• 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

WSJ reviews 3 HD radios

You left this out;

But while HD Radio's sound quality and extra channels are definite pluses, the number of available stations needs to improve to make the wait for the HD channels to start playing more tolerable.
Don't know where he lives but here in NYC there's plenty of HD programing to choose from.
 
The comparison of IBAC's slow start and FM's is a combination of revisionist history and wishful thinking (on the part of the pro-HD people.) First of all, FM worked - IBOC doesn't. And until solid state circuitry became commonplace in consumer audio items around the late 1960s, FM was simply more expensive than most people were willing or able to pay. A decent FM receiver cost $100 to $200 back in FM's development days.

In my 1952 B-A catalog a bakelite tabletop AM-FM radio is listed at $79. That was a week's salary back then. Today you can buy Eric Rhoads' fabled Mighty Red chiclet radio for $35, and I bought the SONY XDR for $79 from Amazon.com.

Besides, FM always offered clear musical superiority over AM. That's not the case with IBOC digital versus analog. Most people can't hear the difference. In the case of FMs utilizing subchannels the analog generally sounds better.

Once inexpensive AM-FM radios became commonplace and the FCC outlawed 24-7 simulcasts in 1966, the march was on. Within 8 years FM was surpassing AM in audience. IBOC has already been around almost 8 years.

Time for IBAC pushers to stop arguing the "FM took 40 years" thing. HD doesn't have 40 years. (Or 4.)
 
Savage said:
Time for IBAC pushers to stop arguing the "FM took 40 years" thing. HD doesn't have 40 years. (Or 4.)
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. We have seen a logarithmic uptick in the technology curve since the 1950's/1960's and there's no way that any consumer technology has "40 years" or even 10 years to finally gain acceptance. Most of us seem to agree that HD radio is a 1995 answer to a 2010 issue. It's time passed before it even started.

I find it interesting that the one thing that the HD boosters on this board don't care to discuss is the immense lack of interest in HD radio on the part of consumers. It receives a very ho-hum response when mentioned to even moderately savvy techno-fans.

For all the scorn heaped on "hobbyists" by HD fans, one interesting thing is that the *hobbyists* have actually made a solid contribution to HD radio's sales figures. Most of those here who are "anti HD" are exceptions not just because we dx and/or pay attention to the interference and the other issues associated with the whoosh, but also because we tend to own HD radios (often more than one) as part of our hobby. Given that, you guys ("Don Juan", Old Gringo, Monty B., etc.) are right in that we are not a representative group - we're in the 0.03% that actually own these things.
 
BRNout said:
Savage said:
Time for IBAC pushers to stop arguing the "FM took 40 years" thing. HD doesn't have 40 years. (Or 4.)
Click to expand...


I find it interesting that the one thing that the HD boosters on this board don't care to discuss is the immense lack of interest in HD radio on the part of consumers. It receives a very ho-hum response when mentioned to even moderately savvy techno-fans.
Click to expand...

Couple this with the lack of confidence from CE manufacturers and the outlook doesn't look good for HDR.

For example, of the 31 different models of A/V receivers Yamaha makes only 8 have HD Radio. Of the nine A/V receivers Pioneer makes none have HDR--and this includes their SC-09TX with a price tag of 7000.00. Of the 10 car stereos Pioneer makes only one actually has HD Radio built in, the rest are HDR "ready".

These manufacturers are only following the lead of consumer wants and don't wants--and apparently consumers don't want HD Radio.

c5
 
R.F. Burns said:
You left this out;

But while HD Radio's sound quality and extra channels are definite pluses, the number of available stations needs to improve to make the wait for the HD channels to start playing more tolerable.
Don't know where he lives but here in NYC there's plenty of HD programing to choose from.
Click to expand...

Earlier in the article she (Katherine Boehret) says,

Tuning in each HD station takes longer, like the way changing channels on a digital TV takes an extra second. But in my tests, this process took five seconds or more per change of channel. This kind of delay is enough to try anyone's patience.

I get the impression she's annoyed about the eight second digital buffering delay, and mistakenly thinks the conversion of more stations to digital will help to speed it up: "The number of available stations needs to improve to make the wait for the HD channels to start playing more tolerable"

Sorry, but that's not the way it works.
 
Play Freebird said:
Earlier in the article she (Katherine Boehret) says,

Tuning in each HD station takes longer, like the way changing channels on a digital TV takes an extra second. But in my tests, this process took five seconds or more per change of channel. This kind of delay is enough to try anyone's patience.

I get the impression she's annoyed about the eight second digital buffering delay, and mistakenly thinks the conversion of more stations to digital will help to speed it up: "The number of available stations needs to improve to make the wait for the HD channels to start playing more tolerable"

Sorry, but that's not the way it works.
Click to expand...

