On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:30:15 +0000, RJH <repl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>* Out of interest, does the mobile data connection kick in when out of >wireless range?
Trivial to set it to not use datalink and use wifi only.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:11:14 -0800, fred wrote:
> FM and LW reception is too poor in this case hence the suggested WiFi
> radio.
> She had an old battery powered Sony FM/MW/LW for yonks but it is rapidly
> expiring and the newer version I have is hopeless at LW reception.
> Wasn't aware of the power consumption problems with WiFi radio making
> battery operation problematical.
> TuneIn on her iPhone sounds like a good idea though she doesn't like
> buds or cans and likes to carry the radio from room to room Perhaps a
> small speaker might fit the bill. She has streaming radio in the kitchen
> and I suggested extending this to the other rooms but no, wouldn't do at
> all. Must be a portable
Why carry a whole radio about? Carry one of these:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:58:58 +0000, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2012 20:46, damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:45:37 +0000, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Most that are capable of that are also capable of DAB and FM.
>>>> Digital radios eat batteries quickly so it is a bad idea!
>>> Some of the Pure or Revo ranges have rechargeable batteries .The Revo
>>> I have runs for about 7 to 8 hours on a charge.
>>> Seems a bit limiting to tie oneself to a mains socket if you are using
>>> a WIFI radio.
>> And a decent FM radio will run for about ten times longer.
> Battery time of 8 hours on a charge is more than adequate, I've no
> need to spend 80 hours in the bath or down the garden before plugging
> it in again and I doubt many others need to , If the set used U2's at
> the rate of four a day it might be something to worry about.
It almost does... having to recharge one daily isn't my idea of useful.
> I'm not sure it would last ten times longer anyway , have used the set
> on FM a few times as it was a convenient thing to do ,can't say I
> noticed it lasted that much more. Internet radio is more efficient
> than DAB.
> G.Harman
A set with the DAB decoder in is quite likely to consume power at a prodigious rate whether the thing is working or not. You need a classically designed FM/AM radio to avoid battery trashing.
In the event of a national emergency digital DAB radios will be worse than useless since their battery life is so pathetic.
>> I'm not sure it would last ten times longer anyway , have used the set
>> on FM a few times as it was a convenient thing to do ,can't say I
>> noticed it lasted that much more. Internet radio is more efficient
>> than DAB.
>> G.Harman
>A set with the DAB decoder in is quite likely to consume power at a >prodigious rate whether the thing is working or not. You need a >classically designed FM/AM radio to avoid battery trashing.
Just as well mine hasn't got one in then isn't it. FM and Internet by
WIFI or cable connection only..
>In the event of a national emergency digital DAB radios will be worse >than useless since their battery life is so pathetic.
The OP was asking about a WIFI cabable Internet radio, Not how to
survive the Bomb, neither DAB which you introduced no doubt excited by
the trouser wetting chance to promote your prejudices some of which
may well be justified not but pertinant to answering his question.
In case of real national emergency then there will more to worry about
than how long a radio's batterys last. A wind up one would be good
thing to consider then ,I have two which are also torches there is
also an old bike with a dynamo lying about somewhere.
This being a group for DIY there will be many combinations to to the
problem and a vehicle with a tank of fuel will provide power for small
radios for a long time. But that wasn't what the OP wanted to know.
In article <u5bfa8d0e8fklv2ef03af3vi3he7qal...@4ax.com>,
<damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The OP was asking about a WIFI cabable Internet radio, Not how to
> survive the Bomb, neither DAB which you introduced no doubt excited by
> the trouser wetting chance to promote your prejudices some of which
> may well be justified not but pertinant to answering his question.
> In case of real national emergency then there will more to worry about
> than how long a radio's batterys last
Quite - do people expect the radio transmitters and all of the chain
feeding them to run on air, if there is no mains power?
LW was the favourite for an emergency as one transmitter could just about
cover most of the country. And it does have its own backup generators.
Which I very much doubt every DAB or even FM transmitter has. There was
also at one time at least a single DC pair telephone line direct to the
Droitwich LW transmitter, so even with power failure to the lines,
something could be transmitted from London.
-- *Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.mdl39s1.pmin...@srv1.howhill.co.uk>, allsortsnotthis...@howhill.com says...
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:58:41 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:
> >> Why eat into your bandwidth allowance when there's a perfectly good FM > >> signal available?
> > Bandwidth allowance? Are you using the poor people's Internet?
> Most mobile phones have a download limit... As some one has pointed out > if using a mobile make sure it doesn't drop across to 3G if it loses the > WiFi...
> A 128kbps stream is roughly 60MBhr and will chomp through 1GB in around > 16 hours. (If I've got the maths right...).
That's always been my objection to 'internet radio' - most ISPs have a monthly useage limit.
If you could use a Freeview box to supply the feed instead...
Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Having got interested for my own purposes, not many options I suspect.
> Pure seem to have if not the cheapest then the cheaper WiFi radios and
> the "One Flow" is portable and has a rechargeable battery it just limbos
> under the £100 barrier at around £80ish. There seem to be some negatives
> such as having to pay a subscription fee if you want access to their
> radio programme guide. That seems a bit unfair when TuneIn does it for
> free.
There's many things to be wary of about internet radios:
1. The UI: the little LCD screens can be terrible to set anything on and jog
dials are a clumsy way to set up. Just imagine setting your wifi password
with a jog dial and you get the idea. This means searching for stations is
painful if that feature even exists.
2. The station database. Internet radio is often fragmented, because the
manufacturers are fighting against the broadcasters. Broadcasters want
people to listen on little Flash applets in their browser window so they can
push ads. To hook the stream into an internet radio (which runs neither
Windows nor IE nor Flash) means reverse engineering the website to work out
the stream URL... but such stream links often break.
Is the database well-structured, and is it easy to find things? How do you
get things added? Does anyone actually care about it? Stations might
listed as things like:
!!!111 HITS (lots of !!! to get to the top of the list)
103.6 Love FM (have to scroll through a lot of these to get to the interesting
stuff)
Alan's Rantz (internet-only bedroom radio station)
BBC Radio Somewhere AAC
BBC Radio Somewhere WMA (station in database twice)
Elsewhere BBC Radio (sorting order broken)
KAAA New York
KAAB Kentucky Bluegrass
...
KZZZ Alaska (there are /lots/ of American Wxxx and Kxxx stations)
Unless the database is well-curated, it's often full of dross.
3. Do they interact with more complex services like BBC iPlayer? Can you
access the recorded programmes, not just the current broadcasts? Can you do
the same for stations not explicitly supported (eg if the Voice of North
Korea decides to offer listen on demand, do I depend on the radio
manufacturer to support that station, or can I just point the radio at the
RSS feed?)
4. Can you use a third-party database? If the manufacturer gets bored, the
stream database will bit-rot very quickly, even if the servers stay up.
5. Does your idea of support match the manufacturer's?
My salutory lesson is I have two radios based on a platform from a Cambridge
company called Reciva. These are/were fitted to many models from Roberts,
Pure, Dixons, Oxx, BT, and many other brands. The UI is clunky, finding
stations is a pain, the build quality is poor, and Reciva have basically
said that 5 years is sufficient product lifetime and they've given up. The
database servers are still up, but they put little effort into maintaining it
and it's a mess. But I needn't worry about that, because both my radios
have died anyway (BGA soldering fault).
So, my lessons would be:
1. Get a touchscreen. It so much easier to use than an awkward jog dial
2. Buy a radio on an extensible platform (eg Android). If the vendor gives
up, you can switch to a different radio app.
3. Put up with the fragmentation. One size fits all, doesn't. For an easy
life, you might end up listening to BBC streams with the iPlayer app,
Brazillian radio with a Brazillian radio app, etc. If you're interested in
obscure stations you can guarantee that some won't be listed in the
mainstream apps.
I haven't looked at the current range of wifi radios in too much detail, but
I think I'd be wary in general. I think a tablet or a phone in a docking
station with speakers might be an approach worth looking at rather than a
'kitchen radio' box. But check that a slower device can actually keep up
with the streams.
In article <m98ga8tvu6knr43hs7nm4fbj3mnfrrd...@4ax.com>, grimly4
@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:58:12 -0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >If you could use a Freeview box to supply the feed instead...
> Or a Sky box - dozens of free radio channels on that. I think I might
> utilise the suggested FM mini-broadcaster with that.
Freeview seems to have 25 radio channels, according to http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels - although I'd be hard pushed to find more than 4 I would ever use.
Choice between Sky & Freeview would depend on what hardware you already have. I can't imagine someone subscribing to Sky just for the radio.
If you had an aerial & a Freeview box from which you only took audio output, I assume you wouldn't need a TV licence.
Mind you I wouldn't think it possible to select radio channels on the Freeview box without using a TV to set it up.
In article <MPG.2b12421163d1a9f989...@news.plus.net>,
Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <m98ga8tvu6knr43hs7nm4fbj3mnfrrd...@4ax.com>, grimly4
> @gmail.com says...
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:58:12 -0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
> > >If you could use a Freeview box to supply the feed instead...
> > Or a Sky box - dozens of free radio channels on that. I think I might
> > utilise the suggested FM mini-broadcaster with that.
> Freeview seems to have 25 radio channels, according to
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/Channels - although I'd be hard pushed to find
> more than 4 I would ever use.
> Choice between Sky & Freeview would depend on what hardware you already > have. I can't imagine someone subscribing to Sky just for the radio.
You don't need the Sky subscription for radio. But do, of course, need a
dish. Or just use any old satellite dish/receiver.
> If you had an aerial & a Freeview box from which you only took audio > output, I assume you wouldn't need a TV licence.
Dunno.
> Mind you I wouldn't think it possible to select radio channels on the > Freeview box without using a TV to set it up.
Many - especially older - only listen to the one station anyway. Although
a cheap FreeView box with a front panel display of the (favourite?)
selected would be useful. However, most retain their memory even when
powered down, so getting to the station you want is possible via the
remote control, after you've set things up using a TV.
-- *Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
On 17 Nov,
"Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> Quite - do people expect the radio transmitters and all of the chain
> feeding them to run on air, if there is no mains power?
> LW was the favourite for an emergency as one transmitter could just about
> cover most of the country. And it does have its own backup generators.
> Which I very much doubt every DAB or even FM transmitter has. There was
> also at one time at least a single DC pair telephone line direct to the
> Droitwich LW transmitter, so even with power failure to the lines,
> something could be transmitted from London.
But they can't get the valves anymore, or so they say.
Other broadcasters can still manage to install long wave transmitters. I
wonder how RTE manage after moving from medium wave (567kHz) to long wave
(252KHz)
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:58:41 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:
>> >> Why eat into your bandwidth allowance when there's a perfectly good FM >> >> signal available?
>> > Bandwidth allowance? Are you using the poor people's Internet?
>> Most mobile phones have a download limit... As some one has pointed out >> if using a mobile make sure it doesn't drop across to 3G if it loses the >> WiFi...
>> A 128kbps stream is roughly 60MBhr and will chomp through 1GB in around >> 16 hours. (If I've got the maths right...).
>That's always been my objection to 'internet radio' - most ISPs have a >monthly useage limit.
We're on VM and I don't know if they do cap it anymore since we went to
the 30 meg speed but it does get hammered these days mainly with U tube
and iplayer...
>If you could use a Freeview box to supply the feed instead...
