|
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 |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio ComponentTuner ? ? ?
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! |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
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. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
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? |
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! With total consumer apathy, HD Radio will fail. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
"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. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
"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. |
OK - What About These 'Other' HD Radios ?
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 Espaņol = 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 . . .. . |
OK - What About These 'Other' HD Radios ?
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. |
RHF's "HD" Radio Rating System { It's In-the-Stars } In-Searching-Of an "HD" Radio
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 |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
"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 |
RHF's "HD" Radio Rating System { It's In-the-Stars } In-Searching-Of an "HD" Radio
Start reading instead of dreaming up astrology.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi.../t-754059.html |
RHF's "HD" Radio Rating System { It's In-the-Stars } In-Searching-Of an "HD" Radio
- On Apr 2, 10:20 am, "HD Radioš" wrote:
- Start reading instead of dreaming up astrology. - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi.../t-754059.html HD Radioš - BTDT ~ RHF AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154 . . .. . |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
Frank Dresser wrote:
"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 Audiowise, it's very selective as to hearing adjacent channel stations. You don't hear splatter at all. The AGC takes hits from the adjacent station audio, however. Which is why you'd want a knob for AGC fast/slow, for instance. -- Ron Hardin On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?
"Ron Hardin" wrote in message ... Frank Dresser wrote: "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 Audiowise, it's very selective as to hearing adjacent channel stations. You don't hear splatter at all. How do you think they're handling the differences in IF bandwidth? I suppose your radio might have seperate IF strips for the IBOC channel and the AM channel. The AGC takes hits from the adjacent station audio, however. Which is why you'd want a knob for AGC fast/slow, for instance. I've been wondering if these insensitive IBOC radios are inherently insensitive or if they're getting desensed by AGC action caused by strong nearby signals in a wide IBOC IF strip. These strong signals wouldn't get through a normal AM filter and would be unheard by the listener. Of course, this is all speculation on my part. Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com