+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Kill AM (/showthread.php?tid=5785)
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 10th June 2010
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/06/should-am-radio-stations-get-a-10x-power-boost.ars
This is an interesting article, but what it really does is drive home an important point, AM should be killed off by the FCC, and a few decades later, follow it up by killing off FM.
Both broadcasting standards take up a ridiculous amount of the spectrum compared to digital broadcasting, but AM is by far the greater offender.
The biggest argument for AM's "value" seems to be that it broadcasts at greater distances. This is a nice feature, but it's not a feature of the AM standard, it's a feature of the wavelengths AM is assigned to. In other words, that's all the more reason to kill AM and reapportion digital signals to the spectrum. More will fit, and thanks to the nature of digital, less interference issues will result.
I am willing to accept a lone exception to this, a single frequency should remain allocated to AM for the purposes of emergency broadcasting in a region, for the sake of reaching people with only AM receivers during emergencies. Otherwise, killing it is just as justified as what is currently going on with TV broadcasts, with the mandated switch to digital broadcasting.
FM can wait longer, since it has a substantial listener base right now, but eventually it's time should also come as more and more switch to digital radio receivers. I give it maybe 3 decades tops.
The FCC is fully justified in refusing this request for some emergency life support on a standard doing more harm than good, but should go farther. Those stations that currently have licenses can have special deals to freely convert their license to either a digital station in the new block or switch to an available FM station (for a small price instead of free, to push more towards digital broadcasting instead of FM). There could even be some tax relief offered to stations that make the switch so they can better afford to.
Kill AM - alien space marine - 10th June 2010
Dark Jaguar Wrote:http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/06/should-am-radio-stations-get-a-10x-power-boost.ars
This is an interesting article, but what it really does is drive home an important point, AM should be killed off by the FCC, and a few decades later, follow it up by killing off FM.
Both broadcasting standards take up a ridiculous amount of the spectrum compared to digital broadcasting, but AM is by far the greater offender.
The biggest argument for AM's "value" seems to be that it broadcasts at greater distances. This is a nice feature, but it's not a feature of the AM standard, it's a feature of the wavelengths AM is assigned to. In other words, that's all the more reason to kill AM and reapportion digital signals to the spectrum. More will fit, and thanks to the nature of digital, less interference issues will result.
I am willing to accept a lone exception to this, a single frequency should remain allocated to AM for the purposes of emergency broadcasting in a region, for the sake of reaching people with only AM receivers during emergencies. Otherwise, killing it is just as justified as what is currently going on with TV broadcasts, with the mandated switch to digital broadcasting.
FM can wait longer, since it has a substantial listener base right now, but eventually it's time should also come as more and more switch to digital radio receivers. I give it maybe 3 decades tops.
The FCC is fully justified in refusing this request for some emergency life support on a standard doing more harm than good, but should go farther. Those stations that currently have licenses can have special deals to freely convert their license to either a digital station in the new block or switch to an available FM station (for a small price instead of free, to push more towards digital broadcasting instead of FM). There could even be some tax relief offered to stations that make the switch so they can better afford to.
Yes deny granny her god awful music
Kill AM - Weltall - 10th June 2010
Killing off AM wouldn't present much hassle, but what would you suggest to fill the gap left by a dead FM band? Do you see satellite radio becoming free-use and ad-supported, or do you see a new solution altogether?
There will always be a demand for radio of some kind.
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 10th June 2010
Absolutely, and unless satellite radio becomes free, no, we obviously can't kill radio, AM or FM. You and I may not listen to radio much at all, but many people do. And saying "well, radio is now subscription only" is obviously most definitely not an option.
Kill AM - Weltall - 10th June 2010
How many radio listeners would really care if the option were no longer available, though? I see no reason to prop up the formats if there's no legitimate demand for them. It's like newspapers: print media is still widely consumed, but the format is sliding inexorably into obsolescence and should not be saved if it cannot self-support.
On the AM band, probably next to no one. Around here, all that's on AM is talk radio, sports radio, and gospel music. The only thing about AM that's kinda fun is hunting for distant stations on clear nights. I've gotten signals as far away as Buffalo in here in Virginia.
