"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On 2007-03-28 13:18:13 -0700, said:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

For my first post here, I just want to say, I'd like to have that Zenith 520.

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On Mar 28, 1:18 pm, wrote:
"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

IMHO - Today's basic Consumer AM & FM Radio 'by-design'
is a reasonably good quality FM Radio with a very poor AM
Radio included. The exception being Car Radios. This may
be as DE has pointed out that the majority of Younger Under
35 Radio Listeners 'prefer' FM Radio Sound Quality and do
choose to Listen to FM Radio -over- AM Radios limited 'Talk'
Quality Sound. I would have thought that the Sangean HDT-1
"HD" Radio Conponent Tuner just might have been that one
'exception' to the demise of Quality High Perfromance AM/MW
Radios designed for the Average American Consumer {Radio
Listener} to use in their homes. But may be I am wrong. ~ RHF

Sangean HDT-1 AM & FM "HD" Radio Component Tuner
http://www.sangean.com/product.php?model=HDT-1

Sangean HDT-1 AM & FM "HD" Radio Component Tuner
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...alty/0149.html

Sangean HDT-1 AM & FM "HD" Radio Component Tuner
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0051/t.1571.html

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On 28 Mar 2007 13:18:13 -0700, wrote:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

I have the Recepter. It needs a proper antenna but works very well on
FM. The AM sucks.

"HD Radio Effort Enhanced by Weak ANALog Ideolog's Propaganda Mouthpiece"
 

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html


It is funny that he rates his "SONY" analog radio so highly. At least he
didn't praise a Degen - bwaHAHAHA!
[BTW - some DXers have been using the Sony 7600GR for trans-Atlantic AM MW
DXing.]

RM: "Attaching these radios to a outdoor aerial such as an old TV antenna
will make a dramatic improvement in reception." - D'oh!, for FM, D'oh!
....
RM: "One HD radio owner I spoke with in my area installed an antenna that
resides in his attic. He purchased the Boston Acoustics Recepter HD and he
too was disappointed in the initial results. He told me the addition of a
better antenna dramatically improved reception and he is now very happy with
all the new content he is able to receive on the airwaves. He is quite
pleased with the HD2 offerings, particularly WPLJ in New York, which is
broadcasting two HD2 channels along side its HD1/analog offering. That he
finds the new channels compelling is the best news for HD radio..."

I have used both ANALog and HD Boston Acoustic's Recepters with a "Terk AM
Loop Advantage" antenna and have had surprisingly excellent results DXing
both analog and HD digital signals from my area.

When and if radio stations begin to broadcast HD Radio at or near the
stations' full power, instead of the current wee powered 1/100th fraction of
the ANALog signal, distant reception of HD Radio will improve dramatically
and without the need for any special antenna. Even at a HD Radio station's
reduced 1/100th power level I have DXed AM HD signals many hundreds of
miles.

Here is a good forum of HD Radio users
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On Mar 28, 7:52 pm, David wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 13:18:13 -0700, wrote:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

- I have the Recepter.

- It needs a proper antenna but works very well on FM.

- The AM sucks.

David - Do your remarks refer to the :

Boston Acoustics Receptor "HD" Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...-radio-hd.aspx

-or- Boston Acoustics Receptor AM &FM {Analog} Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...ter-radio.aspx

i want to know ~ RHF

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On 29 Mar 2007 20:20:21 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

On Mar 28, 7:52 pm, David wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 13:18:13 -0700, wrote:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

- I have the Recepter.

- It needs a proper antenna but works very well on FM.

- The AM sucks.

David - Do your remarks refer to the :

Boston Acoustics Receptor "HD" Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...-radio-hd.aspx

-or- Boston Acoustics Receptor AM &FM {Analog} Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...ter-radio.aspx

i want to know ~ RHF
.
.

HD model, but the FM is quite good on either Recepter model.

"HD Radio Effort Enhanced by Weak ANALog Ideolog's Propaganda Mouthpiece"
 

On Mar 29, 5:21 pm, "HD Radio³" wrote:
"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

It is funny that he rates his "SONY" analog radio so highly. At least he
didn't praise a Degen - bwaHAHAHA!
[BTW - some DXers have been using the Sony 7600GR for trans-Atlantic AM MW
DXing.]

RM: "Attaching these radios to a outdoor aerial such as an old TV antenna
will make a dramatic improvement in reception." - D'oh!, for FM, D'oh!
...
RM: "One HD radio owner I spoke with in my area installed an antenna that
resides in his attic. He purchased the Boston Acoustics Recepter HD and he
too was disappointed in the initial results. He told me the addition of a
better antenna dramatically improved reception and he is now very happy with
all the new content he is able to receive on the airwaves. He is quite
pleased with the HD2 offerings, particularly WPLJ in New York, which is
broadcasting two HD2 channels along side its HD1/analog offering. That he
finds the new channels compelling is the best news for HD radio..."

I have used both ANALog and HD Boston Acoustic's Recepters with a "Terk AM
Loop Advantage" antenna and have had surprisingly excellent results DXing
both analog and HD digital signals from my area.

When and if radio stations begin to broadcast HD Radio at or near the
stations' full power, instead of the current wee powered 1/100th fraction of
the ANALog signal, distant reception of HD Radio will improve dramatically
and without the need for any special antenna. Even at a HD Radio station's
reduced 1/100th power level I have DXed AM HD signals many hundreds of
miles.

Here is a good forum of HD Radio usershttp://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154

Did you miss this quote from the story:

External Antennas

"As I pointed out earlier, the HD radios all came with simple external
antennas, essentially 9' pieces of wire.The AM band utilized a
straight length of copper while the FM band employed a T-shaped
stretch. Attaching these radios to a outdoor aerial such as an old TV
antenna will make a dramatic improvement in reception. Unfortunately,
in the cable TV era not a lot of homes have outdoor aerials anymore.
This means additional cost and effort. Most consumers who purchase one
of these radios will never bother do that and, to be perfectly frank,
they shouldn't have to."

HD Radio is dead - BAWAHAAAAA !

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On Mar 29, 2:06�am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message

...

On 28 Mar 2007 13:18:13 -0700, wrote:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

I have the Recepter. *It needs a proper antenna but works very well on
FM. *The AM sucks.

It is not a particularly good radio... too bad, because the non-HD version
is a pretty good AM radio.

Looks like your friend Mark Ramsey had a few thoughts on this article:

"Are HD radios made with crappy tuners?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/are_hd_....html#comments

Notable quote:

"Is this true more generally? Or is this just a function of one
isolated New Jersey address? Radio, after all, always has reception
trouble somewhere, no matter where you live. But a new radio with new
technology certainly shouldn't work worse than your old equipment at
the same address. Is HD radio being stabbed in the back by the very
manufacturers who make the equipment?"

A sure road to failure - yea !

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"
 

On Mar 29, 2:06�am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message

...

On 28 Mar 2007 13:18:13 -0700, wrote:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo - all three HD radios failed miserably. Nothing like first
impressions for consumers - no wonder, with repetitive HD programming
(even HD-1 is just a digital copy of the main analog channel -
whoopie) and lousy reception with expensive HD radios, this turkey
will never takeoff !

I have the Recepter. *It needs a proper antenna but works very well on
FM. *The AM sucks.

It is not a particularly good radio... too bad, because the non-HD version
is a pretty good AM radio.

See Eduardo, what I was talking about:

Hey, check this out - radiointel.com, which is popular with radio-
geeks already picked up the "HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners
in Expensive Radios" article, and put it on their home page:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios
[read the MP3 Newswire article] [read the Engadget article] Mar 29"

http://www.radiointel.com/

Now, that's exactly what I was talking about ! What are the chances
of those radio-geeks buying HD radios ? Just one critical HD Radio
story, goes a long way - LOL !!!