USB Dongle Records Web, FM Radio

FM Radio... huh? by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-10-30 10:27 · Score: 1

Why would I want a vacuum tube hanging out of my USB port?

Re:FM Radio... huh? by celardore · 2006-10-30 10:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Why would I want a vacuum tube hanging out of my USB port?

Porn.
Re:FM Radio... huh? by eneville · 2006-10-30 10:57 · Score: 1

Why would I want a vacuum tube hanging out of my USB port?
Porn.
hah that's funny on so many levels

--
Why UNIX?
Re:FM Radio... huh? by JCOTTON · 2006-10-30 12:43 · Score: 1

Why would I want a vacuum tube hanging out of my USB port?
To go along with your vacuum head.
Re:FM Radio... huh? by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-10-30 13:07 · Score: 1

That would explain why I think your comment sucks on so many levels. :P
Re:FM Radio... huh? by Drooling+Iguana · 2006-10-30 13:41 · Score: 1

You'd rather have a truck?

--
... I'm addicted to placebos

Appears to use RDS by fotbr · 2006-10-30 10:29 · Score: 1

Which is great. Except the local stations haven't modernized enough to use it. Whats worse is they have no intention of adding the data streams to their broadcast, since the local market is a) to stupid to make use of it, and b) too poor to buy new equipment that could make use of it.

Re:Appears to use RDS by Kankraka · 2006-10-30 12:08 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't live in that big of a city (metro pop, around 1 million) in Canada, and every major station has RDS enabled. Hell, RDS isn't that expensive to implement so a lot of community stations could do it as well for relatively cheap. Most new cars are coming equipped with a means of decoding RDS as well, you'll see it primarily in GM vehicles.
Re:Appears to use RDS by fotbr · 2006-10-30 12:57 · Score: 1

While all that is true, the simple fact is I'm in the middle of nowhere, with populations that largely live in trailers and are missing teeth (I know I'm stereotyping, but there is a large amount of truth to it around here). They can't afford new radios, much less new cars.

All the local radio stations are owned by one company (not even clearchannel) and they're so badly run that they don't even notice when their equipment is malfunctioning, and nothing short of an FCC visit will get them to fix it. There's no way they're going to spend ANY money that they aren't legally required to spend, much less spend it on something that will only benefit a few, when those few, for the most part, already use XM or Sirius.
Re:Appears to use RDS by mooncaine · 2006-10-30 13:38 · Score: 1

You left out another segment of the listening market: I know what the data stream can do for me, but I just don't care enough to replace the radios I've got. So I can see the name of the station and the song. BFD. I already know what station I'm listening to, and I expect to be told the name of the song. If not, I'll live. I think it's nice that my fiancée's car stereo shows that data stream stuff, and so does the radio thingy for my iPod, but it doesn't matter one tiny bit to me one way or the other.
Re:Appears to use RDS by jacksonj04 · 2006-10-30 22:16 · Score: 1

Really? Only new cars?

Are there just too many radio stations in the USA/Canada who haven't implemented it to make it worthwhile? Everything in the UK has had it for years.

--
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Re:Appears to use RDS by Pollardito · 2006-10-31 05:03 · Score: 1

i found RDS really useful for finding stations by genre. i had a rental car for a week while mine was repaired, and i found 2-3 new stations that i hadn't found with a simple scan of the channel lists (there's tons of crappy channels in Chicago that make scanning slowly a pain to do). besides, the names of the songs are not necessarily announced after the song, sometimes they come before (which is useless if you just flipped in) or not at all.

isn't RDS basically getting replaced with HD radio though?
Re:Appears to use RDS by mooncaine · 2006-10-31 06:14 · Score: 1

Good points. Now that you mention it, there were a few times when RDS came in handy: when I was out of town on business, and used my iPod radio attachment to listen to local LA or Boston radio. Finding stations I thought would interest me was maybe a tiny bit easier because of the text scrolling across the pod screen.

At home, though, I know what stations I like, and I'm OK with missing the name of a song now & then. It's not a feature I'd pay for, in other words. I could take it or leave it.

As for HD radio, XM radio, or any other alternatives to the FM radio I've been enjoying all my life: not interested yet. I like the ubiquity of FM radio stations and devices. I listen to a lot of non-commercial radio and hop stations quite a bit. When I do hit a commercial station, chances are that I already know the song they're playing, and it's the lack of surprises, music-wise, more than the incessant advertising that leads me to switch away again. My life is full of music, plenty of it, and I just don't see these new radio alternatives as being worth real money to me.
Re:Appears to use RDS by Pollardito · 2006-10-31 12:58 · Score: 1

maybe i'm not understanding your comment, but RDS isn't a pay-as-you-go service. as such, as long as the startup costs (the stereos that support it) aren't ridiculous, they gets averaged out over the life of the stereo. that's the ideal anyway, in reality when i looked at after-market car radio catalogs two years ago it seemed like only Blaupunkt (sp?) radios had that feature and they were fairly expensive (it seems like XM/Sirius came along at the same time as RDS was gaining traction, and everyone supports that instead).

also, HD Radio is not the same as satellite radio, it's not a pay service so again it just depends on how expensive the entry-level radios are that support it.
Re:Appears to use RDS by mooncaine · 2006-10-31 18:22 · Score: 1

It's my fault for writing so tersely -- pardon me. What I meant by RDS not being worth real money to me is that, since I already have plenty of FM radios around me, I wouldn't buy a newer one just to get that little scrolling text message in the radio's display. If I saw 2 similar FM radios at a time when I needed one, and one cost more and offered little more than RDS, I'd pass on the RDS radio. I'm sorry I didn't express that more clearly.

Thanks for pointing out that HD radio isn't a pay-as-you-go service -- I admit to little curiosity about it, since, for me, FM radio works just fine. I realize that's partly because of where I live. Does HD radio offer anything useful to those who live too far from FM radio stations they'd like to hear, or who live in mountainous regions where reception is poor even for nearby stations?
Re:Appears to use RDS by Pollardito · 2006-11-01 03:47 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing out that HD radio isn't a pay-as-you-go service -- I admit to little curiosity about it, since, for me, FM radio works just fine. I realize that's partly because of where I live. Does HD radio offer anything useful to those who live too far from FM radio stations they'd like to hear, or who live in mountainous regions where reception is poor even for nearby stations?
i'm just learning about HD Radio myself, i've just heard a few stations around me mention that they're using it now and i had heard a simple outline of it. it looks like the manufacturer claims that it improves reception :

# The most common form of interference, multipath distortion, occurs when part of a signal bounces off an object and arrives at the receiver at a different time than the main signal. HD Radio receivers are designed to sort through the reflected signals and reduce static, hiss, pops and fades.

Damned limitations on AM! by Martin+Blank · 2006-10-30 10:29 · Score: 3, Informative

I understand why they're there, but much of what I listen to is on AM, and carrying around a Radio Shark just isn't always convenient.

Still, I'd be able to listen to/record Car Talk and Fresh Air from NPR, and maybe the occasional show from Pacifica, so it's not entirely bad.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:Damned limitations on AM! by yourexhalekiss · 2006-10-30 10:41 · Score: 1

For me, it's not the AM/FM limitations so much... It's just the suckiness of the music. If you set this thing up to record each unique song played in a 24 hour period on one particular station, you'd have just 20 different songs. Radio plays the same songs over and over again. Once you've recorded one days' worth of broadcasting, you'd be set for the next month... or whenever the radio station refreshes their playlist.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by KermodeBear · 2006-10-30 11:00 · Score: 2

I agree completely. AM radio has way more entertaining and useful content than FM. Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who likes talk radio instead of brain-dead Top 20 stations, so... Anyways, for recording AM radio, you can get a RadioShark, but I recommend that you think carefully and read my experiences with it before making the purchase. Yes, it records AM radio, but the quality of the product in relation to the price left a bad taste in my muzzle.

--
Love sees no species.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by Phat_Tony · 2006-10-30 11:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm glad I looked at your review, I was thinking of getting one, but probably won't.

However, I thought I'd comment on this:
"on the Mac systems you can record in AAC and AIFF. Why was this feature REMOVED from the PC version of the software?"

I think they probably offer these features utilizing Quicktime API's, so I doubt it was "removed" on the PC version, I think it was just a piece of cake to implement on the Mac, letting Quicktime do the actual transcoding, where they'd have actually had to program something to keep this feature on the PC version.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by tlhIngan · 2006-10-30 11:19 · Score: 1

Which is why between my iPod, XM Satellite Radio, what I miss most is... AM radio!

The iPod covers my music, while XM gives me radio like experience without too much repetition (though I can always choose *another* channel), without the ads and stuff, so they more or less have everything that's on FM already. All that's left is the local news only available on AM radio. Unfortunately, I've not come acorss any AM receivers for iPod...

(Yes, I know of Sirius. But only XM has a channel full of movie soundtracks (Hits Ch. 27 - Cinemagic). Sadly, XM Canada dropped it, making the Canadian offers equivalent. And growing the legions of XM Canada listeners moving to grey market (US-subscribed) reception. Enough so that XM Canada really doesn't bother trying to keep you, even though they shouldn't.)
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by Martin+Blank · 2006-10-30 11:37 · Score: 1

...hence why I said that I would be able to record it. :\

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by Ted+Cabeen · 2006-10-30 13:15 · Score: 1

Since it records to WAV, that's what I've done with mine. Combine that with a simple batch file that runs each of the .wav files in the output directory into lame, and you 99% of the way there. Sure, I'd like something that encoded directly to MP3, but this works fine.

The PC software is definitely sub-par. You have to be an Administrator to run the software at all, although it will run through Run As.

As the only device on the market, it's a take it or leave it thing. If you want to record NPR, there are plenty of shoutcast streams that you can rip. The radioshark is mainly good for programs that aren't available elsewhere.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by NerveGas · 2006-10-30 13:47 · Score: 1

If you have a Linux machine that stays on anyway, buy a $10 AM/FM radio, hook it to the line-in, and tie sox and lame together in a cron job.... the downside being that you have to pre-tune the radio.

For about $50 (if I recall), I bought a Hauppauage card with both an FM tuner *and* a TV tuner with hardware MPG compression. A quick bash script takes the arguments of frequency, duration, and destination directory, and does all of the tuning and encoding for me.

steve

--
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by ip_free · 2006-10-30 13:50 · Score: 1

If you enjoy AM talk shows try http://www.radioyourway.com/ It record AM, FM or line input at programed time. I have one of these and it works great especially for these late night shows.
I have been looking for a long time for AM recorder and this one is the only one that works with AM.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by Lumpy · 2006-10-30 13:56 · Score: 1

Bah, grab the mp3 feed from the colorado NPR station website. I record all my favorite NPR shows as mp3 from the stream with a simple wget.

