Adventures in Retail

[MasterTheseus]

The BA was a very unfortunate product, and it does happen. It was the best radio at the time, but we have gotten smarter and are making it better.

And I can tell you from my experience, the level of returns we have were high for the table radio we make, but because it too had its deficiencies. Since we were made aware of them we have fixed and have not received a single return (exageration, we received 6 back because they didn't like the color) out of the several thousand we have sold since the change.

I have yet to see the Sangean radios end up on Ebay as a second hand, used item.

False and misleading. I expected more honesty from you, Master. Perhaps you just did not look or care to bother.
A broadcast engineering associate and close friend recently bought a Sangean HD table radio used from the e-bay site, for testing. It came from a dissatisfied California owner. Unfortunately my associate prefers to remain anonymous.

Many Sangean HD radios are available on eBay, new and used, they come and go as usual on e-Bay:
http://search.ebay.com/HD-radio-sangean_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40

It is neither false or missleading, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET, so this statement rings true. I did not say there weren't ever or that there would not be in the future, just that I haven't seen it. And you are right, I am not paying TOO much attention to it. I check it now and again.

 

[clouseau]

1) I do not believe HD "HAS" poor coverage per se. It's my experience that HD travels to the edge of the licensed service area.

You're saying that HD will be received ok (barring power line noise) to the 0.5 mv/m contour? That is the protected contour of the vast majority of AM stations (during the day, at least), which I would take to be the "licensed service area".

I am not certain of the exact "AM" protected contour. From a practical standpoint, anything below 1.0 mV/m isn't really usable except for DX. Truth be known, it's more like 2 mV/m. FM, OTOH, does fairly well at 60 db or 1.0 mV/m (Which "IS" it's protcted area except in the land of B's and B1's). I don't know about down to 54db, but it seems like it would work OK on FM. It's my practical experience that HD decodes fairly well at these practical limits of analog reception. YMMV.

I keep seeing the claim that "I can hear the digital sidebands on the adjacent channel when the analog has already disappeared." I'm not saying that isn't what APPEARS to be happening, but here's a point to ponder. While the Modulation of HD on AM is undoubtedly high, how can the adjacent channel, at a highly reduced power level, outcarry the analog? I'm not saying it isn't happening. But I AM wondering how that makes any sense. Any ideas??

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

clouseau asked:

While the Modulation of HD on AM is undoubtedly high, how can the adjacent channel, at a highly reduced power level, outcarry the analog?

Easily explained. The digital adjacent channel HD signals are extremely dense, destructive, continuous, high duty cycle digital modulation similar to the jamming signals that were so effective during the cold war days.
HD radio is similar to the totalitarian answer (revenge) to "free speech" on the airwaves.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

It is neither false or missleading, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET, so this statement rings true. I did not say there weren't ever or that there would not be in the future, just that I haven't seen it. And you are right, I am not paying TOO much attention to it. I check it now and again.

Then go and log into ebay - the day you posted that I found at least 2 or 3 Sangean HDT-1's on there. They may still be there. They were part of about 165 HD radio listings. No bargain, though, a couple were clearly retailers since the price was $250.

 

[MasterTheseus]

It is neither false or missleading, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET, so this statement rings true. I did not say there weren't ever or that there would not be in the future, just that I haven't seen it. And you are right, I am not paying TOO much attention to it. I check it now and again.

Then go and log into ebay - the day you posted that I found at least 2 or 3 Sangean HDT-1's on there. They may still be there. They were part of about 165 HD radio listings. No bargain, though, a couple were clearly retailers since the price was $250.

I did look that day, just before I posted and not a single Sangean HD Radio was being sold as used when I posted.

That doesn't really matter, I think the major point is that we are not experiencing the same issues with our radios (HD) that BA seems to be, but then again, ours aren't discontinued. The HDT-1 will be by defacto simply because the HDT-1X seems to be the model of choice meaning people prefer it over the HDT-1 and thus sales for the HDT-1X have surpassed the HDT-1 enough to possibly discontinue.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

That doesn't really matter, I think the major point is that we are not experiencing the same issues with our radios (HD) that BA seems to be, but then again, ours aren't discontinued. The HDT-1 will be by defacto simply because the HDT-1X seems to be the model of choice meaning people prefer it over the HDT-1 and thus sales for the HDT-1X have surpassed the HDT-1 enough to possibly discontinue.

Since you are with Sangean - can you tell me if the 1X still has C-Quam capability? I may buy one soon for its ANALOG reception capabilities, and we still have a C-Quam station here.

 

[Ray22]

Think about it a minute: Of course, the low signal IBOC AM (and FM!) signals travel greater distances than first thought! There are NO other signals to interfere with these "stations between the stations." On the AM band the IBOC signal that's centered 12-13khz is pretty much out in the open to travel until it's hit by another IBOC signal or some analog splatter from a stronger station. Decoding HD is another matter since the FM IBOC system needs to decode pretty much both side channels. Interfering with one sideband starts to cut into IBOC coverage.

 

[Chuck]

Think about it a minute: Of course, the low signal IBOC AM (and FM!) signals travel greater distances than first thought! There are NO other signals to interfere with these "stations between the stations." On the AM band the IBOC signal that's centered 12-13khz is pretty much out in the open to travel until it's hit by another IBOC signal or some analog splatter from a stronger station. Decoding HD is another matter since the FM IBOC system needs to decode pretty much both side channels. Interfering with one sideband starts to cut into IBOC coverage.

It may get much more interesting when, and if, there are suddenly two (or more) sets of digital signals in those side bands to confuse things.

 

[clouseau]

Think about it a minute: Of course, the low signal IBOC AM (and FM!) signals travel greater distances than first thought! There are NO other signals to interfere with these "stations between the stations." On the AM band the IBOC signal that's centered 12-13khz is pretty much out in the open to travel until it's hit by another IBOC signal or some analog splatter from a stronger station. Decoding HD is another matter since the FM IBOC system needs to decode pretty much both side channels. Interfering with one sideband starts to cut into IBOC coverage.

This makes NO SENSE at all...unless you are claiming that the adjacent channel is more likely to be free of rf than the analog (Assuming you shut down the analog). It's just jibberish.

Clouseau

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Think about it a minute: Of course, the low signal IBOC AM (and FM!) signals travel greater distances than first thought! There are NO other signals to interfere with these "stations between the stations." On the AM band the IBOC signal that's centered 12-13khz is pretty much out in the open to travel until it's hit by another IBOC signal or some analog splatter from a stronger station. Decoding HD is another matter since the FM IBOC system needs to decode pretty much both side channels. Interfering with one sideband starts to cut into IBOC coverage.

This makes NO SENSE at all...unless you are claiming that the adjacent channel is more likely to be free of rf than the analog (Assuming you shut down the analog). It's just jibberish.

Clouseau

Sorry you still don't understand, and it's not "jibberish" to everyone else.
Maybe this often quoted conclusion from Clear Channel's Jeff Littlejohn will help:

Concerns
The current AM allocation rules require Co-Channel stations to provide 20:1
protections to each other and first adjacent channel stations to provide 2:1 protection to
each other. While this works fine in an all-analog environment, it does not seem to be
sufficient in the presence of IBOC. The energy above 10 KHz from the proposed Hybrid
IBOC signal significantly exceeds the energy present in the current analog AM signal.
For this reason, the amount of energy provided to a first adjacent station is significantly
more detrimental than our current allocation rules allow for.

Source:
http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Clearchannelrprt.pdf

 

[MasterTheseus]

That doesn't really matter, I think the major point is that we are not experiencing the same issues with our radios (HD) that BA seems to be, but then again, ours aren't discontinued. The HDT-1 will be by defacto simply because the HDT-1X seems to be the model of choice meaning people prefer it over the HDT-1 and thus sales for the HDT-1X have surpassed the HDT-1 enough to possibly discontinue.

Since you are with Sangean - can you tell me if the 1X still has C-Quam capability? I may buy one soon for its ANALOG reception capabilities, and we still have a C-Quam station here.

From my understanding ALL HD Radio products can decode C-Quam. People though that there was a change to this, but it turned out from the reports I have been hearing they simply turned off their C-Quam for some reason and are now up again.

 

[clouseau]

Sorry you still don't understand, and it's not "jibberish" to everyone else.
Maybe this often quoted conclusion from Clear Channel's Jeff Littlejohn will help:

Concerns
The current AM allocation rules require Co-Channel stations to provide 20:1
protections to each other and first adjacent channel stations to provide 2:1 protection to
each other. While this works fine in an all-analog environment, it does not seem to be
sufficient in the presence of IBOC. The energy above 10 KHz from the proposed Hybrid
IBOC signal significantly exceeds the energy present in the current analog AM signal.
For this reason, the amount of energy provided to a first adjacent station is significantly
more detrimental than our current allocation rules allow for.

Source:
http://topazdesigns.com/iboc/Clearchannelrprt.pdf

Soup, you are demonstrating your true level of understanding of the technical issues involved... AGAIN.

The quote by Littlejohn has some merit, no doubt. That you would think it would show how low power digital on a more crowded 2/1 adjacent would go furthur than full power analog protected at 20/1 just shows how little you really understand the technical issue.

Littlejohn's concerns have no relevance to this discussion. However you assertion is at least as valid as your "Makes FM sound like AM" garbage....

Are you attempting to fill in for Pocketradio?

Here comes the East Bay Express.

No wonder many of the better informed posters have lost interest here.

Clouseau

 

[vsa]

No wonder many of the better informed posters have lost interest here.

Clouseau

Many posters have lost interest here because EVERYTHING points to the reality that HD radio is dead. There are still a few diehards who refuse to admit it, that's all. HD radio wasn't even a speed bump on the public's radar screen. Everyone involved in the whole IBOC idea never bothered to ask actual listeners what they wanted - right in the middle of the greatest revolution in the history of communications.

 

[LinoNYC]

Everyone involved in the whole IBOC idea never bothered to ask actual listeners what they wanted

FWIW, in an unscientific manner that is what i have done since i started reading radio boards in early 1998. I have talked face-to-face about radio to well over a hundred people, mostly workers in my locations.


Of white late 'teens to early 30s the only Am station I can recall them mentioning was WINS, probably because of all the ads and billboards. AM is a non-issue with them because it sounds bad and is "for old people".

The Latino workers in my locations do listen to certain shows on AM but preferr FM for music and now that they have a station aimed at Mexican ex-pats (WQBU) the AM's will probably decline in areas where "Que Buena" can be heard.

With FM I find the criticism centers on wanting "better music" less commercials etc. Very little of a technical nature eventhough most of the time when I hear FM at their homes the reception is poor. People put up with it.

right in the middle of the greatest revolution in the history of communications.

In a sense you are correct, it would have been much better had this been introduced 10 years ago, nowadays it's sort like an improved payphone. But as I have stated before, IBOC receivers will become widspread if the tech can be economically embedded in common consumer radios. The example is digital tuning and stereo in a clock radio, not necessary but a selling point none the less.

If I had anyone's ear in marketing I'd suggest that the FM subs carry specialized programming for the flood of immigrants we have here.

Last weekend I repaired a Bose home theater system for a Mexican family I know. The unit was 3 years old and cost approx $2500. These people work at two or more jobs and spend on tech, iboc radio that offered programming that appeals to them and others such as Filipinos -a very affluent group of immigrants, would sell.

Sadly, broadcasters will probably ignore them and let wifi claim that niche.

Lino

 

[SUPERCASTER]

LinoNYC said:

Of white late 'teens to early 30s the only Am station I can recall them mentioning was WINS, probably because of all the ads and billboards. AM is a non-issue with them because it sounds bad and is "for old people".

HD-AM stations cutting their analog fidelity in half, adding hiss, noise and interference, then telling people they can buy that lost fidelity back by purchasing expensive new radios that get a few limited range HD AM signals, with no additional charge for the low bitrate encoding artifacts. That does not sound much like a winning, practical or rational strategy to revive the AM band.

 

[LinoNYC]

HD-AM stations cutting their analog fidelity in half, adding hiss, noise and interference, then telling people they can buy that lost fidelity back by purchasing expensive new radios that get a few limited range HD AM signals, with no additional charge for the low bitrate encoding artifacts. That does not sound much like a winning, practical or rational strategy to revive the AM band.

You are ignoring reality. AM has sounded poor to the public for almost 40 years. Where i live in New York City, in nearly every instance where an FM has adopted a music format it has defeated any AM station no matter how long that station had carried the format.
The sole exception to this was the case of a country station WHN(am) vs. WKHK (106.7) the explaination for this was the relative paucity of FM in trucks. WHN became all sports in 1986 and thereafter even country was fm dominant.

If you are in the industry see if you can find a friend who'll give you a copy of the NYC breakouts.

If after reading those you still think that AM's ill's aren't in need of something drastic, you might aswell stop commenting about radio alltogether.

Lino

 

[SUPERCASTER]

So you are still claiming cutting AM analog fidelity in half, adding digital hiss withadjacent channel interference and then peddling expensive new replacement HD radios to make up for the lost advertising revenue, is the only salvation for AM radio?
After years of trying and over $500,000,000 in advertising by iBiquity, supporters, and the HD cartel, less then 1% of the public has any intention of going into the stores for a listen, much less buying an HD radio.
With only the most microscopic chance of any measurable, sustainable, profitable HD-AM listenership in the next 10 years, the faulty short range HD radio system, increased noise and reduced coverage from digital HD radio, broadcasting (particularly AM) is promoting it's own demise.

