Fantastic Indoor HD antenna: BUY THE SILVER RIBBON!

[700WLW]

Have ya' ever seen an HD Radio with a whip? There haven't been any portables yet! Table Radios, home tuners, etc don't have "whips".

My guess is that a whip "monopole" will work as well for FM HD as it does for FM Stereo. In fact I proved it a few minutes ago by connecting a pair of rabbit ears to my radio, and retracting one of the radiators completely. Voila! A "whip" antenna. Oriented properly, the antenna wasn't noticably worse than the dipole. WDAV, from 70 miles away, still came in great. As did WLYT, complete with multicast, from 80 miles away. WDAV's analog signal is pretty darn good here, but WLYT's is noisy, and clean (analog) stereo isn't possible, but HD IS...with a whip, Dude!

Apples and oranges again. "Whips" are used almost entirely on portables. Wait for the portables, Dude! Wait for the portables (sigh!)

There will be no portable HD radios, for the forseeable future, due to power consumption requirements - that brings up a good point, in that dipole antennas are needed to receive the HD channels (they run at only 1/100th the power of the main analog signal, so HD channel reception will always be an issue), so what you gonna du - walk around with a 7-foot dipole antenna outside hooked up to a portable HD Radio ? Whip antennas don't work for HD radios !

"Recepter Gets Another Antenna"

"Because of the cliff effect of digital, we did hear comments from some stations and listeners through stations that couldn't get the FM to work on HD, he said. NPR Labs is the networks' research arm providing data to public radio stations... The Recepter experience is being watched closely by an industry eager to know how HD Radio will be perceived by consumers... To that criticism, Jeff Cowan, director of training and product support said, the decision to include that antenna was not driven by cost, but rather by determining whether the product met performance criteria with the least intrusive antenna... T-shaped wires end up not being used in many homes, Cowan said. People think the dipole is ugly."

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/2006.05.10-02_rw_hd_recepter_antenna_3.shtml

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Mike Walker said:

This summer and fall, receivers have become available. NOW the promotion (of HD Radio) has just begun.

Only now is it fair to BEGIN measurement of the public's reaction.

Repeating the same old HD baloney, in order to hype, promote, and peddle defective HD radios, and interfering technology, that the public has no interest in, and has rejected, isn't working. Try listening, instead of crucifying the messengers.

Where have you been the last several years?

Quote
LAS VEGAS, Jan. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- International Consumer Electronics Show -- iBiquity Digital Corporation announced today that an Iowa buyer became "first in the nation" to purchase an HD Radio tuner. Nathan Franzen purchased a Kenwood KTC-HR100 HD Radio tuner from the Ultimate Electronics store in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Monday, January 5, 2004.
Quote
The sale comes on the eve of HD Radio's commercial introduction during this week's 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and follows a decade of development and testing by iBiquity and its numerous industry partners with the FCC approving the technology for broadcaster use in October 2002.
On January 5, 2007, less then one month from now, that will make 3 years since the first HD Radio was sold, and almost 5 years since iBiquity/HD Radio broadcasting began.
Here is the link:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/ibiquity.html

From:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,44951.msg397040.html#msg397040
Your campaign to get everyone to connect all their radios to external AM and FM antennas is also a failure.

 

[clouseau]

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,44951.msg397040.html#msg397040
Your campaign to get everyone to connect all their radios to external AM and FM antennas is also a failure.

Huh??? Where did THAT come from...

...defective HD radios, and interfering technology, that the public has no interest in, and has rejected..

Help... Can someone tell me what this post is about. The reference points to a post which has nothing to do with antennas. And a rant about defective radios. All we're missing is the "Arrest Ibiquity Executives" and and "Farse".

Clouseau

 

[TheRover]

I use the "T" antenna included with the RS Accurian HD Radio. I live in the middle fo the DFW Mertoplex, and get good FM reception. The "T" antenna is mounted at the corner of the room to take advantage of the right angle.

