Well, who knows what it actually sounds like. I mean, FM transmission sounded like a good idea to me until I actually tried it. And other people swear it works for them. Scosche had a truck near their booth that had a stereo going but I was in such a rush I didn't poke my head in (plus the $325 it'd cost to set my car up is more than I can afford).
Slap my hand now!
Anya ,'Empty Places'
Buffistechnology 2: You Made Her So She Growls?
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
Spidra Webster - Jan 11, 2006 1:54:56 pm PST #6501 of 10003
I wish I could just go somewhere to get flensed but none of the whaling ships near me take Medicare.
§ ita § - Jan 11, 2006 1:57:49 pm PST #6502 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Bluetooth strikes me as more consistent in quality, since the airwave variable is a big one. But as things stand, FM's going to be less good sound quality than a decent tape adapter, just because of the nature of the FM beast.
The thing I wonder--is decent FM better or worse than decent Bluetooth?
Around the house I just use line in instead.
Spidra Webster - Jan 11, 2006 2:01:17 pm PST #6503 of 10003
I wish I could just go somewhere to get flensed but none of the whaling ships near me take Medicare.
I asked Scosche about what my car would need. My car's a 1997 so it'd need an adapter. Which requires someone to go open the stereo up and do shit with wires. In which case, at that price, I might as well just buy an Alpine line-in stereo.
NoiseDesign - Jan 11, 2006 6:36:53 pm PST #6504 of 10003
Our wings are not tired
I swear NoiseDesign said that bluetooth was too low-bandwidth to pump good music.
I may have, but I don't know the bandwidth available on bluetooth off the top of my head. It may also be using bluetooth 2.0 which has better bandwidth I believe.
Eddie - Jan 11, 2006 6:49:47 pm PST #6505 of 10003
Your tag here.
§ ita § - Jan 12, 2006 5:03:40 am PST #6506 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Betsy HP - Jan 12, 2006 5:06:12 am PST #6507 of 10003
If I only had a brain...
I got a Nikon camera, want to take a phooooo-tograph,
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away!
- sob*
Jon B. - Jan 12, 2006 5:13:46 am PST #6508 of 10003
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
In the most recent fiscal year ended March 2005, Nikon said that film camera bodies accounted for 3 percent of the 180 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in sales at the company's camera and imaging division. That is down from 16 percent the previous year.
By contrast, sales of digital cameras have soared, the company said, jumping to 75 percent of total sales in the year ended March 2005, from 47 percent three years earlier. Scanners and other products account for the remainder of the division's sales.
Wow! I'm sad, but it's hard to argue the business merits of the decision.
§ ita § - Jan 12, 2006 5:17:11 am PST #6509 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I love my film camera, dammit! I love my digital cameras too, and as someone intending to buy another Polaroid camera, perhaps they're not talking about me.
I want to believe that the sales of digital cameras will plateau, and that film SLRs will always have a place.
But then you have this -- who the HELL needs thirty nine megapixels¹?
¹: Rhetorical.
tommyrot - Jan 12, 2006 5:42:04 am PST #6510 of 10003
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
as someone intending to buy another Polaroid camera
?