Final thoughts

[JeremyAndrews]

From what I heard of HD radio, it definately has potential if better recievers and better signals can be accomplished in the future. Its a real struggle to get a strong signal for the HD stations on the reciever I got unless you fumble around with a TV antenna. But I did manage to get MOST of the HD signals on the FM side. Even though they were mostly unstable. Only 2-3 on the AM side.

If you know what XM sounds like, thats pretty much what HD Radio sounds like. Some better, some worse. All depends on the station.

For anybody planning on buying the Boston Acoustics Recepter HD for HD use and don't live where every station is rock solid (I even had dropouts with a local which transmits right in town) I would not recommend it unless you got a very good antenna. Most likely an outdoor/rooftop one.

If you don't live near any HD stations, I would recommend this unit for DXing and for listening to stations that you normally can't because a local bleeds over it. I was able to listen to WWYW 103.9 Dundee, IL here where on every other radio it would be impossible due to the fact that WXSS 103.7 Milwaukee wipes it out. This radio does a great job at filtering FM bleed over.


<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[PSAIRCHECKS]

> From what I heard of HD radio, it definately has potential
> if better recievers and better signals can be accomplished
> in the future. Its a real struggle to get a strong signal
> for the HD stations on the reciever I got unless you fumble
> around with a TV antenna. But I did manage to get MOST of
> the HD signals on the FM side. Even though they were mostly
> unstable. Only 2-3 on the AM side.

Agreed, I live about 25 miles as the crow flies from the main Seattle FM's and they all come in perfectly on my BA Recepter with a set of rabbit ears indoors. I can imagine people who are not going to go to the lengths that Jeremy has to pull in the HD signals would be mighty frustrated let alone even hooking up rabbit ears. The antenna really needs to be improved dramatically.


> If you know what XM sounds like, thats pretty much what HD
> Radio sounds like. Some better, some worse. All depends on
> the station.

I have Sirius and HD sounds way better than the Sirius streams IMO, and I've gone to the trouble of buying an extension antenna cord to place on my chimney to get 10 bars reception on both Sat and terrestrial signals. I've heard that XM has better sound than Sirius though.

I also agree with Jeremy that the BA Recepter is a pretty good radio. I'm impressed with the sound quality even on analog AM/FM stations. We don't have any AM HD signals in my area so I can't comment on that yet.

I'm sure there will be improvements and new radio's that will come out soon.

 

[JustinT]

> > From what I heard of HD radio, it definately has potential
>
> > if better recievers and better signals can be accomplished
>
> > in the future. Its a real struggle to get a strong signal
> > for the HD stations on the reciever I got unless you
> fumble
> > around with a TV antenna. But I did manage to get MOST of
> > the HD signals on the FM side. Even though they were
> mostly
> > unstable. Only 2-3 on the AM side.
>
> Agreed, I live about 25 miles as the crow flies from the
> main Seattle FM's and they all come in perfectly on my BA
> Recepter with a set of rabbit ears indoors. I can imagine
> people who are not going to go to the lengths that Jeremy
> has to pull in the HD signals would be mighty frustrated let
> alone even hooking up rabbit ears. The antenna really needs
> to be improved dramatically.

Signal is definitely going to be an issue as this technology moves forward. The towers here in the Boston area are mostly at two sites: FM128 and the Prudential Tower in the city's downtown. As I'm 12 miles from FM128, those signals come in perfectly, some of them even come in with no antenna attached. With the BA antenna, the Pru signals from 20 miles away also come in if the antenna is placed right.

There's a lot of HD programming from these two sites, and I hate to be picky with the stations that I can get, but some of the more interesting HD2 programming in the market (Classic Country and Rhythmic AC) isn't an easy catch. The classic country (WKLB-2) is 33 miles away, and the Rhythmic AC (WMKK-2) is 40 miles away. WKLB comes in if the antenna is put in the right place, but WMKK is nearly impossible most of the time. Heading west, HD from the Worcester market (on WSRS and WAAF), which is 30 miles away, comes in some days, some times doesn't. I tried to fix the situation with the $30 Terk antenna, but the reception is even worse, so I'm probably going to get some sort of roof antenna up soon.

> I also agree with Jeremy that the BA Recepter is a pretty
> good radio. I'm impressed with the sound quality even on
> analog AM/FM stations. We don't have any AM HD signals in my
> area so I can't comment on that yet.

I'm kind of guessing that because the BA is such a good radio, the sound quality isn't as strikingly different when the HD light stops blinking. Once HD is eventually available on one of the $30 Wal-Mart boomboxes, I'd be curious as to whether the sound quality is incredible, to find out whether the BA speakers make such a big difference.

As Jeremy pointed out, the radio is very good at dealing with FM bleed. Here, there are analog stations on 95.3 (WHRB), 95.5 (WBRU), and 95.7 (WZID), and the radio can distinguish between all of them, even with a powerful local on 96.1. Additionally, it can pick up a station that is about 70 miles away (97.5 WOKQ) quite clearly, even after the upgrade of 97.7 WILD to the Boston market has destroyed reception on most other radios.

HD on AM sounds really good. There's only one station that I can pick up that runs HD; 1030 WBZ. While it's not a music station, the news anchors sound as if they are on FM, if not better. Problem is, the tower is 30 miles away, but if the antenna is situated right, it usually comes in. I can't get any of the lower-powered HD AMs to come in (1090 WILD and 1430 WXKS), even though the AM signals aren't that bad.