HD signals receivable at your location

[Len14043]

It would be interesting to see what HD stations are receivable at your location. The following is a list of HD stations received on my JVC HDR1 car radio in the northern suburbs of Cincinnati:

Cincinnati stations:
90.9
92.5
94.1
96.5
97.3
98.5
101.1
101.9
102.7
107.1

Dayton stations:
93.7
94.5
99.9
103.9
104.7
107.7

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Apparently Zero at most Radio Shacks, and HD stores.

 

[Mike Walker]

I live in Wilkes County, NC. Boomer, specifically.

SOLID (available all times)

Davidson NC
89.9 WDAV

Charlotte NC
96.1
96.9
102.9

Greensboro NC
104.1
99.5
106.5
105.7

Black Mountain/Asheville NC
106.9

Spotty

Charlotte
90.7
107.9
104.7

Greensboro
105.7

Hickory
90.3

Spindale
88.7

 

[700WLW]

It would be interesting to see what HD stations are receivable at your location. The following is a list of HD stations received on my JVC HDR1 car radio in the northern suburbs of Cincinnati:

Cincinnati stations:
90.9
92.5
94.1
96.5
97.3
98.5
101.1
101.9
102.7
107.1

Dayton stations:
93.7
94.5
99.9
103.9
104.7
107.7

Folks, don't forget your roof-top and attic dipole antennas for FM, and your loop antennas for AM.

 

[Mike Walker]

Well EVERY component AM tuner uses either a loop or ferrite rod antenna, so yeah...I use one of those. But I have no rooftop antenna for FM. Yet. But I WILL. I've had one for my entire life. My dad had one on the roof of our house in Ronda, NC when I was a kid...hooked up to the console in the living room (and our tv).

Again...HD is received on the same type of antenna(s) we've always used. The new Cambridge Soundworks HD radio uses a monopole "whip" antenna, just like a boombox. And it has superb reception.

Most amusing of all to me is people who complain about the "special antenna" required for HD on FM, and then boast about their satellite radio. RIGHT!

 

[Len14043]

Well EVERY component AM tuner uses either a loop or ferrite rod antenna, so yeah...I use one of those. But I have no rooftop antenna for FM. Yet. But I WILL. I've had one for my entire life. My dad had one on the roof of our house in Ronda, NC when I was a kid...hooked up to the console in the living room (and our tv).

Again...HD is received on the same type of antenna(s) we've always used. The new Cambridge Soundworks HD radio uses a monopole "whip" antenna, just like a boombox. And it has superb reception.

Most amusing of all to me is people who complain about the "special antenna" required for HD on FM, and then boast about their satellite radio. RIGHT!

I chuckle when I hear all this talk about special antennas. I'm using the same antenna on my HD car radio as I had prior to installing the radio. And despite what the detractors here say, HD radio definately improves reception in multipath prone areas such as Cincinnati. Most of the negative comments made here regarding HD radio can be translated into: I don't like HD radio because it screws up my DXing hobby.

 

[tomservo]

Most amusing of all to me is people who complain about the "special antenna" required for HD on FM, and then boast about their satellite radio. RIGHT!

DARS is obviously on a different band than AM/FM, so of course it requires a different antenna.

I'm a big satellite radio proponent, but believe me, the antenna fiddling issue keeps many people away from satrad. It's like listening to an FM HD-2+ channel. It's either there, or it ain't. People don't want to put up an attic antenna to get regular FM won't like trying to get satellite in any kind of a metal building or highrise, unless there's a repeater nearby.

The two technologies are in the same boat there.

But, to keep on topic: there are likely zero HD stations where I live. 107 miles from the Jackson, Miss TX sites; 97 miles from most Memphis, Tenn TX sites. So FM's out.

There might be the two AM's from Memphis (WREC-600 and WDIA-1070) who put weak but listenable daytime signals into town here. Do any of the HD radios do well enough on AM to pull in HD from "weak analog"?

Sadly the nearest AM to me that's still on the air is in Greenwood, 30 miles and 1,000 watts away. WCRV from Memphis on 640 is the only AM here that absolutely booms in, from 86 miles away, lol!

But I digress (apparently a favorite pasttime of many posters on the HD board!)

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Len said:

Most of the negative comments made here regarding HD radio can be translated into: I don't like HD radio because it screws up my DXing hobby.

I have rarely DXed. So I am not a "DXer".
If a "DXer" is defined as someone trying to pick up weak signals by fiddling with positioning of radios, and various antennas, then HD radio proponents are the ones who are DXers. I want the iBuzz off my radios. The fact is, the closer you are to the transmitter, the louder, wider, and more annoying, the iBuzz!
That is just the opposite of a DXer.

 

[Mike Walker]

Supercaster you must've grown up in a big city, with lots of available stations and formats. I have a theory that most "dxers" are people like me who grew up in rural areas, where the local stations didn't play what we wanted to hear when we were young, so we became dxers to hear "our music" and never stopped. The greater the distance to the transmitter, the more rewarding the "catch". Ditto the lower the power of the received signal.

An AM on the "graveyard" channels of 1230, 1240, 1400, 1450 received at 70 miles is a far greater "catch" for a dxer than a regional or clear channel received at 500 miles. There's a whole class of ham radio operators whose hobby is trying to cover the greatest distance with the least power. These so called "QRP" transmitters often go MANY miles with flea-power...fractions of a watt sometimes. But with huge, efficient antennas, and super-sensitive radios, they can really GO. I guess like any area of interest, one either "gets it", or doesn't.

REAL dxers think nothing of having longwire or "Beverage" antennas nundreds of feet long running through their backyards (for am and shortwave), and yagi antennas on TALL TOWERS for fm and tv.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I am of the opinion that quite a few of the real Anti-HD people are in fact involved somehow with Ibiquity’s competitors. They probably feel that due to the power held by a few mega broadcasters such as Clear Channel and CBS radio and the fact that Ibiquity's supporters have strong armed themselves, so that competitors don't stand a chance. Some may have this belief from the days of AM stereo when their system which they believed to be superior to others was also basically made worthless when larger companies convinced the FCC to chose C-Quam, a system which they saw as inferior due in part to the effects of platform motion, over there vastly superior and simpler system. So there's a history here and much like the advent of FM, when RCA literally spent millions trying to destroy Armstrong, these big companies are using their dollars to keep out the little guy. It’s really a shame that this happens so often in business. Check out the history of some of our computer manufacturers for further proof. As for those who are anti digital just to be anti digital, I'm old enough to remember Absolute sound and the arguments that the problem with digital is that it's just not musical. It seems that's a battle that will never end as long as there are those who long for the analogue days. Hey, Edison used to argue that his cylinders were the only non distorted recordings. They were in that they didn't suffer from pinch distortion because they didn't relay on a tone arm. Unfortunately, the public didn't care and we know what happened there. History tends to repeat itself over and over again.Let's call it variations on a theme.

 

[Len14043]

I have rarely DXed. So I am not a "DXer".
If a "DXer" is defined as someone trying to pick up weak signals by fiddling with positioning of radios, and various antennas, then HD radio proponents are the ones who are DXers. I want the iBuzz off my radios. The fact is, the closer you are to the transmitter, the louder, wider, and more annoying, the iBuzz!
That is just the opposite of a DXer.
[/quote]

If you don't like the buzz, then get an HD radio - especially if you are close to the transmitter!

 

[R.F. Burns]

I have rarely DXed. So I am not a "DXer".
If a "DXer" is defined as someone trying to pick up weak signals by fiddling with positioning of radios, and various antennas, then HD radio proponents are the ones who are DXers. I want the iBuzz off my radios. The fact is, the closer you are to the transmitter, the louder, wider, and more annoying, the iBuzz!
That is just the opposite of a DXer.

If you don't like the buzz, then get an HD radio - especially if you are close to the transmitter!
[/quote]


See, it's the use of these kind of pejorative words such as IBUZZ which cause friction in here. I live close to a major city and although we have a few (four or five at the moment) AM HD stations when their exciter is running I have no problem listening to any other local radio station. We have one station running in IBOC next to a local which is 30 KC away and I can listen to this local clearly (well as clearly as the IK ever was at that distance) within 10 miles of the much more powerful IBOC station. I just don't have the problems with my radios that some have reported in here. That isn't to say that IBOC has no impact on first adjacent or to a much less extent 2nd adjacent, but I am using everything from a walkman radio to a high end tuner and a car radio and a table radio and just don't have these problems. Even my GE super radio can tune to stations 30 KC away with no interference from the IBOC generator. If others are having these problems I wonder if they could be raced to inadequate transmitting facilities. I can't say for sure but I can only report on my experiences.

 

[Len14043]

See, it's the use of these kind of pejorative words such as IBUZZ which cause friction in here. I live close to a major city and although we have a few (four or five at the moment) AM HD stations when their exciter is running I have no problem listening to any other local radio station. We have one station running in IBOC next to a local which is 30 KC away and I can listen to this local clearly (well as clearly as the IK ever was at that distance) within 10 miles of the much more powerful IBOC station. I just don't have the problems with my radios that some have reported in here. That isn't to say that IBOC has no impact on first adjacent or to a much less extent 2nd adjacent, but I am using everything from a walkman radio to a high end tuner and a car radio and a table radio and just don't have these problems. Even my GE super radio can tune to stations 30 KC away with no interference from the IBOC generator. If others are having these problems I wonder if they could be raced to inadequate transmitting facilities. I can't say for sure but I can only report on my experiences.

