I don't have HD buyer's remorse

[K6JHU]

I bought my HD radio at the Radio Shack closeout bin so I didn't pay an awful lot for it. I am 35 miles from the FM transmitters on Mt Wilson (in OC) and indoors. I have no problem locking on to the HD FM signals at all. I can't say that HD makes an awful lot of difference in the sound quality of the main channel(considering the small speakers - I'll have to try a good set of headphoens to find out for sure). But where HD shines is the second and third audio programs on the HD stations. Limited to no commercials and some decent music and news. Where HD also shines is the AM's on the HD-2 channels. They actually sound listenable on HD-2. With some promotion I believe that HD on FM might actually be viable.

BTW, notice that I only refer to FM HD. I have no interest at all in AM HD except to see if it really locks.

 

[landtuna]

I bought my HD radio at the Radio Shack closeout bin so I didn't pay an awful lot for it. I am 35 miles from the FM transmitters on Mt Wilson (in OC) and indoors. I have no problem locking on to the HD FM signals at all. I can't say that HD makes an awful lot of difference in the sound quality of the main channel(considering the small speakers - I'll have to try a good set of headphoens to find out for sure). But where HD shines is the second and third audio programs on the HD stations. Limited to no commercials and some decent music and news. Where HD also shines is the AM's on the HD-2 channels. They actually sound listenable on HD-2. With some promotion I believe that HD on FM might actually be viable.

I'll let the HD guru's respond to your technical points but here is what I've gleaned from reading HD threads:

1. Most radio listening is done in vehicles and that is where HD radio is having its locking and range problems.

2, If HD radio was to take off the sub-channels would carry adverts just as the main channel does today. They exist commercial-free today only because there are so few listeners it isn't worth the effort to program.

3. Admittedly, I am an "old fart" with 64-year old hearing but I cannot tell a measurable improvement in sound quality with HD radio. Even when played on a high-end system. I was anticipating something like the difference between 8-track tape and CD quality but not so. And I'm sure it is even less noticeable in a vehicle.

 

[K6JHU]

I don't mind if the HD-2 and HD-3 channels become popular enough to carry commercials. What I hope is that there is diversity (maybe room for Indie, and Dance, and Opera) and not more of the same.

I am going to test the HD in the car. I need a new stereo for other reasons but the one that I have chosen has HD in addition to the things I am looking for. So sometime next week I will know about HD on the road.

 

[radioman148]

I bought my HD radio at the Radio Shack closeout bin so I didn't pay an awful lot for it. I am 35 miles from the FM transmitters on Mt Wilson (in OC) and indoors. I have no problem locking on to the HD FM signals at all. I can't say that HD makes an awful lot of difference in the sound quality of the main channel(considering the small speakers - I'll have to try a good set of headphoens to find out for sure). But where HD shines is the second and third audio programs on the HD stations. Limited to no commercials and some decent music and news. Where HD also shines is the AM's on the HD-2 channels. They actually sound listenable on HD-2. With some promotion I believe that HD on FM might actually be viable.

I'll let the HD guru's respond to your technical points but here is what I've gleaned from reading HD threads:

1. Most radio listening is done in vehicles and that is where HD radio is having its locking and range problems.

2, If HD radio was to take off the sub-channels would carry adverts just as the main channel does today. They exist commercial-free today only because there are so few listeners it isn't worth the effort to program.

3. Admittedly, I am an "old fart" with 64-year old hearing but I cannot tell a measurable improvement in sound quality with HD radio. Even when played on a high-end system. I was anticipating something like the difference between 8-track tape and CD quality but not so. And I'm sure it is even less noticeable in a vehicle.

I can't tell the difference either between regular FM & HD FM. I enjoy the subcarriers though.
AM HD sound is good, but for talk radio who cares?

 

[BRNout]

I can't tell the difference either between regular FM & HD FM. I enjoy the subcarriers though.
AM HD sound is good, but for talk radio who cares?

Only one station generates power to get my HD POS radio to decode it and it's a Spanish station that has no subchannels. Nothing from Sears Tower or Hancock (a whole 25 miles away) will decode here, so I get no subchannels. None of the AMs in my area will decode on my radio, despite some of them being very strong here.

When I lived near Philly, I could literally "see" the Roxborough towers in the distance and I did get most subchannels. However, even there, I got some cutting in and out and my antenna setup had to be 'just right' - and I spent an inordinate amount of time setting it up. Time that no average person would ever spend on it. Even with that, only 50 kw KYW would decode on the AM side. I can't imagine how much muting goes on if you're in your car with an HD unit. It must be truly annoying.

Crank up the power and you destroy the analog signals; leave it as is and few can get them. Lose-lose if you ask me.

 

[ajc_trw]

I can't say that HD makes an awful lot of difference in the sound quality of the main channel(considering the small speakers - I'll have to try a good set of headphoens to find out for sure). But where HD shines is the second and third audio programs on the HD stations.

When you get your headphones tell us if the multi-cast stations can have an HD-1 still sound equal to if not better than its analog counterpart.

I'm sure a single stream HD-FM can do this, but when you divide the 96k up it gets tricky IMHO to keep up quality.

 

[pocket-radio]

"With some promotion I believe that HD on FM might actually be viable." uhhhhhh?

Since it's start the Alliance has been pounding away on the air waves promoting HD.
For their efforts, consumers have shown no interest, are confused about what HD is, or think they already have it. Consumers also think HD and pay radio are one in the same..

In the meantime online radio continues to grow, like 42 million. And there is demand for more wireless internet entertainment options.

