I don't have HD buyer's remorse

[SUPERCASTER]

I observed that none of the HD radios could reliably pick up HD signals with the supplied antennas in stores within plain sight of the transmitting towers. HD AM added nasty artifacts, and covered about 2 miles from the only HD AM able to be received (a 50kw AM), and no HD reception from the several other HD AM's nearby in the same radio market.

HD FM did not sound any better then good quality analog FM, especially with the 3 inch speakers in the HD radios, and only 2 HD FM signals could be picked up in spite of over a dozen HD FM's in the market broadcasting from those very nearby towers.

I have no "buyers remorse" since I never bought into this junk HD technology. More and more of HD radio's false claims have been exposed, so I have never regretted my decision.

 

[radioman148]

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.

I've found that there is a great deal of difference in the sound of HD AM. It is quite an improvement. However, that seems to be negated by the limited distance that the station can be heard in HD. So if you're driving around in your car the HD AM signal is severly limited.

 

[IT_Guru]

I've found that there is a great deal of difference in the sound of HD AM. It is quite an improvement. However, that seems to be negated by the limited distance that the station can be heard in HD. So if you're driving around in your car the HD AM signal is severly limited.

I have listened to WLS-AM in HD and yes, there is a great deal of difference but not in a good way. It sounds like a poorly encoded mp3 or wma file at a very low bitrate. WLS-AM in C-Quam Stereo sounds much better than when they are broadcasting in IBOC. Sure, it's analog stereo but there are no artifacts and you can listen to them in stereo for hundreds of miles at night.

 

[KB1OKL]

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.

I've found that there is a great deal of difference in the sound of HD AM. It is quite an improvement. However, that seems to be negated by the limited distance that the station can be heard in HD. So if you're driving around in your car the HD AM signal is severly limited.

There is a big difference but as to whether it's better or not is up to the listener. I do not prefer saccharine sound myself and find AM IBOC sounds very artificial between drop outs. AM IBOC is so bright it is grating to my ears.

 

[K6JHU]

I dropped an HD radio into my Corolla Wednesday morning. Took me about 4 hours but that has nothing to do with HD and I did not do it because of HD. I live about 35 miles from the FM transmitters. So I spent yesterday afternoon and most of the morning driving around alternating between AM-HD and an HD-2 station. In that time (mostly on HD-2) there was only one dropout of the HD2 signal (recovered instantaneously) and none on AM HD. So HD works for me where I am.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I dropped an HD radio into my Corolla Wednesday morning. Took me about 4 hours but that has nothing to do with HD and I did not do it because of HD. I live about 35 miles from the FM transmitters. So I spent yesterday afternoon and most of the morning driving around alternating between AM-HD and an HD-2 station. In that time (mostly on HD-2) there was only one dropout of the HD2 signal (recovered instantaneously) and none on AM HD. So HD works for me where I am.

I don't think the typical listener would go to all that trouble just to pick up one desired HD2 format and some AM HD.

What about frequent format changes that are the rule these days rather then the exception?
Where does that leave 'ya?

What about the steering wheel radio controls and the vehicle warrenty?

 

[K6JHU]

Main reason for putting in a new receiver was MP3 on the CD, a USB input, and an Aux on the front panel. HD was just an extra but since this is the HD board

AM HD is solid copy wherever I have been driving. But then I have been listening to 50kw flame throwers

I have finally figured out the good reason for an AM to be on HD-2. That is, because the AM now becomes an FM preset on the radio. No need to select that old ugly AM band

 

[willcail]

radioman148 then I suggest that you get an hearing aid.


HD radio broadcast on the FM does make a huge difference. There is 106.7 FM that when my HD radio receiver scanning for the station HD signal the analog signal sounded flat and lifeless.

HD AM does wonders for the background static and distortion.

It is too bad that the FCC didn't make the mandate to end analog radio broadcast for full power FM radio stations.

 

[Savage]

Let's all pause for a moment and give thanks to whatever God you worship, that nobody like willcail is in a position of authority over radio broadcast technical standards.

What he advocates would actually constitute the end of the radio industry. Period. Think an "end to analog radio broadcast" (sic) would motivate people to wiggle out and buy HD Radios?

Wrong. A billion analog radios would simply head to the landfill. And people would just start getting their audio entertainment from the internet and cellphones. If they were suddenly required to buy some low-performing $200 replacement radio, 99.9% of them will just say...no thanks. Radio, been nice knowin' ya.

BTW: if the AM stations you're listening to in analog have "distortion" on their signals, then they're operated by nitwits who don't know how to set up audio processing.

Is there "static?" Try reorienting the radio. Like moving it away from that fluorescent ballast.

You know: Like listeners have been content doing for the last 85 years.

Of course, the "static" encountered on AM is nothing compared with the massive skywave interference and tiny, inadequate coverage offered by HD-AM. If every AM in the country - all 4700 stations - were forced to go HD, the allocation system would fall apart and NO reliable AM reception would be possible in most locales due to adjacent-channel interference. It's horrible now with only 80 or so stations on HD at night.

The nihilism of the HD crowd - all dozen or so of them - makes me sick.

 

[KB1OKL]

Let's all pause for a moment and give thanks to whatever God you worship, that nobody like willcail is in a position of authority over radio broadcast technical standards.

What he advocates would actually constitute the end of the radio industry. Period. Think an "end to analog radio broadcast" (sic) would motivate people to wiggle out and buy HD Radios?

Wrong. A billion analog radios would simply head to the landfill. And people would just start getting their audio entertainment from the internet and cellphones. If they were suddenly required to buy some low-performing $200 replacement radio, 99.9% of them will just say...no thanks. Radio, been nice knowin' ya.

Exactly.

 

[K6JHU]

As opposed to say, the proposal to use the lower TV channels and start with digital (DRM seems a good choice) from the start.