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 10th June 2010
Millions of people listen to talk radio, Weltall. There's a reason people like Rush Limbaugh are so influential -- huge numbers of people listen to them.
Kill AM - Weltall - 10th June 2010
Only during peak hours, though. Who listens to AM radio once the sun goes down?
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 10th June 2010
So? How useful is that?
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 10th June 2010
What I'm suggesting is that the band be replaced with a digital format. Many more stations can occupy it. Satellite radio is on a totally different band anyway.
I'm not suggesting that the pay-radio companies "go free", I'm suggesting that the format the broadcast stations are in be completely replaced and the AM and FM bands can be freed up. In a digital format, they can be compressed nice and tight, and this frees up a lot of space in the spectrum. What for? Well, that depends. At the very least, it'll mean future technologies we haven't thought of will actually HAVE a future, and that's more than enough reason for AM to stop hogging up all the bandwidth. As I said, I don't see FM disappearing any time soon, I give it 30 or so years before it's completely obsolete.
Look at it this way. The FCC has already forced stations to begin switching all their broadcasting to digital formats. This frees up a large part of that spectrum (as well as making the signals more secure against interference), but it didn't result in those stations suddenly becoming satellite companies you need to pay for. All the viewer needed to do was get a digital tuner. That's the same thing I'm suggesting here. AM and FM die, and in their place a much smaller part of the spectrum can hold the same number of stations both took up.
Kill AM - Weltall - 10th June 2010
So, you're suggesting that as television goes, so should goeth radio. I agree with this sentiment.
The problem is, it wouldn't be as smooth as the television transition. TVs are, with a few exceptions, standalone console devices which have little fundamental variation from one form to another. Digital converter boxes were a workable solution because they were compatible with basically all TVs, given the right extras. It's not the same with radio, because radios are, as often as not, embedded devices which would have to be completely replaced--car stereos are a major example--and how many people are going to bother doing that?
That's why I think the best way to handle it would be for satellite to adopt the advertiser model and attempt to become the radio standard, because new devices will be necessary anyway, and satellite radio already has both years of operation and a decent amount of market penetration. Alternatively, they can adopt the television method in which local stations are free and you can subscribe for the premium stations as is the current reality. There's no need or reason for there to be more than one broadcasting standard.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
Actually there's one easy solution to that. I'm guessing you're talking mainly about car radios, since that's usually the only radio anyone actually has these days. Well, old ones all have cassette slots, and new ones all have "line in" ports. A simple adapter solution would work with that. Instead of replacing the whole radio, just buy the new reciever, stick it in the tape slot or line-in port, and play away. It'd be just like any other adapter. More expensive stereos with the hi-fi speakers and all that would be similarly aided by such an adapter. Cheap radios with nothing but a tuner and a speaker could be replaced without missing much anyway. Not all of them could be replaced, but not every TV can be upgraded with a digital tuner either (my Game Gear TV adapter, for example :D).
It's definitely a worthy concern to have. These sorts of transitions are hard to go through. I think the way the FCC handled the TV transition was pretty good. They gave plenty of warning to people ahead of time and provided a lot of tax subsidized tuners to those who couldn't easily afford to upgrade. There were some hangups, but all in all it came and went without much of a hiccup. The radio transition would ideally go the same way. I also agree that the standard should be based on the digital TV standard. That way digital TV tuners can pick up radio stations, and later TVs would be able to differentiate which one is which through software. It'd also mean digital radios could tune into TV stations (most of the time, listening to the news is enough to get the idea of what's going on).
Other than that, we've got other wireless standards, from the Wireless A-N standards to the cell phone 1G-4G standards. There's also things such as Bluetooth and the myriad assortment of remote controls. First thing I'd combine there is simply making all future remote controls just use Bluetooth. Other than that, each one has a clearly set up "goal" in mind that makes me want to keep them seperated. Wireless N is meant for medium range, households for example. Bluetooth is aimed at short range, like video game controllers and headsets. 4G is aimed at long range, namely cell phones. Their goals are different but there will be overlaps, so it's good to keep each one in it's own spectrum so there's little interference, and along the same lines it keeps short range things from "reaching" too far in the wrong spectrum and interfering with other short range devices (I don't need everyone in the city's Wii remotes syncing with my Wii simultaneously). The same goes for the digital broadcasting standard, and beyond that, the GPS standard and other satellite standards.
