I don't get why people would spend so much on one. I would only pay hundreds of dollars for one if it would get all the HD stations across the world. The ones in my area stink as far as selection of the programming goes. Why would anyone want to get this? Even for their car?
-
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
Why buy an HD Radio?
- Thread starter icycool7227
- Start date
I bought an HD radio to get formats that are no longer available on analog FM. I live in NYC so I often listen to Smooth Jazz on 101.9-HD2 and to Country on 103.5-HD2. Has anyone thought that it is possible tht XM/Sirius with billions of dollars in debt could go under? If that happens will HD radio get a boost?
Bruce
Bruce
MHB said:
I bought one just to see how it would perform in my home..... lousy as expected and I bought supposedly one of the best. I also get XM/Siruis and Live 365 in my home, my iBlock receiver is gathering dust, there is no comparison between HD and the hundreds of channels you can get on the computer. What good is a good deal if it doesn't work well? HD has is the Yugo of radio.
I bought the Sony HD tuner XDR-F1HD for its sensitivity and outstanding adjacent-channel selectivity on the FM band more than for just getting HD stuff. So far it does what I want it to. I could pick up a class A station 55 miles away with the Blue Ridge mountains blocking much of its signal toward my location.
ddsparxx said:
That's the one I have, it doesn't impress me as much as some other people especially on AM where my thirty year old Marantz kills it and I've had a better antenna on the Sony than the Marantz (C Crane Twin Ferrite). I have not compared them head to head on FM though only AM. Of course I bought it for what it is, an IBOC receiver, not for another analog tuner as I'm more than satisfied with my Marantz. I figure I'll have another relic around the house in 10 years kind of like the old FM band radios or channel 1 TV's ;D
I just tried both WGIR FM 101.1 from NH (I'm in MA) on both the Sony and the Marantz with dipoles, the Sony's is a little longer and the Marantz's is about 2 feet higher and both are same direction on the same wall, the Marantz believe it or not is much clearer, the Sony is not listenable while the Marantz although not receiving it in stereo still sounds good. According to Mapquest it is about 77 miles. I realize the line of sight distance is closer. Are there any online programs which calculate line of sight distances between two cities? I couldn't fine any.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
icycool7227 said:
I got one because the analog performance is rated as excellent - and the adaptive IF circuitry is good at combatting the first adjacent IBOC sideband interference. There is maybe one HD-2 of some interest to me, but it is nothing I can't get on satellite along with a lot of other compelling formats. So HD-2 to me would not be compelling enough to get an HD radio.
KB1OKL said:
Try Google Earth. Put a pin in each location, and it will show you the distance between them.
I'm happy your Marantz tuner is a good one. I have a couple from the 1970's. One is a Model 120 tuner, the other is actually a Model 4400 receiver. Both have the oscilloscope built in to watch channel separation, multipath, phase or just to keep you entertained while partaking of various inebriants that were popular in the 1970's. They are good tuners, but my Sony blows them both away in terms of sensitivity and selectivity, at least in my location. Forget about the Sony's HD capability. The best reason to buy it is as an analog tuner. I bought one for $89.00. In 1978 dollars that's about ten bucks. The Marantz equipment cost many times that amount in their day.
Just accept the Sony tuner for what it is: a bargain in the performance vs. cost arena. Modifications are available that will force it to analog if you want to go that route. But you know that.
Chuck to tell you the truth I was surprised. I will try a little more thoroughly next time, mine is also a receiver, a 2385 which has just been reconditioned by a Marantz expert within the least year. I was still expecting the Sony to leave the Marantz in the dust, and one station is hardly conclusive. I have not tried selectivity yet either but the Marantz did pick up a station clearly that the Sony had a hard time hearing under near identical conditions.
ddsparxx said:
I’d certainly hope it would.
I live within spittin’ distance of our radio stations transmitting tower. The Sony works amazingly well here, despite the fact that most radios tend to desensitize when they are exposed to high RF levels. This one doesn’t seem to be bothered by it.
What really impressed me was experimenting with one of these things at a translator location. I literally placed the Sony on top of a transmitter that was putting out about 305 watts TPO to give an ERP of 250 watts, running on 105.3. I connected up the Sony, with no filters, pads or anything else to a Yagi mounted on the same tower, pointed at our 104.7 site which is located about 14 miles away. The 104.7 signal has an ERP of 74 watts, so it is not exactly a strong signal at this location. The receive Yagi is about 45 feet below the 105.3 transmitting elements on the same tower. I have never been able to get anything to work well with this scenario; so instead, I have picked the signal up from another translator that is closer, and farther away on the dial. Using a lot of filters and very expensive radios (well over $1000.00 each) it has worked OK, but to keep the noise down, I’ve had to revert to mono.
To my amazement, the Sony locks right in on 104.7 with a nice clean stereo signal. That is remarkable.
I will give you that the radio is kind of klutzy, and probably not that easy to use from a DXer’s point of view. For translator applications, it needs some additional modifications and refinements, which I feel confident, will soon be available from a third party supplier. Still for a radio that costs less than $100, it is pretty amazing.
Like you, I’m not that wild about the current version of HD radio. I think we could have done better, but for better or worse, this is what we got. The good news is it has actually made for some really big improvements in receivers.
- Status