For the price and for what it came with that dual XHD6425 is a sweet system. I really like the USB option that I can play my mp3 music on it with out burning cd's any more. The FMHD reception is decent. I hadn't took it on a road trip yet. But will soon. Its a nice radio so far I like it better than my old JVC cd player. This thing even has a input jack for other devices.
-
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
Just installed the dual XHD6425 radio in my truck today
- Thread starter jras20
- Start date
Just got back a week or so ago from a 5 week road trip through most of the West with the Dual (put it in just before I left). I put it in orignally so that I could play my MP3 disks. But I found that except for some of the really obscure desert areas, I spent most of my time listening to the HD2 channels (on FM). That and the USB. BTW, a flash drive works really well. And what I also did was get an SD to USB adatper (about $5.00) and had most of my music collection on the SD cards. Works very well.
But since this is an HD board I discovered it was easier to listen to my classical music on the HD2 channels (via NPR). But I have noticed, that depending where I was, that linking on the HD2 ranged from immediate lock (Minnesota Public Radio) to never lock at all (Sioux Falls, SD). And it didn't make a difference how far I was from the transmitter. Must be something to do with how the HD was adjusted.
Back to the topic, for the price, the Dual is an excellent radio.
But since this is an HD board I discovered it was easier to listen to my classical music on the HD2 channels (via NPR). But I have noticed, that depending where I was, that linking on the HD2 ranged from immediate lock (Minnesota Public Radio) to never lock at all (Sioux Falls, SD). And it didn't make a difference how far I was from the transmitter. Must be something to do with how the HD was adjusted.
Back to the topic, for the price, the Dual is an excellent radio.
K6JHU said:
That's interesting. If that's the case that Minnesota Public Radio is getting a decent HD signal out at a distance, then other engineers, whether they work for commercial or non-commercial broadcasters ought to take notes from/contact MPR Engineering. Is MPR running HD1/2 at 48/48Kbps? If so, and audio processing is done right, then the signal could end up sounding decent.
Well the radio didn't do to well on my road trip. I had way to much static in Gonzales, My factory did a lot better in that area, the HD kicked out 35 miles out of Austin, I wasn't very pleased with the results. I maybe taking it back, but it had a great sound and great things came with it, but it does me no good if I can't pick anything up.
K6JHU said:
That's because at its current power levels, HD is a LOCAL service. Any HD reception outside of the station’s “City Grade” contour is a freak of nature, just like skip in the morning. Sure, you can receive it occasionally, but it is not a reliable broadcast source.
If the Alliance gets its 10-db power increase, then fringe reception will improve a bit, but it will also increase interference to what may be intolerable levels. It is hard to put ten pounds of crap in a one-pound bag. Such a power increase will cause possibly significant interference to some stations. Therein lies the problem. As has been pointed out previously by RBruce, that power increase will not solve all of HD's reception problems. It still won't penetrate many buildings very well, but it will be a good car radio service.
My guess is for stations that can afford it, things will level out at about a 6 db power increase, and in most (but certainly not all) instances, that will not cause horrible interference to most of its neighbors. The big question is how many stations will scrap their current investment to make this significant upgrade?
The real fate of HD lies with the accountants. It will be very expensive to do a 6-10 db power increase. The reasons have been enumerated many times on this Board, so I won't get into them. Keep in mind that running a radio station is usually not a hobby. It is a business. Even if it starts out as a hobby, reality soon sinks in, and you come to the conclusion that this thing had better support itself, or it simply isn't worth doing. Since each HD channel requires a royalty payment to Ibiquity, and the so called "Performance Tax" is probably in radio's future, whether we like it or not, then it will be expensive to run the thing. Add to that the cost of power, tower space, air conditioning load and the price of refitting the transmitter site to accommodate a power increase, etc; then I think the handwriting is on the wall.
The good news is your new car radio accepts MP3 files from a thumb drive. That is a cool feature, and probably justifies the cost of the radio. You did mention that it sounds better than the radio that it replaced, so you are ahead of the game.
I liked the thumb drive option, but FM was my biggest. I listen to FM more than anything. I took out the radio today and put in my Factory radio, it picks up a bunch better. I don't see how HD Radio will make it the way things are going for it. I'm not happy with the way the reception went with my truck.
Yeah, I had to roll my eyes a bit when I read that excuse about how South Texas is such a "tough" reception area!! ;D :
;D
With all of the 100 kw class C signals available around there and not-so-challenging terrain, it should be one of the BETTER areas of the US for the availability of HD signals. As KB said, try New England! Or anywhere else in the northeast for that matter - more than 15 miles from the tx site!
Basically, if it doesn't work well there it won't work well anywhere. Sorry that you got ripped off like that, but at least it made for a "teachable moment" for the rest of us.
;DWith all of the 100 kw class C signals available around there and not-so-challenging terrain, it should be one of the BETTER areas of the US for the availability of HD signals. As KB said, try New England! Or anywhere else in the northeast for that matter - more than 15 miles from the tx site!
Basically, if it doesn't work well there it won't work well anywhere. Sorry that you got ripped off like that, but at least it made for a "teachable moment" for the rest of us.
jras20 said:
That would be the truth. We can't have that, because nobody would buy the radios.
Even by Ibiquity's own admission a 6 db increase will not yield much improvement. (See today's Leslie Report for some damning evidence - Sorry, I don't have a link.) In their fervor to get a full 10 db power increase, Ibiquity has been forced to tell the truth: At current power levels, the digital signal falls very far short of the station's analog coverage area. Now they say that a 6 db power increase will not render the desired result either. Of course, they are lobbying for a full 10 db (that is a ten times power increase) to make the system work as advertised.
Frankly, I doubt that will fix the problem either. The lack of candor from Ibiquity is amazing. Yet the FCC seems to buy the story, hook line and sinker.
Chuck said:
There does appear to be some "revisionist history" concerning the original choice of -20 dB (one percent) digital power. iBiquity/NAB now claim this injection level was chosen "too conservatively" because the NRSC lacked the proper resources, etc. But there's more to the story than that.
Remember that IBOC was supposed to operate in band on channel but that approach failed, so the proponents decided to move the digital carriers to the adjacent channels. They needed a loophole to slide this into the framework of allocations law, and realized that the accepted ITU definition of "occupied bandwidth" is the width of a frequency band such that, below the lower and above the upper frequency limits, the mean powers emitted are each equal to 0.5% of the emitted power -- also known as the 99% emission bandwidth.
So, by keeping the total digital power at 1%, the digital carriers could be placed outside the 200 kHz FM channel and remain (somewhat) legal.
The trouble with any increase (whether 6 or 10 dB) is that it would exceed the FM channel width according to this international standard. If occupied bandwidth rules are meaningless, why is there a 75 kHz limit on modulation?
Regardless, iBiquity continues to argue that the increased digital injection appears to meet the FCC "mask", but it's necessary to reduce the resolution bandwidth of the spectrum analyzer down to 1 kHz to make the picture look pretty. Problem is, FM receivers have much wider IF bandwidth than 1 kHz, so when a listener is trying to hear a first-adjacent analog signal, much more of the digital noise will pass through to the demodulator stage than the analyzer plot would suggest.
The FCC is dominated by lawyers who don't have a firm understanding of the laws of Physics, so that's why these moves slip by.
D
DuckBlue
Guest
I have had one of the Dual radios in my Honda Accord for a little over 1.5 years. The AM reception is lousy. I can no longer listen to distant clear channel stations while driving home at night. My main reason for buying the radio was to be able to listen to NPR talk on the HD3 channel of our local Atlanta NPR station (WABE-FM). But it sounds so lousy that I have never been able to listen to it. The high frequencies are boosted so much that they sound distorted. (Their HD1 channel has the same problem, but their HD2 channel sounds OK.) One feature I would like to see on the Dual is an HD defeat.
Savage said:Seems to be one of the most-desired features customers want to see in their HD radios:
A way to turn off the HD function. So you can keep listening in good old reliable sounds-fine analog.
Says a lot about HD Radio, yes?? :
I can get a good reliable stereo signal 84 miles out of Houston with just a dipole antenna with analog FM.
On my Dual I get HD as far as I get the analog signal in most places. MPR I get as far as 30 miles away from Minneapolis. WHO I get more than 40 miles out. At home I get most the HD signals reliably at 35-40 miles out. AM reception is the same as the factory installed radio. Analog FM is better than the factory installed. I wonder if the 'lcal' mode has been accidentally turned on.
The key is (leaving this forum open to comment) is that HD signals seem to be extremely dependant on who set up the HD processor/encoder in the first place. Good set up means good distance ercpetion and poor set up means no lock. But think of platform motion on the early CQAM before that got straightened out.
The key is (leaving this forum open to comment) is that HD signals seem to be extremely dependant on who set up the HD processor/encoder in the first place. Good set up means good distance ercpetion and poor set up means no lock. But think of platform motion on the early CQAM before that got straightened out.
DuckBlue said:
Good news. When HD Radio is gone and the adjacent channel digital hissing disappears, HD Radios will automatically revert to normal AM/FM radios!
The end is near!
- Status