Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Media

Griffin RadioSHARK Exceeds Expectations 191

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-want-one-of-those-things dept.
reifman writes "Picked up a Griffin RadioSHARK (think TiVo for radio) at the Apple store this evening: It exceeds all expectations. The user experience is simple. The iPod synchronization is seamless. The RadioSHARK is a counter-attack on the recording industry and its draconian file sharing lawsuits. I'm glad to see Griffin had the balls to release this product. ."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Griffin RadioSHARK Exceeds Expectations

Comments Filter:
  • Nice but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Max von H. (19283) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:02AM (#10485656) Homepage
    I wish it featured an external signal input. Thing I get very bad radio reception at my place but I get near-digital quality (and free) radio through my cable TV outlet (there's 2 connectors, one for TV one for radio).

    Nice gadget anyway!
    • Re:Nice but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:18AM (#10485731) Homepage
      here is a trick. get a radio with the loose cable antenna (you know the stuff that is like a string) and then tie the end around the metal connector on your cable line (it can be connected to a TV) that turns the entire cable shielding on all connected lines into a huge antenna for your radio. works great for me.
    • Select A Tenna [selectatenna.com]. I have one of these, and it really works well for pulling in weak AM signals. And no physical connection required.

      In the alternative, you could hook the radio output of your cable outlet directly into the audio input of your computer and write scripting software to capture it. For tuning, you'd have to hack something like a cable mouse (an IR emitter that you'd have to write software to drive with the appropriate signals to command the cable to change radio channels). A lot of work, but it
    • External antenna (Score:5, Informative)

      by rdarden (87568) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:53AM (#10485881)
      According to this MacCentral page [macworld.com], the audio output jack of the RadioShark also doubles as an external antenna input. Not sure of the wiring or input impedance.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:03AM (#10485661)
    well, hate to be a bit of a whinger, but call me back when they do a DAB version for the uk- AM/FM? Welcome to the 20th Century!
    • by Lurks (526137) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:30AM (#10485781) Homepage
      Yeah where digital is 'crystal clear sound' right? Except that it's 128kbps layer-ii audio and so full of horrible artifacts. Thanks but I'll stick with FM - DAB is a complete face.

      Note: In other countries they do use proper bitrates per channel but in the UK we've got 50 of exactly the same sort of garbage pop radio station vying to get into each multiplex. Quality in programming seems to have taken a back seat.

      My kingdom for BBC 6 Music in 256kbps...

      • You could always get a DVB receiver. Looks like BBC6 and 7 are 160kbps and Radios 1-4 are 192kbps, at least at the moment. A nebula digitv can be USB or PCI and you can easily schedule recordings using the broadcast epg.
  • by theluckyleper (758120) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:04AM (#10485663) Homepage
    Anyone want to take a guess on how long it'll be before the crackdown [riaa.com] commences?

    Actually, I just went to RIAA's website [riaa.com] for the first time... all of the "latest news" articles on the main page are about lawsuits they've filed. Nice!

    Don't they realize that something is wrong with their business when their news is about lawyers, and not musicians?!
    • by StateOfTheUnion (762194) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:26AM (#10485766) Homepage
      I would think that this device would hold up in court for the same reason that the VCR did when it was challenged in the supreme court. deivices that record broadcasts for reasons of time shifting were upheld as legal.

      However that doesn't mean that the recording industry won't try to ban this product . . .

    • incredible (Score:2, Interesting)

      by plasm4 (533422)
      From their webpage [riaa.com].

      This is very funny:

      The principle that the work that one has created belongs to the creator and should be controlled by you is as timeless as it is global.

      ...snip!...

      The copyright in the sound recording, i.e. the recording of the performer singing or playing a given song. This is usually owned by the record company.
  • Uhh.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:06AM (#10485675)
    Looks cool but..

    What's a "radio"?
    • Re:Uhh.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by generic-man (33649) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:18AM (#10486287) Homepage Journal
      A "radio" is a device capable of wirelessly receiving audio broadcasts synchronously across dozens of channels. Assuming a modest 64 kilobits per second on one "radio" station, well-served markets such as New York City enjoy a total streaming throughput of well over two mibobites per second. This service is made available to the consumer free of charge thanks to the United States Free Communications Commission (FCC).

      Tomorrow, we'll investigate how you can get over 80 channels of television-quality video in real-time streaming for about $50 a month.

      • A "radio" is a device capable of wirelessly receiving audio broadcasts synchronously across dozens of channels. Assuming a modest 64 kilobits per second on one "radio" station, well-served markets such as New York City enjoy a total streaming throughput of well over two mibobites per second. This service is made available to the consumer free of charge thanks to the United States Free Communications Commission (FCC).

        Not thanks to the FCC, but thanks to the people who've spent good money to build radio

    • Re:Uhh.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by smithmc (451373) * on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:09PM (#10487856) Journal

      What's a "radio"?

      A device designed to receive the broadcast of The Howard Stern Radio Show, between 6 and 10 AM on weekdays. At least, that's all my radio is for.

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:06AM (#10485677)
    Griffin RadioSHARK Exceeds reifman's Expectations

    He never actually mentioned what his expectation were in the first place though so its hard to tell what was actually exceeded.

    Peosonally I think more than one person needs to be impressed before you can write headlines like this, some guy scribbling on his blog is not a sufficient indicator for me.
    • SightLight (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Brian Kendig (1959) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:21AM (#10485742) Homepage
      His glowing review almost convinced me, until I got to the end where he similarly praises the Griffin SightLight.

      The SightLight is one of the most poorly-conceived products on the market. It's a light for the iSight webcam; it's a ring of white LEDs which mounts around the iSight lens to illuminate you so that people can see you when you're using the webcam in an otherwise dark room. Sounds clever, right?

      Except that using the SightLight is like trying to talk to an automobile headlight two feet in front of your face. And you'd think that in return for being blinded, you could at least be seen better by the person on the other end of the conversation - but no, that's not true; for as retina-piercingly bright as the SightLight is, it does a terrible job of actually lighting you up. A face lit by the SightLight will look ghostly pale and near-dark to the person on the other end, and the user has to be very close to the light to be seen at all.

      And all this for $39.95!

      I returned mine the very next day, and I now approach Griffin products with skepticism.

      • You mean exactly like how ring lights work for photography?
      • Griffin makes a variety of products, some are great, some are mediocre, some are terrible.

        The iMic is great. For $40 you get sound input on a Mac that doesn't have a mic port. The iTrip is marginal. The FM signal is so weak that if your radio isn't excellent, the sound quality is much worse than a cassette adapter.

        The iFire is just silly. If you want to hook up speakers to a Mac that doesn't have the amplifier for the Apple Pro Speakers, get other speakers. The pro speakers are not very good speakers
      • Re:SightLight (Score:5, Informative)

        by lax-goalie (730970) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:41AM (#10486100)

        I've done a lot of lighting for both video and stage, and you're missing the point. The SightLight isn't supposed to be the primary light source for the iSight. If you use it that way, (depening on ambient light) you'll get an image with a lot of contrast and noise.

        The way to use the SightLight is as a secondary fill source. Especially with overhead lighting, a lot if people get horrible shadows under their eyes and cheeks, well-defined forehead wrinkles, and the like. That's why a lot of people look like Hermann Munster on a web cam.

        Using the SightLight mitigates a lot of this, particularly the eye shadows. For 40 bucks, it does a good job at the job it's supposed to do. (It's certainly cheaper than a real lighting kit!)

        BTW, there's a switch on the SightLight to reduce brightness, making the "headlight in your face" effect a little easier to take.

        The SightLight is a nifty gadget that does its job pretty darn well. It sucks as a primary light, but using it as such is simply pilot error...

      • by chuklz (771989) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:52PM (#10487779)
        Gee someone bought a light, but doesnt like it because it's bright. stop. Is now skeptical about all future products that may act as designed. stop. Alert the effin press. Fin.
  • by binaryspiral (784263) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:07AM (#10485684)
    "I'm glad to see Griffin had the balls to release this product."

    I don't see how releasing this required any balls. FM broadcasts are horrible when compared to the AAC streams from XM.

    The RIAA have written off FM copyright lawsuits because any kid with a boombox can swipe a low quality song.

    I've been doing this for two years using a TV/FM tuner that costs about the same as the Radioshark - and the bonus is I can record cable TV so now I can have low quality video too!