As for AM reception, the Loop Antenna included does the job nicely. The one AM music station broadcaasting in HD sounds wonderful ! What a difference HD makes when listening to KAAM 770!

Perhaps some music loving folks can get ahold of some AM stations, and we can finally get to hear some wonderful music, you know, the wonderful music that BIG Budget Coporate Radio Networks can't dare risk to play, something other than the greatly homoginzed slop P.A.ed to Americans coast to coast.......

There is Hope..... Unles the FCC undermines completely the Public Airwaves...

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Mike Walker said:

This summer and fall, receivers have become available. NOW the promotion (of HD Radio) has just begun.

Only now is it fair to BEGIN measurement of the public's reaction.

[size=10pt]Repeating the same old HD baloney, in order to hype, promote, and peddle defective HD radios, and interfering technology, that the public has no interest in, and has rejected, isn't working. Try listening, instead of crucifying the messengers.[/size]

Where have you been the last several years?

Quote
LAS VEGAS, Jan. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- International Consumer Electronics Show -- iBiquity Digital Corporation announced today that an Iowa buyer became "first in the nation" to purchase an HD Radio tuner. Nathan Franzen purchased a Kenwood KTC-HR100 HD Radio tuner from the Ultimate Electronics store in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Monday, January 5, 2004.
Quote
The sale comes on the eve of HD Radio's commercial introduction during this week's 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and follows a decade of development and testing by iBiquity and its numerous industry partners with the FCC approving the technology for broadcaster use in October 2002.
On January 5, 2007, less then one month from now, that will make 3 years since the first HD Radio was sold, and almost 5 years since iBiquity/HD Radio broadcasting began.
Here is the link:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/ibiquity.html

From:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,44951.msg397040.html#msg397040
Your campaign to get everyone to connect all their radios to external AM and FM antennas is also a failure.

Clouseau quoted, then commented:

Your campaign to get everyone to connect all their radios to external AM and FM antennas is also a failure.


Huh??? Where did THAT come from...

As clearly stated at the beginning, from the same Mike Walker posts, on this thread, which also included his quite lengthily antenna rants (both the antennas AND the rants were lengthly), and were not worth all the space of repeating.
I believe, that Mike's point was, optimal AM, and FM stereo reception, needs good antennas.
Answer-I agree!
But most listeners are satisfied with the AM and FM reception they are now getting, without the large, cumbersome, unsightly, inconvenient, external antennas that are usually directional and often require re-orientation for optimal reception of stations from different directions.

Apparently clouseau did not bother to read the whole thread. Shame, Shame.

 

[Mike Walker]

ARRGH! Yes HD has only 100th the power of the main signal. So it's actually remarkable that it holds for 70, 80 miles and counting. Wait...satellites have perhaps a thousandth of the power of analog fm, and their signal travels THOUSANDS of miles (from space to earth-based antennas). VHF FREQUENCIES AND ABOVE ARE LINE OF SIGHT! While power is important, it's not the be-all and end-all of coverage. ANTENNA HEIGHT is!

Not only that, digital REQUIRES far less power. It's not necessary to retrieve clean analog information from the background noise...only to be able to tell the difference between a one and a zero. That's it! And that can be done as well with a 10db snr as a 100db one!

 

[700WLW]

ARRGH! Yes HD has only 100th the power of the main signal. So it's actually remarkable that it holds for 70, 80 miles and counting. Wait...satellites have perhaps a thousandth of the power of analog fm, and their signal travels THOUSANDS of miles (from space to earth-based antennas). VHF FREQUENCIES AND ABOVE ARE LINE OF SIGHT! While power is important, it's not the be-all and end-all of coverage. ANTENNA HEIGHT is!

Not only that, digital REQUIRES far less power. It's not necessary to retrieve clean analog information from the background noise...only to be able to tell the difference between a one and a zero. That's it! And that can be done as well with a 10db snr as a 100db one!

