Lets take a poll. Who in this group owns or knows someone who owns a HD Radio?
Steve O
and we both live in Contra Costa County. Since no station has an good
HD signal out here, I only use it when I drive to SJ to see my sister.
Mike also uses it when he goes over the hill. We both sometimes listen
to
KUFX HD 2 and the KFOG 10 at 10 channel.
Dave B.
I have one of the Sony XDR-F1-HD's. I bought it for 2 reasons:
1. I wanted to see what was out there on HD programming
2. I heard the analog performance was fantastic.
Unfortunately, it's hooked up to a good stereo with some JBL Studio
Monitors. I say "unfortunately" because this system really shows off
HD's warts. The "sheen" sound - sort of "clanky" on the high end
reminds me of the sound on the AAC webcast of Radio Paradise. It's
hard to describe, but when you hear it you know it. I was hoping for
better audio quality, quite frankly. The HD-2 channels are cool, but
I'd rather listen to fatmusicradio on the web instead of the classic
country channel on KBWF, and the above-mentioned Radio Paradise is
programmed way better than KUFX HD-2 IMHO. 10 at 10 is a nice
novelty, but it's just that - a novelty.
Search the archives of this newsgroup, I posted some info on the XDR-
F1 HD when I got it. The analog performance is excellent for a $100
radio. But I have to admit that I was more stoked about the
sensitivity and selectivity of this tuner than I was about the fact
that it had HD.
Dave B.
John Higdon
<f14d00e7-142d-44d3...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
"Dave B." <dave.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's hooked up to a good stereo with some JBL Studio
> Monitors. I say "unfortunately" because this system really shows off
> HD's warts. The "sheen" sound - sort of "clanky" on the high end
> reminds me of the sound on the AAC webcast of Radio Paradise. It's
> hard to describe, but when you hear it you know it. I was hoping for
> better audio quality, quite frankly. The HD-2 channels are cool, but
> I'd rather listen to fatmusicradio on the web instead of the classic
> country channel on KBWF, and the above-mentioned Radio Paradise is
> programmed way better than KUFX HD-2 IMHO. 10 at 10 is a nice
> novelty, but it's just that - a novelty.
The HD codec is becoming dated, and as the stations split the data
stream into tinier pieces, the warts as you put it become more and more
obvious. This is the real driving force behind the change from -20db to
-10db for the IBOC carrier: higher overall bit rate. Unfortunately, as
the *real* tests are demonstrating, when you do that the analog portion
gets squeezed off the channel (and even the rest of the band for that
matter). This is a line that a significant number of non-CBS/CC stations
are unwilling to cross.
The codec has been upgraded at least once during the course of IBOC
testing, but it's locked in now. "HD Radio" is backed into a corner in
that it must now depend on more data bandwidth since the codec is
embedded in The Chip and cannot be upgraded in the same fashion as web
clients and even dedicated players. IBiquity is pushing for shutting
down analog, but that isn't going to happen.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Steve O
> In article
> <f14d00e7-142d-44d3-8091-e31a57aac...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Since the Government is shutting down the lower TV channels soon,
maybe an all Digital FM service would work down there. IBOC could buy
the spectrum and then they can have it their way!
John Higdon
<fc56408c-5918-4f19...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Steve O <st...@chooseone.net> wrote:
> Since the Government is shutting down the lower TV channels soon,
> maybe an all Digital FM service would work down there. IBOC could buy
> the spectrum and then they can have it their way!
That option has always been available. The current (broken) system was
done on purpose to shut out interlopers. The NAB was apoplectic about
the notion that non-broadcasters could come in and compete against its
members on a digital band. IBOC was developed so that the current
license holders would maintain its good-ole-boy status and not introduce
the threat of competition from people who hadn't paid their dues.
This is exactly why the big owners even own a stake in iBiquity. The
main purpose of IBOC was to derail the threat of Eureka and DRM, digital
methods that are FAR superior to the hash-ridden IBOC debacle.
Mark my words: you will not see a new digital band created. Broadcasting
is no longer about serving the public interest.
Alan
>Since the Government is shutting down the lower TV channels soon,
>maybe an all Digital FM service would work down there. IBOC could buy
>the spectrum and then they can have it their way!
Except for the detail that the lower TV cannels are *not* being shut down.
Alan
Travis James
I have one. It's the Radio Shack Accurian brand. If I had bought it with
my own money, I would have been disappointed. But it was given to me
when my mom bought it at a silent auction not understanding what the HD
really added (heh, there's a loaded word, does it add anything?). FWIW,
she does love the internet radio we, the kids, bought her from C Crane.
That's a cool little device and I can add all kinds of interesting
stations as I stumble upon them.
I surfed around and didn't find any of the HD-2 channels compelling on
the FM side (in Fresno). There is one AM sports station that, when it
can stay locked in, sounds pretty good. It sounds much better than the 2
FM talkers in the area (KMJ and a new 4th tier right winger on 105.5
that just started Friday).
That's the hitch though, the AM HD channel at 1340 does not lock in well
and there's no way to tell it to stay on analog when it starts switching
back and forth. The radio itself is satisfactory, nice little remote.
PeterH
> Since the Government is shutting down the lower TV channels soon,
> maybe an all Digital FM service would work down there. IBOC could buy
> the spectrum and then they can have it their way!
No, not in the least!
Check the FCC site for CPs and for LICenses for DTs on Chs. 2-6.
You will find a LOT of them.
The fortunate few, the ones which correctly, or lately saw massive
degredation of their off-the-air signals, as VHF-Low Band DTV stations,
moved to VHF-High Band, or to UHF.
A significant number will remain on VHF-Low Band -f-o-r-e-v-e-r-, or
until such time as their nearly useless VHF-Low Band DTV signal is
accepted as being useless, and they effect a change to UHF (most
probable) or VHF-High Band (less probable).
CBS' O&O WMAQ-TV already made a sweetheart deal to move from Ch. 3-DT
to Ch. 12-DT, but there are many others which appear to be stuck on
VHF-Low Band, including Cleveland's WKYC-TV (presently Gannett's, and
formerly NBC's O&O).
Wanna know which TVs are (presently) stock on VHF-Low Band DTV
allocations, licenses, applications, etcetera:
--
Peter Haas - Monterey Bay, California - Should you quote, please quote
only the relevant text
It's The Democratic Party�, Bozo, NOT the Democrat party (USPTO Ser.
No. 74152276)
Mike Ward
<peter...@rattlebrain.comminch> wrote:
>CBS' O&O WMAQ-TV already made a sweetheart deal to move from Ch. 3-DT
>to Ch. 12-DT, but there are many others which appear to be stuck on
>VHF-Low Band, including Cleveland's WKYC-TV (presently Gannett's, and
>formerly NBC's O&O).
I can confirm from Northeast Ohio that WKYC is NOT stuck on DT 2 in
the low-VHF band.
As soon as they complete a new tower, which is scheduled to be done by
June 12th (it's about half-finished right now), they'll move to DT 17.
That's the space formerly occupied in analog by WDLI/Canton, TBN's
local O&O.
WDLI shut down analog 17 on April 16th...the only thing delaying the
move for WKYC is the uncompleted facility.
More here, from WKYC's own "Director's Cut" blog:
http://www.wkyc.com/weblog/directors_cut/2009/03/wdlis-early-transition-to-allow-wkyc-to.html
Robert Orban
7e0456...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, st...@chooseone.net says...
I have three: A Boston Acoustics, a Cambridge Soundworks, and the little
Sony tuner. The latter two were acquired out of "professional
curiosity"; the BA is my bedroom clock radio and is the one that gets
listened to the most. However, I sometimes listen to the Cambridge and
welcome its HD abilities because in my location, FM multipath is so bad
(particularly if the radio is not hooked up to my outside antenna, which
the Cambridge is not), that the HD Radio feed sounds dramatically better
than the analog.
John Higdon
Robert Orban <donot...@spamblock.com> wrote:
> I have three: A Boston Acoustics, a Cambridge Soundworks, and the little
> Sony tuner. The latter two were acquired out of "professional
> curiosity"; the BA is my bedroom clock radio and is the one that gets
> listened to the most. However, I sometimes listen to the Cambridge and
> welcome its HD abilities because in my location, FM multipath is so bad
> (particularly if the radio is not hooked up to my outside antenna, which
> the Cambridge is not), that the HD Radio feed sounds dramatically better
> than the analog.
And in my area, the HD signals are so weak (I don't speak Spanish, so
the local signals are useless) that multipath is the preferred option.
Nevertheless, as a broadcast person I *would* own one just to have
it...if I could find one.
David Eduardo
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-EB59EE....@news.announcetech.com...
>
> And in my area, the HD signals are so weak (I don't speak Spanish, so
> the local signals are useless) that multipath is the preferred option.
> Nevertheless, as a broadcast person I *would* own one just to have
> it...if I could find one.
>
What might have worked prior to the recession has lost any hope of success
now; the potential of new models of receivers in an economy where people
have all reduced discretionary spending is nil.
AM HD is and was a dreadful idea, and the best way to discover this is to
buy an HD car radio and listen. To say it is annoying is an understatement.
I had a belief in HD on FM. But there are no radios anywhere at retail, and
scant few on the web. What could have worked were the economy robust will be
like AM stereo... too late to meet market needs. In a few years, stations
will have developed robust new alternative delivery options, and HD won't be
one of them.
Like a relationship gone bad, it's hard to admit when something is over. I
have pretty much decided that HD is not even worth the discussion time any
more... with an exception being to hope that the 10 db increase in digital
power on FM not be approved.
Mark Howell
<da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
>Like a relationship gone bad, it's hard to admit when something is over. I
>have pretty much decided that HD is not even worth the discussion time any
>more... with an exception being to hope that the 10 db increase in digital
>power on FM not be approved.
I do admire a man who can admit he was wrong.
Mark Howell
PocketRadio
> In article <e23c3fb8-b98e-43fd-8172-
> 7e0456078...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, st...@chooseone.net says...
Analog FM multipath is way overblown - right, a good way for an IBOC-
shill to promote a defective technology that no one cares about.
PocketRadio
Are you sure this isn't an Eduardo imposter?
PocketRadio
"CPB/NPR to Fit Square HD Peg Into Round Hole"
"First, National Public Radio (through the CPB) has already
extensively studied this issue, more than anyone else in the industry,
and the results are pretty unequivocal that increasing the power of a
station's FM digital signal will adversely affect not only its own
analog host-signal, but also those of neighboring stations. So much
so, in fact, that the (first) study's coordinating engineer has
admitted in other fora that an increase in HD sideband power levels is
much more likely to do harm than good."
http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0409.htm#042909
You can bet that NPR won't back the power increase, or many other
broadcasters - too expensive, and too damaging to analog signals. So,
David, or imposter, when will get our airways back, free of damaging
hash?
PocketRadio
Oh, we all knew that IBOC's failure would be blamed on the recession.
PocketRadio
Me double-too! He doesn't appear to be an imposter.
John Higdon
"David Eduardo" <da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
> Like a relationship gone bad, it's hard to admit when something is over. I
> have pretty much decided that HD is not even worth the discussion time any
> more... with an exception being to hope that the 10 db increase in digital
> power on FM not be approved.
Needless to say, I couldn't agree with you more. If you bother to read
Radio World (before lining the birdcage with it), you will observe a
sharp change in the way those who submit correspondence talk about the
matter. In one of the latest issues, someone expressed similar
sentiments, even referring to the technology as a "dreadful kludge",
indicating far more elegant delivery systems.
While it lasts, analog broadcast still has its virtue of basic
simplicity, inexpensive and ubiquitous receiving devices, and
universality. Let's not destroy what remains with that 10db increase of
digital carrier.
John Higdon
<8dcd0b43-7858-4b38...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
PocketRadio <sidwell...@aol.com> wrote:
> Are you sure this isn't an Eduardo imposter?
If it is, he managed to imitate well David Eduardo's literate and
coherent style.
PocketRadio
If stations needed extra channels, they should have gone with FMeXtra,
but consumers still would have not cared.... I'm going to keep my blog
going, and continue to post comments throughout the Web, until
iBiquity decalres bankruptcy, and HD Radio is long buried. iBiquity is
still trying to hock their junk overseas, and I get many hits on my
blog from foreign countries. The fight continues - march on troops!