    • FM broadcasts are horrible when compared to the AAC streams from XM

      This may be true, but they are also the next best thing to legal. They don't have any DRM and they are easily listenable in portable MP3 players and on phones with music capability.

      This product could totally kill the RIAA by flooding the net with legally (or almost) recorded music that the average listener will be happy with.

      The thing that worries me is that DAB will have a DRM broadcast flag in it and that the RIAA will (economically)

      • This product could totally kill the RIAA by flooding the net with legally (or almost) recorded music that the average listener will be happy with.


        It may be "legally recorded", but the RIAA would still consider it actionable. It doesn't matter where the song came from-- CD, radio, tape, vinyl, whatever-- you're still sharing a copyrighted work.

        I wouldn't be surprised if this product flew under the RIAA's radar, though. It's the perfect product for a very small group of people who want it but it's not
    • I don't see how releasing this required any balls.

      Me neither. Though I know Logitech had some problems with getting enough balls for their new line of mice....
  • I mean, c'mon, you're pairing something with the sexiest, sleekest portable music player on the market. Any clunkiness or loose ends would stand out like an albino at the Apollo.

    Then again, the RadioSHARK probably would have only met--not exceeded--my expectations, as given Griffin Tech's batting record with Cool New Things(tm) like the PowerMate [http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powerma te/ [griffintechnology.com]], I wouldn't expect anything less than a well-executed product.
  • Cool idea, but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dborod (26190) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:14AM (#10485712) Homepage
    I ordered mine in July of 2003 and got it last week.

    The application (at least on OS X) leaves a lot to be desired. It does not behave like a typical OS X application in many ways, have no way to edit a preset- if you want to go back and put in the radio station's call sign or a genre descriptor you have to re-add the station as a preset and then delete the first instance of the preset, there are no menu options (and thus no keyboard shortcuts) for many of the really important GUI elements.

    The time shift feature is a good idea, but is poorly implemented. You can set a number of seconds to move forwards or backwards (defaults to 10 seconds) by pressing the left and right arrow or you can drag the slider around forwards and backwards in the time shift buffer but these 2 methods are either too granular or too coarse to help you pinpoint a precise location.

    It would be so cool if Griffin Technologies opened up the API... since the GUI and user interface are just so lame.
    • There's a better way. Granted, it doesn't have the snazziness of stereo presets on your machine, it is more flexible, and cheaper.

      Simply hook the audio-in on your computer to an FM receiver. If you have a good quality FM receiver and antenna, you can get very good recordings.

      I used to use Audiocorder [blackcatsystems.com] with OSX. This is a great program, and affordable. As for time-shifting, you should be able to start playing an AIFF or WAV before you're done recording.

      Now that I'm on Linux, though, I just use a cro

  • XM (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LT4Ryan (178006)
    This would be great if it could interface with XM or Sirius satellite radio, plain and simple.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by damiam (409504) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:17AM (#10485722)
    Spoken word programs can be recorded in the more compact AIFF format.

    When was AIFF ever more compact than AAC? Isn't it, in fact, the least compact format possible?

  • Nice but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by igrp (732252) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:22AM (#10485748)
    This certainly sounds like a cool device and, I guess, at $69.95 it would make a nice, geeky Christmas gift.

    The only problem I see with this though, is that your average geek will simply not need one of these. I have a CD changer in my car. I have my iPod hooked up to my car stereo. I'm literally surrounded by computers at work. I have a stereo at home, that my iPod and one of my computers is hooked up to.

    With regard to my "music needs", I guess I'm pretty much covered. I guess this is really useful if you're into talk radio. But to me, the radio is something I use when I'm on the road and want to listen to a ballgame or when I'm working on something outside and don't really feel like listening to my iPod but want some background music. The radio just isn't something I pay a lot of attention to.

    The reason TiVo is such a huge hit is that it fundamentally changes the way we watch TV. When I'm watching TV I usually do pay attention to what's on - it's not just some random background noise. I find it hard to see how this could work for radio. Except, of course, skipping commercials. That would indeed be nice (but not all that useful, since most commercial stations already do 30-minutes-without-commercial stuff).

