BA Recepter HD Antenna Question

[louisNatl]

Contrary to most of the opinions on this board, I have been very happy with my Boston Acoustics Recepter HD Radio over the past year. Many people that have visited my home are also amazed at the superior sound quality from such a small radio. I have the radio hooked up to my HDTV as part of a home entertainment system, and the radio definitely gives the TV a theater experience. Many people also agree that the HD radio sound quality is very good on some stations. Our local NPR/classical station sounds as if the orchestra is in the room with you. You can definitely hear more detail than with the analog feed. Other stations have little or no improved sound with HD (although this is not the fault of the radio). It seems as if they are just piping in the same analog signal on a digital platform.

Two of my friends have decided to get this radio for the Holidays and I may also get an extra radio for my bedroom. The only complaint that I have had with the radio has been reception. When I purchased the radio, a 6 inch pathetic excuse of an antenna wire was included. With it I wasn't even able to receive many analog stations, much less HD signals. After contacting BA, they mailed out a longer wire dipole T FM antenna which worked much better. The only problem is that I had to run the wire up the wall to get good reception. My radio was in my bedroom at the time. This was very ugly, and I know that my friends will not choose this option in their homes. Since the speakers in my HDTV are subpar, I decided to use the radio as an entertainment center option. To solve my antenna dilemma, I was able to split the RCA rabbit ears hidden behind the TV that I use to receive HDTV signals with the radio. With this setup I am able to receive all HD radio stations in the area (some are 40-50 miles away) and all of the HDTV signals. It took a couple of hours to fine tune the antennas and set everything up but it was worth it as I never have to touch it again.

My friends wish to use this radio in their bedrooms (on their nightstands) and they do not want ugly rabbit ears and dipole antennae as this could get very messy. I have found a few antennas at Radio Shack and C Crane but I do not know how well they work with pulling in HD signals...

http://www.ccrane.com/antennas/fm-antennas/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx#58

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

Many of the Terk antennas that Radio Shack carries seem to be more aesthetically acceptable but I don't know how well they work with this radio. I am interested in hearing from Recepter and other HD radio owners and what antennas you use.

Also, the AM reception is poor on this radio, even with the supplied loop antenna from BA. I have never been able to receive an AM HD station. While this isn't a big issue since most AM stations in my area are rebroadcasted on HD2 FM signals, I would like to improve it a little. Has anyone used this AM antenna?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

 

[hipporadio]

Contrary to most of the opinions on this board, I have been very happy with my Boston Acoustics Recepter HD Radio over the past year.

I OWN the ORIGINAL Boston Acoustics “Receptor” (mono non-HD) radio. In NO WAY can feedback on the “HD version” be allowed to diminish the audio quality and reception ability of the original model. I have owned one since early ’04 and have been impressed and fully satisfied. FM reception—second to none... AM—much above the “norm”... Audio quality—exceptional... This radio in its original creation was a “broadcasters’ dream come true”. One would be surprised to witness the “deaf” reception ability of the IBOC HD version—then compare it to the exceptional “original”—ONLY the gray plastic case is the same. I query WHY the BA folks entered this “fray”—only to find the very first product they have produced to be so maligned! This is a very good company, which has NEVER seen a product produced so suffer distain in internet reviews—and for very good reason. YES... Your HD Receptor DOES have very good audio (so does its mono non-HD cousin minus a speaker), but it pales miserably in its ability to snare both AM and FM signals... WHY? This is a question I suspect to understand but have no technical answer to... BA is “quiet”, and I’m wondering if they simply wish to escape “alive” after what appears to be a management “blunder” after a “long lunch” with some iBiquity types. I spent TEN DAYS with the newer HD version in a variety of urban/sub-politan/rural environments, and found NO justification for a “Joe Six-pack” to keep this $200.00 (sale-priced) radio. Simply—the reception performance stunck!

Our local NPR/classical station sounds as if the orchestra is in the room with you... It seems as if they are just piping in the same analog signal on a digital platform.

For MANY years (going back to the late 70s) I have had the opportunity to enjoy transmissions from two of the very best fine-arts stations on the FM band—WFMT (Chicago) and WGUC (Cincinnati). WFMT’s Alfred Antlitz even BUILT HIS OWN MODULATION LIMITER (The Antlizer) to achieve the quality he desired—interestingly they choose NOT to transmit IBOC to this day. I can assure you, my review of these audio signals on my heritage McIntosh MR-78 FM tuner (generally considered the finest available) reveals an impressive sound stage in non-IBOC analog. I CANNOT imagine that iBiquity has improved it! NO ONE has recently reported this albeit subjective.

The only complaint that I have had with the radio has been reception....

Well... I said this earlier—compared to its predecessor—it stinks! I have verified this (NOT in a lab mind you), but under “real world” reception conditions on AM and FM. I admit—it was ONLY my ears ‘n me, but the results were anything but flattering. If the opposite was true—I would have purchased the damn thing—I HAVEN’T!

The only problem is that I had to run the wire up the wall to get good reception. My radio was in my bedroom at the time. This was very ugly, and I know that my friends will not choose this option in their homes.... It took a couple of hours to fine tune the antennas and set everything up...

WOW... I operated a couple Class A 6kw FM stations back in the 90s... I only wish my intended listeners had put themselves to the trouble of that effort to get our less-than-illusive 60bBu signal into the front-ends of their “table” FM receivers back then (which were generally better). Seems to require a whopping 70dBu for HD reception on current FM receivers to turn on the HD mode. I'm thinking way back... What a beautiful world it would have been back in 1995 in that great analog era where 60dBu was king (many of us hoped for 54dBu)--and we had better audio than most FMs offer today with their digital "wonder boxes"! Do you REALLY believe many listeners are scoping signals like that today. If HD succeeds within that paradigm—let’s all rush out and get a LPFM—but keep it in analog—we’ll get about the same coverage!

I have found a few antennas at Radio Shack and C Crane but I do not know how well they work with pulling in HD signals... http://www.ccrane.com/antennas/fm-antennas/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx#58

I grew up in a rural area served (at best) by 54dBu signals from “metro” FMs 50-60 miles away. We HAD to do that (and more)—but that was 1975... A LOT is different now. The current listener demonstrates an overwhelming disposition toward effortless “instant gratification”... Do you believe they are really going to adopt my 30-year-old antenna stringing habits so they can TRY to decode non-gratifying IBOC?

Also, the AM reception is poor on this radio, even with the supplied loop antenna from BA. I have never been able to receive an AM HD station. While this isn't a big issue since most AM stations in my area are rebroadcasted on HD2 FM signals...

AM IBOC is a TOTAL FAILURE... DEFECTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE... I CAN’T find ANYTHING beyond a “ZERO sum gain”. There is NO REASON for it to be modulating an AM transmitter. MASSIVE (and “illegal”) interference to adjacent stations—degraded analog audio—and “HD” that resembles 1996 RealAudio 2.0... OH MY... This makes so much sense!

 

[700WLW]

Two of my friends have decided to get this radio for the Holidays and I may also get an extra radio for my bedroom. The only complaint that I have had with the radio has been reception. When I purchased the radio, a 6 inch pathetic excuse of an antenna wire was included. With it I wasn't even able to receive many analog stations, much less HD signals. After contacting BA, they mailed out a longer wire dipole T FM antenna which worked much better. The only problem is that I had to run the wire up the wall to get good reception. My radio was in my bedroom at the time. This was very ugly, and I know that my friends will not choose this option in their homes. Since the speakers in my HDTV are subpar, I decided to use the radio as an entertainment center option. To solve my antenna dilemma, I was able to split the RCA rabbit ears hidden behind the TV that I use to receive HDTV signals with the radio. With this setup I am able to receive all HD radio stations in the area (some are 40-50 miles away) and all of the HDTV signals. It took a couple of hours to fine tune the antennas and set everything up but it was worth it as I never have to touch it again.

No wonder, HD radios are selling like hot cakes !

 

[louisNatl]

No wonder, HD radios are selling like hot cakes !

I agree that HD radio needs to work out the reception issue to make it a viable option for consumers. However, didn't FM go through similar challenges at it's inception? I am too young so I didn't experience it, but from what I heard many radio experts thought FM would never succeed. AM allows for more stations, AM signals travel farther (especially at night), etc. Of course some people use the same argument with HDTV as the signals are not as strong as analog and are not forgiving to multipath. I am not a cheerleader for HD radio, but I do enjoy the quality sound and I think it has at least some potential. If nothing else, at least the industry is attempting to innovate and offer us more choices.

I in no way claim to be experts like you guys are. This sounds like a good discussion for a new thread. So, back to the original question, does anybody have any input on antennas??

 

[700WLW]

I am not even in the broadcast industry, and far from being any type of expert - I am just a troll, in search of the death of HD Radio/IBOC. FM was something totally new, when it appeared, but HD Radio/IBOC is just a sub-standard re-make of the same old tiring technology - that is why, among other things, that there is total public apathy towards HD Radio.

 

[louisNatl]

I am not even in the broadcast industry, and far from being any type of expert - I am just a troll, in search of the death of HD Radio/IBOC. FM was something totally new, when it appeared, but HD Radio/IBOC is just a sub-standard re-make of the same old tiring technology - that is why, among other things, that there is total public apathy towards HD Radio.

I understand your point about HD radio. However, many people in my area have heard of it and are very interested. This may be due to the fact that almost every FM station in this market broadcasts in HD (and the signals are easily received throughout this area). Also, there is so much overlapping of formats in this market, people are desperate for some variety even if the technology isn't perfect.

Personally, I like satellite radio better, but I am concerned that it may not survive because both companies are heavily in debt, have high churn rates, and are not gaining many new subscribers.

 

[w9wi]

...
My friends wish to use this radio in their bedrooms (on their nightstands) and they do not want ugly rabbit ears and dipole antennae as this could get very messy. I have found a few antennas at Radio Shack and C Crane but I do not know how well they work with pulling in HD signals...

http://www.ccrane.com/antennas/fm-antennas/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx#58

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

Many of the Terk antennas that Radio Shack carries seem to be more aesthetically acceptable but I don't know how well they work with this radio. I am interested in hearing from Recepter and other HD radio owners and what antennas you use.

The C Crane "Reflect" antennas are essentially the same thing as the "T" dipoles. There's good theory behind them - they aren't the best antennas in the world but they're probably the best you're going to get indoors. (unless you're willing to use a rooftop antenna inside the house! - don't laugh too loud, some of us have<grin>)

The price is a bit steep but not too far out of line. If you could find some old flat TV antenna leadin wire, you could make your own.

I'm leery of the Radio Shack "Gamma Loop" antenna. There are essentially no details. My guess is it's the same thing as the antenna that comes with the radio, but with an amplifier snuck inside. Unfortunately for indoor reception, noise and interference - not weak signals - are usually the impediment to good reception (yes, even digital reception) and the amplifier is going to amplify the noise & interference right along with the desired signals. On the other hand, it's cheap, so you aren't out too many $$$ when it doesn't work...

Also, the AM reception is poor on this radio, even with the supplied loop antenna from BA. I have never been able to receive an AM HD station. While this isn't a big issue since most AM stations in my area are rebroadcasted on HD2 FM signals, I would like to improve it a little. Has anyone used this AM antenna?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

The Terk Advantage on the other hand is worth a try. A similar antenna ("Select-A-Tenna") was sold for years, largely to DXers. Basically it's the same as the loop provided
with the set, only bigger. You use it in conjunction with the provided loop.

I wouldn't be too horribly optimistic it'll work though. I live 20 miles from a 50,000-watt (analog) HD AM station, and have never been able to receive the HD audio for more than two seconds on *any* indoor antenna. My 130-foot ham antenna, on the other hand, works fine<grin>. (I never listen, as I can't stand the station's format... and it's the only AM HD station within range)

===========================

I'm surprised a bit to see a post denigrating the *analog* reception ability of the Receptor HD.

I, too, am quite disappointed by the coverage of HD radio. (having to position the rabbit ears **just right** to get the HD signal of a 47,000-watt station 20 miles away is not going to fly...)

But I've found the FM analog performance superb. Especially the selectivity - the ability to slice stations on nearby frequencies. It's especially good at splitting the adjacent frequencies to local HD stations. (if every radio could suddenly magically achieve the Receptor HD's ability to split off adjacent HD stations, I think DXers' objections to IBOC would vanish) It's also quite sensitive. 350-mile reception on my TV antenna 15' up - not bad!

The AM is pretty good too, *except* that the set has a serious self-interference problem.

 

[louisNatl]

Thank you w9wi for your feedback on the antennas. I went through several antennas for local HDTV reception before I found the Radio Shack 15-1880 http://htpc.threesixty.cc/2006/02/28/radio-shack-15-1880-antenna-rocks/ which is easy to tune and works flawlessly with no multipath issues. Fortunately, it also works well with the Recepter as I can receive every HD FM and HD2 station in the Atlanta area. Unfortunately, this antenna has been discontinued for another less favorable model. I will probably end up getting the Accurian since it has better reception than the Recepter and the household boss will not tolerate such an antenna set in the bedroom I will be testing a few antennas and post the results here.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I am not even in the broadcast industry, and far from being any type of expert - I am just a troll, in search of the death of HD Radio/IBOC. FM was something totally new, when it appeared, but HD Radio/IBOC is just a sub-standard re-make of the same old tiring technology - that is why, among other things, that there is total public apathy towards HD Radio.

I understand your point about HD radio. However, many people in my area have heard of it and are very interested. This may be due to the fact that almost every FM station in this market broadcasts in HD (and the signals are easily received throughout this area). Also, there is so much overlapping of formats in this market, people are desperate for some variety even if the technology isn't perfect.

Personally, I like satellite radio better, but I am concerned that it may not survive because both companies are heavily in debt, have high churn rates, and are not gaining many new subscribers.

Your typical rooftop FM/TV antenna should work for FM HD Radio. I'm afraid there is no such easy "one size fits all" solution for HD AM.
I would be much more wary about the survival of HD Radio then satellite radio. HD Radio has virtually no revenue, no subscribers, or listeners (only thousands of HD radios sold in about 3 years), and no final FCC approval. Coupled with the frequent format changes, and massive personnel layoffs of over the air broadcasters, your favorite HD radio stations may not survive for long.

 

[w9wi]

Thank you w9wi for your feedback on the antennas. I went through several antennas for local HDTV reception before I found the Radio Shack 15-1880 http://htpc.threesixty.cc/2006/02/28/radio-shack-15-1880-antenna-rocks/ which is easy to tune and works flawlessly with no multipath issues. Fortunately, it also works well with the Recepter as I can receive every HD FM and HD2 station in the Atlanta area. Unfortunately, this antenna has been discontinued for another less favorable model. I will probably end up getting the Accurian since it has better reception than the Recepter and the household boss will not tolerate such an antenna set in the bedroom I will be testing a few antennas and post the results here.

In general, what makes a good VHF-TV antenna also makes a good antenna for FM reception, and what makes a good antenna for analog reception (both radio and TV) makes a good antenna for digital reception.

The review I've read on the Accurian is that reception is very similar to that of the Boston Acoustics. (I have not however read a comprehensive review of the Accurian's performance on *analog* stations) I did own an Accurian digital *TV* receiver for a few months & it worked well. (sold it when I bought a Humax that had certain features useful for DXing. For a regular viewer there was little difference between the two.)

As "Supercaster" says, AM HD is going to be a problem. Unless you live within maybe 20 miles of the transmitters and the stations are at the bottom of the dial (closer, if they're higher on the dial) you're probably going to **NEED** an outdoor antenna for reliable reception. If HD catches on (and I highly doubt it will) stations are going to *have* to do what your locals are doing -- put their AM programs on HD2/HD3 channels of co-owned FMs -- because IMHO AM HD simply *will not* work in most markets.

I wouldn't be any more certain about HD surviving in the long run than satellite. Satellite customers FAR, FAR outnumber HD buyers, even if you do account for churn. I concur with Supercaster's implication (I think) that the "bean counters" will find HD at the top of the stack when they look for items to cut from the budget.

(I do think that final FCC approval of HD FM is simply a formality. I think it's being held up by their inability to come up with a way to authorize 24/7 HD AM.)

 

[louisNatl]

I wouldn't be any more certain about HD surviving in the long run than satellite. Satellite customers FAR, FAR outnumber HD buyers, even if you do account for churn. I concur with Supercaster's implication (I think) that the "bean counters" will find HD at the top of the stack when they look for items to cut from the budget.

(I do think that final FCC approval of HD FM is simply a formality. I think it's being held up by their inability to come up with a way to authorize 24/7 HD AM.)

I agree about satellite radio as I am an XM subscriber myself. They do have more subscribers and definitely more listeners than HD radio. However, many financial analysts are concerned that the satellite radio companies may never be able to make a profit with the large amount of debt. I am not knowledgeable of the financial side, but it seems that HD radio has the advantage in that they are not required to pay royalties for songs played and the side stations are piggybacked off the main station. The expensive FCC license for the station has already been purchased and there is no huge expense of keeping satellites in the sky. On the flip side, satellite radio has blanket coverage across the country which HD radio will never achieve. Satellite radio and HD radio must be successful! The competition can only make things better.

When I purchased the Recepter, I realized that HD radio might not catch on. One friend mentioned that I might as well purchase a laser disc player. However, I purchased the Recepter because of the high quality sound. It sounded as good as my father's Bose stereo system that cost twice as much even with just piping in the TV through the Auxiliary excluding the HD. Also, BA makes good quality products. I am sure this product will last me a lifetime, even if HD doesn't.

I don't think I will put forth much effort in trying to receive HD AM signals. We only have two HD AM stations in the Atlanta market that are only 1K and I don't really care to listen. Our most popular station WSB is a subchannel of a sister FM.

Also, this is going a little off topic but here is an article on the financial troubles of satellite radio: http://www.slate.com/id/2155114/fr/rss/

 

[calstymes]

w9wi proclaimed:

(I do think that final FCC approval of HD FM is simply a formality. I think it's being held up by their inability to come up with a way to authorize 24/7 HD AM.)

HD AM should be banned and outlawed by the FCC. There is nothing even remotely redeeming about this technology and all it does it interfere with the smaller guys. The FCC will NEVER be able to authorize iBiQuiTy AM HD for 24 hour operation as long as we still have analog radio (unless a backdoor deal is made behind everyone's back and that is CERTAINLY possible).

And I hope that we will ALWAYS have analog radio. Because analog radio is REAL radio. This digital stuff is simply rebranded cellphone technology and it doesn't even sound real. Cellphone technology is not REAL radio.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

louisNatl said:

I agree about satellite radio as I am an XM subscriber myself. They do have more subscribers and definitely more listeners than HD radio. However, many financial analysts are concerned that the satellite radio companies may never be able to make a profit with the large amount of debt. I am not knowledgeable of the financial side, but it seems that HD radio has the advantage in that they are not required to pay royalties for songs played and the side stations are piggybacked off the main station. The expensive FCC license for the station has already been purchased and there is no huge expense of keeping satellites in the sky. On the flip side, satellite radio has blanket coverage across the country which HD radio will never achieve. Satellite radio and HD radio must be successful! The competition can only make things better.

Point #1-
The RIAA and others have filed lawsuits and have congressional hearings to get iBiquity/HD Radio's digital streams to pay similar royalties to digital internet streams, and satellite radio. They claim the "compulsory license" that analog broadcasting traditionally enjoys is not applicable to the new digital HD Radio streams. They seem to be making their point. If the RIAA prevails, HD Radio broadcasters will have to begin to pay for play, and HD's future would be seriously in doubt.
Point #2-
iBiquity HD requires much new transmission equipment to buy, power, and maintain, plus royalties and fees to iBiquity for the use of it's proprietary digital HD system.

 

[louisNatl]

Point #1-
The RIAA and others have filed lawsuits and have congressional hearings to get iBiquity/HD Radio's digital streams to pay similar royalties to digital internet streams, and satellite radio. They claim the "compulsory license" that analog broadcasting traditionally enjoys is not applicable to the new digital HD Radio streams. They seem to be making their point. If the RIAA prevails, HD Radio broadcasters will have to begin to pay for play, and HD's future would be seriously in doubt.
Point #2-
iBiquity HD requires much new transmission equipment to buy, power, and maintain, plus royalties and fees to iBiquity for the use of it's proprietary digital HD system.

Those are good points. I have never understood why XM and Sirius are required to pay high royalties and local radio isn't. This gives local radio (and IBOC right now) a distinct advantage even though it is an unfair one. The RIAA is very powerful but so is the NAB. They will probably reach a mutually agreed settlement that requires stations to play so many Brittany songs an hour or whoever the new artists is at the time. Also, isn't the RIAA demanding higher royalties from XM now?