I'll certainly agree that whatever's in the same "domain" should all share the same standard. Different satellite broadcasting services should all use one agreed upon standard instead of the hodge-podge they have now.
Ya know, people criticize the FCC for it's censorship policies, and there's some good reason for such complaints, but by and large the FCC is one of the best government organizations of it's function in the world. So far they've kept their hands out of internet censorship completely, and they've been working very hard to get some form of net neutrality regulations passed to keep the internet simply "the internet" no matter what service provider one uses. The need to allocate bandwidth to providers is very clear when the alternative is us users suffering through one company after another literally trying to drown out everyone else until it's all just pointless noise. There's also something to be said for that little regulation on the bottom of all our electronic devices, that it can't interfere with the operation of other devices (the "and must accept interference" never made much sense to me though). I still gotta wonder how a Game Boy can jam up an airplane's instrumentation if it's complying with that FCC regulation though...
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
I did forget one other thing between the AM and FM, the standard that a lot of Ham Radio nerds use, allocated specifically for that purpose. I consider that an early form of "chat room" thing, and normally when I see old movies where someone's talking to random people on ham radio and describing it, the whole scene reminds me of early 90's movies where someone's in a chat room describing what they are doing. Apparently, as is the nature of amateur things in general, they've been keeping up on their end all by themselves and are already using a digital standard based on TCP/IP. Since the very point of that part of the spectrum is to allocate it to all-comers and experimentation, I see no need to require any standards complience for that group, just a requirement to stay in their bandwidth. It's a smaller one than AM anyway so it's not really doing much harm, and won't be missed much if a lot of AM gets freed up anyway.
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 11th June 2010
Quote:(my Game Gear TV adapter, for example ).
That's not true, all you need is an RCA to miniplug adapter so that you can connect the digital TV tuner to your Game Gear's input port, and you're good to go!
Of course it's not all portable, but it will work...
Also, with such an adapter you can also use the tuner for such entertaining things like playing your Wii or Xbox 360 on your Game Gear's screen. Yes, it's possible, there are videos on Youtube of people doing it. :)
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
Huh, so that's what that thing is for. I though it was for JUST audio input since that's what it looks like, but I guess it's set up to carry an RF signal.
It doesn't matter much though. I had to get a new Game Gear as my old one's transistors burnt out (a common problem in the early GG models it seems). The new one seems to have some big issues with the TV adapter. After looking it up, it seems my current one is one of the Majesco systems re-released when the Gameboy Advance was going strong. While it has much higher quality parts (so it shouldn't burn out the transistors), they apparently cut out a circuit that directly linked the cartridge port to the display. No games used it, but apparently that's exactly how the TV adapter functioned, and so that explains why when I use it, I get audio only with just a solid white screen to accompany it. I don't mind though, as "surfing the stations" I confirmed that EVERY TV station around me has turned off their analog broadcasts (static in every direction), except apparently for a very far away spanish station somewhere.
Kill AM - Weltall - 11th June 2010
Quote:Actually there's one easy solution to that. I'm guessing you're talking mainly about car radios, since that's usually the only radio anyone actually has these days. Well, old ones all have cassette slots, and new ones all have "line in" ports. A simple adapter solution would work with that.
This is technically feasible, but not even remotely practical. I can't see many people spending $40 on an extra device just to listen to the radio. People might listen to radio because it's free and always there, but how many do you really think are going to not only pay for the privilege, but also have another device hanging out of the deck? I'd guess maybe 1 in 20.
Digital TV transitioned easily not because of converter boxes, but because cable and satellite had gone digital years before the mandated switch, and most people have one or the other. Many of them were totally unaffected by the change.
Also, a fairly large number of mid-range car stereos have no means of external input.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
Cable isn't affected by the mandate because they aren't broadcasting over the air. Actually, most cable is still sent via analog RF signal. There's digital boxes, but it works because it's still analog for the most part. Satellite, as you say, is already digital, but it's also in a different wavelength. Things like "XM radio" would be equally unaffected.
I'm not saying it'd be a perfectly clean process, I'm just saying it's one they should get started on. People should have some sort of solution if they start now and aim to have everyone converted in 5 years or so. And, if they don't, they only have themselves to blame.
As for dongles hanging out of their stereo, a lot of people I know are already perfectly fine with that. Most of them have Velcro involved to stick them to the side of the dash. It's generally never in the way. Someone's aesthetic senses shouldn't be holding back progress anyway. Currently, the people I know that need to use such dongles for playing things like CDs on their tape deck limited stereo systems. There's one other device that would also solve the issue, extremely low energy broadcasting dongles. For those without even a tape deck or a line-in port, you stick this next to your radio, and it broadcasts on an FM station (but, to meet FCC regulations, at ridiculously low power so the signal doesn't extend outside your car, much less cause interference). Stick a velcro strip on the dash, hook this onto that velcro, make sure there's some easy to use buttons on the thing to switch stations, and you have a solution. These things tend to be pretty small, it's not that big a deal, and that's basically how the one friend I have with XM radio service GETS said service.
Kill AM - Weltall - 11th June 2010
That's precisely the problem, though. People have dongles up the dongle. But, who wants one that merely replaces your radio?
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 11th June 2010
Weltall Wrote:This is technically feasible, but not even remotely practical. I can't see many people spending $40 on an extra device just to listen to the radio. People might listen to radio because it's free and always there, but how many do you really think are going to not only pay for the privilege, but also have another device hanging out of the deck? I'd guess maybe 1 in 20.
Digital TV transitioned easily not because of converter boxes, but because cable and satellite had gone digital years before the mandated switch, and most people have one or the other. Many of them were totally unaffected by the change.
Also, a fairly large number of mid-range car stereos have no means of external input.
That's a very important point. Neither I nor my parents, etc. have any HTDVs or digital TVs in general, but we do have the basic cable service, so we haven't needed to get any new hardware to keep watching TV. With radio there is no such easy way, everyone would be required to buy something.
Also, as you say, yes, many radios do not have any external input. It's not just many kinds of car radios, but no clock radio has internal input either, and those are extremely common and popular... no, sorry DJ, we can't get rid of radio anytime soon, I think.
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 11th June 2010
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Huh, so that's what that thing is for. I though it was for JUST audio input since that's what it looks like, but I guess it's set up to carry an RF signal.
Yup, it's actually an audio/video input port. It just uses a weird plug for it, for space I'm sure.
Quote:It doesn't matter much though. I had to get a new Game Gear as my old one's transistors burnt out (a common problem in the early GG models it seems). The new one seems to have some big issues with the TV adapter. After looking it up, it seems my current one is one of the Majesco systems re-released when the Gameboy Advance was going strong. While it has much higher quality parts (so it shouldn't burn out the transistors), they apparently cut out a circuit that directly linked the cartridge port to the display. No games used it, but apparently that's exactly how the TV adapter functioned, and so that explains why when I use it, I get audio only with just a solid white screen to accompany it. I don't mind though, as "surfing the stations" I confirmed that EVERY TV station around me has turned off their analog broadcasts (static in every direction), except apparently for a very far away spanish station somewhere.
My Game Gear is a Majesco Game Gear as well... it's easy to tell the difference really, since the Majesco model has a black shell instead of grey, purple Start button instead of blue white logo ovals instead of red, blue, and green and, perhaps, no actual screw hole for the Master System adapter's screw and such... and, yes, no TV Tuner support.
It is the better system overall, though. Majesco's Game Gears are newer, from 2000, and I've never heard of a Majesco GG having bad capacitors, unlike the Sega (1990-1997) model systems. I'm pretty sure that the Majesco system also has a better screen, with a higher refresh rate and thus less blur.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
Actually the one I have looks pretty much identical, part for part, to my old one. The "finish" on it isn't as "smooth", but other than that I can't tell the difference. None of the big color changes you're talking about anyway. My original is black, the buttons are the same color, and all that. The screw hole is on both of them.
Anyway, my point is not that it'll be a seamless transition, but people with cable were NEVER the issue when the digital transition came along. Do you honestly think the vast majority of TV watches, the ones that DON'T have cable, cared about cable viewers? No, they all had to upgrade. Cable isn't nearly as ubiquitous as TV owning is. That's part of the reason they felt the need to change the spectrum anyway. In fact, a large number of people are seeing no reason to keep paying for cable and are starting to ditch it here and there.
People will get a device to listen to radio if they HAVE to do so or else just hear static. That's the POINT of a mandatory upgrade. I really don't see any functional difference. Again, at first it'll just be AM.
If no one is willing to pay for such a device, and it isn't made cheap for those, then they are basically saying they don't mind losing AM. That's all the more excuse to get rid of it, don't you think?
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 11th June 2010
Oh, I forgot one other change, the place where you plug the power cord in in an original Game Gear is red, but in a Majesco one it is black, just like the rest of the shell.
Also, when I say black vs. grey, the Majesco one is dark black, pretty much identical to the Genesis. The Sega model is a much lighter shade of grey. It's quite easy to tell the difference when you compare them. Maybe you don't have a Majesco GG?
Quote:Anyway, my point is not that it'll be a seamless transition, but people with cable were NEVER the issue when the digital transition came along. Do you honestly think the vast majority of TV watches, the ones that DON'T have cable, cared about cable viewers?Huh? I don't think a "vast majority" of Americans don't have cable...
Quote:People will get a device to listen to radio if they HAVE to do so or else just hear static. That's the POINT of a mandatory upgrade. I really don't see any functional difference. Again, at first it'll just be AM.
If no one is willing to pay for such a device, and it isn't made cheap for those, then they are basically saying they don't mind losing AM. That's all the more excuse to get rid of it, don't you think?
I think that you strongly under-estimate how unpopular what you are proposing would be, DJ, and I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
I don't think I do. You highly underestimate how many non-cable viewers there are, and they all had to adapt to the TV change. This isn't any different. Do you honestly think there's more AM listeners out there than on-air TV viewers?
Kill AM - Weltall - 11th June 2010
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Anyway, my point is not that it'll be a seamless transition, but people with cable were NEVER the issue when the digital transition came along. Do you honestly think the vast majority of TV watches, the ones that DON'T have cable, cared about cable viewers? No, they all had to upgrade. Cable isn't nearly as ubiquitous as TV owning is. That's part of the reason they felt the need to change the spectrum anyway. In fact, a large number of people are seeing no reason to keep paying for cable and are starting to ditch it here and there.
As of 2006, 88% of all American households had cable and/or satellite service. I have had both. They are essentially the same save for minor programming differences, and of course, the delivery method, and upgrading to digital service with either was possible years before the mandatory elimination of analog TV in 2009.
That means that, at most, 12% of households needed to purchase a digital tuner for their television. Most cable and all satellite subscribers either had digital service already or was able to upgrade to it for a pittance.
I'm not sure why you think a majority of TV owners don't have cable. That's an entirely incorrect statement. Almost 60% did, again as of 2006.
Quote:People will get a device to listen to radio if they HAVE to do so or else just hear static. That's the POINT of a mandatory upgrade. I really don't see any functional difference. Again, at first it'll just be AM.
I'm saying, most people won't care enough to get a device, because there are already so many alternatives to radio for your listening pleasure. You get rid of the AM band, most of the stations using it will simply disappear. The major ones, like the talk radio carriers, would either find an FM station to carry their feed, jump into XM, or go under themselves. You're not going to find any significant market for an adapter attachment specifically designed to receive digital AM radio. It'd be better to simply eliminate it altogether and let the stations sink or swim as they will.http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/cable_satellite.html
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 11th June 2010
No, but we've already said why the two situations cannot be directly compared, because TVs can easily be added to to support digital...
Quote:Do you honestly think there's more AM listeners out there than on-air TV viewers?
Good question, I don't know which is more popular. But I do know that a lot of people listen to AM.
Kill AM - Weltall - 11th June 2010
Quote:Do you honestly think there's more AM listeners out there than on-air TV viewers?
Actually, yeah. That sounds possible to me.
After all, how many people own TVs simply to use for movies and games, as two of mine are?
Kill AM - Weltall - 11th June 2010
Updated statistics: 91.3% of U.S. households subscribe to some kind of TV service as of February, 2010.
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/MediaTrendsTrack/tvbasics/12_ADS-Natl.asp
Cable: 61.5%
Satellite: 32.9%
So, basically, nobody but the grandmas and grandpas of America still rely exclusively on rabbit ears for their viewing pleasure. Or are currently like me and don't watch TV at all.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 11th June 2010
Well, not JUST for movies and games, but a number of my own friends are perfectly fine with antenna, especially now that the signal is awesome thanks to the digital switch. I guess my numbers are woefully out of date. I had been going on what I had heard back in the 1990's or so. I knew people had been getting online at a far greater rate, just not that cable uptake had been going strong. Hadn't expected that at all.
At any rate, my solution was merely one to offer those who would want to listen to stations that were on the AM band. If no one wants to bother with it, so much the better! Either way, it doesn't change the fact that AM is a massive chunk of bandwidth to waste. Weltall seems to agree with me there, ABF, I'm not sure why you consider it worth keeping around. Ditch AM right now with a few years to give AM stations time to switch, and then over the next few decades (a lot changes in the span of decades ABF), start phasing out FM as well. If people have decades to get digital tuners by then, I don't have much sympathy for them when the time comes to pull the plug there too. It'll be worth it in the long run.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 20th March 2011
Not about the AM thing, but I wanted to comment on my Game Gear. As it turns out, no it isn't a Majesco model. Apparently Sega released two models of the GG way back when. The first (2110) is the one I originally got as a kid, the one that died, and the second (2110G) which was a fix to the capacitor issues as well as a streamlining of the internals to lessen costs, explaining why it isn't dead like my other one. It doesn't have any of the later Majesco changes of course, and the screen is basically the same. Apparently in the process of streamlining the internal design, they cut out that direct video feed from cartridge to screen, though oddly didn't remove the two spots where the TV Tuner locks into place or note it in any of the included paper work (the replacement had all it's documentation included, nicely enough). Depending on how the direct feed to the screen was handled, I wonder if I could do a simple modification to fix this?
Then again, it'd be entirely for curiosity's sake, considering that all I'd get out of it is the chance to see static what with no analog stations around any more.
Kill AM - Great Rumbler - 20th March 2011
This is a terrible idea and terrible thread. For shame, DJ.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 20th March 2011
K?
Kill AM - A Black Falcon - 20th March 2011
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Not about the AM thing, but I wanted to comment on my Game Gear. As it turns out, no it isn't a Majesco model. Apparently Sega released two models of the GG way back when. The first (2110) is the one I originally got as a kid, the one that died, and the second (2110G) which was a fix to the capacitor issues as well as a streamlining of the internals to lessen costs, explaining why it isn't dead like my other one. It doesn't have any of the later Majesco changes of course, and the screen is basically the same. Apparently in the process of streamlining the internal design, they cut out that direct video feed from cartridge to screen, though oddly didn't remove the two spots where the TV Tuner locks into place or note it in any of the included paper work (the replacement had all it's documentation included, nicely enough). Depending on how the direct feed to the screen was handled, I wonder if I could do a simple modification to fix this?Huh, interesting, I didn't know about the second Sega model. When did they start making those, late in the system's life I guess? Because there are lots of dead Game Gears out there...
Then again, it'd be entirely for curiosity's sake, considering that all I'd get out of it is the chance to see static what with no analog stations around any more.
Also, does the TV Tuner lock into place in the same place(s) as the Master System converters do, or are they different? The SMS converters still work on systems TV tuners won't, as far as I know (I can't test it myself so I wouldn't say it for certain though, I just haven't seen it mentioned that that was removed too), so maybe that's part of why?
Kill AM - Dark Lord Neo - 20th March 2011
Quote:Well, old ones all have cassette slots, and new ones all have "line in" ports. A simple adapter solution would work with that.Except there are a lot of older radios that had neither cassette slots or line ins (a cassette player was still considered an upgrade on my fathers '98 Windstar). A lot of cars that are about 5 years old that had CD players, and therefore no cassette decks don't have a line in port.
Kill AM - Dark Jaguar - 20th March 2011
I actually meant to just comment on the Game Gear thing here since I found out something about it...