    The problem is this: I, and I can only speak for myself here, don't really care what's on the radio. To me, it's random stuff. Turn it on, listen to some music while doing something else, turn it off when you're done. TV's different: I care what's on. That's why I'm watching in the first place.

    • Here's Why (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SteveM (11242) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:50AM (#10485864)

      First, not everything on the radio is music. There are a number of NPR shows that are on while I'm at work that would enjoy listening to.

      And as is usually menitoned whenever someone reviews this thing, some people enjoy listening to Howard Stern, but can't for various reasons. Now they can, at least for a year or so.

      And there is plenty more talk of varying quality radio out there.

      And where I live there is a space music show called Echoes. Runs between 10 pm and midnight. More often then not I'm doing something else. Now I can record it, load my iPod, and listen at work.

      SteveM

    • Re:Nice but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Luscious868 (679143) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:08AM (#10485955)
      It's not really about music. I think it's more about talk radio. Think about it, what geek in their right mind would want to record a music from a radio station? It's pretty much pointless. You have no idea what music your going to get or in what order (plus 50% - 75% of the music is crap, 15% to 20% is the idiot DJ and/or commercials). Talk radio is different. There are several talk radio shows I would like to record. For instance there's a local sports show that I would love to be able to record TiVo style because it's on from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm weeknights but two or three nights a week I'm out with friends and miss all or part of it. I can think of quite a few talk programs I'd like to record if I could.
      • This is perfect for listening to college radio. The shows are the pinnacle of diversity interesting music. A lot of times they have specials on wonderful bands that time forgot.
    • Re:Nice but... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by brarrr (99867)
      I used to have the same opinion of radio... It was more or less something to pass the time in the car when my ipod or CDs weren't doing it for me. However, I moved to seattle, where a large independent radio station exists (kexp.org) (and they webcast). Their morning show starts at 6am, but as a grad student, I miss it all by a few hours. Thankfully, they (kexp) do their own online timeshifting and i can catch good music, free. Pretty much nothing that is on clear channel or whoever the other ones ar
    • The problem is this: I, and I can only speak for myself here, don't really care what's on the radio. To me, it's random stuff. Turn it on, listen to some music while doing something else, turn it off when you're done.

      I got a Radio Your Way [pogoproducts.com] and use it to record talk shows. I later convert them to MP3 and I coded a WMP-based player that allows me to skip ahead/back by 1-minute or 5-second intervals, which lets me bypass commercials and news. It's great. Sounds like this device would eliminate the convert-to


  • Can it record to MP3 or Vorbis?

    Actually, I'd like to be able to supply my own encoder and parameters (ie. LAME MP3).
  • Great! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mypalmike (454265) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:31AM (#10485785) Homepage
    Now I can listen to Rush Limbaugh yell at me all day long!
  • Mt short review (Score:5, Informative)

    by marksven (137944) <markNO@SPAMsvendsen.us> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:33AM (#10485793) Homepage
    I've been using mine for a few days now, I and love it. Here's my raves:
    - 64kps AAC sounds great for npr shows, and the files aren't too big.
    - After recording, it automatically puts the file into an iTunes playlist, so you just need to dock your iPod each time to get the updated recordings.
    - You can set the time-shift buffer to any length you want. So at any time you can go back to listen to any broadcast in the last day on a station.
    - The hardware is solid high quality.
    - It records even when the application isn't open. It appears to have a daemon process running at all times, still recording to the buffer.
    - You can preset stations with names, and then switch between them using a dropdown.
    - The interface is really slick.

    Here's what could be improved:
    - The filenames for repeat recordings should have the date in them to make it easier to pick from multiple recordings of the same show on the iPod. ID3 tags would be nice, too.
    - There should be an option to record shows only on the weekdays. To record a weekday-only show, you need to set up five identical recordings, one for each day.
    - The blue/red light on the unit glows like three night lights. Having it in my bedroom lights up the whole room. Where's the dimmer?
    - It would be a cool feature to be able to schedule recordings remotely without using VNC.

    Now if someone would only come up with a good time-shifting TV tuner of this quality for the Mac.
    • Re:Mt short review (Score:4, Informative)

      by sam1am (753369) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:58AM (#10485905)
      Now if someone would only come up with a good time-shifting TV tuner of this quality for the Mac.
      Have you checked out El Gato's EyeTV [elgato.com] line? I find it to be quite good [not perfect, but very good...] And Gaff Tape is better than Duct for those LEDs.
    • Now if someone would only come up with a good time-shifting TV tuner of this quality for the Mac.

