• 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

What tabletop type of hybrid digital HD radio models have the new improved chip?

thezak said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/technology/personaltech/09pogue.html
Click to expand...

For a guy who's supposed to be shedding light on this technology, he isn't doing a very good job of it. To whit:

“What the ads say is true: AM stations sound like traditional FM (most are even in stereo), and the FM channels sound like a CD. There’s no static, ever.”

Oh brudder. ::)

“Thirteen car companies, mostly small ones, offer option packages that include HD radios. You can add an HD receiver to your existing car, too ($200 and up). There are no pocket HD radios.”

Ford is a small car company?

And my radio fits in my pocket nicely; it's smaller than my cell phone, even.
 
Is this new chip also designed to make AM sound as horrible as possible if there's no HD to decode, like the one in the Accurian?
If it is, I have several suggestions for them for what to do with it.
 
"The marketing doesn’t lie: HD radio really does sound better than regular radio. AM loses the tinniness. FM gets richer and deeper."

I'm not sure I would agree with the article on that. On AM HD, it sounded artificial, tinny, lacking some bass. Unless the AM station is heard on FM HD-x (x=2 or more) subchannel it would sound OK to me.
 
Play Freebird said:
Speaking of marketing, he forgot to mention the $159 HD Radio Antenna, some kind of "miracle whip" that's supposed to solve those reception problems:

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/PIXEL-TECHNOLOGIES-AFHD-4-/33-10630
Click to expand...

Looks like a $20 CB whip antenna to me. In many cases, a CB antenna will work for FM, especially on the higher frequencies of the band. Even on the low end of the FM band, it is usually better than a crumpled up folded dipole stuffed behind the receiver.
 
Play Freebird said:
Speaking of marketing, he forgot to mention the $159 HD Radio Antenna, some kind of "miracle whip" that's supposed to solve those reception problems:

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/PIXEL-TECHNOLOGIES-AFHD-4-/33-10630
Click to expand...

I love it when someone suggests such a whip will do anythng for AM....not unless there's some kind of tuned RF amp specifically designed for AM, otherwise any broadbanded design is only going to squash desired signals with interference.

Just exactly how would any radio "tell" the antenna what to tune for? Does the antenna "read" the local oscillator an then tune 455 khz lower? Otherwise it's a no-go for AM. What radios beside auto radios bring AM in on a coax? How would they couple the signal into the loop antenna found on most radios? Answer: It probbaly can't. So why claim it's for AM?
 
Umm....people: the NY Times article is from April 2009. A year and a half ago. ???

Nothing much has changed since then. Other than the vaunted digital power increase for FM. Which has done essentially nothing for HD Radio, in real-world marketplace terms.

Oh yeah: there IS now a "pocket HD Radio." The Insignia, and if you choose to regard the Mighty Red as a "second" pocket HD unit, that's......two.

And then there's the fact that almost a third of HD-AMs have turned off the Decepticon hashmakers.
 
If every FM HD station can now legally broadcast at -14, why hasn't everyone done so, even if it means replacing a perfectly good transmitter? A few more watts of IBUZ isn't going to magically result in more HD radio sales.
 
Re: What tabletop type of hybrid digital HD radio models have the new improved c

ddsparxx said:
"The marketing doesn’t lie: HD radio really does sound better than regular radio. AM loses the tinniness. FM gets richer and deeper."

I'm not sure I would agree with the article on that. On AM HD, it sounded artificial, tinny, lacking some bass. Unless the AM station is heard on FM HD-x (x=2 or more) subchannel it would sound OK to me.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the tinny sound. I find way too much bass on AM when in HD. I also find there is an 8-10 second delay when it annoyingly switches between HD and normal AM on some stations. In addition, the levels are not equal between events.

Having not played with the machine directly, I cannot comment inteligently on the causes.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
 
That's odd. When my Sony tuner locked in an HD AM signal, much of the bass wasn't heard. When the tuner switched back to analog, the slight bass from the analog signal returned and the highs disappeared.
 
It appears to be dependent on how much time the station engineer has to tinker with the processing to try to match equalization and levels. And the delay to match analog to digital.
HD's a maintenance hog so it tends to be neglected, since nobody's listening in digital anyway.

Being an engineer at today's group station-clusters acquaints you with the medical concept of "triage." The first task is to sort out and prioritize the tasks. If you get to the end of the day doing the important stuff - the time is all gone - you have a choice between (a) fixing the stupid HD stuff for the Nth time, or (b) going home, getting something to eat and sleeping a little after a 16-hour day (and you've been awakened in the middle of the night with emergency calls three times in the past 10 days.)

Guess which one's gonna happen?
 
ddsparxx said:
That's odd. When my Sony tuner locked in an HD AM signal, much of the bass wasn't heard. When the tuner switched back to analog, the slight bass from the analog signal returned and the highs disappeared.
Click to expand...

That's how WBZ sounded to me too, less bass and shrill and above all very artificial.
 
Re: What tabletop type of hybrid digital HD radio models have the new improved c

Savage said:
It appears to be dependent on how much time the station engineer has to tinker with the processing to try to match equalization and levels. And the delay to match analog to digital.
HD's a maintenance hog so it tends to be neglected, since nobody's listening in digital anyway.

Being an engineer at today's group station-clusters acquaints you with the medical concept of "triage." The first task is to sort out and prioritize the tasks. If you get to the end of the day doing the important stuff - the time is all gone - you have a choice between (a) fixing the stupid HD stuff for the Nth time, or (b) going home, getting something to eat and sleeping a little after a 16-hour day (and you've been awakened in the middle of the night with emergency calls three times in the past 10 days.)

Guess which one's gonna happen?
Click to expand...
Savage, I'm afraid I agree. The few people, such as me, are not going to stop listening to the particular station. We are loyal listeners that will put up with it, but we aren't leaving that station, either. And they know it.

Jeff in Sar-ra-so-ta!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom