• 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

"Sangean HDR-1's Vintage Look—and Sound" (Businessweek)

"Sangean HDR-1's Vintage Look—and Sound"

"I've given up anticipating the 'near-CD' sound quality that iBiquity says HD Radio delivers. But at this point, I'll take any step up from traditional radio, however incremental. Still, the sound coming from the HDR-1 disappoints me. It has spots of fuzz and hissing while playing most HD stations, and when it's struggling for reception, one of the speakers actually goes silent."

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070425_225290.htm

Just another pretty face ! :D
 
PocketRadio said:
"Sangean HDR-1's Vintage Look—and Sound"

"I've given up anticipating the 'near-CD' sound quality that iBiquity says HD Radio delivers. But at this point, I'll take any step up from traditional radio, however incremental. Still, the sound coming from the HDR-1 disappoints me. It has spots of fuzz and hissing while playing most HD stations, and when it's struggling for reception, one of the speakers actually goes silent."

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070425_225290.htm

Just another pretty face ! :D

Although the Sangean HDT-1 looks like any other quality receiver you'd have sitting on your fine audio chain at your house... it falls far short of quality and expectations.... I cannot comment on the other HD radios... I think the customers have alot to say by not buying them in mass quantities...

Here is the known problems with the unit:

Design Bugs

1. The BER display doesn't work right.

2. SSI drops when there is audio near 15 kHz on FM and varies wildly with any
modulation on AM. The display is ambiguous at best on FM and of no value on
AM.

3. Using the supplied loop, the AM RF amplifier overloads if stations are
nearby.

4. Occasional pops occur on AM. They are very infrequent and not loud, but
annoying when they happen. They sound like step changes in DC level.

5. The AM varactor drive backsteps at 840, 930, and 1340 kHz. This may be a
piecewise linear approximation whose endpoints do not coincide.


Important Problems

1. There is no way to force analog reception of HD Radio signals.

2. There is no way to dim the LCD or turn it completely off in standby.

3. The clock resets if power is removed. In itself, this is just inconvenient.
But in a bedroom, power must be removed to kill the display in order to sleep!
Since no one is going to reset the clock each time he turns on the tuner, the
clock always displays the wrong time in a bedroom.

4. There is no way to disable automatic channel blend, the high-frequency
noise filter, or soft muting, each of which starts very early on FM.

5. FM deemphasis is in error by up to 2 dB. The nonflat frequency response is
audible when comparing the HDT-1 to a tuner with accurate deemphasis.

6. The AM low-end rolls off around 200 Hz. This profoundly degrades the
quality of music reproduction.

7. FM stereo distortion is excessively high. Single-channel THD is at least
ten times that of a high-quality analog tuner.

8. In actual use with on-the-air signals, FM intermod is reported to be much
worse than for other tuners.


Lesser Issues

1. AM deemphasis deviates from the standard NRSC curve greatly at high
frequencies. Unlike FM, not all AM stations follow this curve exactly. But
adhering to it should maximize AM sound quality on average.

2. The AM synchronous detector is not always in lock when the tuner unmutes,
occasionally loses lock during a selective fade, and will not lock to a weak
signal when the signal on the adjacent channel is strong.

3. The extended-info selection is lost when tuning to a new frequency. The
display reverts to regular info.

4. The first extended-info parameter is one almost never used (reset). The
parameter most likely to be called up should be first (I vote for CNR). The
remaining parameters should appear in the estimated order of importance.

5. It should not be necessary to press PRESET to recall a frequency. Any press
of a digit short of 2 seconds should call up the station.

6. The distinction between a memory being empty (press 2 seconds to store) or
full (5 seconds to overwrite) is unnecessary. The memories will eventually all
fill. Just store the memory after 2 seconds, overwriting whatever's there, and
be done with it.

7. Pressing the final 0 when entering AM frequencies isn't necessary since all
U.S. frequencies end in 0. (But switching frequencies before the 0 is entered
on AM might be confusing since this can't be done on FM.)

8. Tuning should occur in 0.2-MHz steps on FM. No channels are allocated on
even tenths of a MHz in the U.S. This will ease manual tuning and increase the
speed of the automatic tuning modes.

9. When tuning manually, the tuner steps through multicast channels even when
not attempting to lock to HD. This slows tuning and upsets the two-push
cadence necessitated by 0.1-MHz tuning steps.

10. The tuner gives no indication when receiving AM stereo. A flashing symbol
while locking and a solid symbol when locked, as for HD, would be very useful.
An entry such as "C-QUAM" under transmission mode would make sense.

11. SSI has little dynamic range, remaining at maximum until the signal drops
to 32 dBf. Channel blending and the noise filter begin to operate well before
this point, which is just 13 dB above where muting begins.

12. The tuner retains the station presets when power is removed but not the
last station tuned.

13. The audio output level is excessively high. At 1.5 V, it is 8 dB above the
component tuner standard of 600 mV. This makes it difficult to compare the
HDT-1 with other tuners and awkward to integrate with existing stereo systems.

14. The clock is not synchronized with the line frequency. Eventually the time
becomes inaccurate.

15. AM tracking is off up to 30 kHz at midband.

16. The LCD font is rather primitive (e.g., raised descenders).


http://users.tns.net/~bb/hdt.txt


Radiopilot
 
Owning a HDT-1 I feel qualified to respond to this.

"Here is the known problems with the unit:

Design Bugs

"1. The BER display doesn't work right."

My HDT-1 displays bit errors. I'd have no way of knowing if the numbers are correct or not but it has no effect on recetion and does give a relative idea about signal quality.

"2. SSI drops when there is audio near 15 kHz on FM and varies wildly with any
modulation on AM. The display is ambiguous at best on FM and of no value on
AM."

The SSI only shows accurately on HD signals. When one is received the reading is solid.


"3. Using the supplied loop, the AM RF amplifier overloads if stations are
nearby."

I live in one of the most RF saturated parts of the country and neevr have experienced overload issues with the AM section.

"4. Occasional pops occur on AM. They are very infrequent and not loud, but
annoying when they happen. They sound like step changes in DC level."


Never experienced this with my tuner

"5. The AM varactor drive backsteps at 840, 930, and 1340 kHz. This may be a
piecewise linear approximation whose endpoints do not coincide."

Again, no problems with AM on my Sangean.


Important Problems

"1. There is no way to force analog reception of HD Radio signals."

The next gen HDT-1X will have this capoability.

"2. There is no way to dim the LCD or turn it completely off in standby."

Read above comments concerning the HDT-1X

"3. The clock resets if power is removed. In itself, this is just inconvenient.
But in a bedroom, power must be removed to kill the display in order to sleep!
Since no one is going to reset the clock each time he turns on the tuner, the
clock always displays the wrong time in a bedroom."


The HDT-1 is not a bedside radio.

"4. There is no way to disable automatic channel blend, the high-frequency
noise filter, or soft muting, each of which starts very early on FM."

Not an issue for me. The radio switches to HD and the high end comes up cleanly. Signals once locked into do not switch back to analog

"5. FM deemphasis is in error by up to 2 dB. The nonflat frequency response is
audible when comparing the HDT-1 to a tuner with accurate deemphasis."

Not in my case. I am not loooking at meters but the analog sound of the Sangean and my old Sansui TU-717 are similar when listening to stations with similar signals strengths

"6. The AM low-end rolls off around 200 Hz. This profoundly degrades the
quality of music reproduction."


The fact that there are no music AM station which I listen to on my component system makes this a non issue.

"7. FM stereo distortion is excessively high. Single-channel THD is at least
ten times that of a high-quality analog tuner."

Not with my system. I use a Mac MA-6100 Amp and Infinity REF Standard 2 speakers. An HD FM station is much cleaner on the Sansui than with the Sansui TU 717, which was a fine tuner.

"8. In actual use with on-the-air signals, FM intermod is reported to be much
worse than for other tuners."


Not in my experience. I've posted demos using this radio and gotten excellent audio feedback reports. Sounds like they have a bad radio.


Lesser Issues

"1. AM deemphasis deviates from the standard NRSC curve greatly at high
frequencies. Unlike FM, not all AM stations follow this curve exactly. But
adhering to it should maximize AM sound quality on average."

Not an issue for me with talk radio being 99% of what's on AM in NY.

"10. The tuner gives no indication when receiving AM stereo. A flashing symbol
while locking and a solid symbol when locked, as for HD, would be very useful.
An entry such as "C-QUAM" under transmission mode would make sense."


There is one low powered C-Quam station that I can barely hear. The HDT-1 is not a Stereo Am radio. Earlier firmware versions can decode C-Quam. Newer versions won't deode C-Quam. It doesn't work as well on stereo AM as my Sony Stereo AM's.


"13. The audio output level is excessively high. At 1.5 V, it is 8 dB above the
component tuner standard of 600 mV. This makes it difficult to compare the
HDT-1 with other tuners and awkward to integrate with existing stereo systems."


This is true on the AM side. FM is fine but the AM line out is way too high.

"14. The clock is not synchronized with the line frequency. Eventually the time
becomes inaccurate."


It's not a clock radio, it's a tuner and I have all sorts of electronics with the saame problem.

"15. AM tracking is off up to 30 kHz at midband."

Not with my radio.

Interesting, I will admit that the Sangean could use a spidf output (and the HDT-1X will have one, but these people had nothing good to say about this reciever. That says an awful lot about their review and it's opposed to many other reviews I've read from fellow owners.
 
Unfortunately all of those things listed are not true. For instance the BER display problems might be attributed to the brodcasters. The total harmonic distortion figure is not correct. Both Sangeans have the same guts. Brian Beezley posted many of these tests, and later said some are in error. The problem is that people keep replicating them online.

Most of the problems with the AM side have been bad setups by station engineers, not making their HD signal flat, but instead applying boosts and cutoffs designed for analog. The same this has been happening on the FM side, but to a lesser degree.

Most people have been making the same mistakes with HD radios and tuners. They are not connecting them to proper antennas. It is obvious by now that signal leakage is affecting any antenna connected too close to the cabinet. Especially one with the antenna directly on top of the set.

I have heard many complaints about having to put up a dipole near a window, or using an outdoor antenna. If you wnat quality digital radio it appeares that this is what you are going to have to do. If not continue listening to standard FM. It is unfortunate that it worked out this way, but every complaint we heard seems to come down to either bad antenna placement or something that began at the broadcasters end.

I wish the maufacturers of these radios would issue instructions on better reception, with regard to antenna placement. I think that a whole lot of people would be happier with their sets.

A very happy Sangean HDT-1 owner, who was smart enough to play around till I found an antenna that worked!
 
De-emphasis withing 2db is actually damn good in this era of bad to awful FM tuners. MOST fm tuners have much worse de-emphasis errors than that these days.

Once deviation beyond a fraction of a db from 20-15khz was the rule, not the exception. Jimmy Carter was president then. Did it make disco any more enjoyable? ;)

The idea that a 2db error is awful is silly, and often put forth by the same people who claim that analog is God's gift...nevermind that virtually all analog phonographs and tape machines deviate by 2db or more somewhere within the audible frequency range.

As for the radio unmuting before the sync detector locks on...I can clearly hear the sync detector in my Drake SW8 come unlocked sometimes. It cost 700 dollars when Drake discontinued shortwave manufacture a couple of years ago. B.F.D.
 
I completely agree with R. F. Burns on every articulated point. I never had my receiver play out one speaker for weak HD signals, either. And, as for intermod/front end rejection, I have a knucklehead neighbor that occasionally fires up an FM transmitter that is WAY overpowered. It is so overpowered that it deafens nearly every FM radio in my house. The Sangean HDR-1 deals with it PHENOMENALLY well. I can listen to stations 40 miles distant on second-adjacents to the flamethrower signal. BTW, I also have an FM station on 102.3 just 1 mile south of me, and it causes negligible harm to 101.9 and 102.7. I've even picked up very distant stations on 102.1 and 102.5 when the local station's IBOC/HD Radio signal was offline.
 
Smith said:
I've even picked up very distant stations on 102.1 and 102.5 when the local station's IBOC/HD Radio signal was offline.

So HD FM does jam adjacents. What does tuning in to 102.1 and 102.5 sound like when the HD is transmitting?
Please tell Mike Walker, he doesn't believe that HD FM buzzes adjacent channels. He claims it is impossible for FM detectors to pick up anything but analog FM.
Not so, Mike.
 
I have NEVER claimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE for analog fms to "pick up anything but analog fm". I claimed that I have tried VERY HARD to hear ANYTHING amiss adjacent to my local HD stations, and I'll be damned if I can.
 
SUPERCASTER said:
Smith said:
I've even picked up very distant stations on 102.1 and 102.5 when the local station's IBOC/HD Radio signal was offline.

So HD FM does jam adjacents. What does tuning in to 102.1 and 102.5 sound like when the HD is transmitting?
Please tell Mike Walker, he doesn't believe that HD FM buzzes adjacent channels. He claims it is impossible for FM detectors to pick up anything but analog FM.
Not so, Mike.

What is it about licensed protected contour that you don't understand?
 
Alright, since we've gone on this tangent...

Analog FM radios are designed to receive FM signals, and by the nature of FM, most noise that does not significant change the amplitude of the signal is ignored by the discriminator. But, if any type of signal (AM, FM, ACSB, COFDM, CW, Lightning, TDMA, excessive thermal noise, etc.) distorts the FM signal significantly, the discriminator will pick it up. FM is resistant but not impervious to interference. I can guarantee that if you overlay an FM signal with an AM or any other signal at or near the same frequency, your FM radio will be affected. The discriminator won't pass along a heterodyne whistle like an AM detector would, but it will indeed pass along whatever "FM-ness" it sees within the interference itself. If the interfering signal is HD Radio COFDM overlaying a first-adjacent FM station (this is where I stand up on the table), IT CAN INTERFERE WITH AN FM RADIO'S ABILITY TO GET THE FM STATION. This isn't rocket science. It scratches the surface of simple RF engineering. Two overlapping signals received with comparable power levels (at instantaneous points in time, not "average" power) will interfere with one another.

So, why does analog FM get so much less interference than AM? It actually has less to do with modulation, and more to do with frequency. Lightning and electrical noise affects MF frequencies (1 MHz) far more than VHF (100 MHz). Ever listen to hams running FM on 160 meters (~ 1900 kHz) during a lightning storm? The signals sound almost equally as bad as the AM stations just a few clicks away below 1700 kHz. But it's FM, right? There shouldn't be any noise. Now, for the flipside... Try listening to aircraft comms on VHF just above the FM band (118 - 137 MHz) during the same storm. They sound pretty darn clean -- Almost as clean as the very wideband FM stations below 108 MHz. Perhaps it's a blessing that Sarnoff screwed over Armstrong by having the FM band relocated from 46 to 88 MHz. Imagine what a mess FM radio would be today with more transient noise, lightning static, and E-skip inteference.

Let's segue to the question why people can't hear the interference from these HD Radio signals, leading to a false conclusion that if it sounds like thermal noise, then it is thermal noise, and there is no signal there. This is because, for the most part, the "footprint" of a bundle of COFDM carriers "looks" like thermal noise to an FM detector. It's no different than an 8VSB DTV signal looking like vacant-channel snow on an analog TV. Even so, with the HD Radio signals there is a very subtle difference. On many but not all receivers the "noise" is louder than on a truly vacant frequency. Within the noise there is a very faint warbling tone, whose pitch is the same for any HD Radio signal. Flipping between a channel with the COFDM signal and vacant channel makes it more discernable.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide a sample of this for two reasons. First, I don't own a microphone that is sensitive enough to record the full richness of the two types of noise. Second, the subtle difference between the two audio streams is lost by any type of compression, whether its 320k MP3, WMA, AAC, or etc. I think only uncompressed PCM would be the only way I could post recordings. Nevertheless, the fact that I can't post the audio differences does not negate that fact that FM radios can and do "hear" interference from COFDM signals.

Now, having given that sermon, I'll relate it to what I was saying about an HD Radio station one mile away on 102.3, preventing any stations on 102.1 or 102.5 from being heard. I am not within any measurable contour of any stations on 102.1 or 102.5. Therefore, according to the FCC, if emissions from my local station are within acceptable limits on its first-adjacent channels, from a legal perspective those emissions are not classified as interference to any station on 102.1 or 102.5. Obviously this has sparked a huge moral debate over the FCC's interpretation of what interference is, and how those interpretations are made for HD Radio. But, unless the rules ever change, we will on occasion have semi-distant or "DX-able" first-adjacent FMs that succumb to OFDM noise. I have lost three such choices where I live because of HD Radio signals 35 miles away, but since I am just outside the protected contours of those stations, I was never "guaranteed" reception of them in the first place.
 
“So, why does analog FM get so much less interference than AM? It actually has less to do with modulation, and more to do with frequency. Lightning and electrical noise affects MF frequencies (1 MHz) far more than VHF (100 MHz). Ever listen to hams running FM on 160 meters (~ 1900 kHz) during a lightning storm? The signals sound almost equally as bad as the AM stations just a few clicks away below 1700 kHz. But it's FM, right? “


Wrong. 160 Meters is typically CW, AM, LSB or USB. No FM on 160, sorry



“There shouldn't be any noise. Now, for the flipside... Try listening to aircraft comms on VHF just above the FM band (118 - 137 MHz) during the same storm. They sound pretty darn clean -- Almost as clean as the very wideband FM stations below 108 MHz. Perhaps it's a blessing that Sarnoff screwed over Armstrong by having the FM band relocated from 46 to 88 MHz. Imagine what a mess FM radio would be today with more transient noise, lightning static, and E-skip inteference.”



Are you saying there’s no enhancement on the current FM band? The reason Sarnoff screwed Armstrong was because Sarnoff didn’t want to make his AM radios obsolete. FM was gaining an audience just before Sarnoff got the FCC to move the FM band. The move set FM back decades.
On the subject of interference;
Ever watch an over the air VHF television broadcast during a storm? No noise on the audio, right? How about the video? Lots of interference. Want to know why that is? The video is transmitted in AM.
 
R.F. Burns said:
Wrong. 160 Meters is typically CW, AM, LSB or USB. No FM on 160, sorry

No sir, you are wrong. Although most traffic is SSB, AM and CW, hams indeed run FM on 160 meters, typically around 1.860 or 1.890. Get your facts straight instead of using your assumptions.
 
R.F. Burns said:
Are you saying there’s no enhancement on the current FM band?
I never said there is no enhancement. Enhancement is exactly the right word for what FM provides at any frequency.

R.F. Burns said:
The reason Sarnoff screwed Armstrong was because Sarnoff didn’t want to make his AM radios obsolete. FM was gaining an audience just before Sarnoff got the FCC to move the FM band. The move set FM back decades.
There is no denying that. However, the "ahead of its time" benefit of moving FM up the dial is now reduced RFI and E-Skip interference.

R.F. Burns said:
Ever watch an over the air VHF television broadcast during a storm? No noise on the audio, right? How about the video? Lots of interference. Want to know why that is? The video is transmitted in AM.

Yes, I am highly familiar with the effects of RFI especially on VHF-Low. NTSC video is AM and falls prey to interference more readily than the FM audio. But, under typical RFI from electrical sources or lightning, I have never heard "no noise" in the audio. In fact, the noise can be significant. We just had a storm roll through my area yesterday, and watching the analog signal of WMAQ-TV Chicago (ch 5) the audio and video were both being affected by the storm. FM enhances the ability to receive clean audio, but it does not guarantee clean audio. One thing I can guarantee is that if WMAQ's FM audio were being transmitted at 2 MHz instead of 81.75 MHz, it would have been virtually unlistenable during the same storm.
 
Here one more comparison for thought...

HD Radio on AM and FM are both transmitted in OFDM. So, why is it that on AM any RFI whatsoever interrupts HD Radio reception, while the same types of signals on FM run unscathed?

Aside from higher bitrates being used on FM, it has a great deal to do with the frequency. It's the same reason aircraft comms in AM at 118 MHz have less RFI than AM radio stations around 1000 kHz. MF and HF get hammered by interference more readily than VHF.
 
Philip J. Smith said:
R.F. Burns said:
Wrong. 160 Meters is typically CW, AM, LSB or USB. No FM on 160, sorry

No sir, you are wrong. Although most traffic is SSB, AM and CW, hams indeed run FM on 160 meters, typically around 1.860 or 1.890. Get your facts straight instead of using your assumptions.


Sir, I am an Extra Class amateur operator with more than 30 years on the air. Hre is the 160 Meter band plan;
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810 CW QRP
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
1.910 SSB QRP
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons

While I don't operate 160, I have never heard FM on that band. Not to say experimenters haven't usd FM but it's few and far between at best. I operate 40 CW in the first 25 Khz and CW in the 20 Meter extra portion. AM is much more succeptable to QRN then FM. When drawing comparisons those comparisons would have to be made using the same spectrum, not frequencies many megahertz apart.
 
160m is the only band where I have heard hams use FM below 10m. When I lived farther NW of where I do now, I heard several hams often run AM, and occasionally FM, mid-afternoons, near Chicago. Whether it was experimental or not, I don't know, and I don't care. I didn't keep a log of the conversation because I obviously didn't anticipate it coming up in a discussion. One of the reasons I bought a used Electra Bearcat DX-1000 general coverage receiver was specifically so I could hear this group who was running FM on 160m, since the only way to hear any FM at all on my AM-only receivers was to tune far off-center, where their detectors had a marginal chance of "hearing" some audio. As for their equipment? Hallicrafters and Ten-Tec I think, but I am not certain on that. I never heard them evenings when the band began to skip, which was perhaps "by design" since the fatness of FM would irritate a lot of people on the band.

The FM signals at 160m indeed sounded sweet, and were undisturbed by minor electrical noise. But, if the weather was poor, the clean audio would still have sharp crackles, while hams running FM at 144 and 440 MHz could be heard clear as crystal.

AM is much more succeptable to QRN then FM. When drawing comparisons those comparisons would have to be made using the same spectrum, not frequencies many megahertz apart.

My original point is that FM detectors can and do receive interference from other types of modulation, and when the interfering signal is COFDM it "sounds" a lot like (but not exactly like) vacant-channel noise. My "tangent" point was that there is a belief that FM is impervious to virtually all interference, which is a conclusion typically drawn by comparing the AM Broadcast and FM Broadcast bands. You know, although we have difference of opinion on how much harm OFDM signals cause on FM, we're on the same page as far as this quote.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom