In article , "Mike"
wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
It trashes my reception. Is that so hard to understand?

So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do.

Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious and
some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea.

First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider
it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with
analog. Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. Third is the reason
you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD
radio.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do.

Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious
and
some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea.

First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider
it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with
analog.

Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

Third is the reason
you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD
radio.

I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely
succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding.

Look, I realize I am probably wasting my time here. Most of the "regulars"
here seem like typical old farts who simply resist change. The fact is, no
one cares if it "trashes YOUR analog reception". So few people are
listening to analog radio these days that the losses are acceptable IF
enough new gains are made by going digital. As with most things these
days, you can either upgrade or be left behind, wondering where everyone
went.

Mike

In article , "Mike"
wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do.

Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are
obvious and some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea.

First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I
consider it paying more money for another radio that gets what I
have now with analog.

Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only.

My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so I'm
not missing anything.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade."

Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end
up with a worthless HD radio.

I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will
likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding.

I think HD will most likely fail.

Look, I realize I am probably wasting my time here. Most of the
"regulars" here seem like typical old farts who simply resist change.
The fact is, no one cares if it "trashes YOUR analog reception". So
few people are listening to analog radio these days that the losses
are acceptable IF enough new gains are made by going digital. As
with most things these days, you can either upgrade or be left
behind, wondering where everyone went.

Yeah sure, blame me for not wanting lousy technology badly implemented.
You think I'm going to let you cram it down my throat you have another
thing coming Mr. No-where-man. If you have a problem with old farts
then take a bath. You will smell better for it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only.

My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so I'm
not missing anything.

600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade."

It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made interference.

Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end
up with a worthless HD radio.

I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will
likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding.

I think HD will most likely fail.

It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next number of
years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the channels, independent
chipset manufacturers (including the new high efficiency one announced htis
week) is success as part of a many year plan.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...

Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only.

My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so
I'm not missing anything.

600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel.

Really, so if I turn on my current radio and get the programming I want
this will benefit me how?

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade."

It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made
interference.

I firmly rebuke you for making the sounds better claim and as for more
impervious to man made noise nope. Digital mode is not some magical way
of avoiding the signal to noise issue.

Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will
end up with a worthless HD radio.

I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and
will likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding.

I think HD will most likely fail.

It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next
number of years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the
channels, independent chipset manufacturers (including the new high
efficiency one announced htis week) is success as part of a many year
plan.

You and I have different definitions of success then.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel.

Really, so if I turn on my current radio and get the programming I want
this will benefit me how?

Then don't listen. None of us will miss you.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade."

It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made
interference.

I firmly rebuke you for making the sounds better claim and as for more
impervious to man made noise nope. Digital mode is not some magical way
of avoiding the signal to noise issue.

You are confusing system noise with ambient noise in the transmission path
between the transmitter and the receiver. Digital is pretty much impervious
to the ambient noise.

On AM it is even more dramatic. When the analog system is nearly burried by
ambient noise (like computer noise, power line noise, etc.) the HD signal
can be 100% useful and to have only the noise floor of the digital
system.... stations that avoid multiple codecs and multiple DACs and have a
100% digital path from studio to transmitter find that the noise floor in
the digital domain is way below any level where the human ear can hear it.


It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next
number of years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the
channels, independent chipset manufacturers (including the new high
efficiency one announced htis week) is success as part of a many year
plan.

You and I have different definitions of success then.

1200 operating stations in the US, 600 HD2 channels with new formats, 200
receivers on shelves or in the channels, new low power chips ready in a few
months, etc., etc. all indicate that, less than a year after the consumer
launch, HD is moving ahead of schedule.

It's certainly more successful than satellite radio, which lost over $1
billion last year, 6 years into that project.