 

[LinoNYC]

So you are still claiming cutting AM analog fidelity in half, adding digital hiss with adjacent channel interference and then peddling expensive new replacement HD radios to make up for the lost advertising revenue, is the only salvation for AM radio?

After all your bluster I notice that you have come up withnothing.

In recent history we have had; AM stereo and A-Max both failed because they didn't solve the perceived quality issue and the fact that most people these days won't pay for an AM-only solution.

Am noe has a small and dwindling fraction of radio listening in this country. The technical problems you and others claim pale when you look at the larger picture: AM radio is dying.

Here in market #1 all but one (WNYC) of the sub 50k AM have been taken over by religion, ethnic, leased time or some combination of both.

Three fo the 50K's are vanity outlets w/little or no measured audience: WBBR-1130, WQEW-1560, WEPN-1050. Two of those were once legendary stations with huge listenership.

Even the major news-talkers WABC and WOR have earnings that area fraction of what they once had if you adjust for inflation, both rely on syndicated feeds and rent out significant portion of their weekend airtime.



Personally, I would prefer to see the mask widened to 15K for analog and have receiver-based signal processing including strength based bandwidth and noise blanking.

The technology is readily available. The problem is that it's an AM only solution and like the other attempts it isn't likely to sell. IBOC offers a degree of improvement for both bands. Am if it is to survive as more than a minority player will have to ride along with an FM based solution.

If you have a better proposal make it. Otherwise you are just wasting our time.

Lino

 

[rbrucecarter5]

After all your bluster I notice that you have come up withnothing.

You know what - you are right. About the quality improvement doing NOTHING to help AM radio. So - how will quality improvement associated with HD help anything? The band is dying. The ethnic brokered stuff is about all that makes a go of it. The band IS irrelevant to people, especially younger ones. I myself hardly listen any more. My problem with the band: CONTENT. I was a top-40 listener. Now all the big top-40 stations of the past are gone. In their place, foreign language, brokered ethnic, talk, and sports. The only stations I still tune to are Radio Disney, a local standards station, and some little oldies stations. MUSIC stations. In English, thank you - foreign language stuff doesn't excite me. I pretty much dumped AM - not when FM started playing music - but when AM started playing talk. I don't care about it. I want to be entertained, and talk and sports don't entertain me.

So go ahead and put digital hash all over the band. It won't make much of a difference to me. I pretty much tuned out decades ago.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

So you are still claiming cutting AM analog fidelity in half, adding digital hiss with adjacent channel interference and then peddling expensive new replacement HD radios to make up for the lost advertising revenue, is the only salvation for AM radio?

After all your bluster I notice that you have come up withnothing.

In recent history we have had; AM stereo and A-Max both failed because they didn't solve the perceived quality issue and the fact that most people these days won't pay for an AM-only solution.

Am noe has a small and dwindling fraction of radio listening in this country. The technical problems you and others claim pale when you look at the larger picture: AM radio is dying.

Here in market #1 all but one (WNYC) of the sub 50k AM have been taken over by religion, ethnic, leased time or some combination of both.

Three fo the 50K's are vanity outlets w/little or no measured audience: WBBR-1130, WQEW-1560, WEPN-1050. Two of those were once legendary stations with huge listenership.

Even the major news-talkers WABC and WOR have earnings that area fraction of what they once had if you adjust for inflation, both rely on syndicated feeds and rent out significant portion of their weekend airtime.



Personally, I would prefer to see the mask widened to 15K for analog and have receiver-based signal processing including strength based bandwidth and noise blanking.

The technology is readily available. The problem is that it's an AM only solution and like the other attempts it isn't likely to sell. IBOC offers a degree of improvement for both bands. Am if it is to survive as more than a minority player will have to ride along with an FM based solution.

If you have a better proposal make it. Otherwise you are just wasting our time.

Lino

As I have said before (and you seem to agree with me at least for AM) a better proposal then HD radio would be to stay In Band (and) On Channel.

Instead of HD AM

Personally, I would prefer to see the mask widened to 15K for analog and have receiver-based signal processing including strength based bandwidth and noise blanking.

Instead of HD FM, use better coverage, spectrum efficient, non-jamming FMeXtra:
www.dreinc.com

HD radio is unnecessary, obsolete, expensive, short range, overly complex, proprietary, jamming and problematic, it is past time to move on to something better.

I'm so very glad I haven't been wasting anyone's precious time.