Let me know if you want more details, I can send you the bash script I use

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by sponga · 2006-10-30 14:45 · Score: 1

Especially since every major college footbal game is on AM. Oh the potential for those who want to listen to the game on the road and missed the game.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by Lumpy · 2006-10-31 02:11 · Score: 1

#!/bin/bash

PREFIX=$1
NAME=$2
LENGTH=$3
datadir=$(date +%Y-%m-%d)
if [ -z "$3" ] ; then
echo "Usage: record_NPR.sh showname length(1H 2H 3H)"
exit
fi

FILE_DATE=`date`
FILE_NAME=`date '+%Y-%m-%d_%H-%M.mp3'`
FILE_NAME="${PREFIX}_${FILE_NAME}"
echo " Starting to record $NAME at $FILE_DATE"
cd /tmp/NPR
wget -nv -O $FILE_NAME http://edtv.opb.org:8000/radio.mp3 [opb.org] > /dev/null 2>&1 &
WPID=$!
sleep $LENGTH; kill $WPID
sleep 3
tagmp3 set "%A:${NAME} %a:NPR Records" $FILE_NAME
#update_RSS.pl "$PREFIX" "$FILE_NAME" "$FILE_DATE" "$NAME"
echo "$NAME was recorded"
mv /tmp/NPR/$FILE_NAME /mymedia/mp3/podcasts/$datadir/$FILE_NAME
echo "$NAME was moved to mp3 folder"

Correction I record from Oregon Public radio. so you need to adjust your times to record accordingly.
I add jobs into crontab to record them automagically. works great, far better quality than off the air and easier.

I actually got this from someone else here on slashdot but cant remember his name, I'll give credits when I figure out who.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Damned limitations on AM! by tbisaacs · 2006-10-31 04:11 · Score: 1

Have you tried http://radiotime.com/download/?

A sales rep for Silicon Labs... by JesseL · 2006-10-30 10:30 · Score: 2, Informative

came in to work and gave us one of these a couple months ago.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"

Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by Em+Ellel · 2006-10-30 10:30 · Score: 2, Informative

As in This RadioShark

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...

Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by JesseL · 2006-10-30 10:32 · Score: 1

That thing is huge.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by Em+Ellel · 2006-10-30 10:53 · Score: 1

As I recall from owning it a while back, it was mostly hollow - no reason it could not have been put in a smaller case (other than there was no reason to ever do it)... most likely if you want "tivo" like functionality, you want it in an always on-stationary computer and if you have a laptop you were always able to stream the radio content from that stationary system (radioshark has built in net streaming). Of course after a while I found RadioTime and NPR web pages (from which I could download other radio content) plus various podcasts - so the RadioShark became pretty much useless (easier to have a boombox next to computer for listening to live radio)

>That thing is huge.

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by NeedMoreCowbell · 2006-10-30 15:53 · Score: 1

That thing is huge.
That's what she ... oh, nevermind.
Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by unknownideal · 2006-10-30 16:03 · Score: 1

Actually, many people including myself have taken apart their RadioSharks to better implement them in a carputer setup--fitting them in the dash and connecting the antenna to the car's.
Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by tbisaacs · 2006-10-31 04:15 · Score: 1

The radioSHARK has terrible reception in my experience. Especially AM.
Re:Wasn't this called RadioShark a few years back by Em+Ellel · 2006-10-31 06:03 · Score: 1

The radioSHARK has terrible reception in my experience. Especially AM.

After putting it on 3 USB extenders and moving the unit away from PC and by the window it seemed to work great - although I can't say I used it much for AM. All that being said, this "new" product doesnt even do AM (probably because of PC interference)

-Em

--
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...

Damn lazy kids by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 10:31 · Score: 1

What's wrong with streamripper?

--
Man, you really need that seminar!

Re:Damn lazy kids by JesseL · 2006-10-30 10:38 · Score: 1

This works without an internet connection.
This works with radio stations that don't webcast.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Re:Damn lazy kids by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 10:45 · Score: 1

Hm, I didn't think of that. I've always got internet, and I can't even imagine limiting myself to local FM radio.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:Damn lazy kids by eneville · 2006-10-30 11:00 · Score: 1

Hm, I didn't think of that. I've always got internet, and I can't even imagine limiting myself to local FM radio.
theres lots of times when people have to travel that they cannot get an internet connection. it's ok in your cossy room, but for lots of people that travel using hotels etc, it's not possible to get that vital connection.

--
Why UNIX?
Re:Damn lazy kids by user24 · 2006-10-30 14:39 · Score: 1

i have no idea what's wrong with streamripper.. The funny thing is that I use it from my USB stick, in conjunction with a few batch files set up to record from a few of my favorite stations..
If i'm on the move, I'll burn my previously recorded mp3s to my mp3 player, and if I have to listen to 5 more minutes of FM radio I think my ears may just strangle me.. why on earth would I need this device?

Why use this for MythTV? by r_jensen11 · 2006-10-30 10:37 · Score: 1

... would be a neat device to see hacked for things like MythTV.

I'm sorry, but I thought that several TV turner cards already had FM tuners, thus nullifying the need for this on a MythTV box.
Or am I wrong?