HD doesn't have 12 years to evolve...

 

[K6JHU]

I also listen to programming on the Internet. Trying to find what is out there is a bigger pain in the a** then trying to figure out the HD channels. There are several web sites for finding programming but none of them is comprehensive or gives a really easy way to sort by programming. So when I am working on my computer I actually listen to a HD-2 channel rather than trying to sort thorugh the Internet.

 

[KB1OKL]

I have a Sony HD tuner gathering dust on top of a receiver I use (an analog one), big waste of money but at least now I know what it is, and what it ain't and what it is isn't pretty. Can you say Scam? I listen to live 365, cost me a few bucks a month but it's well worth it, easy to navigate and it sounds great through my big Marantz receiver, HD radio in cars?? Now that's a joke, talk about drop out city. Also listen to Satellite in my car very entertaining, but I also listen to both analog AM and FM in it. Come to think of it I listen to just about every mode except iblock, just ain't no need for it. I was even listening to both SW and LW tonight along with LP's and DC's at one point today, so I hit the whole trifecta, the big wazoo and I felt no need to listen to,,,nah never even though of the poor dejected, neglected, forlorn lonely old HD receiver that hasn't been powered up for a month at least, ahhh,,, now I want to cry

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I also listen to programming on the Internet. Trying to find what is out there is a bigger pain in the a** then trying to figure out the HD channels. There are several web sites for finding programming but none of them is comprehensive or gives a really easy way to sort by programming. So when I am working on my computer I actually listen to a HD-2 channel rather than trying to sort thorugh the Internet.

Opportunity knocks. Is anyone willing to answer the need for a comprehensive, improved web radio index?

 

[willcail]

I do like my HD 100 receiver. If you can't tell the difference in sound quality then you must need an hearing aid.

 

[K6JHU]

A couple of replies here.

First, the speakers on my HD are only about 3-4" so I either have to hook it up to headphones or jack it into my big system. I still have to get tot eh test. Easiest way is to lsten to the analog for the few seconds it takes for the HD to kick in.

Second, in an earlier post... "I was even listening to both SW and LW tonight" Well, one night I fired up the TS-940 and listened across the SW bands. Out here on the west coast there was to hear was religoious, spanish, and programs directed to Asia. That can't be better than
HD But the sorry state of SW and possiblility of DRM is probably a topic for the Ham/CB/Scanner board.

 

[radioman148]

I do like my HD 100 receiver. If you can't tell the difference in sound quality then you must need an hearing aid.

The difference on AM is definitely noticeable, but on FM in my opinion the difference is not much. I do like the extra HD channels though.

 

[KB1OKL]

I do like my HD 100 receiver. If you can't tell the difference in sound quality then you must need an hearing aid.

I have my Sony going through a very good system, the stations that sound good in HD (FM) also sound good in analog, the difference is negligible, most people would not notice any difference. AM sounds very different, not better, different. The noise floor drops away but I'll take the noise over the artificial cheesy sounding highs and drop outs and day. Of course none of this is worth it anyway because of the co-channel interference, user unfriendliness and pitiful range of both AM and FM IBOC.

 

[4dude]

DIGITAL does not (And wont ever) sound as good as PURE ANALOG!

 

[KB1OKL]

DIGITAL does not (And wont ever) sound as good as PURE ANALOG!

I agree 100%

 

[K6JHU]

I did the headphone test by switching from one HD station to another and listening for a change in sound quality when the HD indicator came on. I used both a classical station and a jazz station. I was not able to hear any differnce between the analog and the digital. Except, that is, for a very very slight stutter when the swtichover occurred. But I would have been surprised at my age to be able to hear any difference

 

[Chuck]

At age 61, I can hear the difference. The real give-away is a much lower noise floor with HD. That's nice, but probably not that big a deal in my car which has a blanketing noise level in the 70 -80+ dba range at 70 mph. If I'm sitting in my quiet living room, wearing headphones, the difference is obvious. I don't usually do that, nor does 99.95% of the listening public.

I will grant you that good digital does sound better than BAD analog. So refresh my memory. Why are we broadcasting BAD analog audio? We don't have to do that.

 

[fybush]

I will grant you that good digital does sound better than BAD analog. So refresh my memory. Why are we broadcasting BAD analog audio? We don't have to do that.

Both Bob Orban and Frank (Omnia) Foti would make the case that, due to the 75-microsecond pre-emphasis curve for analog FM radio in the US, we do indeed have to broadcast analog audio that's at least impaired, if not "bad."

It's been my experience that those guys tend to know what they're talking about when the topic is audio processing...

 

[Chuck]

Both Bob Orban and Frank (Omnia) Foti would make the case that, due to the 75-microsecond pre-emphasis curve for analog FM radio in the US, we do indeed have to broadcast analog audio that's at least impaired, if not "bad."

It's been my experience that those guys tend to know what they're talking about when the topic is audio processing...

I agree that Bob and Frank know what they are doing, but I question if most of the end users of their products know what they are doing. It is very possible to make a good product sound dreadful with the appropriate settings.

As for the 75 microsecond pre-emphasis curve, you don't have to use it. It is not a "requirement," merely a "standard." Some public stations choose 50 microsecond instead. That makes it sound a bit dull on most radios, but does solve a few other problems. It sure would have been cheaper to change the pre-emphasis curve than it would have been to adopt HD.

Of course, you could just back off on the old Optimod or Omnia and let it have a little breathing room. They can sound quite good if you don't run them flat out.