David Eduardo wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.


Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

Wow! Gee whiz!

On Apr 1, 8:23 am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:38 -0700, RHF wrote:
Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics.

FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
antenna is critical for HD reception. Right now, I have a set of TV
rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations. Five
more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those. I'm near Nashville -
which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM. We have two local
HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
provided with the radio. Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
ham antenna. I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference. (the
radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...) It
may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
with the stations...

Yea, just like this article stated, consumers are not going to the
trouble of mounting external antennas - no wonder, few HD radios have
sold, and many returned:

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

"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."

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

Eduardo will be along, shortly.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 03:10:44 -0700, RHF wrote:
Wonder if any one is using a simply 14"-24" AM/MW "Box"
Loop Antenna with with one of these "HD" Radios and -if-
They are good enough to acquire a reliable "HD" Signal ?
-But- That requires Tuning the Radio and the Antenna every
time you change an AM/MW Radio Station.

That would be a decent option and would probably work. At least you
wouldn't have to rotate the loop, since you know where the main source of
interference is coming from regardless of frequency!

But as the other post says, nobody except us DXers is going to bother.

It's unfortunate for HD promoters that the BA was the first home HD
receiver generally available. (it was preceded by a number of car radios,
but most people aren't going to go to the trouble of having an aftermarket
car radio installed if they aren't sure they're going to like the results.
It's harder to undo than replacing a table radio!)

A lot of us "early adopters" based our opinions of HD on this set. I'm
coming to the belief that HD works a LOT better than I first believed.
From what I'm hearing the Sangean tuner works pretty well; if it had
beat the BA to market I think the early word on HD could have been quite a
bit better.

(which does NOT mean I think it was a good idea to adopt HD instead of
Eureka, nor that I've changed my mind about the interference issues HD
presents)

Sounds like the same problem that I have with the Analog version of the
BA Receptor up here In-them-there-Hills. Needs both an AM and FM Antenna
to be able to receive any signals reliabily -except- for KXSR which is
up the Hill about a Mile on 91.7 with 4 KW ERP. KXSR =
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=8328

Interesting. I wonder how long the analog version has been available?
I'd figured the self-interference problem was the result of inadequate
shielding/filtering of the HD chipset - maybe it's actually from the
radio's general CPU?

On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

With total consumer apathy, HD Radio will fail.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

He has his pitch notwithstanding any fact or common sense. The grass is
blue and the sky green and he has the statistics from Arbitron to prove
that most people 55 and under agree with Edweene brand crapola.


The problem is that you have no stats at all, just a blind, angry pit-bull
attitude towards anyone who disagrees with reality. You want radio to be a
nice place filled with distant signals supported by many listeners. The
facts just don't agree.

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 31, 8:18 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings
in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the
power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams
and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power
than
the transmitter!

DE - The Reality is that -if- a 1% Digital Signal will cover the
same 10mv/m Contour as the 100% Analog Signal : Radio
Stations will in-time Crank-Up the ERP of the "HD" Digital
Signal and Turn-Down the ERP of the Analog Signal.

This is not an even exchange. It is like two stations on one channel, not
one trading power from another. FMs could, for example, increase power by 10
db and not cause significant additional interference. I expect a filing on
this soon. I don't know any work being done on increasing AM power, but it
would seem likely after the night operations get started as a second step,
probably with night parameters.

Turning down the analog is not feasable until at least 80% or more of
receivers ared digital, just due to econ0omics.

On Mar 31, 4:14 pm, "RHF" wrote:
For One and All,

Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio ?http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...recepter-radio...

Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tunerhttp://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/sangean-hdt-1-hd-radio-componen...

Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?

i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF
.
.
. .

OK - What About These 'Other' HD Radios ?

Cambridge Soundworks 820HD Radio
http://www.cambridgesoundworks.com/s...item=c1820rnzz
http://www.bswusa.com/proditem.asp?item=820HD
http://www.bswusa.com/assets/product...m_820hd_bk.jpg
-omg- Presenting the DaySequerra M-4 HD Tuner
http://www.bswusa.com/proditem.asp?item=M-4

Radiosophy "MultiStream" HD Radio
http://www.radiosophy.com/products.html

Polk Audio's "I-Sonic" HD Radio
http://isonic.polkaudio.com/
http://stereos.about.com/od/homester...olk_isonic.htm

RadioShack "Accurian" Tabletop HD Radio
http://www.radioshack.com/sm-accuria...i-2460834.html
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...tId=2460834&cp

OK - So does anyone Own one of these "HD" Radios ?

? What Are Your Impression of them as a Radio User

? What Are Your Impression of them as a Radio Listener ?

and . . . What About - HD Radio Special Offers -like-
eBay HD Radio "Trade-In Your Old Radio Program." ? ? ?
http://www.ibiquity.com/hd_radio/hdr...adio_retailers

Listen to your 'favorite' "HD" Radio Commercials {Adz} here
HD ADZ = http://www.hdradioalliance.com/commercials.php
Plus + HD Radio Spanish Language Spots
HD Español = http://www.hdradioalliance.com/commercials_spanish.php

The HD Radio WebSite
HD RADIO = http://www.hdradio.com/

The HD Radio "Alliance" WebSite Promoting "HD" Radio
http://www.hdradioalliance.com/index.php
-but- We All Know that it is [Secretly]
Organized to Stomp-Out Analog Radio
-and- put an End-to-AM-Radio-Dxing !

AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154


oops i am have a digital moment ~ RHF
.
.
.. .

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:35:31 -0700, RHF wrote:
Radiosophy "MultiStream" HD Radio
http://www.radiosophy.com/products.html

This one was "vaporware" for a VERY long time. I ran into someone who
finally actually got his hands on one last week. He says the audio
quality isn't the best - ISTR he said it was a poor choice of speakers or
speaker enclosure design.

On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:35:31 -0700, RHF wrote:
Radiosophy "MultiStream" HD Radio
http://www.radiosophy.com/products.html

This one was "vaporware" for a VERY long time. I ran into someone who
finally actually got his hands on one last week. He says the audio
quality isn't the best - ISTR he said it was a poor choice of speakers or
speaker enclosure design.

DS [W9WI],

Well since the 'improved' Sound Quality is "The Big Reason"
for most people to Trade-Up-To an FM "HD" Radio -then-
The Radiosophy "MultiStream" HD Radio
BAD RAP HD = http://www.radiosophy.com/products.html
would have to be considered a Failure.
- - - Guess that the Good Folks at Radiosophy need to get
some 'critical' Feed-Back from their "HD" Radio Buyers and
Make some Design Improvements and Production Changes.

-But- Since many of these "HD" Radios seem to have poor
AM Radio Tuners and only Good FM Tuners - It may be a
Trade-Off that each individual Radio Listener will have to
decide for themselves.

RHF's "HD" Radio Rating System
{ It's In-the-Stars } In-Searching-Of an "HD" Radio

5-Stars = Very Good AM Tuner + Very Good FM Tuner + Very Good Sound

4-Stars = Very Good AM Tuner + Very Good FM Tuner + Good Sound

3-Stars = Good AM Tuner + Very Good FM Tuner + Very Good Sound

2-Stars = Good AM Tuner + Good FM Tuner + Very Good Sound

1-Star = Good AM Tuner + Very Good FM Tuner + Good Sound

0-Stars = Poor Sounding [.]

POINT # 1 - "HD" RADIO TUNING :
-IF- You Can't Tune and Receive the HD Radio Stations on both
AM and FM -WHY- Buy an "HD" Radio ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
[ CRITICAL - You Can't Receive Them -so- You Can't Hear Them. ]

POINT # 2 - "HD" RADIO SOUND :
-OK- You Can Tune and Receive many HD Radio Stations on both
AM and FM -But- You Can't Hear any Better Quality Sound from
HD Radio Stations on at least FM -WHY- Buy an "HD" Radio ! ?

So far from what I have heard from the Actual Users of "HD" Radios
-most- Would be "Rated" 3-Stars -or- 4-Stars -and- Fail at either
Point # 1 -or- Point # 2.


Looking for an "HD" Radio that I would Rate 5-Stars ~ RHF

"Ron Hardin" wrote in message
...

[snip]


It seems to be a very good AM tuner though. It would need more
knobs to be what you would really want, but it's pretty selective
and sensitive, for instance, at least with the external antenna ;
and it doesn't overload.

I'm curious about your radio's AM selectivity. Is it always IBOC wide or
does it receive normal AM stations with a normal narrower selectivity?

Frank Dresser