![]() Strangely, the manual bears no mention of this whatsoever, though it is now mentioned on the radioSHARK support page. There is a combination antenna/headphone jack just above the USB cable on the back of the device. This makes the device essentially useless for AM radio. Every other radio in the house picks it up with no static at all. My house is less than five miles line-of-sight from the transmitter of a major AM station, and the radioSHARK barely picks it up. I know it might be anathema to the designers, but adding a telescoping FM antenna like that found on most boom boxes would be a welcome improvement.ĪM reception, unfortunately, is even worse. Rather, the radioSHARK’s reception simply doesn’t stack up, for whatever reason, even with the USB extension cable-cum-antenna in place. Nor did Griffin “pull an Apple” and build a radio-reception device with the antenna inside a metal shell (TiBook, anyone?). It isn’t that the device’s appearance particularly impedes its function. Medical pot shops are coming! Take a chill pill, folks.Unfortunately, function follows form here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at .Ĭontributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. "Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Language Log ponders speaking rates - says we talk on the phone at about 175 words a minutes.This blogger argues that there are two ways to convince people you're intelligent: Talk fast or talk slow.Only process information at about 120 to 124 words per minute. But the average central nervous system can Work right for me, I''ll post a regular and a fast version of theĮntire segment so you can tell me which you prefer.Ī communications professor says "The average adult talks at about 170 Re-broadcasts of interview programs, perhaps at off hours.Īt 1:30 this afternoon, Mary Schmich and I will be bantering live Versions of spoken-word podcasts and to purchase regular or compressed Offer customers the chance to subscribe to regular or compressed Speed Listening Episodes for Busy People: Listening, which brings me to suggest this idea for enterprising radio It's a cumbersome process to transfer the files for speed Work while listeneing to them is another question why I care whatĬalvin Trillin calls the Sabbath Gasbags have to say is yet a third "Face the Nation" instead of, say, cleaning the kitchen or doing yard (Why anyone would sit on the couch watching other people talk on Show is snappier and just as comprehensible at a 15-minute rate? Half-hour Sunday-morning news-chat program "Face the Nation," when the Very Type-A of me, I know, but why, I ask myself, would anyone spendĢ4 minutes listening to CBS' free podcast of the audio from its Material recorded from radio and podcasts so I can listen to them in as My newĭigital audio recorder has playback speed control that lets me speed up Human bulldozers who aren't looking for non-verbal conversationalĬues and are seeking to control the forum very much like theīut it does suggest that you should try to listen faster. Fast-talking has cultural associations not only withĬonfidence, but also with confidence men - slick, bombastic blowhards, (Click here to listen to a few seconds of the same clip at a digitally slowed speed to hear how comparatively confused and dull I sound).ĭoes this mean you should try to talk faster? You'll have no trouble understanding it and, in fact, you'll note that my ramblings sound just a bit more confident and authoritative (and caffeinated) at higher speed. Then click here to listen to the same clip digitally compressed down to 54 seconds. ( Update - a commenter suggests that the suggested order below rigs the test in my favor, as if I would ever do that! Go ahead and reverse the first two steps if you wish.)įirst, click here to listen to an 80-second, normal-speed clip of me talking to WGN-AM host John Williams last week about teen drinking parties. Some researchers disagree*, but you be the judge. Why this would be true from an evolutionary point of view I have no idea, but the upshot is that we all waste a lot of time (though in barely noticable bursts of microseconds) waiting for the next word. Listeners can process spoken language far faster than most speakers can generate it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |