Tuesday, February 07, 2006
HD digital radio-TYPICAL COMMENTS.
At home, I couldn’t get a digital signal from WOR (710 kHz)
In my New Jersey location, about 25 miles from New York City, I should theoretically be able to pick up as many as 23 FM and four AM stations transmitting HD. But nearly half the FM stations didn’t reach me, and only one AM station did.
Veteran programmer Bill Figenshu of FigMedia1 writes: "In all the research I have seen, no one has ever complained about the quality of a full-power FM signal. Are people signing up for satellite radio or buying iPods because of quality? Very few. It's the content, baby!"
On his blog, Dave Barry, who works in radio in Sonoma County, told about the industry alliance and drew this response: "It sounds like putting lipstick on a pig. Let's see -- making people shell out a lot of money for a receiver that will improve sound quality to that which they already have on their iPods and satellite stations. Lousy content has been mentioned. ... For me, there is the added problem of commercials ... which interrupt the flow of the programming. I understand why, but the problem is still there.
Oink."
Boston Acoustics Recepter Radio HD-Comments
"why would i spend $500 on this p.o.s."
This radio is junk, it doesn't even have a real antenna. This $500 radio has one of those thin wire that act as the antenna, you would also find this type of antenna on $10 fm alarm clocks. This radio is perfect for mental defects with money to burn. For $500 I could get an xm or sirius radio with 3 years of service. This radio should cost no more than $60. Why does cnet.com bother with stupid products like this?
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Boston_Acoustics_Recepter_Radio_HD/4864-7866_16-31637870.html?messageSiteID=16&messageID=1689627&tag=uonext&cval=1689627&ctype=msgid
"Obsolete out of the box"
People are not going to spend $500 on betterAM radio sound .
In my New Jersey location, about 25 miles from New York City, I should theoretically be able to pick up as many as 23 FM and four AM stations transmitting HD. But nearly half the FM stations didn’t reach me, and only one AM station did.
Veteran programmer Bill Figenshu of FigMedia1 writes: "In all the research I have seen, no one has ever complained about the quality of a full-power FM signal. Are people signing up for satellite radio or buying iPods because of quality? Very few. It's the content, baby!"
On his blog, Dave Barry, who works in radio in Sonoma County, told about the industry alliance and drew this response: "It sounds like putting lipstick on a pig. Let's see -- making people shell out a lot of money for a receiver that will improve sound quality to that which they already have on their iPods and satellite stations. Lousy content has been mentioned. ... For me, there is the added problem of commercials ... which interrupt the flow of the programming. I understand why, but the problem is still there.
Oink."
Boston Acoustics Recepter Radio HD-Comments
"why would i spend $500 on this p.o.s."
This radio is junk, it doesn't even have a real antenna. This $500 radio has one of those thin wire that act as the antenna, you would also find this type of antenna on $10 fm alarm clocks. This radio is perfect for mental defects with money to burn. For $500 I could get an xm or sirius radio with 3 years of service. This radio should cost no more than $60. Why does cnet.com bother with stupid products like this?
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Boston_Acoustics_Recepter_Radio_HD/4864-7866_16-31637870.html?messageSiteID=16&messageID=1689627&tag=uonext&cval=1689627&ctype=msgid
"Obsolete out of the box"
People are not going to spend $500 on betterAM radio sound .
