OT: Mobile contract up soon, and I'm tempted by an Omnia.

I've been crying out for help the last 10 years. Virtually nobody's noticed.

Let's have a group hug then. As long as I can go next to Sarah.

My 80 gig classic has all the crap imaginable on it - it makes shuffle mode exciting, iron maiden followe by celine dion followed by dre followed by gloria estefan.

Also makes it interesting when you have your church minister in the car...

the only way one of that lot would be in my car would be in the boot, where I doubt they'd hear much...

Hopefully in a black bag...

Mike P

Lets face it, if you're buying a 160GB MP3 player, why would you want a radio? - the *only* place I listen to the radio is in the car, which already has one fitted.

It's not as if there is anything worth listening to on FM anyway.

I take the opposite view - entirely. If you are that much of a music buff that you carry around so much music with you, you're always on the listen out for more stuff. And you _do_ get bored with the stuff you already have.

If you spend most of the time somewhere with either an existing radio or no signal (the car, the underground), fair enough. Or if you've given up on buying more music, again; fair enough.

There's *plenty* to listen to. The airwaves are stuffed with stations.

If you live in the middle of nowhere with poor FM coverage then maybe, maybe not.

Depends on how much you have, really.

Plenty of radio stations out there, I'll give you that.

R1 - s*it music for teenagers with no taste. R2 - middle of the road s**te for the middle aged. R3 - I don't do classical R4 - up its own arse.

Then there are all the 'local' stations, which are like poor quality versions of R2.

And local commercial stations are laughable.

I certainly wouldn't find much 'new music' from any of the above stations.

How so?

Being a music buff is like being a petrolhead. It has nothing to do with what you drive or listen to, more with what you're looking to drive or listen to next.

You need to live somewhere less pikey.

OK, so we've established that you're not a petrolhead in the past, now we're also establishing that you're not a music buff. Which is why FM reception is so important to you on an MP3 player.

I spend many hours driving around the country. I have yet to find an FM station that's worth listening to if you're even vaguely interested in music - the only exception being stuff that's on late at night - but that doesn't interest me, as I'll be in front of the telly with dozens of music channels to choose from by that time of the day.

Some of the DAB stations are interesting, which is why I'll be investing in a DAB tuner when I swap the car.

As I have explained, my hearing isn't wonderful - or did you miss that bit?

Hands up anyone else who this actually matters to.

You're right, SteveH, why don't we take this to email?

You don't like FM Radio, so no one else should? Gotcha.

We have a few interesting stations round here - Yorkshire Coast used to be before it got bought by some like national firm of local radio stations heh. It launched 3 or 4 of Radio 1s big DJs as well - all from it's breakfast show. Alas as I say, it was taken over many year ago.

I like Viking, and some Radio 1 shows - Joe Whiley if I get the chance and the late night ones too, and I like Kerrang if I am in an area where it's broadcast.

I just question what is so good about radio that makes it such an essential thing to have in an MP3 player.

Wooo! R1 DJs. Hardly the pinnacle, is it? - well, I mean it may be from a national exposure persepctive, but in terms of music, it means sod-all.

They're all, Whiley included, constrained by the R1 playlist, which is utter toss.

Kerrang is one good reason to have DAB, though....

Essential? No. Nice to have? Yes. Also slaps around your idea that the iPod is the best value device in its class - because it clearly isn't.

Your loss.

It's more like telly, in that you probably want to pick the programmes you want to listen to rather than having it on all the time, but there's some excellent stuff on there.

(did you ever catch "Look away now"?)

I know, it should be right up his street. (c:

If the 'up its own arse' thing is true I mean.

More pixels is a BAD THING - the same small amount of light from the tiny lens is spread over more pixels, meaning each pixel captures fewer photons, meaning higher gain is needed in the readout electronics, so you get more read noise, more shot noise and even worse low light-level performance.

Also, the diffraction-limit 'blurring' caused by the small lens is such that the light from any point is spread over a bunch of pixels anyway. Anything over about 1.3MPix on a camera-phone is only justified by marketing, not physics. Same for anything over about 4MPix on a compact camera...