I personally have a very bad opinion of this new HD technology on AM. It makes it even more difficult to hear WABC radio at night down here in Delaware. As if the Cubans aren't creating enough noise, the HD hiss from WBBM as of late just about wipes out WABC. The cost of an HD radio has held me back from considering a purchase. I still am stuck with an old Sony AM Stereo receiver that is next to useless. My question is to anyone who has thrown down the $100 plus bucks for an HD receiver: do you get an HD signal from any of these distant signals? Can you hear WBBM or WCBS or WBZ in "high fidelity stereo" with less interference than their normal signal provides? I'm interested in finding out concerning your experience with HD. Does anybody think that it helps AM at all? I get the impression that it just makes it additionally difficult to get anything clearly.
-
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
LONG DISTANCE AM HD RECEPTION
- Thread starter New Castle
- Start date
HD via skywave is difficult, to say the least.
I can occasionally decode some of the big signals into Memphis (e.g., WLAC, KMOX, WOAI, etc.). But, signals tend to be unstable and certainly unreliable. Heck, groundwave signals aren't great either.
Now, I don't really give a flip about AM skywave. With current technology, it just isn't needed any longer. But, even its little benefit is not outweighed by the benefit of HD, and its interference. FM HD is useful. AM? Not so much.
DE
I can occasionally decode some of the big signals into Memphis (e.g., WLAC, KMOX, WOAI, etc.). But, signals tend to be unstable and certainly unreliable. Heck, groundwave signals aren't great either.
Now, I don't really give a flip about AM skywave. With current technology, it just isn't needed any longer. But, even its little benefit is not outweighed by the benefit of HD, and its interference. FM HD is useful. AM? Not so much.
DE
At a little over 300 miles from New York and about 350 miles from Boston, I get WBZ to decode maybe one night out of 10, and not consistently even then. WABC used to decode perhaps one night out of three before they shut the HD off at night. WCBS has never decoded for me here, nor has WBBM. (This is with the Sangean HDT-1 and the supplied loop.)
My local Chicago HD's start dropping off at dusk, as soon as DX signals start showing up on adjacent channels, even if I can hardly hear the adjacent analogs through the local IBOC hiss. WBBM is a great example. On a "useable scale" of 33.2 to 34.8, I get 780 WBBM with a 34.0 dB reading during the day with a rock-solid lock. After dusk, the HD reading starts to float between 32.6 and 33.2, with only an occasionally brief lock.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
New Castle said:
Even daytime, I have a hard time as little as 10 miles from powerful stations, with a large loop on a super sensitive Sangean HDT-1X. Nighttime - I've never gotten even a flicker of HD on stations that are powerful like KOA or WOAI. Nothing. The technology just doesn't work at night. Nighttime HD is a failure and should be stopped immediately, stations can always fall back on C-Quam which decodes on HD radios.
So, will anybody on this board defend HD on AM? What is the point of this technology? Are sales of the receivers creating an industrial reawakening? No. Is the new service adding to the public's ability to enjoy the service at a higher level? I have not heard of anyone that has altered their TSL to an AM station because of this inovation. Is this service allowing broadcasters to appreciate greater revenues? Not that I have read anywhere. So, what is the purpose of HD?
Outside of allowing one company to reap benefits from struggling broadcasters, I can detect zero benefit to the public.
Outside of allowing one company to reap benefits from struggling broadcasters, I can detect zero benefit to the public.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
New Castle said:
Half hearted endorsement - it sounds OK. But not for music, especially if you have heard the same song on FM - because the high degree of compression and extrapolation distorts highs. If you are a musical listener, it is nice to have stereo on AM again. But you have to almost overload the receiver to get stereo, it is much harder than mono HD. If the HD folks are right and the format takes off, HD AM is better than nothing - but it won't work at night. The good thing - C-Quam decodes so there is always a fallback scenario. So if you pay for HD, you can also get C-Quam which sounds better on music anyway. It has been a long time since you could buy an AM stereo radio easily. Somebody had the foresight to keep the capability in HD radios, maybe "just in case". I must confess, I like HD better than 5 kHz analog. It doesn't take long for 5 kHz analog to sound tedious, especially with hiss mixed in from HD. HD is more listenable than 5 kHz analog. But HD forced the 5 kHz to begin with - so - if HD wasn't around I'd have more listenable audio.
That's about as favorable as I can get. I bought the tuner because it was selective on FM. FM HD-2's are OK, but the moment they start charging for them and running commercials, I'll lose interest.
FM HD also spurred the development of adaptive IF technology. 10 years from now when HD is dead, that technology is going to give more choices for the real stations between the stations.
- Status