I remember when XM and Sirius introduced the traffic and weather channels for select cities, the NAB was very concerned. They lobbied congress to pass a bill that requires satellite radio to be a national only service. Some of our congress members supported the bill because they were worried that satellite would take listeners from local stations and therefore forcing them out of business. In the event of a critical disaster or emergency, communities would have no local station for receiving critical information. Surprisingly, none of the Congress members were concerned that Clear Channel already did this with their voice tracking and automation systems. I believe this bill failed, because XM proved them wrong by dedicating a Emergency Red Cross channel after Katrina. Many victims used this service for information since most of the local stations were damaged by the storm.

Regarding the upgrade and equipment costs, I would think they could not be too expensive. Many college, public radio, and low power stations have upgraded to IBOC. I have heard that the initial royalties to iBiquity are minimal but could become more expensive in the future. Maybe an industry insider could post a breakdown of the costs for us.

 

[hipporadio]

I in no way claim to be experts like you guys are...
Anybody have any input on antennas??

While a radio enthusiast and prior operator, I cannot claim to be an “expert” without doing a serious disservice to about a half-dozen others here with training and job experience that vastly outpaces my own. As I was preparing a response to your antenna question citing my own personal experience—w9wi posted his advice to you. It was identical to my own observations on the products you questioned.

I have found a few antennas at Radio Shack and C Crane but I do not know how well they work with pulling in HD signals...

http://www.ccrane.com/antennas/fm-antennas/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx#58

The C Crane "Reflect" antennas are essentially the same thing as the "T" dipoles. There's good theory behind them - they aren't the best antennas in the world but they're probably the best you're going to get indoors.

I own (or have installed) five of the Crane “Reflect” FM antennas—and they are indeed “glorified dipoles”; but they are very well made, substantial yet tactile, and allegedly “tuned like a fine musical instrument” (you can even choose your color). I’ve used them on two BA mono Recteptors, a Tivoli Audio “Kloss” AM/FM analog-tuned table radio, a bookshelf Sony radio/CD mini component system, and my own home A/V system featuring a “classic” McIntosh component FM tuner—ALL with very good results considering the limitations of an indoor ground-level antenna.

I'm leery of the Radio Shack "Gamma Loop" antenna... My guess is it's the same thing as the antenna that comes with the radio, but with an amplifier snuck inside. Unfortunately for indoor reception, noise and interference - not weak signals - are usually the impediment to good reception (yes, even digital reception) and the amplifier is going to amplify the noise & interference right along with the desired signals.

Run away as fast as you can! I have seen many better designed and more costly “amplified indoor antennas” (from the likes of even product-specific companies like Terk) fail to provide any improvement in FM reception. I’ve tried them—and returned them quickly for the very reasons outlined by w9wi above.

Also, the AM reception is poor on this radio, even with the supplied loop antenna from BA. I have never been able to receive an AM HD station. I would like to improve it a little. Has anyone used this AM antenna?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

I have two Terk “AM Advantage” antennas—one I use in conjunction with the external 10-cent loop provided with my Carver TX-11b tuner—the other on the Tivoli “Kloss” radio I noted above. The Carver offers exceptional AM audio quality—multiple bandwidths/de-emphasis, a very high quality low-distortion detector, and C-QUAM AM stereo—but it is “deaf” without a substantial external antenna. The Terk unit allows for very good (but not DX) reception with minimal noise pickup. My second “AM Advantage” transformed the lackluster Tivoli AM section (with a tiny built-in ferrite bar and no external antenna connections) into a nearly-DX class receiver by simply setting it atop the wood case of the radio.

This antenna was designed with some reasonable aesthetics—it’s not “ugly”. Also, you can use it in a few creative ways to lower electrical noise in the room. It will require retuning every time you change stations. It features a “direct wire connect” to your tuner’s AM antenna terminals—but ALWAYS use it with that receiver’s supplied external loop for the best results.

Signal improvement will vary depending on the radio's design. Generally, the lower-performing receivers will benefit the most... An exception is the Boston Acoustics mono and HD Receptor... The mono version’s above-average AM sensitivity improves noticeably with the Terk antenna sitting beside it—as does the less-sensitive HD version—but NOT enough to engage elusive IBOC reception from any but the very strongest signals.