Re:Why use this for MythTV? by UnknowingFool · 2006-10-30 10:55 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but I thought that several TV turner cards already had FM tuners, thus nullifying the need for this on a MythTV box. Or am I wrong?

Turn in your geek card. With Linux, you can not only do the practical but the insanely impractical. You might be able to get the FM tuner on your TV tuner worker, but it takes a real geek to get a signal with nothing but a can of Pringles and toothpick. Think of the challenge! Come on, who's with me? I'm off to the store to get some Pringles.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Why use this for MythTV? by kfg · 2006-10-30 11:11 · Score: 1

. . .but it takes a real geek to get a signal with nothing but a can of Pringles and toothpick.

Yeah, that's a decent problem, but really only because the potato isn't fresh.

KFG

Shazam? by mutube · 2006-10-30 10:38 · Score: 1

Wake me up when they invent a USB dongle that records FM broadcasts and then uses a Shazam-like service to identify and tag songs automagically.

--
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer

Re:Shazam? by JesseL · 2006-10-30 10:48 · Score: 1

That doesn't require anything special from the dongle. If the radio station in question is using RDS, it may not even require a query to a remote service. Either way it's a software issue for the host PC, not the dongle.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Re:Shazam? by mutube · 2006-10-30 10:59 · Score: 1

Of course, I didn't think. Well... wake me up when they've done that.

--
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer

Predicting tomorrow's news... by epp_b · 2006-10-30 10:39 · Score: 1

USB Dongle's FM recording functionality revoked from "security" firmware update. RIAA spokesperson not available for comment.

Re:Predicting tomorrow's news... by JesseL · 2006-10-30 10:52 · Score: 1

How would the ability to record have anything to do with the dongle's firmware? The dongle just streams the audio data to the PC, where it's recorded.

Not to mention that the right to record broadcasts has been pretty well established in court.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Re:Predicting tomorrow's news... by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 11:11 · Score: 1

Well, Creative Zen's firmware patch disabled recording FM radio, so I can see epp_b's point. Here is a link.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:Predicting tomorrow's news... by LiquidCoooled · 2006-10-30 13:29 · Score: 1

This device does not have any storage inside.
It is a simple tv card.
The PVR like software controls the show and can output MP3 files for use in your actual mp3 player.

The Zen is an all in one device with a recordable radio channel. This needed a firmware update to restrict this right.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

USB-TV? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-30 10:40 · Score: 1

Radio? Has anyone tried out one of these USB-stick TV receivers?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:USB-TV? by eneville · 2006-10-30 11:02 · Score: 1

Radio? Has anyone tried out one of these USB-stick TV receivers?
why couldnt you link to one of the products directly?

--
Why UNIX?
Re:USB-TV? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-30 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because I didn't want to exclude the users of others by picking one. Googling for the name of a class of object is the closes we have to URIs on the Web.

What's the problem?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:USB-TV? by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 11:27 · Score: 1

The first 4 links in your google link were UK links, so I stopped looking. This seems to happen a lot - I'll check somebody's google link and wade through a bunch of crap, sometimes giving up. I tend to not click on google links much anymore. Either form a good query or find a useful link.

Not that I have a problem with the UK, but tv devices for the UK are useless to me.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:USB-TV? by DragonWriter · 2006-10-30 11:37 · Score: 1

OTOH, had he linked directly to a US product, UK slashdotters wouldn't get any benefit from it; I'd say his approach was more generally useful, if less useful for you personally.
Re:USB-TV? by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 12:00 · Score: 1

Slashdot is a US site, but that isn't the point.

Many times a google link will have complete trash for the top several slots. A info-free "buy now" link, an expired blog link, and so forth. In any case, the top several links weren't useful to the majority of slashdot, and didn't seem very useful to UK readers either.

I'd have put a few links to manufacturer specs or something. Google links are best used to slap down someone who apparently doesn't know about google.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:USB-TV? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-30 12:11 · Score: 1

I asked whether anyone had tried a USB-TV device, and linked to clarify the kind of device I meant in case I was using an unfamiliar term (which I made up, perhaps serendipitously).

I thought the risk was that someone without experience would just follow the Google link and copy back from one of those sites.

The uselessness of my link in your finding a device you like is not my concern. Finding people's actual experiences with these devices is my concern.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:USB-TV? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-30 12:13 · Score: 1

I might have linked to a Froogle search, but I was just trying to clarify the "USB-TV" term I used in my post requesting people's experiences with such devices. The search results showed the kinds of devices I meant, so it worked.

I'm amused by people complaining that my link didn't help them find a device they'd want, when I was interested in excluding people with that lack of experience from my request.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:USB-TV? by fiddlesticks · 2006-10-30 12:20 · Score: 1

And most of these devices also work in Europe and australia (and many others) too

They'll all be free to air DTT (digital TV) - it's quite popular here, you know.

Now that might make it 'a bunch of crap' to you - but should all links on /. work a) everywhere in the world or b) just the US

clue - b) happens most of the time here.