Right! And, in practical use (driving around town, listening to Big Red around the house, etc.), what happens is that you take that 5 to 10 second hit each time you lose lock. Which means that it happens rather often. In the case of the Inspiron/Big Red, you don't even go back to that HD-2 that you were enjoying; you are locked back on the HD-1. When I was enjoying 50s and 60s oldies on 105.7 in Salt Lake this summer, it meant getting a solid hit of Mexican Norteno before manually flipping back to real oldies. That was until they flipped the format to news/talk in August.

It's not a user-friendly technology. But I love how it's similar in every way to digital TV, only 50% less adequate.
 
"The comparison of IBAC's slow start and FM's is a combination of revisionist history and wishful thinking (on the part of the pro-HD people.) First of all, FM worked - IBOC doesn't."


It doesn't huh? C'mon Bob; While we don't agree on everything you have to admit that saying that the technology doesn't work is a bit over the top. As someone who has made a living speaking the English language what you might have meant to say is that it doesn't work up to your expectations, but to say that it doesn't work is just plain wrong and damages your argument.
 
R.F. Burns said:
"The comparison of IBAC's slow start and FM's is a combination of revisionist history and wishful thinking (on the part of the pro-HD people.) First of all, FM worked - IBOC doesn't."


It doesn't huh? C'mon Bob; While we don't agree on everything you have to admit that saying that the technology doesn't work is a bit over the top. As someone who has made a living speaking the English language what you might have meant to say is that it doesn't work up to your expectations, but to say that it doesn't work is just plain wrong and damages your argument.
Click to expand...

I would have to say it doesn't work based on the claims made by iBiquity. It doesn't have similar coverage to analog, it doesn't present CD quality on FM and FM quality on AM, it doesn't prevent fades, and it doesn't present a real transition to a digital transmission system for the future. If the concept that it does work comes from the fact it doesn't blow up in smoke when you turn it on, or that you can pretty much only get reliable reception in the 70 dBu contour (unless you have terrain, noise, mobility issues) means it works, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree with Bob. It doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work as well as a true digital transmission for the future should. Maybe we need to give it another 10 dB? And then another?
 
RF, it probably would have been more accurate for me to state, "FM worked acceptably for almost all users; IBOC doesn't." Or: "FM worked far better than IBOC does."

In support of at least the first position, I would point to the big push for the digital power increase. If IBOC "worked acceptably" the power hike wouldn't even be a topic of discussion because it would be unnecessary.

Then of course, FM didn't cause adjacent-channel and self-interference.

But you're right; thanks for checking me on an overly broad statement.
 
R.F. You're back!! I knew I could count on you to return.

How's the RF been treating you? No burns I hope?

I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep 'em coming!
 
Savage said:
RF, it probably would have been more accurate for me to state, "FM worked acceptably for almost all users; IBOC doesn't." Or: "FM worked far better than IBOC does."

In support of at least the first position, I would point to the big push for the digital power increase. If IBOC "worked acceptably" the power hike wouldn't even be a topic of discussion because it would be unnecessary.

Then of course, FM didn't cause adjacent-channel and self-interference.

But you're right; thanks for checking me on an overly broad statement.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say HD Radio doesn't entirely work as promoted. As proof of that I direct your attention to this statement:

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be equal to the analog signal," says Robert Conrad, respected owner of WCLV-FM. "Unfortunately, the industry is now finding out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less, something like 60% of the analog coverage. We've also found that even in a strong HD signal area, a dipole antenna is required."

http://www.hd-radio-home.com/hd-radio-signal-coverage.html

Sounds like 'day-after-the-honeymoon' remorse for this station owner.

After all, you have to wonder why only the specified 1% of analog power? Why not begin with 2 or 5% for IBOC? I believe the engineers found out during the early testing phase that any more power and stations would face interference, self-interference and reduced analog coverage. The industry as a whole has only recently discovered these problems.

BTW, here is an interesting white paper from Harris on why tube amplifiers are better for HD Radio then solid state, particularly if the power increase is approved.

http://www.harrisnab2009.com/pdfs/C...ansmissions with Elevated Sideband Levels.pdf

c5
 
R.F. Burns said:
"The comparison of IBAC's slow start and FM's is a combination of revisionist history and wishful thinking (on the part of the pro-HD people.) First of all, FM worked - IBOC doesn't."


It doesn't huh? C'mon Bob; While we don't agree on everything you have to admit that saying that the technology doesn't work is a bit over the top. As someone who has made a living speaking the English language what you might have meant to say is that it doesn't work up to your expectations, but to say that it doesn't work is just plain wrong and damages your argument.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work up to expectations is about the same thing as it doesn't work to most people. If i pay good money for a receiver and it doesn't shine it's going back to mama and I would imagine that the vast majority of consumers feel the same way whether it's a radio or a vacuum cleaner.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom