I dont mean to keep bashing HD about the signals, but what I really like about analog is the fact I had a *Free* old speaker cable I had that I made into a antenna for my parents, since they dont do DX'n or try hard to get any stations, that wire was good enough to pull in 23 local stations, and the AM loop can pull in about the same. That is the things I love about analog. Even with a dipole antenna with my place out in South Texas I can get about 34 FM stations great.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Good thing about analog is
- Thread starter jras20
- Start date
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Tried HD with a simple antenna? I got HD from 60-80 miles away with a Magnum Dynalab SR100 "Silver Ribbon", a glorified dipole ("wabbit ears"). Of course I have NEVER gotten ANY AM HD at my location, even with a 200' longwire in the backyard!
Analog degrades gracefully (if you don't count multipath distortion...and it's kind of hard to ignore!). You can still pull a signal "out of the noise" in very remote locations, which is why there shouldn't be ANY talk of discontinuing analog service!
Analog degrades gracefully (if you don't count multipath distortion...and it's kind of hard to ignore!). You can still pull a signal "out of the noise" in very remote locations, which is why there shouldn't be ANY talk of discontinuing analog service!
I have tried the FM Reflect antenna out at my place in South Texas with my Accarian radio, it couldnt pull in any analog signals its about 84 miles to Houston. Here I tried it with my Sangean HDT-1 and it could pull in most of the Austin HD stations but a few none of the San antonio which is about 60 from here. Maybe in other parts of the country HD is better engineered than others??
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Dunno'. I was very unimpressed with the FM Reflect. Am I the only one that thought (from the pictures on C Crane's website) that it was STIFF, so it would stay in position if you bent it in a particular way? Anyhow, it's FLOPPY, like any other wire dipole. The reception also was far worse than the Magnum Dynalab, so back it went!
I agree I was very unimpressed also with it, acually what I am doing now at my place in South Texas is I have my FM outdoor antenna going south to DX Victoria and Corpus, and I have a cheap dipole antenna that came with a radio I baught a while back hooked up, and I can recieve Houston analog exellent, hardly any multipaths it does almost as good as my outdoor antenna did. I couldnt even get the FM Reflect antenna to stay on one spot. It was to thick to place any tacks in to hold it up.
Good thing about analog is that I can listen to an analog AM (stereo) station all day without 'fatigue', while HD-AM's codec and/or it's processing has me tuning-out an hour later. HD-AM stations really need to work on lowering the sharp stinging sound they induce on voice - music is okay, but not voice or cellphone calls with their 'double digital' noise.
Also, manufacturers, please add an "analog" switch on your radios when I don't want the constant back and forth switching and when the codecs wear me out. Thank you.
Also, manufacturers, please add an "analog" switch on your radios when I don't want the constant back and forth switching and when the codecs wear me out. Thank you.
Virtually everyone already has several, and they are generally happy with analog fidelity and reception.
HD radio is just the opposite, and causes unnecessary complications, problems and expense.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
SUPERCASTER said:
People were "generally happy" with records untill they heard CD's it then took only 6 years for the new tech to overtake the medium that had been the standard for over 70 years.
People were "generally happy" with the sound of music on AM untill they heard FM Stereo. What happened thereafter is why AM broadcasters are at the point of demanding they be included in any new digital transmission scheme.
Any realistic assessment of what has happened to AM in every market explains why something radical, yet compatible must be tried.
Otherwise it's, more preachers, more whoring and ultimately scrap.
More cut-and-paste nonsense.
Lino
Absolutely true, Lino, that consumers are "generally happy" with existing technology until something better comes along. The problem is that there is a large and growing opinion that HD Radio (sorry, Mike) doesn't offer anything better, and in the case of HD-AM, offers more problems than solutions. So the rub is what constitutes "something better."
The problem with your analogies is that when consumers heard CDs, they liked what they heard better than what was available on vinyl (or shellac.) This has largely not been the case with HD Radio. Also CDs are more compact and less fragile and last longer than phonograph records, so they're cheaper to own and use in the long run. These are undeniable advantages which HD lacks. HD-FM doesn't offer enough of an improvement over analog in most cases to motivate radio listeners to buy receivers which, at least until recently, have been overpriced, poor-performing and largely unavailable. And despite some posts here, coverage is diminished over the accompanying analog signal which presents new problems to fringe listeners; neither will most listeners be bothered with antenna stringing.
HD-AM, as noted just about everywhere, is just a mess. The system doesn't work, it interferes, and the available radios are deaf. The pop-count of AM stations operating IBOC is minuscule and shrinking. The public doesn't know or care about IBOC-AM. Opinion in industry periodicals is extremely negative aside from a few enthusiasts.
Of the 235 HD-AM stations, all but about 50 are owned by Big Group Radio which invested in iBiquity and therefore has its own agenda. About half of the remaining 50 are publicly-funded NPR or University owned stations which reflexively embrace every new toy. The number of AM stations which have adopted HD-AM on technical "merit" is really about a couple of dozen. At StopIBOC.com, we had one communication from an AM in California which felt they were having really good luck with HD on their nostalgic big-band station. I would say that's great - and rotsa ruck getting that "50-to-dead" demo to invest in HD radios.
AM broadcasters - I happen to be one - never "demanded they be included in ANY new digital transmission scheme." What we actually wanted was one that WORKS - not just "any" one.
The problem with your analogies is that when consumers heard CDs, they liked what they heard better than what was available on vinyl (or shellac.) This has largely not been the case with HD Radio. Also CDs are more compact and less fragile and last longer than phonograph records, so they're cheaper to own and use in the long run. These are undeniable advantages which HD lacks. HD-FM doesn't offer enough of an improvement over analog in most cases to motivate radio listeners to buy receivers which, at least until recently, have been overpriced, poor-performing and largely unavailable. And despite some posts here, coverage is diminished over the accompanying analog signal which presents new problems to fringe listeners; neither will most listeners be bothered with antenna stringing.
HD-AM, as noted just about everywhere, is just a mess. The system doesn't work, it interferes, and the available radios are deaf. The pop-count of AM stations operating IBOC is minuscule and shrinking. The public doesn't know or care about IBOC-AM. Opinion in industry periodicals is extremely negative aside from a few enthusiasts.
Of the 235 HD-AM stations, all but about 50 are owned by Big Group Radio which invested in iBiquity and therefore has its own agenda. About half of the remaining 50 are publicly-funded NPR or University owned stations which reflexively embrace every new toy. The number of AM stations which have adopted HD-AM on technical "merit" is really about a couple of dozen. At StopIBOC.com, we had one communication from an AM in California which felt they were having really good luck with HD on their nostalgic big-band station. I would say that's great - and rotsa ruck getting that "50-to-dead" demo to invest in HD radios.
AM broadcasters - I happen to be one - never "demanded they be included in ANY new digital transmission scheme." What we actually wanted was one that WORKS - not just "any" one.
Savage said:
So I guess this means you have nothing to worry about. You only have to be patient and it will all go away.
LinoNYC said:
Sort of reminds me of the old Irish proverb: "Be careful what you ask for.....for you shall surely get it.
As for preachers and whoring, it seems to be working for shortwave. Just ask any of the large operation domestic shortwave broadcasters. Any airtime they don't use for thier own agendas / purposes they happily sell to just about anyone with cold hard cash.
Let's all hear it for the acceleration of whoring on the AM band.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
The "kinder-gentler" Savage.
That "large and growing opinion" is akin to that which advised ABC-tv to buy more monochrome Image Orth cameras in the early 1960's because the color system was too complex and expensive for the average consumer and thus would never be more than a curiousity. In the mid-sixties I met engineers who felt this way and even advised against buying a color TV, ironicly, one was working at NBC.
What constitutes "something better" is when you see people's reaction as a typical narrow AM broadcast opens into full digital. You and I may note the flaws of compressed data streams but if you've seen the reactions of average listeners you would realize that there may be hope for AM.
I have an iboc set and over the last year I have actually done these demonstrations to the 30+ friends that I and others here have entertained. The reactions, even to the more subtle improvement in FM have all been positive and impressed.
That's the real world, not message board hype.BTW: As for CD's being "less fragile" we all swallowed that hype untill the first one got scratched.
The public doesn't know or care about most of the workings of the appliances they buy -that's what radio is today, an appliance.
As to the "minuscule"number of AM-iboc stations, you have previously stated that for many AM's the cost of conversion will likely exceed the the stick value, a sad commantary on a once-dominant medium, but probably accurate. For the other holdouts, you can't blame them for a "wait and see" approach, they have already been through AM stereo, A-Max. Neither changed the increasingly grim realities.
There is implicit deception in this remark. "Publc" radio, NPR/PRI get the vast majority of it's funding from private individuals, corporate gifts and NPR itself gets alot of it's income from member station dues which are astronomical here in New York and other major cities.
To my knowledge, iboc is the first major change in transmission implemented by these stations since the FM's went stereo some 40 years ago.
Non-comms have a generally hi-end audience, one that is likely to notice and buy into technology. The stations see as a way to improve the quality and scope of offerings (FM) and those with AM's have obvious motivation.
Sadly, that is the audience for AM these days.
For a republican you're being remarkably "Clinton-esque"
AT the time AM broadcasters demanded inclusion in what was orginally envisioned to be an FM system, only two criteria had been established: it had to be compatible with existing radios and, address the sonic handicaps of analog AM.
Lino
Actually, given the state of the color TV art circa 1960-65, the advice your ABC advisor gave was valid. Color didn't really start to take off as a mainstream consumer item until the advent of all-solid-state chassis, and particularly, ICs in the very late 1960s and early 70s. The only TV network that had appreciable color programming was NBC - I recall ABC did hardly any color until the late 60s and CBS chief Bill Paley was highly skeptical about color after the Peter Goldmark mechanical-scan UHF disaster of the 1950s. Thus CBS was relatively reluctant for internal-political as well as economic reasons to quickly embrace color. The I-O tube cameras ABC bought in the early 60s would have been fully depreciated by time the net could justify installing color cams (hopefully not the TK-41 and 42 series!)
The point here is, the viability of any technical standard has to be viewed in historical context. And I would argue that any parallel between color TV and HD Radio as comparable "technical advances" is not a valid one. Nobody would seriously dispute the superiority of color TV over monochrome. And color TV was fully compatible; it never compromised existing B&W service. Neither statement is true of HD, especially HD-AM.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we perceive the public acceptance level of HD Radio is, especially on AM. Your statements about the funding sources of NPR and whether or not CDs are more robust than vinyl phono records are dependent on how you interpret the available data and thus are debatable.
I'm trying to keep the thread civil and productive. Otherwise this board and others like it just becomes an unproductive public brawl.
The point here is, the viability of any technical standard has to be viewed in historical context. And I would argue that any parallel between color TV and HD Radio as comparable "technical advances" is not a valid one. Nobody would seriously dispute the superiority of color TV over monochrome. And color TV was fully compatible; it never compromised existing B&W service. Neither statement is true of HD, especially HD-AM.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we perceive the public acceptance level of HD Radio is, especially on AM. Your statements about the funding sources of NPR and whether or not CDs are more robust than vinyl phono records are dependent on how you interpret the available data and thus are debatable.
I'm trying to keep the thread civil and productive. Otherwise this board and others like it just becomes an unproductive public brawl.
Re: Good thing about analog is ( AM analog )
The good thing about analog is that allows a listener to avail themselves of whatever level quality is practicable, and that they choose.
They may side tune to avoid noise and hear full high frequency response.
They may buy better antennas, better radios, etc, if they are motivated.
The results of such choices are immediate.
Analog imposes no mandated, fixed level of quality as does HD.
You can sound as good or bad as you can.
Everything can be improved, upgraded incrementally.
As we now have "computer people" with no background in electronics, surely radio wants to eliminate those with electronic and RF
engineering skills, as it's so much cheaper to turn more and more of it into computers.
Engineers laugh because we know everything made of stuff breaks, and the business people will never understand.
The gap becomes wider between practical knowledge, experience and "pie-in-sky".
I see the same thing happening in the world of high quality lithography and presses, and the technical issues involved therein.
If we can't do a good job in analog, we are certainly fooling ourselves that a pass/fail digital system is a good model for radio.
The good thing about analog is that allows a listener to avail themselves of whatever level quality is practicable, and that they choose.
They may side tune to avoid noise and hear full high frequency response.
They may buy better antennas, better radios, etc, if they are motivated.
The results of such choices are immediate.
Analog imposes no mandated, fixed level of quality as does HD.
You can sound as good or bad as you can.
Everything can be improved, upgraded incrementally.
As we now have "computer people" with no background in electronics, surely radio wants to eliminate those with electronic and RF
engineering skills, as it's so much cheaper to turn more and more of it into computers.
Engineers laugh because we know everything made of stuff breaks, and the business people will never understand.
The gap becomes wider between practical knowledge, experience and "pie-in-sky".
I see the same thing happening in the world of high quality lithography and presses, and the technical issues involved therein.
If we can't do a good job in analog, we are certainly fooling ourselves that a pass/fail digital system is a good model for radio.
I don't know but imagine the day all FM and AM broadcasts are done in IBOC and any chance of kids/teachers wanting to create xtal radio sets and not listening to anything because the analog signal is gone?
Imagine all those kids that one day decided based on putting together those xtal radio sets with diodes, cat whiskers, coils, etc. lost to some other career path instead of electronics/broadcast, etc.
Do we forget about how that is WHY we went this way in our careers and oopen our eyes to electronics and it's hobby of radio, TV, etc.?
Too bad for those kids, but who cares as long as Ibiquity and it's corporate thugs hold all the cards?
Radiopilot
Imagine all those kids that one day decided based on putting together those xtal radio sets with diodes, cat whiskers, coils, etc. lost to some other career path instead of electronics/broadcast, etc.
Do we forget about how that is WHY we went this way in our careers and oopen our eyes to electronics and it's hobby of radio, TV, etc.?
Too bad for those kids, but who cares as long as Ibiquity and it's corporate thugs hold all the cards?
Radiopilot
radiopilot said:
Gee, when I first got my amateur radio license in the 70's I had to know CW. As I progressd I had to be able to copy CW at faster speeds. I needed to copy 20 WPM for my Extra Class license. Now you don't need to know CW to get a ham license. Think about what these no coders are missing. CW is the most efficiant means for radio communications known to man. You can relatively easily build a simple CW radio which will be far less complicated than any other form of RF radiator. Well, that is so called progress. Building crystal radios will become something read about in history books.
You might be right RF, but how many kids of age 8-14, and in the Boys Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. are going to build CW sets? I know I didn't in my time, maybe when I was older, but we're talking about the kids whose scoutmaster would buy these sets in quantity and give out to the kids to build and explore, you remember the Pine Derby cars, right? Timeless classics that stood the test of time along with the rockets, rain gutter sail regatta, etc.
There will be a whole set of values lost to digital radio that one day will be lost!
Radiopilot
There will be a whole set of values lost to digital radio that one day will be lost!
Radiopilot
M
Mike Walker
Guest
The equivalent (of putting together a radio) in technological terms for today's scouts would be assembling a pc, tweaking the bios, installing the OS, and getting that sucker up and running!
- Status