--
http://milkshake.dexy.org
Re:USB-TV? by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 12:20 · Score: 1

I have a USB TV capture device that I'm somewhat happy with, but I don't know from your link what you're looking for. Maybe it's like mine, maybe not, there's no way to tell.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:USB-TV? by LunaticTippy · 2006-10-30 12:44 · Score: 1

That's why I'd prefer links to manufacturer pages. Anyone in the world can look at that and see what is being discussed. I didn't know if the OP was talking about UK devices specifically or if a poorly-formed google search just happened to return those at the top. One sponsored link (at the very top) was for a US device that does analog & digital, so there was some confusion.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:USB-TV? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-30 13:00 · Score: 1

Is it a USB stick, like I said, and like all the results on that Google page, that sends TV data into the USB socket?

My specs for this class of device are pretty loose, because I don't care about the other specs. Any device which fits in the USB stick form factor and sends TV into the USB socket is interesting. I don't care whether it receives VHF, DVB-T, RF/coax, or other signal sources, though I'm interested in which one it does. Just so long as its a USB stick that receives TV data and sends it into a USB port.

--
--
make install -not war

RadioShark is "less gooder" by ScottCooperDotNet · 2006-10-30 10:50 · Score: 1

The RadioShark has some serious limitations that make it a poor purchase.

The recording program has a limit of only 2 hours, and does not natively encode into MP3. The program's interface is terrible, and it doesn't tag the files it creates. Even though it was sold as compatible with Windows 2000, the updated program isn't supported in 2000, even though it works with it. There is no place for an antenna, they suggest using headphones for better reception.

Audacity and an analog cable work much better.

A very unhappy RadioShark owner

Re:RadioShark is "less gooder" by KermodeBear · 2006-10-30 10:56 · Score: 1

I bought a RadioShark just last month, and I made sure to update the latest version of the software from the company's website (the installer lies when it says a new version isn't available!). I had no problem recording Coast to Coast AM which is a 4 hour long program, although I do have a list of other complaints about the product. Overall, I was very kind and gave it a C-. In retrospect it should get a D+, but...

--
Love sees no species.
Re:RadioShark is "less gooder" by jdcope · 2006-10-30 11:27 · Score: 1

I dunno, I love my RadioShark. The building where I work doesnt get AM reception, and I like to listen to local AM talk radio while sitting on my ass in front of a computer all day. I set up the RadioShark at home for recording, and I listen to the shows the next day. Yes, it only records WMA, but so what? I have to use Media Player at work anyway, they wont let us install anything else. As for the two-hour limit, its fine. I just set mine up to record two 2-hour sessions. And so far the reception at home is great too.

Re:Why? by chopper749 · 2006-10-30 10:52 · Score: 1

This thingy isn't HD, but... HD FM is CD quality. HD AM is FM quality.

Re:Why? by saur2004 · 2006-10-30 10:52 · Score: 1

Agreed completely. Who wants to hear Pink Floyd sing "Dont give me that do goody goody bull ____"? It ruins the artistic merit.

Not available on Mac? by legoandy · 2006-10-30 11:03 · Score: 1

Interesting picture...

Something is broadcast from some huge antenna, then something happens on mac (and yes, this is PowerBook or Mac Book Pro), then there is some 3.5" usb key like thing and finally, things become iPods and CDs.

So, how about this:

* Is there support for Mac? The picture sure suggests so...

System Requirements

Microsoft Windows XP or Windows XP Media Center Edition Service Pack 2 or later ...
Windows Media Player 10.0 or higher ...

Oh, no...

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by BiggyP · 2006-10-30 11:03 · Score: 1

I like the idea of a small dongle to aid me in the recording of Radio 4, the device you've outlined sounds like its utterly over the top and useless for just about everyone besides you, what are Web 2.0 protocols anyway, just out of interest?

--
Software Freedom Day!.

Old hat by kennova · 2006-10-30 11:05 · Score: 1

D-Link had a USB Radio with software to do this a long time ago. It may not have been quite as nice, but it could have been and the software just recorded what came into line-in so any external cabling could fix that.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by Professor_UNIX · 2006-10-30 11:06 · Score: 1

This is useless for me. The only FM radio station I listen to is 88.7FM because that's the station that my iPod FM transmitter is set to.

You remind me of this guy.

Works with OS X? by Repugnant_Shit · 2006-10-30 11:06 · Score: 1

On the pretty picture they show radio going to a Powerbook, then to an iPod. Guess what?

Requirements:
- Microsoft Windows XP or Windows XP Media Center Edition Service Pack 2
- Windows Media Player 10.0 or higher

--
Vote for global prefs bug

Re:Works with OS X? by soft_guy · 2006-10-30 11:19 · Score: 1

There is another product called the Radio Shark that has been out for years that does the same thing. It runs great on MacOS X.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Works with OS X? by wealthychef · 2006-10-30 12:14 · Score: 1

But be careful: RadioShark is not a very good receiver -- you are limited by the length of the USB cord, and with my RadioShark (which I'll sell you if you want! :-) I have great trouble finding a spot where I can get e.g. Car Talk reliably. Forget about weaker stations. YMMV, my house does not have great reception anyhow, and many are very happy with their RadioSharks, I'm just tellin' ya... speaking of which, I wonder if there is something like it for XMRadio/Cyrius or whatever... so-called satellite radio, you know?

--
Currently hooked on AMP
Re:Works with OS X? by MidnightBrewer · 2006-10-31 13:42 · Score: 1

There are USB extension cords available, assuming that you can find somewhere in your house that gets better reception.

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life

Nice, but how about a WORKING mp3 Tagger? by SRA8 · 2006-10-30 11:27 · Score: 1

Ummm...this is OK, but I think a WORKING mp3 Tagger would be far, far more helpful to most. Perhaps they could redirect some of their efforts into this truly needed utility?

Re:Nice, but how about a WORKING mp3 Tagger? by /dev/trash · 2006-10-30 12:41 · Score: 1

NOW that is something I'd like to see.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by nostriluu · 2006-10-30 11:27 · Score: 1

Wow, you thought of an Onion article from 2000?

Anyway, I think it's commendable that between the onion and beavis and butthead, we've found ways to shut people up from expressing their thoughts. All the world really needs is a "click to buy" button. Refined opinions aren't important.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by hackstraw · 2006-10-30 11:31 · Score: 4, Funny

The only FM radio station I listen to is 88.7FM because that's the station that my iPod FM transmitter is set to.

Wow! Mystery finally solved.

I would surf the FM channels and land on 88.7 sometimes and I thought it was cool because it had no commercials, but I was puzzled why it always played sucky music and sometimes the songs would skip to a new track.

Now I know!

Re:Why? by PlasticArmyMan · 2006-10-30 11:31 · Score: 1

How about not listening to the radio at all? Surely having nothing at all is better than sonic death of the ears by listening to normal radio?

I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by McFadden · 2006-10-30 11:48 · Score: 1

On a related note, can anyone recommend a good device for receiving radio streams without needing a PC? I'd love to be able to wake up to British radio in the morning, but I can't leave my PC on at night because my wife objects to the noise of the fans (no I can't move it - we live in Japan - there is nowhere to move it - if you'd seen the size of Japanese apartments you'd understand). I think 3com used to make some kind of 'internet radio' device with a bizarre name way back around the time of the bubble, but it got discontinued.

Re:I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by markjhood2003 · 2006-10-30 14:48 · Score: 1

There is the Soundbridge Radio by Roku: http://www.rokulabs.com./ I don't own one, but I have the M500, M1000, and M2000, and they're good devices.
Re:I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by McFadden · 2006-10-30 19:56 · Score: 1

Sir, I don't know any way to send a message to you other than here. That's exactly what I'm looking for. Many thanks.
Re:I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · 2006-10-30 20:21 · Score: 1

Slimdevices Squeezebox: http://slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html

Been using one for a week and I'd say it's pretty nice. Plays my whole music collection and internet radios. There's also a hifi version for 7 times the money, but I figured you'd appreciate the size of the Squeezebox:)
Re:I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by Steve+Brewer · 2006-10-31 03:33 · Score: 1

I second the SqueezeBox. The integration with RadioTime (http://radiotime.com/slim) makes it better than the Roku boxes. You don't have to bother with a URL sniffer, find the station you want on the site, add it to your favorites, and it will show up on your SqueezeBox.
Re:I realise this isn't ask Slashdot... but... by McFadden · 2006-10-31 12:54 · Score: 1

Great - even better! I'd heard of the squeezebox before but never knew it did radio. Thanks.

Very Useful for a CAR PC! by Extide · 2006-10-30 11:58 · Score: 1

I have always wanted to ditch the ehadunit in my car and go to a car PC. There have always been a few issues to overcome. -Automated sleep/wake/hibernate/similar (there are some good solutions for this now) -Loss of FM radio when you ditch the headunit This is exactly the type of device I have wanted. I want it to support RDS (which is broadcasted here) and if it also had some 'PVR' like functionality that would be a huge plus. SOmething ~open so that you could write your own apps or something would be real nice too. When I finally build this I hope to include GPS and a hard link to the car's OBD port (which can be used for ALL SORTS of stuff in a modern VW)

--
Technophile

RIAA by bughouse26 · 2006-10-30 12:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

How long until the anti-innovation crowd at the RIAA comes knocking with a lawsuit? Or better, they'll use it as proof of why the broadcast flag is needed.

Re:RIAA by jellomizer · 2006-10-30 14:10 · Score: 1

I don't think they will care to much about that. People have been recording off of radio for as long as they could record off of radio. Using a Tape/Radio Player to record some of their songs off the radio. Heck some made copies of the tapes and shared them to there friends. Radio Quality isn't that great and even with a good receiver it will take a lot of work to make the Recorded music sound professional. The reason for the Digital Music from the RIAA is the fact that Digital Music can be copied without any loss like in analog methods, as well you can keep things that radio tends to cut out like the full end to the song, stupid DJs singing over the song, Right at the end it spits out the station Call Number. It is not a replacement for CD or well ripped from CD MP3s. So RIAA will only fight this if its is last option.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:RIAA by Shadyman · 2006-10-30 18:10 · Score: 1

In RIAA America, Music Records YOU. In other news, in Canada, it's perfectly legal to record music from FM. That's where the judge got the precedent to extend it to digital music.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by denttford · 2006-10-30 12:19 · Score: 1

You know, I thought of the same piece. I live in NYC where the weekly Onion is available in dead tree form, freely.
They often reprint articles - I recall having seen the aforelinked one printed last year, in fact.

--

Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by Reaperducer · 2006-10-30 12:32 · Score: 1

The idea is for me to be able to access online streams through my cell phone (EDGE/GPRS-enabled).

You can do this now with the latest SonyEricsson phones. I do it every night with my M600i. I stream BBC World Service over T-Mobile GPRS on the train on my way home from work (Chicago, US here - YMMV). Keep the phone in my bag and listen through stero Bluetooth headphones.

The stream is Realmedia, but it still sounds surprisingly good even at crappy GPRS speeds.

--
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."

So by /dev/trash · 2006-10-30 12:43 · Score: 1

How is Rush Limbaugh these days?

Re:So by jdcope · 2006-10-31 06:20 · Score: 1

I dunno, I dont listen to him.
Re:So by /dev/trash · 2006-10-31 08:42 · Score: 1

Hannity then? I KNOW there's no Liberal AM talk, so it's those two or some religious show.
Re:So by jdcope · 2006-11-02 12:54 · Score: 1

Sure there is. Air America and NPR. The show I listen to is a local show, and yes its conservative. I dont listen to any of the national guys. (I used to listen to O'Reilly, but even he is too much nowadays.) If I need liberal news, I can read the Oregonian or the New York Times. (Hell, just watch the news on TV) ;-)

Non-commercial radio exists by doom · 2006-10-30 12:44 · Score: 1

yourexhalekiss wrote:

For me, it's not the AM/FM limitations so much... It's just the suckiness of the music. If you set this thing up to record each unique song played in a 24 hour period on one particular station, you'd have just 20 different songs. Radio plays the same songs over and over again. Once you've recorded one days' worth of broadcasting, you'd be set for the next month... or whenever the radio station refreshes their playlist.

Your only exaggerating a little bit, but you're essentially describing only commercial radio. In many places around the country there are alternatives to that, college radio stations and non-profits like the Pacifica stations, and you'll hear a wide variety of stuff broadcast there.

Of course, they also all tend to have some form of internet streaming going, so this by itself would not be a reason to do capture of FM signals (possibly you might like to do this to get higher audio quality and to reduce bandwith usage).

It is, by the way, an odd peculiarity about all the buzz about "podcasting" making radio broadcasting more democratic: when I actually listen to amateurs playing DJ, it seems really unimpressive... college stations on the other hand, have something of a tradition of exploration of new music to fall back on, they're pros at the business of being amateurs.

A quick list of stations that might be worth a listen:

Re:Non-commercial radio exists by nanio · 2006-10-30 15:36 · Score: 1
Some decent Boston stations.
- WMBR
- WERS (for more Willie Nelson)
Re:Non-commercial radio exists by ALpaca2500 · 2006-10-31 03:12 · Score: 1

I love WERS. indie and folk in the morning, jazz during mid-day, and world music until the evening. On the weekends, it's broadway tunes, a capella, then kids music.

And don't forget WGBH radio; Public radio (NPR, PRI) in the afternoon, and then jazz all night.

USB Dongle for HD FM Radio by JCOTTON · 2006-10-30 12:49 · Score: 1

FM radio in my area (Baltimore) is fairly suckky. But how about a HD-Radio dongle?

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by LiquidCoooled · 2006-10-30 13:02 · Score: 1

I wonder if the guy got himself a tv yet?
Either that, or he was bludgeoned to death in a hallway.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Re:Appears to use RDS (continued) by fotbr · 2006-10-30 13:03 · Score: 1

I hit submit before I finished the above comment, guess thats what I get for doing too much at once....so here's the last bit.

Things are different when you're in a city with a metro area population of 1 million, and when you're in a town of under 10,000, and the two closest "cities" are 30 miles away and have 25,000 people, and the two closest real cities are 100+ miles away (I'm defining a "real city" as having more than 100k people).

Bah! by Black+Parrot · 2006-10-30 14:57 · Score: 1

You should see what my dongle does!

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Bah! by Peyna · 2006-10-30 16:02 · Score: 1

After network card dongles went out of style I always wondered if there would ever be a time when the jokes came back.

--
What?

College Radio by wondafucka · 2006-10-30 15:27 · Score: 1

Two words: College Radio.

FM Radio doesn't suck in totality. Just visit those stations to the left of the dial.

--
postmodernsideshow.com

Wow, 100 posts and only **3** by davidsyes · 2006-10-30 15:56 · Score: 1

rate above 2: A 5, a 3 and a two...

funny, tho, slash image word: inundate

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

No FM, but an MMS solution by TrevorB · 2006-10-30 16:53 · Score: 1

Joined up with crontab... Works rather well for the CBC for me...

---

#!/usr/bin/perl

$_ = `date "+%Y-%m-%d"`;
s/\n//;
$date = $_;

$filename = $ARGV[0].".".$date;

$sleep = $ARGV[1];

$wavfilename = $filename.".wav";
$mp3filename = $filename.".mp3";

$command = "/usr/local/bin/mplayer -vo null -ao pcm:file=$wavfilename -slave -quiet ****INSERT YOUR MMS:// URL HERE**** > /dev/null 2> /dev/null &";

system("$command");

sleep $sleep ;

`pkill mplayer`;

`nice /usr/local/bin/lame -S $wavfilename $mp3filename`;

`rm $wavfilename`;

---

Feel free to mock my code, but post a better solution if you do. I *don't* like the pkill mplayer solution, but I'm still not sure to easily get a PID out of a process. It would also be cool if I could save as the original source file type, instead of converting a 32kbps Windows Media stream into a 128kbps wav and then into a 128kbps mp3. It has however, worked very well for me, and lets me timeshift my favourite CBC Radio one shows.

Re:No FM, but an MMS solution by tzanger · 2006-10-31 03:41 · Score: 1

I *don't* like the pkill mplayer solution, but I'm still not sure to easily get a PID out of a process.

How about
kill -TERM `ps ax | grep [m]player`
? It does the same thing as pkill I guess. :-) I don't think mplayer spits out a pidfile anywhere, like most daemons do.
Re:No FM, but an MMS solution by TrevorB · 2006-10-31 10:08 · Score: 1

What if you have more than one mplayer running?
Re:No FM, but an MMS solution by TrevorB · 2006-10-31 11:11 · Score: 1

I've been thinking about this a bit. I'm worried that when I get mythTV running on the same box, bad things will happen if mplayers get killed willy nilly....

Try this instead...

----

#!/usr/bin/perl

$_ = `date "+%Y-%m-%d"`;
s/\n//;
$date = $_;

$filename = $ARGV[0].".".$date;

$sleep = $ARGV[1];

$wavfilename = $filename.".wav";
$mp3filename = $filename.".mp3";

$ps1 = `pgrep mplayer`;

@psA = split(/\n/, $ps1);

$command = "/usr/local/bin/mplayer -vo null -ao pcm:file=$wavfilename -slave -quiet ***INSERT MMS HERE*** > /dev/nu
ll 2> /dev/null &";

system("$command");

$ps2 = `pgrep mplayer`;

@psB = split(/\n/, $ps2);
for (@psA) {$existing_mplayer{$_} = 1};

sleep $sleep ;

###`pkill mplayer`;

foreach $ps (@psB) {
unless ($is_ps{$ps}) {
`kill $ps > /dev/null 2> /dev/null`;
}
}

$bitrate = $ARGV[2];

`nice /usr/local/bin/lame -S -b $bitrate $wavfilename $mp3filename`;

`rm $wavfilename`;

forget .mp3 by grant420 · 2006-10-30 16:58 · Score: 1, Funny

So it only saves as .mp3 (or .mp3 quality)?

come on people, enough with .mp3 junk.

.wav quality only, please.

move along...

Recording - Wouldn't that constitute as piracy? by hvnarsana · 2006-10-30 18:43 · Score: 1

Now don't jump on me for saying that.. I'm just contemplating on it. Considering that the radio stations pay royalty for every song they pay, wouldn't it be illegal to sell software that let's you record FM music?

--
Usability Engineer, Master in Human Computer Interaction

Re:Recording - Wouldn't that constitute as piracy? by JesseL · 2006-10-31 04:24 · Score: 1

These are a few similar devices you may or may not be familiar with:

cassette recorder
VCR
Tivo, and other digital television recorders.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"

Re:Why? by ajs318 · 2006-10-30 22:05 · Score: 1

FM radio sucks, but MW radio sucks worse. Once you get bored of the fact that the digits of the frequencies always add up to 9 (except on TV and in films, for some reason; I can understand using fake phone numbers -- there is no such STD code as 01632 or 01602 -- but fake radio frequencies ? Give me a break ..... on a PLL set, you'll only ever be at most 4.5kHz away from the right frequency, and on a continuously-tunable set you can always go straight to it) it really doesn't have a lot going for it. You can pick up MW on a crystal set, because it's amplitude-modulated. But it sounds like crap, because it's amplitude-modulated. Just save it for after the collapse of civilisation, when you can plumb a carbon mic in series with the power supply to a 1MHz crystal oscillator and see if anyone's listening. 1MHz is close enough to 999kHz (which is a real station frequency), if all the PLL sets haven't packed up by then due to EMP / Solar flares / whatever precipitated the doomsday scenario.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

A cool device but... by Nephrite · 2006-10-30 23:04 · Score: 1

Why do they call it a dongle? I thought dongles were evil authorization devices!

Re:A cool device but... by rah1420 · 2006-10-31 03:25 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair, I don't recall if TFA referred to it as a dongle; I did. Although Wikipedia doesn't list a USB device as a primary definition of a dongle, it does list it among the alternate definitions.

Oddly enough, I call most crap that hangs out of my USB port "dongles." Except for my company-supplied PKI token; that I simply call my "PKI token." Odd how the mind works. Or doesn't.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

Re:Why? by Detritus · 2006-10-31 03:01 · Score: 1

Believe or not, AM radio can provide excellent audio quality. I've heard commercial and amateur AM stations that broadcast very clean signals, with very little noise or distortion. If you read the FCC rules, they do not limit the bandwidth of AM signals as severely as many people believe. The poor state of AM broadcasting audio quality is mostly due to cheap receivers and station managers that equate loud with good.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Re:Why? by Larry+Lightbulb · 2006-10-31 03:14 · Score: 1

When you've got http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/ what more do you need?

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by nostriluu · 2006-10-31 03:19 · Score: 1

Sorry, I don't read Fark.

How quaint by gsslay · 2006-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

FM radio, how quaint. Can you get a Morse code interface on it too?

Let me know once it catches up with the 21st century and is DAB.

Re:Useless for me, but almost the right direction? by 14erCleaner · 2006-10-31 04:25 · Score: 1

The idea is for me to be able to access online streams through my cell phone

I think it'd be cool if my cat could wash the dishes, too.

--
Have you read my blog lately?

c.f. RadioShark? by MMHere · 2006-11-07 10:52 · Score: 1

better? worse? similar?

Slashdot Mirror

USB Dongle Records Web, FM Radio

124 of 148 comments (clear)