1085
Phones should have FM radio again (www.spacebar.news)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
401 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Then you'd need to include a headphone jack since the headphones acted as the antenna.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's funny how the few who're totally sold on Bluetooth go "ugh, but then you'd need a headphone jack" as if it isn't an upgrade for others which wouldn't affect their ability to use Bluetooth at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -5 points 2 years ago (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But what's the problem with having an analog component?

    Also, your last claim is weird, because the headphones will ultimately require an analog signal, so, it just changes the place where the conversion is made, either in the user device, or in a digital circuit inside the headphones, and the cable diatance is small enough for adding interference. Your better sound experience is probably due to manufacturers making better sound actuators, not due to the digital data transmission. Try some really cheap bt headphones, and you will see what bad quality is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Not an expert on this but, but AFAIK having the analog component inside the device is exactly the problem, as all the components in there cause electrical interference that you can't really shield against inside such a tiny device. It's similar to how the built-in PC audio is often quite bad compared to even the cheapest external DAC.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Indeed, interference is the greatest enemy of analog signals. It's not impossible to shield, though. Other parts are already shielded, but I can see how it could have become more challenging.

    Btw, I thought it was more related to frequency than components size, but now I'm confused, I will look more into it when I have more time. Thanks for bringing this into the topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not to mention it’s a form factor that requires a considerable amount of space. That for the majority of users is doing nothing but taking up that space for no reason. Every phone without a headphone jack is capable of getting a jack with a simple dongle. What I love are the people who have absolute no problem with a dangly cord around their neck but lose their shit if you have to connect a 1 inch piece of wire first. They act like it’s a bag phone you attach to your side. And as far as audio fidelity goes the DAC inside a cell phone is nearly always garbage and you’ll need your own DAC anyway which is easy to obtain when it can be powered by your phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yup. What I'd actually like to see is a secondary USB-C port becoming much more common. USB-C is just much more universal and if both ports support charging it also helps device longevity since you can still charge if one breaks. My handheld emulation device has two and it's been handy several times already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    It doesn't make it at all harder to waterproof the devices. Sony has been making them for a decade now (IP57 in 2013 on the Xperia Z), Samsung didn't have any issues with the S10 line either. This is just a lie manufacturers tell you to sell bluetooth crap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. You can still use Bluetooth even when your phone has a headphone jack, and headphone jacks can be IP67 rated so it’s not a concern for waterproofing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why is it limited to 67? It should be easier than the USB port right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, the only other rating above that is IP68, and that would require them to specify the depth and time that the phone can be submerged. Most manufacturers only go for IP67 because it’s much cheaper to test.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That I know but I was wondering why you specifically mentioned 67. I guess I misread that as a limit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Nah, not a limit. It’s just a cost/benefit trade off. Manufacturers don’t typically push for IP68 unless they’re specifically marketing the device for underwater use, and believe users will be willing to accept the higher resulting cost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent