BTW, how do you add a quote box these days without quoting the entire message?
>>... people who for some reason dislike HD.<<
For some reason? There are many reasons ... limited signal range, greater complexity and added cost are the most prominent.
" If you compare HD radio to regular FM radio, the sound is no better."
Now that's simply a lie.
Not really. Initial tests of HD Radio's codec (among both regular and "expert" listeners) found the majority thought HD sounded as good or worse than analog—the minority thought it sounded better. There have been improvements since the HDC codec has been adopted, but nothing that blows analog out of the water (i.e., as good or better than CD, which was the benchmark proponents used to sell the technology). In fact, on AM, HD often does sound worse than analog, depending on the program content (some music better, speech not so much).
"Also I'd beg to differ that using an HD radio is simpler than finding what you want on a PC. HD radios have no search function and, to a young person who's grown up with computers and smartphones, not radio, a location like "101.1, HD2" is arcane and meaningless."
I have to tell you that this conversation reminds me of conversations I had with a colleague of mine, many years ago. // Any argument I would make, he'd have a reply for. I realized that with some people, no matter how valid the argument, the end was imminent. That's my reply.![]()
But the discussion was about HD FM sounding better than analog FM, which, albeit by a small amount, is true.
HD AM, today, sounds vastly superior to analog AM if the station has taken all the steps to avoid dueling codecs and such. Few AMs have done this, but those that I have heard which did (such as KFI and KNX in LA) sound amazingly good...
No more HD on 98.7 WEPN-FM.
No one has the HD radios.