      Someone else mentioned the El Gato solution for this, but I would highly recommend the Formac Studio [formac.com]. It costs more, but it is also much more capable--it can take Composite and S-Video inputs as well as the regular coax for tv. Beyond that, I personally think it has much better quality (I tried both before buying the Formac). As well, there is a 3rd party app (Vidi [mitzpettel.com]) for the Formac Studio that I think is bet

    • I have the eye TV tuner for my mac, and I can't complain.

      Here's my basic asessment.

      1) $200 cost. Cheaper than a decent TV (I think), and certainly takes up less space than a TV.

      2) Time shifting, recording, the works. Makes your computer into a TiVo, really slick. It's nice to have the recorded shows on the computer where something useful can be done with them too (burn to DVD?).

      3) Turning your computer into a TV/TIVO/DVD player helps to save space and gadget costs, really cool.

      4) Unit is powered by USB
  • Legal issues? Don't make me laugh. You can do the recording part with line-out/line-in, this just makes it more convenient (with scheduling) and adds pause/rewind
  • I don't know how all this works.

    But, if you want to record broadcasted music into a mp3 file, wouldn't it make more sense to rig your computer to record music being broadcast over the internet?

    In fact, aren't there services that will broadcast songs at your request? I suppose you could record whatever songs you wanted with a service like that.

    • Yes it can. Just try Wiretap for the Mac. Records ANYTHING that goes out including copyprotectd AAC's. I would not use it to do that (it's easier to do it other ways)but when you'd like to record a program that is only streamed, it works like a charm.
  • Too bad radio sux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:41AM (#10485826) Homepage Journal
    At least in my area, there is little on the radio id want to record anymore.. it it all pop/top 40 noise..

    Even the so-called 'aternative' stations just keep repeating the same stuff... after 3 days you have heard it all..
    • Re:Too bad radio sux (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hai.uchida (814492)
      Why is this insightful? Because you aren't interested? So what? It's easy to say "radio sucks", but I can name dozens of radio shows that have followings, and people might want to record them to listen at their convenience (and skip the annoying commercials)... Howard Stern, Leo Laporte, Art Bell, Phil Hendrie, This American Life, Loveline, Matt Drudge, Jim Rome, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Harry Shearer, Al Franken, Don Imus, Tom Leykis, etc... They're not all my tastes but they do have large followings
      • Read closely.. i said it sux in MY area..

        The fact YOU have radio to listen to doesnt negate the fact I have none..

        ( talk radio doesnt count, i was discussing music radio )
  • This way, I can record CD quality music (from SIRIUS none the less) off my dish network receiver.
  • If I didn't already know they ( supposedly ) represented artists, by looking at their web page id swear they are just another attorneys office..

    Man.. Good way to scare away business..
  • Mossberg disagrees (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ThousandStars (556222) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:48AM (#10485856) Homepage
    Walter Mossberg [wired.com], a fairly influential tech writer for the Wall Street Journal, wrote a piece that said it wasn't ready for prime time. [wsj.com] His final words are "For now, though, it's more of a curiosity, or a tool for radio enthusiasts with a good sense of station schedules and time to invest."

    I'm curious (assuming the original writer is reading this) about how that writer would respond to Mossberg's criticism.

    • It seems too me that the main gripe about the thing is the software. The actual radio and hardware interface works well.

      Instead of griping about it on /., would it be so hard to send a courteous email to Griffin [griffintechnology.com] offering useful suggestions for updating the software, as well as asking them to open up the API so that others can improve the user functionality?

  • Ah please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toupsie (88295) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:59AM (#10485914) Homepage
    The RadioSHARK is a counter-attack on the recording industry and its draconian file sharing lawsuits.

    No it's not. Its a radio receiver not a p2p app. Settle down. It is less of a threat to the evil RIAA than Audio Hijack Pro [rogueamoeba.com].

  • It seems to me that it's pretty easy to do a better job of this already, without an actual radio.