ARRGH - look at all the adjacent-channel interference HD Radio/IBOC is causing on the broadcast bands ! Funny, the new, but not better, digital cell phones are always dropping calls, unlike the old analog cell phones, and with digital, one gets the nasty digital artifacts !

 

[Black_Shire]

ARRGH! Yes HD has only 100th the power of the main signal. So it's actually remarkable that it holds for 70, 80 miles and counting. Wait...satellites have perhaps a thousandth of the power of analog fm, and their signal travels THOUSANDS of miles (from space to earth-based antennas). VHF FREQUENCIES AND ABOVE ARE LINE OF SIGHT! While power is important, it's not the be-all and end-all of coverage. ANTENNA HEIGHT is!

Not only that, digital REQUIRES far less power. It's not necessary to retrieve clean analog information from the background noise...only to be able to tell the difference between a one and a zero. That's it! And that can be done as well with a 10db snr as a 100db one!

ARRGH - look at all the adjacent-channel interference HD Radio/IBOC is causing on the broadcast bands ! Funny, the new, but not better, digital cell phones are always dropping calls, unlike the old analog cell phones, and with digital, one gets the nasty digital artifacts !

You can certainly tell the difference between digital and analog cellular telephones when listening to talk radio callers, as can the talk hosts. Digital cell phones often make the callers sound like they're "talking under water" when they aren't cutting in and out, whereas analog cell phones usually only experience momentary fading that usually doesn't render the audio unintelligible. Art Bell often asks callers if they're on digital cell phones when the "talking under water" sound starts, and when he loses them he says something like, "There's the wonder of digital technology for you."


-- Black Shire

 

[Mike Walker]

'scuse me, but is this a cell phone forum? Of course digital isn't perfect. DUH! It's all or nothin'. Which is why it may not be the best technology for cell phones, and certainly isn't robust enough to ever (in my opinion) turn analog fm off. We need it as a backup. But when it (HD Radio...what we're talking about. I don't even use a cell phone!) works, it locks solid, and performs! And in the real world, the fm system isn't hurting a damn thing!

Now I'll grant you the AM system has a nightmarish component to it, but the FM system is in operation on over a thousand stations NOW, including most of the full power stations in large markets surrounding me. The result (in terms of interference on analog radios)? "Nuttin' honey!"

Of course you can see the digital sidebands on test equipment. All that confirms is that it's there...it exists. Listening on real radios is the test! A test HD Radio passes with flying colors!

 

[Mike Walker]

Oh silly me...thinking antennas are relevant to a discussion of radio. How evil of me to suggest radio listeners connect to an antenna! Horrid! Frightening! Hide the children! YIKES! We must protect ourselves from this evil campaign!

I apologizing for having the audacity to think antennas were relevant to a discussion of radio! And to believe that others might benefit from my POSITIVE experience with reception of the defective "farse" of HD Radio. Why, I must have the only properly functioning unit in existance. Either that, or someone's full of......

 

[700WLW]

Oh silly me...thinking antennas are relevant to a discussion of radio. How evil of me to suggest radio listeners connect to an antenna! Horrid! Frightening! Hide the children! YIKES! We must protect ourselves from this evil campaign!

I apologizing for having the audacity to think antennas were relevant to a discussion of radio! And to believe that others might benefit from my POSITIVE experience with reception of the defective "farse" of HD Radio. Why, I must have the only properly functioning unit in existance. Either that, or someone's full of......

 

[Black_Shire]

'scuse me, but is this a cell phone forum? Of course digital isn't perfect. DUH! It's all or nothin'. Which is why it may not be the best technology for cell phones, and certainly isn't robust enough to ever (in my opinion) turn analog fm off. We need it as a backup. But when it (HD Radio...what we're talking about. I don't even use a cell phone!) works, it locks solid, and performs! And in the real world, the fm system isn't hurting a damn thing!

Now I'll grant you the AM system has a nightmarish component to it, but the FM system is in operation on over a thousand stations NOW, including most of the full power stations in large markets surrounding me. The result (in terms of interference on analog radios)? "Nuttin' honey!"

Of course you can see the digital sidebands on test equipment. All that confirms is that it's there...it exists. Listening on real radios is the test! A test HD Radio passes with flying colors!

A description of digital cell phone vs. analog cell phone signal reception is indeed relevant, as it mirrors the same receiver behavior differences under weak-signal conditions as the differences between weak-signal analog radio and HD radio reception. Since a lot more people have cell phones than HD radios, the digital vs. analog cell phone example is one with which they would be familiar.

Also, I'm ambivalent about HD FM, because I don't listen to FM. HD AM, however, should be quickly and mercifully put down...


-- Black Shire

 

[700WLW]

My wife tried to call me three times in-a-row today, but each time the call dropped, and we are even in a major-metropolitan area (Wash., D.C.).

 

[Mike Walker]

It sure as hell doesn't mirror the same behavior! If you'd actually used an HD Radio you'd realize the signal is either there in full fidelity, or it's gone. There is no in between (and there are many "in betweens" with digital cell phones...as less and less information gets through, the signal becomes progressively more plagued by artifacts. Sometimes it gets better again. Sometimes it degrades until it goes awa


HD radio is more like other forms of HIGH FIDELITY digital audio...cds/etc. The signal is there fully, or gone. NOT AT ALL like cell phones. Cell phones allow "re-negotiation" to a lower bitrate as the signal degrades (the cause of the artifacts). So you're right. It is EXACTLY the same. Except for the (numerous) differences!

 

[700WLW]

It sure as hell doesn't mirror the same behavior! If you'd actually used an HD Radio you'd realize the signal is either there in full fidelity, or it's gone. There is no in between (and there are many "in betweens" with digital cell phones...as less and less information gets through, the signal becomes progressively more plagued by artifacts. Sometimes it gets better again. Sometimes it degrades until it goes awa


HD radio is more like other forms of HIGH FIDELITY digital audio...cds/etc. The signal is there fully, or gone. NOT AT ALL like cell phones. Cell phones allow "re-negotiation" to a lower bitrate as the signal degrades (the cause of the artifacts). So you're right. It is EXACTLY the same. Except for the (numerous) differences!

You have really missed the point - with digital devices, it is all-or-nothing, where as with analog, there is only fading. Try re-reading the posts again.

 

[Mike Walker]

I have not missed the point. YOU HAVE, 700WLW. All digital devices don't behave the same. Some ("SureStream" by RealAudio for one, digital cell phones for another) are designed to continue functioning when bandwidth shrinks...as with internet slowdowns, and interference to digital cell phones. Under these conditions, they don't just "stop". Instead, they keep functioning, but with reduced audio quality (and weird sounding artifacts)...EXACTLY AS I DESCRIBED.

My mom has a damn PCS phone. When I'm talking to her, frequently her voice gets weirder, and weirder as she encounters interference, until I finally have to say "Mom I have no idea what you're saying, I have to call you back". The calls aren't just "dropped". In fact around here dropping of digital calls is pretty rare (we must have lots of cell towers for such a rural area), but weird digital artifacts are as common as ugly on a pig (hey...I live in the country!)

Perhaps YOU should reread MY posts. This IS how digital cell phones react under less than ideal conditions around here, IN MY EXPERIENCE! You know...esperience...what someone must have in order to have a reasoned opinion!

 

[700WLW]

I have not missed the point. YOU HAVE, 700WLW. All digital devices don't behave the same. Some ("SureStream" by RealAudio for one, digital cell phones for another) are designed to continue functioning when bandwidth shrinks...as with internet slowdowns, and interference to digital cell phones. Under these conditions, they don't just "stop". Instead, they keep functioning, but with reduced audio quality (and weird sounding artifacts)...EXACTLY AS I DESCRIBED.

My mom has a damn PCS phone. When I'm talking to her, frequently her voice gets weirder, and weirder as she encounters interference, until I finally have to say "Mom I have no idea what you're saying, I have to call you back". The calls aren't just "dropped". In fact around here dropping of digital calls is pretty rare (we must have lots of cell towers for such a rural area), but weird digital artifacts are as common as ugly on a pig (hey...I live in the country!)

Perhaps YOU should reread MY posts. This IS how digital cell phones react under less than ideal conditions around here, IN MY EXPERIENCE! You know...esperience...what someone must have in order to have a reasoned opinion!

You are trying to twist my words, in order to discredit me ! Digital is an inferior technology to analog, with dropped signals for both cell phones and HD Radio.

 

[clouseau]

You have really missed the point - with digital devices, it is all-or-nothing, where as with analog, there is only fading. Try re-reading the posts again.

Rereading erroneous material will only repeat the error. I know some people don't have a problem repeating those errors, but I suspect Mike does.

There is a moderate amount of digital that scales. Cell phones are one example (Not a particularly good one if you believe in digital radio, but one nonetheless.)

Real player sure stream is another example. It sounds great at 128KPs good at 64 and FM-like at 20.

HD AM is another example of scalable digital technology. The better the signal, the more data and the more data - "Poof" - stereo.


You've personally commented on a thread about AM stereo scalability, when you posted this insightful comment here.
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,58479.0.html .
However that fact that you been exposed to knowledge doesn't seem to prevent you from posting incorrect info about it later if it supports your "AnalogAMforever" mentality.

How much of the other info you post is just junk?

Clouseau

 

[Black_Shire]

It sure as hell doesn't mirror the same behavior! If you'd actually used an HD Radio you'd realize the signal is either there in full fidelity, or it's gone. There is no in between (and there are many "in betweens" with digital cell phones...as less and less information gets through, the signal becomes progressively more plagued by artifacts. Sometimes it gets better again. Sometimes it degrades until it goes awa


HD radio is more like other forms of HIGH FIDELITY digital audio...cds/etc. The signal is there fully, or gone. NOT AT ALL like cell phones. Cell phones allow "re-negotiation" to a lower bitrate as the signal degrades (the cause of the artifacts). So you're right. It is EXACTLY the same. Except for the (numerous) differences!

It's quite unnecessary to swear. So in other words (your own words, actually), HD radio reception under weak-signal conditions is *worse* than that of digital cell phones under similar conditions.

The onboard digital TV cameras in race cars exhibit the same effect at work in video--when the signal fades due to the car's position or distance from the receiver, the image either freezes on the last-received frame or goes to a blank blue screen instead of continuing to "roll" with just momentary "snow" the way an analog TV signal would. I'll take momentary fades over the jarring all-there-or-not-there-at-all idiosyncracies of digital audio and video any day.


-- Black Shire

 

[clouseau]

The onboard digital TV cameras in race cars exhibit the same effect at work in video--when the signal fades due to the car's position or distance from the receiver, the image either freezes on the last-received frame or goes to a blank blue screen instead of continuing to "roll" with just momentary "snow" the way an analog TV signal would.

I get where you're coming from here, however I "THINK" (not Sure but think) that those cameras are still analog and the "Digital Processing" does that when it loses a signal. I know that USED to be the case. If you actually watch those analog feeds you'll find that there are LOTS more sinal lossess and snoy pictures then you ever perceive. IIRC it's not uncommon for there to be 3 or 4 "Bad" frames for one "Good" frame. The Processor takes the good and shows it until it gets "Another" good and then replaces it. Missing a few FPS still gives a watchable picture, especially for short periods such as in a race car. But the overall quality of those race car feeds used to be almost unwatchable until they got "Cleaned Up". Your symtom is valid and your point is well taken, but I don't think it's the same technology.

I'll take momentary fades over the jarring all-there-or-not-there-at-all idiosyncracies of digital audio and video any day.

Digital audio can be problematic. Digital video actually works a lot better, ESPECIALLY with some of the cheapie processors out there. The average viewer doesn't notice if half the frames are missing.

Clouseau