if I hear someone say the "could" version, they lose a lot of respect in my eyes.

Languages evolve, and mostly it irritates me. I hate that the English Dictionaries used to be an authoritative source, and are now just a reflection of common usage.

Yet at the same time I recognize the need for languages to evolve as life does not stand still.

Post reply on HN