The wire *garbage* (antenna, they say) gives me very limited HD reception. I'm in the south bay of L.A. and the big sticks from Mt. Wilson should shoot right down the road to this thing I spent $279 on. I'm in a second floor apt. KHHT-2 92.3 jammin oldies comes in best, followed by KBIG-2 104.3 Disco - ugh.....KZLA HD2 does not show nor it's main station even have the HD on?? (HD2 was supposed to be adult alt rock???) is not on (The folks at Emmis said mid Feb- what happened??) I'm trying to lock in mostly on NPR member station KPCC 89.3 - they have a great AAA station on the HD3 called "The Current" - keeps locking in and fading away. I'm asking my fellow board mates to help. Do I have to wait for Crane to come out with an external antenna for this, or do I have options? All opinions are welcome. Joe G - goriajk
-
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
I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...
- Thread starter goriajk
- Start date
J
JasonW
Guest
Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
Since all of your desired stations are co-located, a fixed indoor directional FM antenna would help.
An FM yagi antenna mounted indoors would work quite well but would spoil the room's decor. However, you could make a stealthy version out of self-adhesive copper tape or aluminum foil under a rug (many ham radio operators do this).
Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with a passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven loop).
Also, ordinary un-modified VHF TV "rabbit ears" can very easily be configured as a one-element *horizontal* (or vertical) Vee beam antenna, which can provide considerable gain in the direction in which the Vee opens. This web page http://www.kyes.com/antenna/rabbitear.html shows how it is done for FM and VHF TV (for FM, just extend the telescoping rods to 57" at 90 degrees to each other) and for UHF TV. (At UHF wavelengths, it becomes a true half-rhombic antenna with even more gain.) You can try it either horizontally polarized or vertically polarized to get the strongest signals. Also, here is a web page for a 15 meter ham radio band horizontal one-element Vee beam antenna: http://www.hamuniverse.com/1elbeam.html
For feeding any of these antennas' signals to the radio, I would use 300 ohm balanced twin-lead (with a 75 ohm/300 ohm balun-transformer at the Vee or yagi feedpoint and at the radio end (I presume the radio has a 75 ohm "F"-type coax connector). Twin lead has very low signal losses over a wider range of antenna feedpoint impedances than does coax, even over long (100 feet or more) runs. If the twin-lead is kept at least a few inches away from metal objects, it will not become unbalanced and harm the antenna system's efficiency.
I hope this information will be helpful. -- Jason
> The wire *garbage* (antenna, they say) gives me very limited
> HD reception. I'm in the south bay of L.A. and the big
> sticks from Mt. Wilson should shoot right down the road to
> this thing I spent $279 on. I'm in a second floor apt.
> KHHT-2 92.3 jammin oldies comes in best, followed by KBIG-2
> 104.3 Disco - ugh.....KZLA HD2 does not show nor it's main
> station even have the HD on?? (HD2 was supposed to be adult
> alt rock???) is not on (The folks at Emmis said mid Feb-
> what happened??) I'm trying to lock in mostly on NPR member
> station KPCC 89.3 - they have a great AAA station on the HD3
> called "The Current" - keeps locking in and fading away. I'm
> asking my fellow board mates to help. Do I have to wait for
> Crane to come out with an external antenna for this, or do I
> have options? All opinions are welcome. Joe G - goriajk
Since all of your desired stations are co-located, a fixed indoor directional FM antenna would help.
An FM yagi antenna mounted indoors would work quite well but would spoil the room's decor. However, you could make a stealthy version out of self-adhesive copper tape or aluminum foil under a rug (many ham radio operators do this).
Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with a passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven loop).
Also, ordinary un-modified VHF TV "rabbit ears" can very easily be configured as a one-element *horizontal* (or vertical) Vee beam antenna, which can provide considerable gain in the direction in which the Vee opens. This web page http://www.kyes.com/antenna/rabbitear.html shows how it is done for FM and VHF TV (for FM, just extend the telescoping rods to 57" at 90 degrees to each other) and for UHF TV. (At UHF wavelengths, it becomes a true half-rhombic antenna with even more gain.) You can try it either horizontally polarized or vertically polarized to get the strongest signals. Also, here is a web page for a 15 meter ham radio band horizontal one-element Vee beam antenna: http://www.hamuniverse.com/1elbeam.html
For feeding any of these antennas' signals to the radio, I would use 300 ohm balanced twin-lead (with a 75 ohm/300 ohm balun-transformer at the Vee or yagi feedpoint and at the radio end (I presume the radio has a 75 ohm "F"-type coax connector). Twin lead has very low signal losses over a wider range of antenna feedpoint impedances than does coax, even over long (100 feet or more) runs. If the twin-lead is kept at least a few inches away from metal objects, it will not become unbalanced and harm the antenna system's efficiency.
I hope this information will be helpful. -- Jason
> The wire *garbage* (antenna, they say) gives me very limited
> HD reception. I'm in the south bay of L.A. and the big
> sticks from Mt. Wilson should shoot right down the road to
> this thing I spent $279 on. I'm in a second floor apt.
> KHHT-2 92.3 jammin oldies comes in best, followed by KBIG-2
> 104.3 Disco - ugh.....KZLA HD2 does not show nor it's main
> station even have the HD on?? (HD2 was supposed to be adult
> alt rock???) is not on (The folks at Emmis said mid Feb-
> what happened??) I'm trying to lock in mostly on NPR member
> station KPCC 89.3 - they have a great AAA station on the HD3
> called "The Current" - keeps locking in and fading away. I'm
> asking my fellow board mates to help. Do I have to wait for
> Crane to come out with an external antenna for this, or do I
> have options? All opinions are welcome. Joe G - goriajk
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with a
> passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> loop).
All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just going to bring the radio back as defective?
Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV antenna.
Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
Rich
> Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with a
> passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> loop).
All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just going to bring the radio back as defective?
Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV antenna.
Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
Rich
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
From what I heard the BA is slightly deaf. This is second hand experience however. Doc you have a bunch of them. What are your experiences?
>
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
From what I heard the BA is slightly deaf. This is second hand experience however. Doc you have a bunch of them. What are your experiences?
>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
>
It's the receiver. We've done several tests on it. It's receive performance is, unfortunately, weak.
Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first generation of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five years would be a much better time to compare. I think you know that, though...
I'm willing to bet that the first FM radio ever made was expensive and had very bad characteristics.
Remember when a color TV cost hundreds of 1970's dollars compared to Black and White? The color wasn't very good, etc. That's a fair comparison - over time, they got better and cheaper.
Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
>
It's the receiver. We've done several tests on it. It's receive performance is, unfortunately, weak.
Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first generation of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five years would be a much better time to compare. I think you know that, though...
I'm willing to bet that the first FM radio ever made was expensive and had very bad characteristics.
Remember when a color TV cost hundreds of 1970's dollars compared to Black and White? The color wasn't very good, etc. That's a fair comparison - over time, they got better and cheaper.
Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
<P ID="signature">______________</P>
M
Mr_Wizard
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
I recently got that BA HD radio and with that miserable little
wire antenna on the kitchen counter I don't have any problem receiving
digital broadcasts from ALL of the half-dozen FM stations in Denver
that are broadcasting it. I live 50 miles to the north of
the city. I think it's also a very good AM and FM receiver for
analog broadcasts, too.
My only complaint is that while it has decent bass for such a small
radio, it sounds 'tubby' out of the box unless you adjust the bass EQ.
Certainly, where circumstances warrant, I don't think it's a big deal
to hook up $2.99 rabbit ears to the thing. Heck, what do we have to do
for TV in the home? Outside antennas, satellite receivers and outdoor dishes,
decoder boxes, cable subscriptions, hooking up DVD and VCR players, running coax all over the house..
I'd be happy if a simple rabbit ear antenna could replace all of that!
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
I recently got that BA HD radio and with that miserable little
wire antenna on the kitchen counter I don't have any problem receiving
digital broadcasts from ALL of the half-dozen FM stations in Denver
that are broadcasting it. I live 50 miles to the north of
the city. I think it's also a very good AM and FM receiver for
analog broadcasts, too.
My only complaint is that while it has decent bass for such a small
radio, it sounds 'tubby' out of the box unless you adjust the bass EQ.
Certainly, where circumstances warrant, I don't think it's a big deal
to hook up $2.99 rabbit ears to the thing. Heck, what do we have to do
for TV in the home? Outside antennas, satellite receivers and outdoor dishes,
decoder boxes, cable subscriptions, hooking up DVD and VCR players, running coax all over the house..
I'd be happy if a simple rabbit ear antenna could replace all of that!
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up
> IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding
> edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first generation
> of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five
> years would be a much better time to compare. I think you
> know that, though...
I think 5 years is extremely liberal. We need to stop the bleeding ... into other stations' turf on analog radios. Consumer demand for IBUZ receivers, I believe, won't materialize. If they sell it'll be because the radio just happens to include it along with satellite, iPod, a variety of CD formats and WiFi-type connectivity.
> Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
I think I'm being fairer about this than the HD Dominion is being honest on their web site.
Rich
> Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up
> IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding
> edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first generation
> of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five
> years would be a much better time to compare. I think you
> know that, though...
I think 5 years is extremely liberal. We need to stop the bleeding ... into other stations' turf on analog radios. Consumer demand for IBUZ receivers, I believe, won't materialize. If they sell it'll be because the radio just happens to include it along with satellite, iPod, a variety of CD formats and WiFi-type connectivity.
> Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
I think I'm being fairer about this than the HD Dominion is being honest on their web site.
Rich
J
JasonW
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
Please, don't whip a friendly horse.
I don't care for IBOC/HD/IBUZ either, but the poster asked for information on better FM receiving antennas and I simply provided it. -- Jason
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
>
Please, don't whip a friendly horse.
I don't care for IBOC/HD/IBUZ either, but the poster asked for information on better FM receiving antennas and I simply provided it. -- Jason
> > Another good yet simpler directional antenna would be a
> > cubical quad. This is a full-wavelength loop antenna with
> a
> > passive reflector (a second loop about 5% longer than the
> > driven loop and located 1/4 wavelength behind the driven
> > loop).
>
> All this to receive what a $9 Wal-Mart pocket radio can
> receive (except IBUZ)? How many ordinary consumers are just
> going to bring the radio back as defective?
>
> Maybe when HDTV gets to the point where OTA antennas are
> common people can connect their Boston Acoustic IBUZ radio
> to it. I have the analog version connected to my HDTV
> antenna.
>
> Are we sure the receiver is defective or deaf? Could it be
> that the IBUZ signal is just too weak?
>
> Rich
>
J
JasonW
Guest
One-element Vee beam FM antenna (elevation)
Hello All,
I was just thinking--Joe G (the original poster) in Los Angeles mentioned that he's trying to receive the FM HD stations up on Mt. Wilson. I recall reading that those antennas are more than a mile above Los Angeles and that they have to use a lot of downward beam tilt (and/or more radiated power with vertically broader beams) to get listenable signal strengths to the receivers down in the L.A. basin below.
Since FM HD is broadcast at only a small fraction of the analog FM power levels, the transmitting antennas' unusual heights above Joe G's position could be part of the problem. The one-element Vee beam made from TV rabbit ears could be aimed in elevation as well as azimuth so that its main lobe would point right at the transmitting antennas up on Mt. Wilson.
There shouldn't be much if any multi-path interference with a straight line of sight like that (FM HD has no multi-path problems, so I've heard), but if a desired station using circular polarization is radiating more power either vertically or horizontally, the Vee beam can be oriented vertically or horizontally to match the stronger polarization. -- Jason
Hello All,
I was just thinking--Joe G (the original poster) in Los Angeles mentioned that he's trying to receive the FM HD stations up on Mt. Wilson. I recall reading that those antennas are more than a mile above Los Angeles and that they have to use a lot of downward beam tilt (and/or more radiated power with vertically broader beams) to get listenable signal strengths to the receivers down in the L.A. basin below.
Since FM HD is broadcast at only a small fraction of the analog FM power levels, the transmitting antennas' unusual heights above Joe G's position could be part of the problem. The one-element Vee beam made from TV rabbit ears could be aimed in elevation as well as azimuth so that its main lobe would point right at the transmitting antennas up on Mt. Wilson.
There shouldn't be much if any multi-path interference with a straight line of sight like that (FM HD has no multi-path problems, so I've heard), but if a desired station using circular polarization is radiating more power either vertically or horizontally, the Vee beam can be oriented vertically or horizontally to match the stronger polarization. -- Jason
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > It's the receiver. We've done several tests on it. It's
> > receive performance is, unfortunately, weak.
>
> Are we all going to need Art Bell's antenna system to
> recieve IBUZ?
>
> Rich
>
Nope, just your everyday antenna.
Wait, that was sarcasm, no?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > It's the receiver. We've done several tests on it. It's
> > receive performance is, unfortunately, weak.
>
> Are we all going to need Art Bell's antenna system to
> recieve IBUZ?
>
> Rich
>
Nope, just your everyday antenna.
Wait, that was sarcasm, no?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up
>
> > IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding
> > edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first
> generation
> > of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five
>
> > years would be a much better time to compare. I think you
>
> > know that, though...
>
> I think 5 years is extremely liberal. We need to stop the
> bleeding ... into other stations' turf on analog radios.
> Consumer demand for IBUZ receivers, I believe, won't
> materialize. If they sell it'll be because the radio just
> happens to include it along with satellite, iPod, a variety
> of CD formats and WiFi-type connectivity.
>
> > Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
>
> I think I'm being fairer about this than the HD Dominion is
> being honest on their web site.
>
> Rich
>
Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes or no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that a concession that you're not?
Just trying to clarify.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > Someday, there will be a $9 pocket radio that will pick up
>
> > IBUZ. It is a very unfair comparison to use the bleeding
> > edge 1st gen hardware as the standard. The first
> generation
> > of anything is usually plagued with problems. One to five
>
> > years would be a much better time to compare. I think you
>
> > know that, though...
>
> I think 5 years is extremely liberal. We need to stop the
> bleeding ... into other stations' turf on analog radios.
> Consumer demand for IBUZ receivers, I believe, won't
> materialize. If they sell it'll be because the radio just
> happens to include it along with satellite, iPod, a variety
> of CD formats and WiFi-type connectivity.
>
> > Can you try to be at least a LITTLE fair about this?
>
> I think I'm being fairer about this than the HD Dominion is
> being honest on their web site.
>
> Rich
>
Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes or no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that a concession that you're not?
Just trying to clarify.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
> truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
>
> Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes or
> no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that a
> concession that you're not?
>
> Just trying to clarify.
I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself. I tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a touch of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders act as though their lives depend on its adoption without question.
Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at night.
Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you disagree with is unfair.
There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion. Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
Rich
> Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
> truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
>
> Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes or
> no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that a
> concession that you're not?
>
> Just trying to clarify.
I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself. I tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a touch of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders act as though their lives depend on its adoption without question.
Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at night.
Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you disagree with is unfair.
There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion. Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
Rich
> The wire *garbage* (antenna, they say) gives me very limited
> HD reception. I'm in the south bay of L.A. and the big
> sticks from Mt. Wilson should shoot right down the road to
> this thing I spent $279 on. I'm in a second floor apt.
> KHHT-2 92.3 jammin oldies comes in best, followed by KBIG-2
> 104.3 Disco - ugh.....KZLA HD2 does not show nor it's main
> station even have the HD on?? (HD2 was supposed to be adult
> alt rock???) is not on (The folks at Emmis said mid Feb-
> what happened??) I'm trying to lock in mostly on NPR member
> station KPCC 89.3 - they have a great AAA station on the HD3
> called "The Current" - keeps locking in and fading away. I'm
> asking my fellow board mates to help. Do I have to wait for
> Crane to come out with an external antenna for this, or do I
> have options? All opinions are welcome. Joe G - goriajk
>
if it has a coax hookup just get a set of wired rabbit ears from radio shack. it will work even if it has screw connections. want help am however.<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
> HD reception. I'm in the south bay of L.A. and the big
> sticks from Mt. Wilson should shoot right down the road to
> this thing I spent $279 on. I'm in a second floor apt.
> KHHT-2 92.3 jammin oldies comes in best, followed by KBIG-2
> 104.3 Disco - ugh.....KZLA HD2 does not show nor it's main
> station even have the HD on?? (HD2 was supposed to be adult
> alt rock???) is not on (The folks at Emmis said mid Feb-
> what happened??) I'm trying to lock in mostly on NPR member
> station KPCC 89.3 - they have a great AAA station on the HD3
> called "The Current" - keeps locking in and fading away. I'm
> asking my fellow board mates to help. Do I have to wait for
> Crane to come out with an external antenna for this, or do I
> have options? All opinions are welcome. Joe G - goriajk
>
if it has a coax hookup just get a set of wired rabbit ears from radio shack. it will work even if it has screw connections. want help am however.<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
quote :
I'm willing to bet that the first FM radio ever made was expensive and had very bad characteristics.
i have a 1959 zenith tabletop radio and the fm sounds muddy and has plenty of hiss. but the am sounds great. much better than any modern radio i own. so your theory is correct.<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
quote :
I'm willing to bet that the first FM radio ever made was expensive and had very bad characteristics.
i have a 1959 zenith tabletop radio and the fm sounds muddy and has plenty of hiss. but the am sounds great. much better than any modern radio i own. so your theory is correct.<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
> > truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
>
> >
> > Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes
> or
> > no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> > saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that
> a
> > concession that you're not?
> >
> > Just trying to clarify.
>
> I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself. I
> tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a touch
> of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders act
> as though their lives depend on its adoption without
> question.
>
> Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for
> decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at night.
>
>
> Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall
> in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non
> event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you
> disagree with is unfair.
>
> There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the
> cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion.
> Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
>
> Rich
>
All this "lockstep" talk is nonsense. If that is what you refer to as "your sense of humor" then I understand how you made Norman Peale curse you.
On your post above, you ballyhoo your "expertise" in ratings analysis but you admit to not fully understanding the technology side.
Well...maybe we are using words too large for programming to understand. OK....say it with me....come on...say the words as you read.
AM IBOC IS FLAWED. EVERYONE WHO HAS POSTED ON THIS BOARD AGREES WITH YOU. NO PERSON SAYS IBOC IS LINEAR (Whoops...big word here)AUDIO. IT IS NOT LIKE THE CD!
OK??
It is not a perfect system and is in it's early phase. The color television analogy is a good one in the sense that sets were terrible back in the 60's and the station side was primitive compared to today. It took MANY years for the technology to mature and, even with HDTV, it's far from perfect.
What do you propose as a solution to our present state?
> > Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
> > truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other guy?
>
> >
> > Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes
> or
> > no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> > saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is that
> a
> > concession that you're not?
> >
> > Just trying to clarify.
>
> I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself. I
> tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a touch
> of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders act
> as though their lives depend on its adoption without
> question.
>
> Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for
> decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at night.
>
>
> Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall
> in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non
> event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you
> disagree with is unfair.
>
> There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the
> cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion.
> Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
>
> Rich
>
All this "lockstep" talk is nonsense. If that is what you refer to as "your sense of humor" then I understand how you made Norman Peale curse you.
On your post above, you ballyhoo your "expertise" in ratings analysis but you admit to not fully understanding the technology side.
Well...maybe we are using words too large for programming to understand. OK....say it with me....come on...say the words as you read.
AM IBOC IS FLAWED. EVERYONE WHO HAS POSTED ON THIS BOARD AGREES WITH YOU. NO PERSON SAYS IBOC IS LINEAR (Whoops...big word here)AUDIO. IT IS NOT LIKE THE CD!
OK??
It is not a perfect system and is in it's early phase. The color television analogy is a good one in the sense that sets were terrible back in the 60's and the station side was primitive compared to today. It took MANY years for the technology to mature and, even with HDTV, it's far from perfect.
What do you propose as a solution to our present state?
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Better antennas (Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio last night...)
> > > Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
>
> > > truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other
> guy?
> >
> > >
> > > Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes
>
> > or
> > > no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> > > saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is
> that
> > a
> > > concession that you're not?
> > >
> > > Just trying to clarify.
> >
> > I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself.
> I
> > tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a
> touch
> > of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders
> act
> > as though their lives depend on its adoption without
> > question.
> >
> > Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for
>
> > decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at
> night.
> >
> >
> > Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall
>
> > in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non
> > event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you
> > disagree with is unfair.
> >
> > There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the
> > cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion.
> > Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> All this "lockstep" talk is nonsense. If that is what you
> refer to as "your sense of humor" then I understand how you
> made Norman Peale curse you.
> On your post above, you ballyhoo your "expertise" in ratings
> analysis but you admit to not fully understanding the
> technology side.
> Well...maybe we are using words too large for programming to
> understand. OK....say it with me....come on...say the words
> as you read.
> AM IBOC IS FLAWED. EVERYONE WHO HAS POSTED ON THIS BOARD
> AGREES WITH YOU. NO PERSON SAYS IBOC IS LINEAR (Whoops...big
> word here)AUDIO. IT IS NOT LIKE THE CD!
> OK??
> It is not a perfect system and is in it's early phase. The
> color television analogy is a good one in the sense that
> sets were terrible back in the 60's and the station side was
> primitive compared to today. It took MANY years for the
> technology to mature and, even with HDTV, it's far from
> perfect.
> What do you propose as a solution to our present state?
>
In addition, Rich...
We're not the ones using "CD Quality" or "Revolution".
It seems to me that you want to claim victory over IBOC. Not going to happen here. Your arguments simply are pointless here. First because we agree with your take on AM IBOC, and second, because we're here to talk about HD radio as it sits, not to take sides and convert people.
I suggest you look for another discussion board that has "sheeple" and try your stuff there. All you seem to be doing is derailing threads where we're trying to help people with radios and such.
And I am offended that you think I can be swayed because "the man" thinks I should. It's a good arguing tactic, though, and one that really does show your talk background. Talk show hosts love to do this. Negate one's opinion by trying to impose "reason" on it.
You think IBOC is bad, and by the sheer nature of being Rich Wood, you're right. Therefore, when someone intelligent (me) disagrees with you, you can't just repect that persons opinion. I mean, heck, I'M not Rich Wood, right? So since something you hate is impossible to be loved, and I'm an intelligent guy, there MUST be some other motivation for me to say these blatently (in your mind) wrong things.
So you create an enemy (the HD group) and assign my will and opinions to them. That way, if I come up with a reasoned opinion, you don't have to debate it. You can simply say "he's working for the man...he has to say that" and walk away.
I'm not going to let you do that to me or anyone else here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > > Are you saying that it's OK to embellish and distort the
>
> > > truth, as long as you don't do it more than the other
> guy?
> >
> > >
> > > Asking if you can try to be fair really only needs a yes
>
> > or
> > > no answer. You will be fair, or you won't be fair. By
> > > saying that you are "fairer" than the HD Dominion, is
> that
> > a
> > > concession that you're not?
> > >
> > > Just trying to clarify.
> >
> > I think it's best to let you determine that for yourself.
> I
> > tend to write with a bit of sarcasm and, hopefully, a
> touch
> > of humor. It's totally lost here. The IBUZ cheerleaders
> act
> > as though their lives depend on its adoption without
> > question.
> >
> > Fair is nebulous in this case. Accuracy won't be known for
>
> > decades and no one seems willing to tackle AM IBUZ at
> night.
> >
> >
> > Is it fair to call IBUZ CD Quality and have engineers fall
>
> > in lockstep behind it? Is it fair to declare the HD non
> > event to be a revolution? It appears that whatever you
> > disagree with is unfair.
> >
> > There are no known problems with IBUZ. I've joined the
> > cheerleaders. Now I can get a job with the HD Dominion.
> > Jabba the HD will let me do their PR. The world is good.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> All this "lockstep" talk is nonsense. If that is what you
> refer to as "your sense of humor" then I understand how you
> made Norman Peale curse you.
> On your post above, you ballyhoo your "expertise" in ratings
> analysis but you admit to not fully understanding the
> technology side.
> Well...maybe we are using words too large for programming to
> understand. OK....say it with me....come on...say the words
> as you read.
> AM IBOC IS FLAWED. EVERYONE WHO HAS POSTED ON THIS BOARD
> AGREES WITH YOU. NO PERSON SAYS IBOC IS LINEAR (Whoops...big
> word here)AUDIO. IT IS NOT LIKE THE CD!
> OK??
> It is not a perfect system and is in it's early phase. The
> color television analogy is a good one in the sense that
> sets were terrible back in the 60's and the station side was
> primitive compared to today. It took MANY years for the
> technology to mature and, even with HDTV, it's far from
> perfect.
> What do you propose as a solution to our present state?
>
In addition, Rich...
We're not the ones using "CD Quality" or "Revolution".
It seems to me that you want to claim victory over IBOC. Not going to happen here. Your arguments simply are pointless here. First because we agree with your take on AM IBOC, and second, because we're here to talk about HD radio as it sits, not to take sides and convert people.
I suggest you look for another discussion board that has "sheeple" and try your stuff there. All you seem to be doing is derailing threads where we're trying to help people with radios and such.
And I am offended that you think I can be swayed because "the man" thinks I should. It's a good arguing tactic, though, and one that really does show your talk background. Talk show hosts love to do this. Negate one's opinion by trying to impose "reason" on it.
You think IBOC is bad, and by the sheer nature of being Rich Wood, you're right. Therefore, when someone intelligent (me) disagrees with you, you can't just repect that persons opinion. I mean, heck, I'M not Rich Wood, right? So since something you hate is impossible to be loved, and I'm an intelligent guy, there MUST be some other motivation for me to say these blatently (in your mind) wrong things.
So you create an enemy (the HD group) and assign my will and opinions to them. That way, if I come up with a reasoned opinion, you don't have to debate it. You can simply say "he's working for the man...he has to say that" and walk away.
I'm not going to let you do that to me or anyone else here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio - THANKS TO ALL WHO REPLIED BACK!!!
I tried a Terk power antenna last night, got no improvement at all. Actually, it got worse reception. I feel I've wasted $279 for this 'thing' and I'm going to do the rabbit ear formation tomorrow. We'll see. I'm disppointed, but will take all items on this seriously. Thanks again to all who responded. Joe
I tried a Terk power antenna last night, got no improvement at all. Actually, it got worse reception. I feel I've wasted $279 for this 'thing' and I'm going to do the rabbit ear formation tomorrow. We'll see. I'm disppointed, but will take all items on this seriously. Thanks again to all who responded. Joe
Re: I got my Boston Acoustics HD Radio - THANKS TO ALL WHO REPLIED BACK!!!
> I tried a Terk power antenna last night, got no improvement
> at all. Actually, it got worse reception. I feel I've wasted
> $279 for this 'thing' and I'm going to do the rabbit ear
> formation tomorrow. We'll see. I'm disppointed, but will
> take all items on this seriously. Thanks again to all who
> responded. Joe
Terk = crap
I managed to disable the FM trap in my TV antenna preamp and I can't get over how well this thing performs. My home theatre system's tuner gets completely overloaded while connected to the same antenna while the BA rig works great. I get FM Iboc from over 100 miles away.
> I tried a Terk power antenna last night, got no improvement
> at all. Actually, it got worse reception. I feel I've wasted
> $279 for this 'thing' and I'm going to do the rabbit ear
> formation tomorrow. We'll see. I'm disppointed, but will
> take all items on this seriously. Thanks again to all who
> responded. Joe
Terk = crap
I managed to disable the FM trap in my TV antenna preamp and I can't get over how well this thing performs. My home theatre system's tuner gets completely overloaded while connected to the same antenna while the BA rig works great. I get FM Iboc from over 100 miles away.
- Status