    Most good radio programming is streamed on the Internet. A lot of shows, particularly those on public radio, are even archived. And music services like Rhapsody allow one to pull up almost any tune imaginable.

    A lot of this stuff is (pathetically) protected, so it can't be copied directly to a portable device: however, we all know that it's utterly trivial to use an audio-capture app (e.g., GoldWave for Win

  • by rollthelosindice (635783) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:16AM (#10485981) Homepage
    I believe that the RIAA is not that concerned about this product because of the quality of a radio broadcast. They don't mind people copying less than CD quality audio (or close to it with mp3). The source is low enough quality for them to allow it. However, Howard Stern might be upset about this (at least for the next 15 months before he moves to Sirius). People can now auto-record his show, and throw up a torrent file. It's talk radio so the quality won't be an issue. Shouldn't be long before the Stern downloads begin.
  • by Quarters (18322) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:18AM (#10485990)
    Bought a PowerMate for Windows soon after it was released. Mostly on their claims of game compatibility (think Tempest under MAME), and as a nice jog/shuttle dial for Adobe Premiere/After Effects.

    The Windows drivers suck, to put it mildly. They don't use DirectInput, so there is no games support, regardless of what the marketing brochures and manual say, and the USB integration is so piss poor that every time you plug the PowerMate in it installs another copy of the drivers, regardless of how many previous copies might already be on the system. At first I though it was just mildly stupid and wanted a new driver for each USB port. Nope, it will reinstall/add drivers ad infinitum if you just keep plugging it into the same USB port.

    Griffin acknowledged the problem to me in email about 2 years ago. Not after a long story from their engineer about how driver writing is "hard" and I should just be happy it works at all and shut up. They said 6 months out there would be better drivers. The version number hasn't changed from 1.5.2 in over 24 months.

    It's a piece of junk and I suspect, based on other reviews I've read, that other Griffin products are of the same poor quality.

  • None of the reviews I've seen have really addressed the quality of the tuner section. It's abilities are rather pointless if the tuner doesn't have very good quality. I currently use a Cambridge Audio 640T [cambridgeaudio.com] if I need to record anything of importance off of FM. The sound quality is top notch (as far as FM goes), and the tuner is very sensitive.

    Now I wouldn't expect the RadioSHARK to have the sound quality of a high-end dedicated tuner, but where does it stand? Is it great for convenience only or does it

  • a couple thoughts (Score:4, Informative)

    by boschmorden (610937) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:33AM (#10486052)

    I don't know if I could justify $69+s/h for a hardware device with no way to boost signal reception. If you already have a radio that has stereo out, you can cross connect it to your PC and use this software: Total Recorder [highcriteria.com]. This enables you to schedule and encode the broadcast directly to any number of formats (mp3, aiff, wav, etc). It's only $12. This is from a Windows perspective, but I'm sure there is some Mac software out there that can do this.....but then again, if you listen to certain regularly syndicated radio show, you can snag eps of it from suprnova.org, I do this for Howard Stern.

  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:57AM (#10486179) Journal
    ...so there's no need for this gadget.
  • OS compatability mentioned nowhere on the Griffin website. They just say Windows and Macintosh.

    Does this thing have Mac OS 9 software?

    I can't upgrade my current PowerMac to OS X due to memory constraints, and I certainly can't afford even a used Mac capable of running OS X decently.

    Thanks in advance!
  • by FullCircle (643323) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:52AM (#10486482)
    I'm sure I'm not the only one that has to ask...

    What the hell would you want to record off of radio today?

    On a two hour long trip yesterday I heard one song that I might want to hear again. If I had been in my own car with a CD player available, I wouldn't have even thought about listening to radio.

    AM talk radio is the only remotely listenable radio left and you really don't miss anything by skipping a day.

  • Headline. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Raven42rac (448205) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @12:02PM (#10486539)
    How is it ballsy, you can achieve the same effect by hooking up a tape deck to your radio. Choose your battles wisely, the headline just sounds retarded and immature. I don't see how it is a counterattack on the RIAA or the file-sharing lawsuits, it's the radio, you have always been able to record it.
    • I have my old pioneer DIN-E style cassette deck going to my line in on the pc. I can record manually, though there are many programs ou t there that will do scheduled recording if I want that. The only missing element if figuring out how to control the tuning.

      Still I am cosidering the radioshark just for ease of integration.

  • The one reason I'm keeping on eye on this and consider getting the RadioShark, is that for certain radio shows like KROQ's Kevin & Bean Show, which don't have an internet stream and usually start earlier than I wake up, I can now record it and put it on my iPod so I can listen to it on my way to work.

    This effectively time-shifts the show for me, which in the case of Kevin & Bean show, I think it worth it. They usually have entertaining or interesting discussions about all sorts of stuff from the w
  • There have been USB based TV Tuner/Radio capture devices for years now. So a highly stylized Mac product comes out that is overpriced and overhyped. How is this Slashdot news?
    • "There have been USB based TV Tuner/Radio capture devices for years now. So a highly stylized Mac product comes out that is overpriced and overhyped. How is this Slashdot news?"

      There were VCRs for years before TiVo appeared. How can TiVo be considered newsworthy? The reason is because the interface to the user no longer acts like the data is being stored on a tape. For example the ability to record and play back from a live stream flexibly is enabled by recording to a hard drive but not always made availab
      • The USB based TV Tuner/Radio capture devices that I mentioned TV record shows in MPEG format to your harddrive, and they record radio content in the form of various compressed audio formats. So again, what does this overrated and overpriced piece of Mac hardware do?
        • I was concerned that I tried to be too brief. The question is if the product you describe allows time shifting of a radio program in the same manner as a TiVo allows for TV. Specifically, can you pause a radio program to do something else and then continue to listen without waiting for the entire program to be recorded without missing anything? It is the simultaneous recording and playback while a program is being broadcast that is the big deal here. The elgato product I have for my Mac allows that for TV a
          • Give me a break. You guys are blind Apple fanboys. The Hauppauge WinTV USB does TV and Radio timeshifting. It has been out for years now!

            Hell, even Linux has had Radio timeshifting solutions for some time now. You can use any of the popular PCI TV Tuner cards, which almost always have radio tuning in addition to TV tuning. Then you can use this howto to setup radio timeshifting:
            http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/radio/ [iu.edu]

            Yes its harder to setup this kind of thing on Linux, but I am trying to drive home the p
            • Re:Overrated (Score:3, Interesting)

              by steve_bryan (2671)
              "In conclusion: overrated, overpriced Mac hardware. For the same price you can get a Hauppuage product that can also timeshift television."

              Have you ever owned and used a Hauppauge product? I've had a couple and to compare that crap with almost anything on the Mac (or the PC for that matter) shows ignorance or chutzpah of the first order. Then there is the odd comparison with a Linux product that can involve installing a few binaries and setting up some cron tasks. Right, that is a real valid comparison.

              Wh
  • by camperslo (704715) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:49PM (#10490245)
    While this looks like a great geek gadget for the price I find it disturbing that both the review and the Griffin site totally neglect specifications.
    1) Does it support an external antenna?
    2) How free is it from spurious responses in the presence of strong signals?
    3) How sensitive is it?
    4) How is the adjacent and alternate channel selectivity?
    5) What's the signal to noise ratio for strong and weak signals?
    6) How's the A.M. rejection?
    7) How's the stereo separation?
    8) How's the distortion at various modulation levels? (including a bit above 100%, some stations overmodulate)
    9) Can it receive S.C.A. subcarriers?
    10) Is there software support to decode E.A.S. (Emergency Alert System) messages?
    11) How's the frequency response?
    12) Can it tune signals at other than the usual .2 Mhz spaced spots? (tv channel 6 sound is 87.775 Mhz, audible but not properly tuned on many digitally tuned radios)

    Granted I don't expect a low-priced receiver to use a balanced mixer, but I'd at least like to see some clue that designers put some thought into performance.
  • Griffin is incredible, they've come up with so many neat ideas! Actually, I've got another one for them: my idea on how to playback pictures through the iPod onto a television [slashdot.org]! Quick Griffin, do it before the next gen picture iPod [slashdot.org] comes out :)

    Anyways, I "bumped" that post for three reasons: to get the idea more attention, to relate that I discovered a steganography program [petitcolas.net] that could be useful for this project and also to plea for help in finding a program that can generate modem audio. Unfortunately googl

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...