I love the idea for HD-FM but the power reception sux. I can get a clean FM analog signal but on my HD radio wont pick up the HD signal, or is very spotty. I think if they want this to work, they need to make the HD power go as far as the analog signal will. One thing that I dont get is, they say no static, but if your signal has to be that clear to get a HD signal.... than you wont get any static with analog anyways. ??? ???
-
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
Things that I dont like about HD Radio
- Thread starter jras20
- Start date
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Install a decent antenna and rotor, and quit your whining! I speak these words with all the love in my heart. 
jras20 said:
This is what I have thought all along - that since the digital sidebands are only broadcast at 1/100th the power of the analog channels, that this will be HD Radio's Achilles Heel. Even in full-digital mode, there are many complaints with DAB reception in the UK, as an example:
http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?board=DAB
M
Mike Walker
Guest
And "what you've thought all along" is proven wrong on a daily basis by WHAT WE WHO HAVE THE RADIOS HAVE FOUND TO BE TRUE! Again, POWER isn't the be-all and end-all of digital broadcasting that it is with analog. TOWER HEIGHT is MUCH more important at VHF frequencies than power anyway (with analog or digital). Signal to noise ratios, which improve with power, are all but irrelevant with digital. They need to be only good enough to distinguish between a one and a zero. THAT'S HOW DIGITAL WORKS! It's why, with a proper antenna, many have been able to send a wi-fi signal for MILES with a tiny fraction of a watt.
Mike Walker said:
"Analog vs digital"
"However, digital has its detractors as well. Roaming may be more difficult using a digital based phone than an analog, some say. Since today there is no single accepted industry standard in digital technology and the technologies are incompatible, roaming--or using another wireless operator's network while traveling--may be difficult. Analog has better coverage than digital, and greater service availability. Plus, the initial cost for analog is usually cheaper than for digital, defenders say."
http://www.wirelessguide.org/phone/types.htm
I believe, that this subject has already been debated.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
"Has already been debated"? Is that suppose to close discussion? Excuuuuuse the hell out of me, and all those like me convinced that digital is the future of ALL media. You can't kill us. You can't make us go away. And you can't shut us up. Furthermore, you can't prove us wrong...BECAUSE WE'RE NOT! Time is on our side. Change is the only constant in the universe, and everything that survives WILL CHANGE. Radio is no different. "Has already been debated", my @@@! We'll debate as long as we like. It's what forums like this are for! If YOU have tired of the debate, exit stage left!
Mike Walker said:
"Analog Vs. Digital Coverage"
"In radio a digital signal always means a less robust signal than analog. Digital doesn't go as far, requiring many more multi-million dollar base stations to cover the same area as analog. It is cost efficient for a cellular carrier to switch to digital, since they can carry several calls on a single frequency, instead of just one for analog. But coverage and audio quality will suffer."
http://www.privateline.com/mt_dailynotes/2002/10/analog_vs_digital_coverage.html
Ok, we can debate it some more !
"Analog Vs. Digital Coverage"
"In radio a digital signal always means a less robust signal than analog. Digital doesn't go as far, requiring many more multi-million dollar base stations to cover the same area as analog. It is cost efficient for a cellular carrier to switch to digital, since they can carry several calls on a single frequency, instead of just one for analog. But coverage and audio quality will suffer."
http://www.privateline.com/mt_dailynotes/2002/10/analog_vs_digital_coverage.html
Ok, we can debate it some more !
Is it just me or do the analog phones of yesteryear transmit with up to 5 watts of power and use a bag to transport the battery, handset and mechanism.
I've done cell braodcasts on bag phones for many years before I moved into the late 1990's. Quoting from a "Years Old" column about how Digital is not as robust as Analog CELL PHONES is, IMHO, verging on desperation. The posted comments in your cell phone article are from 2002!! (I won't look it up, but was there even a proposed HD standard in 2002?)
Is your best Anti HD take an article about why someone thought Analog PHONES were better than digital phones in 2002?
I'm not a cell phone expert (AS I would suspect you are not either), but I DO know that ananlog bag phones had 3-5 watts of power available, IIRC. If "The going got tough" they had some fairly serious RF horsepower.
Do you think the dinky little cell phone most people (yes MOST) carry today do those power levels?
Is digital always better than analog? The answer is... "IT DEPENDS". It's alway better in some way. The key is finding the right way to economize.
Answer us this, Pocket. Do you carry a cell phone? Does it only do analog?
We're waiting.
Clouseau
clouseau said:"Analog Vs. Digital Coverage"
"In radio a digital signal always means a less robust signal than analog. Digital doesn't go as far, requiring many more multi-million dollar base stations to cover the same area as analog. It is cost efficient for a cellular carrier to switch to digital, since they can carry several calls on a single frequency, instead of just one for analog. But coverage and audio quality will suffer."
http://www.privateline.com/mt_dailynotes/2002/10/analog_vs_digital_coverage.html
Ok, we can debate it some more !
Is it just me or do the analog phones of yesteryear transmit with up to 5 watts of power and use a bag to transport the battery, handset and mechanism.
I've done cell braodcasts on bag phones for many years before I moved into the late 1990's. Quoting from a "Years Old" column about how Digital is not as robust as Analog CELL PHONES is, IMHO, verging on desperation. The posted comments in your cell phone article are from 2002!! (I won't look it up, but was there even a proposed HD standard in 2002?)
Is your best Anti HD take an article about why someone thought Analog PHONES were better than digital phones in 2002?
I'm not a cell phone expert (AS I would suspect you are not either), but I DO know that ananlog bag phones had 3-5 watts of power available, IIRC. If "The going got tough" they had some fairly serious RF horsepower.
Do you think the dinky little cell phone most people (yes MOST) carry today do those power levels?
Is digital always better than analog? The answer is... "IT DEPENDS". It's alway better in some way. The key is finding the right way to economize.
Answer us this, Pocket. Do you carry a cell phone? Does it only do analog?
We're waiting.
Clouseau
We can even bring it closer to home here. Imagine a analog internet? If it weren't for it being in the digital rhelm it coudn't exist. Imagine the bandwidth needed to make it work ?
M
Mike Walker
Guest
It would take a true mental lightweight to think that analog is a more efficient transmission method. 1/100th the power gives 60-80 percent of the coverage of analog MONO, close to 100 percent the coverage of analog stereo.
It's a digital world. Anyone who wants to go backward...well, good luck finding a place in it.
At the republican candidates debate the other night, Christ Matthews asked "who here doesn't believe in evolution?" THREE CANDIDATES RAISED THEIR HANDS! George Will observed that the same three would probably have also raised their hands if asked who didn't believe in the importance of oxygen for breathing, or quantum mechanics. Digital is more efficient than analog. Especially when using psycho-acoustic modeling to create modern compression algorithms. If you don't see that, please take your place in special ed.
It's a digital world. Anyone who wants to go backward...well, good luck finding a place in it.
At the republican candidates debate the other night, Christ Matthews asked "who here doesn't believe in evolution?" THREE CANDIDATES RAISED THEIR HANDS! George Will observed that the same three would probably have also raised their hands if asked who didn't believe in the importance of oxygen for breathing, or quantum mechanics. Digital is more efficient than analog. Especially when using psycho-acoustic modeling to create modern compression algorithms. If you don't see that, please take your place in special ed.
Mike Walker said:
Just because "it's digital" doesn't make it better - in the case of radio, the article points out that digital has less coverage than analog. The digital hype is exactly, why HD Radio will fail - consumers are not falling for the "CD quality" hype; as a matter of fact, consumers have moved onto other technologies, and only see terestrial radio as a 30-minute convenience to-and-from-work, unless they have their iPods plugged in-dash.
Mike Walker said:Install a decent antenna and rotor, and quit your whining! I speak these words with all the love in my heart.
I have 4 outdoor antennas (to many)! But I love radio, I just thought I could be able to get 2 cities in 1! but unless the coverage areas change, I cant do that with HD.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
When discussing analog vs. digital some here invariably bring up CELL PHONES! EXCUUUUSE me, but this is a discussion about HD radio! But let's take your cell phone example, because the conversion to digital technology there has been such a failure. Wait...it hasn't. The conversion has been nearly universal!
If you don't understand the technology being discussed, quick...CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
If you don't understand the technology being discussed, quick...CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
Mike Walker said:
"Analog Vs. Digital Coverage"
"In radio a digital signal always means a less robust signal than analog. Digital doesn't go as far, requiring many more multi-million dollar base stations to cover the same area as analog. It is cost efficient for a cellular carrier to switch to digital, since they can carry several calls on a single frequency, instead of just one for analog. But coverage and audio quality will suffer."
http://www.privateline.com/mt_dailynotes/2002/10/analog_vs_digital_coverage.html
This article, which I pointed out earlier, is about radio - with cell phones, it still concerns digital transmissions, which are not as robust as analog.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
What you don't understand, demonstrated by your repeatedly posting other people's thoughts rather than having your own, is that just because someone says something doesn't make it true. We were discussing EFFICIENCY, not "robustness". But even so, it isn't true that digital transmission is "always" less robust. Digital can be made scalable so that, for instance, if 96kbps throughput can't be managed, the system can drop back to 64kbps. If that can't be managed, it can drop back to 48kbps. This is how RealAudio's "Surestream" works. Even if available bandwidth drops drastically, streaming is not interrupted...it continues with somewhat less fidelity, but still full dynamic range. Analog, on the other hand, will have degraded fidelity AND dynamic range. The more scalable a digital system, the more rubust.
AM HD works this way. If full throughput for digital stereo can't be managed, then lower fidelity mono will be used. And with HD, equal or greater "robustness" isn't even required, because there is an analog channel for fallback, and probably always will be. It's a moot point, but still one which eludes you!
AM HD works this way. If full throughput for digital stereo can't be managed, then lower fidelity mono will be used. And with HD, equal or greater "robustness" isn't even required, because there is an analog channel for fallback, and probably always will be. It's a moot point, but still one which eludes you!
Mike Walker said:
It's also the way the Comrex pots line encoders work.
I love HD radio and the idea, I just wish I could DX it better. my home place is 60 miles to San antonio, I have a outdoor 12 element Yagi about 20' in the air. going to San antonio, it drops out some durring the day, I also use my TV antenna for Austin which is a local for me station coverage, my TV antenna is about 25' up in the air. If they could fix the coverage problem imagin how many stations I could get!
- Status