Sony XDR-F1HD

[SignalSeeker]

KB10KL

You know you almost had me believeing you. I was watching the posts to see if anyone could help you with your reception problems with the Sony XDR-F1HD. I just couldn't understand why everyone else, including myself raves about this tuner but your's didn't work. Then I got to see some of your other posts on other forums and realized what you are all about. I wanted to help you with your reception problems, but I don't think there are any, and never were. As a matter of fact I don't think that you even own the Sony. All you do is rant about how bad IBOC is on every channel, in every forum. You just want to plant discouraging remarkes about HD radio. You are not here for technical assistance. You are here for propaganda.

I feel sorry for you. Get some help !

 

[KB1OKL]

KB10KL

You know you almost had me believeing you. I was watching the posts to see if anyone could help you with your reception problems with the Sony XDR-F1HD. I just couldn't understand why everyone else, including myself raves about this tuner but your's didn't work. Then I got to see some of your other posts on other forums and realized what you are all about. I wanted to help you with your reception problems, but I don't think there are any, and never were. As a matter of fact I don't think that you even own the Sony. All you do is rant about how bad IBOC is on every channel, in every forum. You just want to plant discouraging remarkes about HD radio. You are not here for technical assistance. You are here for propaganda.

I feel sorry for you. Get some help !

Help me with my reception problems? haha! I don't want nor need any help, I'm just letting people know that not everyone thinks this radio is the neatest thing since sliced bread. I set it up like any normal non-ham, non DXer would. I've been DXing for 40 years I know what to do to get this radio receiving better, put a Yagi and a rotator on the roof. I think HD sucks, I make no secret of that and this radio did nothing to dispel that notion. If this is HD's best I'd hate to see the worst. And yes you are right I do want to post my opinions about IBOC. What you call propaganda I call the truth. I am not here for technical assistance, I hardly need help with getting the most out of a radio and I see no sense in doing that for this radio, it doesn't sound much better if at all than analog, it would probably burn up soon it runs so damn hot if I actually used it and I don't think it's analog reception head to head with my 30 year old Marantz is that much better, in fact I've gotten a few stations clearer on the Marantz with the same antenna placed the same way. I sometimes think IBOCers just want a radio that performs reasonably well so bad that they grabbed onto this one like it was the Holy Grail. I am not impressed, this will be the last iBlock radio I purchase. Thanks for calling me a liar BTW.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The only constructive posts about HD radio all say the same thing, "turn HD off and stop the adjacent channel interference". The most constructive way to "save radio" (if it really needs saving) is to eliminate the additional noise and interference from HD radio, and restore analog fidelity.

 

[Mike Walker]

Back to the Sony (remember it?), it's a STUNNINGLY good analog FM Stereo tuner. Perhaps the best ever, in terms of maintaining clean, noise and distortion free, fully separated stereo down to EXTREMELY low signal strengths...even with strong signals on either adjacent channel. Quite remarkable, really. As Radio World's review says (paraphrasing, I don't have it in front of me), the 20db penalty for FM sterei is gone forever!

As for HD, there is nothing inherently good, or evil about it. HD, like the internet or a cd-rom, is merely a method of delivering packets of data from point a to point b. If those packets arrive intact, the job is done "perfectly". If not, then it isn't. Simple as that. The rest is about codecs, bitrates, and engineering practices...which means it's all subjective. There are no absolutes. It sounds wonderful. It sounds terrible. Both are equally true, and almost beside the point, because they're equally true of analog AM and FM, CDs, LPs, open reel tapes, and Elcassettes (remember those? If so, YOU'RE OLD TOO!)

It's amusing to me to hear people talk about how "awful" HD radio sounds, then a couple of paragraphs later tout internet radio as the answer, when most internet stations stream at lower bitrates, or with older and less efficient codecs, than HD stations. And I'm a HUGE fan of internet radio! My Christmas present was a Revo Blik internet radio, which sits by my bedside, attached to a headphone amplifier (through the line outputs, it's built-in headphone amp is simply AWFUL). Given a clean, high bitrate stream (WDAV Davidson NC has a spectacularly good one if you enjoy classical!), it simply sounds stunning. And yes, if anybody I enjoyed listening to streamed at 192kbps or higher with a modern codec, this radio could indeed exceed the performance of HD Radio...though I doubt most here could tell the difference double-blind.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

HD radio creates new interference and trespasses on your neighbor's property. That's inherently evil.

 

[Mike Walker]

It's not "evil". It's a tradeoff. There was bound to be a tradeoff once the FCC ruled that any digital system must be IBOC. I know, we could have gone FMExtra. Actually a good system, and I widh HD radios were REQUIRED to receive it as well...it would be a cheap addition. But let's not pretend there are no tradeoffs there as well: like eliminating existing analog SCA services. So what? Well, as a blind person I can tell you that what's being lost is pretty important to lots of people LIKE ME (reading services for the blind being a prime example).

There is no free lunch. We're not virgins here, so let's not pretend any of us are naive enough to believe that digital could be shoehorned into the existing analog band(s) without something being lost in the process. A slight, mostly theoretical (at current power levels) increase in interference is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff on FM. On AM I'll agree, the tradeoff is too great. Still, the Sony, with it's spectacular adjacent channel selectivity and other specs (in analog mode) proves that these problems can be overcome with current technology. Nothing is "broken" that can't be fixed. Well there's one thing...the stupid fees to Ibiquity. Those frankly nauseate me, and I don't even own a station. Someone in Radio World put it best when they said "Nobody should be required to pay money to a private company in order to operate in ANY legal mode with the license granted to them by the FCC" (paraphrasing, I don't have the article in front of me...but that's pretty close. Hard to argue with that. But when you put the party of big business in charge of all branches of government for year after year, what the hell do you expect?

 

[Play Freebird]

It's not "evil". It's a tradeoff.... on AM I'll agree, the tradeoff is too great.

That's exactly the point many of us have been making.

What we consider "evil" is reflected in the attitudes of several large group owners of Class A AM stations who realize they are causing harmful interference to other broadcasters, but don't care because they are the "high and mighty ones". In certain cases, these companies have been known to shut off digital at one of their facilities if a co-owned station's local coverage is being harmed, but they don't seem to care otherwise. The usual response is something like "the FCC says it's legal", "the herd needs thinning", or "your station isn't viable" -- in spite of the fact that most of these companies are no longer turning a profit and their stock has lost significant value over the past few years.

Digital to analog interference is simply bad for listeners; it reduces the quality of reception and lowers listener satisfaction. If the tradeoff isn't favorable, why continue?

 

[almaniac27]

Back to the Sony (remember it?), it's a STUNNINGLY good analog FM Stereo tuner. Perhaps the best ever, in terms of maintaining clean, noise and distortion free, fully separated stereo down to EXTREMELY low signal strengths...even with strong signals on either adjacent channel. Quite remarkable, really. As Radio World's review says (paraphrasing, I don't have it in front of me), the 20db penalty for FM sterei is gone forever!

The analog FM reception is amazingly good on the Sony. What I would like would be the ability to turn off the HD feature, because fringe stations tend to switch back and forth between digital and analog which is really annoying. I found a mod for this on the internet but I'm not technically experienced enough to do it without bricking my radio.

 

[KB1OKL]

Back to the Sony (remember it?), it's a STUNNINGLY good analog FM Stereo tuner. Perhaps the best ever, in terms of maintaining clean, noise and distortion free, fully separated stereo down to EXTREMELY low signal strengths...even with strong signals on either adjacent channel. Quite remarkable, really. As Radio World's review says (paraphrasing, I don't have it in front of me), the 20db penalty for FM sterei is gone forever!

I disagree, it's a pedestrian receiver at best

As for HD, there is nothing inherently good, or evil about it. HD, like the internet or a cd-rom, is merely a method of delivering packets of data from point a to point b. If those packets arrive intact, the job is done "perfectly". If not, then it isn't. Simple as that. The rest is about codecs, bitrates, and engineering practices...which means it's all subjective. There are no absolutes. It sounds wonderful. It sounds terrible. Both are equally true, and almost beside the point, because they're equally true of analog AM and FM, CDs, LPs, open reel tapes, and Elcassettes (remember those? If so, YOU'RE OLD TOO!)

It's amusing to me to hear people talk about how "awful" HD radio sounds, then a couple of paragraphs later tout internet radio as the answer, when most internet stations stream at lower bitrates, or with older and less efficient codecs, than HD stations. And I'm a HUGE fan of internet radio! My Christmas present was a Revo Blik internet radio, which sits by my bedside, attached to a headphone amplifier (through the line outputs, it's built-in headphone amp is simply AWFUL). Given a clean, high bitrate stream (WDAV Davidson NC has a spectacularly good one if you enjoy classical!), it simply sounds stunning. And yes, if anybody I enjoyed listening to streamed at 192kbps or higher with a modern codec, this radio could indeed exceed the performance of HD Radio...though I doubt most here could tell the difference double-blind.

Analog radio sounds better than Satrad, I've never said that, satrad kills analog radio because of it's content.

 

[Board Editor 3]

MOVED: Re: Sony XDR-F1HD

Some posts have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl]http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=117863.0[/iurl]

 

[SUPERCASTER]

FMeXtra does not preclude radio reading services to the blind, it just improves quality and bandwidth efficiency of the service, and may make more similar specialized services simple, economical and available.

FMeXtra is truly In Band On Channel (IBOC) while HD radio is not.

HD radio uses other licensed radio stations channels without requiring their permission. It is evil.

We now return you to the self serving, destructive HD radio promotion, marketing, and sales campaign.

 

[Savage]

Freebird brings up an excellent point about the cynicism and dishonesty of major broadcasters who back HD Radio, particularly AM-HD (although if the 10db digital increase happens you'll also see this ugly phenomenon with FM-HD.)

HD proponents Clear Channel and CBS, among others, claim variously:

a. There aren't any (or any significant) adjacent-channel problems.
b. If there are problems, they're not too bad. (Generally. Usually.)
c. If there are problems, they affect nonviable (read: our entrepreneurial competitors) stations, you know, like the hated "mom and pop" operators the industry could do without.

Yet they selectively turn off HD at night among their OWN properties to mitigate the adjacent-channel skywave problems they publicly declare don't exist.

HD: radio's unfunny, self-defeating carnival of fakery and lies. Contrived and promoted by the radio industry's dullest, least visionary and most cynical - the worst people our profession has ever produced.

 

[clouseau]

c. If there are problems, they affect nonviable (read: our entrepreneurial competitors) stations, you know, like the hated "mom and pop" operators the industry could do without.

Could you cite a source where "HD proponents Clear Channel and CBS, among others" claimed what you posted above?

Thanks

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

(Sigh.) Well, Inspector, I doubt you'll be satisfied with any sentiment from major group broadcasters short of a direct word-for-word quote of what I posted, but here goes:

In 2005, Crawford's fabled self-important bigshot Cris Alexander famously told Radio World - when queried about AM nighttime adjacent-channel skywave problems: "It's time to PUSH PAST SUCH OBJECTIONS (emphasis added) and embrace radio's digital future." (Translation: screw even legitimate complaints. IBOC Uber Alles.)

In 2008, in CBS Radio East's response to WYSL's interference complaint, CBS counsel Steven Lerman declared: "CBS engineers FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE (emphasis added) the high levels of IBOC interference by WBZ to the WYSL signal....the Commission should recognize the SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST IN COMPLETING THE TRANSITION TO DIGITAL BROADCASTING as an expedient and efficient method possible and SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ACTIONS WHICH WOULD INHIBIT this conversion." (Emphasis added) (Note and translation: first, CBS never said the complaint wasn't founded. They just said that on the ONE evening when they were in Western New York to measure, they "failed to demonstrate" it, a self-serving and obviously limited observation. And they proceeded to implicitly declare that even if the interference complaint had merit, it should be ignored in the interest of advancing "conversion" to HD Radio. IOW: screw WYSL. Please give us official sanction to bulldoze them at night with IBOC.)

In CCU VP/Engineering Jeff Littlejohn's 3/06/02 Report on IBOC to the NRSC, the latter-day IBOC promoter stated - as a result of direct field experiments in the suburban Washington DC area: "While (current nighttime protection ratios) work in an all-analog environment, (they are) NOT SUFFICIENT in the presence of IBOC....the amount of energy provided to a first-adjacent station is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DETRIMENTAL than current allocation rules allow for....ADEQUATE TESTING HAS NOT BEEN DONE...." (Emphasis added) and went on to predict "profoundly deleterious" consequences if IBOC was used at night on the AM band. Yet Littlejohn signed off on HD-AM at night, when he obviously knew it would hurt non-Clear Channel broadcasters on adjacent frequencies. CCU is one of the biggest selective HD-at-night turner-offers in the industry to protect their co-owned properties. Yet they are perfectly okay with stomping on competitors.

And then, in late summer 2007, we had the picturesque declaration from WOR IBOC boor Tom Ray: "Some say (with IBOC at night) it's the beginning of the apocalypse. I'm the one who's going to start it." Haw, haw. Some funny guy, that Tom Ray. Hope his sense of humor, as vented on helpless first-adajcent stations with legitimate concerns about HD, is still intact - now that the mean old Cubans are ruining his nighttime coverage. I suggest the Cubans show him pictures of an "RF protection mask" that graphically illustrates their interference comports with "some kind of rules." I'm sure it will make him feel MUCH better.

There you go, Clouseau. Anything else I can help you with?

 

[KB1OKL]

Yeah, old Tom's a humble man. How do I know? He's a member of the NRC and I saw plenty of his posts about iBlock and he has the b@lls to see it through, etc. etc. etc. Haven't seen any lately though ;D

 

[clouseau]

(Sigh.) Well, Inspector, I doubt you'll be satisfied with any sentiment from major group broadcasters short of a direct word-for-word quote of what I posted, but here goes:

In 2005, Crawford's fabled self-important bigshot Cris Alexander famously told Radio World - when queried about AM nighttime adjacent-channel skywave problems: "It's time to PUSH PAST SUCH OBJECTIONS (emphasis added) and embrace radio's digital future." (Translation: screw even legitimate complaints. IBOC Uber Alles.)

In 2008, in CBS Radio East's response to WYSL's interference complaint, CBS counsel Steven Lerman declared: "CBS engineers FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE (emphasis added) the high levels of IBOC interference by WBZ to the WYSL signal....the Commission should recognize the SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST IN COMPLETING THE TRANSITION TO DIGITAL BROADCASTING as an expedient and efficient method possible and SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ACTIONS WHICH WOULD INHIBIT this conversion." (Emphasis added) (Note and translation: first, CBS never said the complaint wasn't founded. They just said that on the ONE evening when they were in Western New York to measure, they "failed to demonstrate" it, a self-serving and obviously limited observation. And they proceeded to implicitly declare that even if the interference complaint had merit, it should be ignored in the interest of advancing "conversion" to HD Radio. IOW: screw WYSL. Please give us official sanction to bulldoze them at night with IBOC.)

In CCU VP/Engineering Jeff Littlejohn's 3/06/02 Report on IBOC to the NRSC, the latter-day IBOC promoter stated - as a result of direct field experiments in the suburban Washington DC area: "While (current nighttime protection ratios) work in an all-analog environment, (they are) NOT SUFFICIENT in the presence of IBOC....the amount of energy provided to a first-adjacent station is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DETRIMENTAL than current allocation rules allow for....ADEQUATE TESTING HAS NOT BEEN DONE...." (Emphasis added) and went on to predict "profoundly deleterious" consequences if IBOC was used at night on the AM band. Yet Littlejohn signed off on HD-AM at night, when he obviously knew it would hurt non-Clear Channel broadcasters on adjacent frequencies. CCU is one of the biggest selective HD-at-night turner-offers in the industry to protect their co-owned properties. Yet they are perfectly okay with stomping on competitors.

And then, in late summer 2007, we had the picturesque declaration from WOR IBOC boor Tom Ray: "Some say (with IBOC at night) it's the beginning of the apocalypse. I'm the one who's going to start it." Haw, haw. Some funny guy, that Tom Ray. Hope his sense of humor, as vented on helpless first-adajcent stations with legitimate concerns about HD, is still intact - now that the mean old Cubans are ruining his nighttime coverage. I suggest the Cubans show him pictures of an "RF protection mask" that graphically illustrates their interference comports with "some kind of rules." I'm sure it will make him feel MUCH better.

OK, Bob, I understand the situation. My point was, where did this whole "NonViable"= "Our Competitors" thing come from? And while your respone is eloquent and most likely factual, nowhere in it do you actually quote with the Phrase "Nonviable" of even the the substituted "Our Competitors". That was my point. It seems like tortured logic to get that twisted around to NonViable to me.

As for the complaint, they apparently responded with "We didn't see the Problem". Big surprise. We could only hope that based on the presentation of both sides, the "Judge" will actually "Rule" as opposed to Salutary neglect.

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING - Holding breath waiting for an actual decision may result in passing out or death.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Like I said: you're not going to like any response from me that isn't pretty much a literal word-for-word quote.

One of two things is true. Thing one: CBS or CCU are run by total nihilist, crazy doomsday cheerleaders or narcissists with utterly NO conscience, who hate all other broadcasters other than their own properties. In other words: corrupt and cynical RF terrorists.

Or thing two: they rationalize their decisions to use a destructive interference-generating system which harms non-co-owned stations by justification: e.g., the "the herd need thinning" mentality. IOW, we can dispense with these other stations anyway. They're not worth protecting (even though OURS are.) IOW: they're "non-viable."

Did THEY use the actual word "non-viable?" No, that was mine. But that's their sentiment. They exhibit it time and again.

 

[clouseau]

Like I said: you're not going to like any response from me that isn't pretty much a literal word-for-word quote.

Let me say, TO ME, it's not about what I "like" or don't "like". However when this get's posted...

HD proponents Clear Channel and CBS, among others claim<snip> If there are problems, they affect nonviable (read: our entrepreneurial competitors) stations, you know, like the hated "mom and pop" operators the industry could do without

And then it get's sourced with multiple paragraphs of "Pete Tridish-like" vitriol, followed up by this...

Did THEY use the actual word "non-viable?" No, that was mine. But that's their sentiment.

I have to wonder. To me, it's pretty hard to "Claim" something without saying it. However that appears what is alledged to have happened here.

Clouseau

 

[Carmine5]

And then, in late summer 2007, we had the picturesque declaration from WOR IBOC boor Tom Ray: "Some say (with IBOC at night) it's the beginning of the apocalypse. I'm the one who's going to start it." Haw, haw. Some funny guy, that Tom Ray. Hope his sense of humor, as vented on helpless first-adajcent stations with legitimate concerns about HD, is still intact - now that the mean old Cubans are ruining his nighttime coverage. I suggest the Cubans show him pictures of an "RF protection mask" that graphically illustrates their interference comports with "some kind of rules." I'm sure it will make him feel MUCH better.

I was just reading on the Inside Radio site that there is a movement afoot calling for the shut down of Radio Marti in the hopes that Cuba will reciprocate and cut the power on their signal, thereby reducing the interference stations, like WOR, are experiencing. Wonder how Tom managed that?

On another note, I notice that Bob Struble hasn't posted a column in the past two months. If he's running out of topics, I have one: an open admission of failure and apology for HD-AM (along with some downloadable refund vouchers).

C5

 

[audioguy]

I don't think we should plan spectrum use on the basis of the cheapest and worst performing receivers. There was a time when TV tuners could only handle stations spaced 6 channels apart. Today, we can pretty much put them side by side (this is partly due to receiver performance improvements and partly due to the switchover to DTV).

As I'm writing, I'm listening to the classical voice of WNIU on a Sangean WR-11 connected to a 13L yagi on the rooftop trained on their tower out in the middle of a cow pasture somewhere near Rockford. Why? There is only one other classical station in the Chicago area (WFMT). Sometimes I appreciate a change. WNIU's signal runs around 5-10 microvolts at my location. But it's good enough to listen to in mono.

Keep in mind that someone's "innovative new format" can often bring about the end of someone else's ability to listen to their favorite station. Gone are the days when I could drive from Chicago all the way to my summer cottage listening to Classical 98.7, WFMT. Why? Well, Uncle Charlie decided to allow someone (a church, apparently) to drop in a LPFM on 98.7 in Elkhart, IN. This station, which broadcasts hip-hop (which I hate), wipes out WFMT for miles. I typically lose reception somewhere between La Porte and South Bend due to their signal. That's at least 25 miles from their transmitter. So altogether, they wipe out WFMT for something like a 50 mile long stretch of highway (at the east end of that range, the signal is noise limited anyway).

The way things are going on FM, it'll be just like 75 meters on a Saturday night before long. Hey, here's an idea: Why don't we just let everyone fire up on whatever frequency and power they want, and let the listeners see what they can pick up? Maybe reception reports and QSL cards will become popular again. :