Like many other things in like, the truth is distorted and exagerated in a certain direction, depending on what side you are on. On this forum, the HD supporters tend to minimize the interference created by the sidebands, while the anti-HD contingent tends to horribilize the interference, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. The general public couldn't care less.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Like many other things in like, the truth is distorted and exagerated in a certain direction, depending on what side you are on. On this forum, the HD supporters tend to minimize the interference created by the sidebands, while the anti-HD contingent tends to horribilize the interference, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. The general public couldn't care less.

I can't disagree here, so the answer is to be above the average and don't answer name calling with name calling. It has to stop somewhere, otherwise our arguments don't achive a thing. While I don't have major interference issues with IBOC running, I can no longer listen to a station that's 20 Khz away from one of my locals. The reception was always poor but possible. Now it's impossible. On FM I don't notice any issue, because other than in the Non Comm portion I don't receive any first adjacent stations at my location.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I have rarely DXed. So I am not a "DXer".
If a "DXer" is defined as someone trying to pick up weak signals by fiddling with positioning of radios, and various antennas, then HD radio proponents are the ones who are DXers. I want the iBuzz off my radios. The fact is, the closer you are to the transmitter, the louder, wider, and more annoying, the iBuzz!
That is just the opposite of a DXer.

If you don't like the buzz, then get an HD radio - especially if you are close to the transmitter!

Because it is not my radios that are not the problem, which is incompatible iBiquity/HD Radio.
Why should I have to replace them?
My radios work just the same, and as well, as they always did. Some stations have now begun broadcasting in iBiquty/HD radio with temporary FCC authorization. This causes an incompatible buzz, hiss and interference. The answer is as simple as setting a "buzz off" date. Now would be nice.
The experiment is over. HD radio is not compatible with existing radios or station assignments. It's time to stop this farce and quit the deceptions about HD radio.

 

[R.F. Burns]

I have rarely DXed. So I am not a "DXer".
If a "DXer" is defined as someone trying to pick up weak signals by fiddling with positioning of radios, and various antennas, then HD radio proponents are the ones who are DXers. I want the iBuzz off my radios. The fact is, the closer you are to the transmitter, the louder, wider, and more annoying, the iBuzz!
That is just the opposite of a DXer.

If you don't like the buzz, then get an HD radio - especially if you are close to the transmitter!

Because it is not my radios that are not the problem, which is incompatible iBiquity/HD Radio.
Why should I have to replace them?
My radios work just the same, and as well, as they always did. Some stations have now begun broadcasting in iBiquty/HD radio with temporary FCC authorization. This causes an incompatible buzz, hiss and interference. The answer is as simple as setting a "buzz off" date. Now would be nice.
The experiment is over. HD radio is not compatible with existing radios or station assignments. It's time to stop this farce and quit the deceptions about HD radio.

If you are seriously having trouble receiving your local analogue AM stations due to a continual buzz may I suggest that you have some problematic radios. I own many radios going back to an old wood box Armstrong band FM radio (It also covers AM and SW) from the very early 1940's and Even though I have 4 local, 50 thousand watt IBOC stations, I have no trouble with any IBOC interference. I can hear the IBOC audio as decoded on an AM radio on fruequencies which otherwise contain sidebands of these stations (effectively turning their first adjacents into splash and noise anyway) or if the local station went silent there would be no other radio station heard anyway. Now if there's no station tat can be heard anyway, the fact that a strange sort of noise can be heard on that frequency doesn't bother me, especially considering that so many of my radios are now channelized. I just don't see the IBOC signal anymore annoying than the buzzing I get thanks to computers and television sets. Let's not forget noisy flourecent lights and all the other electrically generated interference the vast majority of us live with now. In the car there's more than one corner stoplight that almost destroys AM band reception. This is the world we live in and I don't think the addition of the IBOC sidebands has that much effect on making the broadcast bands any less listenable. I can drive right by radio transmission facilities in my area and not have a stations IBOC sidebands make listening to oter stations impossible or even noisy. Funny thing is, most of the countries AM facilities are directional and if anyone has had to drive inside a null of these stations and I live in the null of at least one of these, and while the IBOC is audible, the analogue is just noise.

 

[700WLW]

I just don't see the IBOC signal anymore annoying than the buzzing I get thanks to computers and television sets. Let's not forget noisy flourecent lights and all the other electrically generated interference the vast majority of us live with now. In the car there's more than one corner stoplight that almost destroys AM band reception. This is the world we live in and I don't think the addition of the IBOC sidebands has that much effect on making the broadcast bands any less listenable. I can drive right by radio transmission facilities in my area and not have a stations IBOC sidebands make listening to oter stations impossible or even noisy. Funny thing is, most of the countries AM facilities are directional and if anyone has had to drive inside a null of these stations and I live in the null of at least one of these, and while the IBOC is audible, the analogue is just noise.

"RW Opinion: Rethinking AM’s future"

"Only 175 or so AM stations have even licensed AM-HD. For a number of reasons, quite a few have tried it and taken it off the air, or so the anecdotal evidence suggests. (Ibiquity no longer reports in its public summaries whether a station is on the air.) Making AM-HD work well as a long-term investment is seen as an expensive and risky challenge for most stations and their owners. With the bulk of successful AMs airing news, talk and sports, the improved fidelity advantage of HD and stereo seem only marginally attractive. There is the significant downside of potential new interference to some of their own AM analog listeners as well as listeners of adjacent-channel stations. And of course we still have no nighttime authority for AM-HD."

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0044/t.557.html

 

[SUPERCASTER]

R. F. Burns said:

If you are seriously having trouble receiving your local analogue AM stations due to a continual buzz may I suggest that you have some problematic radios.

I don't. My radios are fine. So most of your post is irrelevant to mine. No problems at all with my radios other then HD, (when it is on) interfering with my reception, and buzzing all over the dial.
The AM HD Buzz instantly goes away around sunset, at the instant the HD stations do their nightly "buzz off."

Burns also said:

Funny thing is, most of the countries AM facilities are directional and if anyone has had to drive inside a null of these stations and I live in the null of at least one of these, and while the IBOC is audible, the analogue is just noise.

Conclusively proving that the adjacent channel HD digital signals are way out of compliance with the AM stations licensed directional perimeters, and that directional HD stations are seriously interfering with their protected stations. HD stations should be cited by the FCC for these violations.
Spectrum analyzer shots of HD station's signals at even short distances from the station's transmitter, prove that in real world conditions, HD radio is almost impossible to keep in compliance. HD should be tested and adjusted according to field measurements, not at the transmitter, where things can be made to look fine. After all, it is the actual real world propagated RF signal that creates interference with other stations, not strictly just transmitter adjustments.
Of course HD radio in general, and particularly from directional AM's, could rarely pass such a field spectrum analyzer test.
In short, HD tests and adjustments at the transmitter, prove little or nothing about what is actually happening in the real world outside the transmitter shack. Just as field strength measurements can only be accurately made at a distance from the transmitter and antenna.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

R. F. Burns said:

See, it's the use of these kind of pejorative words such as IBUZZ which cause friction in here.

Why do you find terms such as iBuzz so personally offensive?
The constant litany and hype of HD promoters is almost all about pejoratives. Anyone with eyes can see, and ears can hear all the negativism from HD promoters, about anything other then promoting their pro-HD agenda.
I should not have to point out examples. They are all over this website, and everywhere else that promotes HD radio.
Just picking one example might be, HD supporters attacking all HD opponents as DXers with a special personal agenda.
Is it because HD supporters believe DXing interferes with their personal HD agenda?
The fact is, that HD promoters, are HD-DXers. They fiddle with expensive, special, new HD radios and antennas to pick up weak, hard to get, radio signals to brag about. Just as SWL's or DXers. If one is bad, so is the other, and HD promoters certainly have a biased agenda.
I believe there is nothing wrong with DXers. I can't think of a more harmless hobby. Yet they are regularly attacked by the pro-HD crowd, for nothing other then enjoying a hobby many of them have had for decades. I just do not happen to be one of them.
Why do HD supporters think DXing is so evil and must be eliminated?
If DXing were outlawed today, would it not eliminate all HD radio (listening to weak signals) as well?

 

[Mike Walker]

I've gotta' come down with Supercaster and others on this. "If you don't like the buzz, get an hd radio"? Come on. The public airwaves are for everyone. The proper amount of interference is NONE. In my experience so far, that's how much interference fm hd causes in most cases. But I see no conceivable way that an AM HD station can be both a good neighbor to others on the dial, and WORK.

An artical about antenna systems for AM HD stations recently suggested that antennas should be linear in phase and frequency characteristics nearly two channels above, and two below, a station's assigned frequency! Think of the implications of that! I have an oldies station on 630 in Hickory NC, and a sports station on 610 in Charlotte NC. NEITHER would be listenable (I'm guessing) if both were HD. Even worse, how about the 1240 in Wilkesboro, and 1230 in Newton...about 35 miles apart. AM HD IS FROM SATAN! Surely we can agree on that!

Let's NEVER destroy a medium in an effort to "save" it. Neither AM nor FM need "saving". Both are doing rather well...shockingly so when one considers the added competition in recent years. Most are still profitable, and with growing revenue (though that growth has slowed). HD is an enhancement, not a "savior". As an enhancement, it should of course not be applied if it makes things worse! "Enhancements" DON'T MAKE THINGS WORSE!