|
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
For One and All,
Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio ? http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...-radio-hd.aspx Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...ent-tuner.aspx 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 |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
"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! |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
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! The crap keeps flowing - how sad. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
wrote in message oups.com... 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! The crap keeps flowing - how sad. Showing, of course, how little you know. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
|
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
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, so am speaking only to it. At my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, external antennas *are* critical for HD reception. Right now |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
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... |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
On Apr 1, 2:23 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. 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. 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... 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 DS [W9WI] - Thank Your for Your Reply ~ RHF |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
On Mar 31, 8:18 pm, "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! 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. Think-About-It : -IF- a 1% Digital Radio Signal will "Cover" the 'same' 10mv/m Contour as an Analog Radio Signal : Then at some Point-in-Time Radio Stations will go-up-to 10% Digital and go-down-to 50% Analog. And 'Each Day' that another "HD" Radio Station goes On-the-Air-in-Digital they will begin the Top-of-the-Hour Radio Station ID with the Call Letters, Frequency and those little words "Now Broadcasting in High Difinition 'HD' All Digital Radio". Yes - It will take Years but it will occur -and- Yes while NO Radio Station is turning 'Off' their Analog Signal at this time -once again- in-time they will. At some point in time there will be a "Tipping Point" where there are More {Good} Under-Age-35 "HD" Radio Listeners then {Bad} Over-Age-50 Analog Radio Listeners -and- Then 100% All Digital will start becoming the Norm in FM Radio Broadcasting. As for AM/MW Radio Broadcasting it may be 25 Years before the 'last-and-only'' Analog AM/MW Broadcaster goes Off-the-Air. da da digital digital - i want to hear digital ! -doh- i want me a digital 'hd' radio ~ RHF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com