"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 !!!

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

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 !


Looks to me as if the analogue tuners are deliberately poorly
specified to make the HD signal appear to be brilliant. Looks like a
stupid marketing ploy that has blown up in the face of HD Radio
Alliance but that's what happens when you let spotty yuvs & yuvettes
in suits run things.

It all sounds rather stupid as not many people actually listen to
the radio these days, it just noise to fill up the quiet moments
consisting mostly of crap throw away pop, raving rightwing loonies,
religious con men or sports. None of these need quality sound.


Charlie.

--
www.radiowymsey.org

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

I am 60 miles northwest of New York City.
I don't expect to receive analog AM broadcast bands signals from NYC
with any level of quality with an indoor antenna, especially with a
home littered with modern electronics that throw noise all over the AM
band. Sure the local 2kw stations come in like gang busters, but who
wants to listen to Radio Disney all day ? To pick up NYC stations I
threw up a 30 foot wire in the attic attached to a free piece of RG-59,
and attached the outer braid to air conditioning air handler in the
attic. Now I get all the NYC AM broadcasters with very little effort
The article cited said they had problems receiving WCBS AM 880 in IBOC.
Depending on his test dates 880 AM IBOC was off the air for at least a
month doing some level of repair or upgrade work on their IBOC exciter.

You can't hear what is not transmitted.

Summary:
IBOC on AM and FM is neat, but is analog or digital radio of any sort
going to be used today in the age of IPODS ?

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

Steven Stone wrote:

I am 60 miles northwest of New York City.
I don't expect to receive analog AM broadcast bands signals from NYC
with any level of quality with an indoor antenna, especially with a
home littered with modern electronics that throw noise all over the AM
band. Sure the local 2kw stations come in like gang busters, but who
wants to listen to Radio Disney all day ? To pick up NYC stations I
threw up a 30 foot wire in the attic attached to a free piece of RG-59,
and attached the outer braid to air conditioning air handler in the
attic. Now I get all the NYC AM broadcasters with very little effort
The article cited said they had problems receiving WCBS AM 880 in IBOC.
Depending on his test dates 880 AM IBOC was off the air for at least a
month doing some level of repair or upgrade work on their IBOC exciter.

You can't hear what is not transmitted.

Summary:
IBOC on AM and FM is neat, but is analog or digital radio of any sort
going to be used today in the age of IPODS ?

Were you referring to day or night reception of the NYC stations? You
should be able to receive all the NYC 50-kw stations in analog during
the daytime, using most any radio w/wo an external antenna, unless you
have a severe noise problem in the home. You should also receive the NYC
stations on your car radio in the day. 60-miles is within the regional
coverage area for daytime reception by groundwave propagation of the
full power NYC AM-stations. You may be within the skip zone for night
reception of those stations. This can cause a cancellation of the
groundwave and skywave signal, resulting in severe fading which can make
a station almost inaudible at times.
I'm about 200-miles from NYC and I can receive all of the 50-kw stations
during the day on an R8B with a 60-ft inverted-L antenna. The signal
strengths are typically S-7 with no fading of course. I can also hear
those stations weakly on the car radio in the day if I'm located in a
quiet area with the engine off.

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

On Mar 29, 9:25 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

oups.com...





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...recepter-radio...


- The HD model sucks...
- the mono one is the best table radio I have ever had.

DE - "Sucks" ?

I would expect better Language from you. ~ RHF

Rewrite - The HD model is a poor performer... relative to
the mono one is the best table radio I have ever had.