LOL!
PocketRadio
>
> �PocketRadio <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Are you sure this isn't an Eduardo imposter?
>
> If it is, he managed to imitate well David Eduardo's literate and
> coherent style.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Looking at Eduardo's profile, I'm pretty convinced he is legit - never
thought that I would hear those words out of his mouth! He must know
something, that we don't.
John Higdon
<627eb6b4-32c9-40bf...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
PocketRadio <sidwell...@aol.com> wrote:
> Looking at Eduardo's profile, I'm pretty convinced he is legit - never
> thought that I would hear those words out of his mouth! He must know
> something, that we don't.
Speak for yourself.
pocke...@gmail.com
>
> �PocketRadio <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Looking at Eduardo's profile, I'm pretty convinced he is legit - never
> > thought that I would hear those words out of his mouth! He must know
> > something, that we don't.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
I just did.
pocke...@gmail.com
>
> �PocketRadio <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Looking at Eduardo's profile, I'm pretty convinced he is legit - never
> > thought that I would hear those words out of his mouth! He must know
> > something, that we don't.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
There are too many "PocketRadios" and Eduardo imposters - LOL! I'm
just busting!
pocke...@gmail.com
> In article <Q1IMl.26181$c45.4...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Did you see the April 24th edition with the Radio2020 insert - it
quoted Ramsey, Gorman, Del Colliano, etc all blasting HD Radio. That
was great! I wonder, if Struble saw it, then ripped it out before
displaying it in iBiquity's front office/ reception area? LOL! Looks
like all of those hours-upon-hours of hard work are paying off!
norml
>
>Of course, no one is putting *AM* radios in those things.
>
I bought an early version this:
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/cc-witness.aspx
Precisely because it includes an AM tuner (from which one may record if
desired).
I may buy another one just to get the latest version.
Norm
John Higdon
norml <norm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrotf:
> >
> >Of course, no one is putting *AM* radios in those things.
> >
> I bought an early version this:
>
> http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/cc-witness.aspx
>
> Precisely because it includes an AM tuner (from which one may record if
> desired).
But no HD. Not surprised. A couple of years ago, I spent an afternoon
visiting with Mr. Crane in Fortuna. Even back then, he was less than
enthusiastic about the prospect of paying the tribute and dealing with
the hassle. I imagine that level of enthusiasm has done anything but
increase since then.
Mark Howell
wrote:
>
>http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/cc-witness.aspx
>
>Precisely because it includes an AM tuner (from which one may record if
>desired).
>
>I may buy another one just to get the latest version.
>
>Norm
It seems rather over-priced. I bought a Sansa Clip with the same
storage capacity and an FM tuner, but no AM, for $20 at Circuit City's
liquidation sale. Even to this old AM fan, an extra $160 to get an AM
tuner seems hardly worth it.
Mark Howell
PocketRadio
I think we were duped - I went to davidgleason.com, and his email is
da...@davidgleason.com, not da...@davideduardo.com
David Eduardo
"PocketRadio" <sidwell...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2e6ebece-2b6b-470f...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
<If stations needed extra channels, they should have gone with FMeXtra,
<but consumers still would have not cared....
FMeXtra fell on its own sword. Just when they were getting excellent chatter
in the engineering and operations communities, they decided that users had
to buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of ugly proprietary radio
receivers to begin using the system. Bad idea, bad marketing, bad
understanding of broadcasting..
David Eduardo
I waited for four or five years for the pig to sprout wings. It didn't.
David Eduardo
I have about 2 dozen email accounts, used each for different purposes. You
have actually found two of them.
chris319
accumulated on top of the tuner. Eventually the thing started acting
flaky until it finally up and died. "Oh, dear" I thought to myself,
"the mountain of papers is probably covering the ventilation slots on
top of the tuner and a component overheated and died." I removed the
papers to discover that there WERE no ventilation slots on the top of
the chassis. The poor thing had died a natural death.
Eric C. Weaver
> "PocketRadio" <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote in message
OHO, so they made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE made by the iBiquity lawyer-
beancounters? If the point is to PROMOTE a new technology, a good
approach is to NOT make it prohibitively expensive...
SMS
> I own one and my friend Mike also has one. We both have in our cars
> and we both live in Contra Costa County. Since no station has an good
> HD signal out here, I only use it when I drive to SJ to see my sister.
> Mike also uses it when he goes over the hill. We both sometimes listen
> to
> KUFX HD 2 and the KFOG 10 at 10 channel.
My ex-brother-in-law's sister's boyfriend's brother's father-in-law's ex
-wife's second husband's sister owns one.
Phil Kane
<da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
>AM HD is and was a dreadful idea, and the best way to discover this is to
>buy an HD car radio and listen. To say it is annoying is an understatement.
For good and sufficient reason, as the phrase goes, I bought a new car
radio last week for our 13-year-old Chevvy (yeah, I know.....). It
cost more to install it than the radio itself cost.
It is a Kenwood AM/FM/MP3/Bluetooth (etc) advertised as "Satellite
and HD Ready". I passed on the latter because I wasn't "ready".
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Dave B.
>
> Analog FM multipath is way overblown - right, a good way for an IBOC-
> shill to promote a defective technology that no one cares about.
Not in some areas, especially here (Remember, this is BA.Broadcast -
that is Bay Area). Try listening to KQED in Dublin. Or KKUP in
Saratoga. Two that I happened to experience recently. I think
there's probably better solutions than IBOC for that problem, but it's
certainly not "overblown" to some people.
Dave B.
John Higdon
<f25539ef-1066-4ceb...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
chris319 <c319...@aol.com> wrote:
This was my complaint about the highly touted Sony tuner that several
people here, including Bob Orban, had recommended. As luck would have
it, a friend down near Palm Springs had recently acquired one. On a
visit, I looked and listened. There were no available HD signals, but
the analog performance seemed adequate. But the problem was that it ran
HOT.
I can't imagine that it would live any time at all with papers piled on
top. In fact, if I owned one, I would probably point a fan in its
direction!
PocketRadio
> "PocketRadio" <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote in message
Just like ugly IBOC.
Eric C. Weaver
Unfortunately sounds like it. The lawyers & bean-counters must've
taken over at that place too. If one's gonna start a radical new
technology, one should expect to have to spend some beans on
popularizing it before milking it. Darn well pay receiver mfrs to
build it in and get the demand going...
FMeXtra at least had the advantage of using a modern and standard
CODEC (AAC[-plus]) and could deliver better quality per bit-per-
second. Now whether it had the multipath resistance of iBiquity's
digital modulation is another issue... and from what I know of FM
subcarriers, it sounds like not.
I was kinda hoping it'd work out for a certain 4KW "SF" station but
that sounds unlikely at this point.
Robert Orban
088a25...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, sidwell...@aol.com says...
>
>
>On May 6, 6:31�pm, Robert Orban <donotre...@spamblock.com> wrote:
>> In article <e23c3fb8-b98e-43fd-8172-
>> 7e0456078...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, st...@chooseone.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >I own one and my friend Mike also has one. We both have in our cars
>> >and we both live in Contra Costa County. Since no station has an good
>> >HD signal out here, I only use it when I drive to SJ to see my sister.
>> >Mike also uses it when he goes over the hill. We both sometimes listen
>> >to
>> >KUFX HD 2 and the KFOG 10 at 10 channel.
>>
>> Sony tuner. The latter two were acquired out of "professional
>> curiosity"; the BA is my bedroom clock radio and is the one that gets
>> listened to the �most. However, I sometimes listen to the Cambridge and
>> welcome its HD abilities because in my location, FM multipath is so bad
>> (particularly if the radio is not hooked up to my outside antenna, which
>> the Cambridge is not), that the HD Radio feed sounds dramatically better
>> than the analog.
>
>Analog FM multipath is way overblown - right, a good way for an IBOC-
>shill to promote a defective technology that no one cares about.
I can assure you that multipath is not "way overblown" in my house on the
wrong side of a canyon with no line of sight to any of the San Francisco
licensed FM stations. This is the same reason why I cannot receive any San
Francisco HDTV stations except for channel 12, even with a large outdoor
antenna.