Sunday, August 20, 2006
HD Radio-IS JAMMING YOUR AM/FM RADIO
HD Radio uses more then twice the dial space as analog, and adds digital noise and interference to each side of an HD stations signal.
Here is the link to the graphic proof:
Thursday, August 17, 2006
HD Radio is DOA -HERE IS WHAT'S HOT! Super Sound of the Future.
Link to hundreds of new stations, true CD quality sound, totally free (not even an expensive new radio is required), 5.1 digital surround sound, everything that HD Radio promises, but does not deliver.
Hear the sound of the future:
If you already have the latest version of winmp (www.winamp.com) or Windows Media AAC+ plugin, here are more AAC+ and high bitrate stations for FREE Super HD:
FREE HD TUNER AND STATIONS!
Here is the link:
Uses AAC Plus codec by Coding Technologies. The same codec as HD Radio, but, in many cases, at a much higher quality and bitrate.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
HD Radio-TECHNICAL INFO. FOR ENGINEERS
HD RADIO IBOC AM STATIONS INCLUDING THOSE THAT TRIED HD RADIO AND ARE NOW or have been HD SILENT:
AM CHANNEL LOOKUP PAGE INCLUDING HD STATIONS (IN RED):
Thursday, August 10, 2006
HD Radio-GET IT FREE OVER THE INTERNET!
No need for an HD Radio as the station's websites usually give webstreams of their HD content. You can also listen for free to most XM stations and hundreds of others stations on AOL Radio, which is now FREE!
"NPR radio store www.npr.com sells so many of the Acoustic Energy wireless WI-FI Internet radios in their online store that they can hardly keep them in stock. In spite of all the promotion and hype about HD Radio, the NPR store does not seem to carry HD Radios. Internet radio seems likely to be the clear winner."
HD Radio-More comments
"I'm not surprised. The audio quality difference between HD FM and analog FM isn't very noticeable."
"I've thought about what I actually heard myself and what I was told by someone else and have come to the following conclusion: When one gets far enough from the transmitting tower where the analog signal is noisy and the digital signal would be a definite plus, the digital signal isn't even there."
"I can tell you right now that the digital signal doesn't travel anywhere near as far as the analogue. Detroit stations right now are having a terrible time trying to push their digital sub-channels because even the inner suburbs are having problems receiving them."
"Since your post, I've heard similar stories from techs in other markets."
"That would be my experience. If the HD signal is strong enough to decode, the analog signal is strong enough to be noise-free. That goes for AM too, even more so than for FM."
HD Radio is DOA (Dead On Arrival)
Link to full posts:
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Posted by: George June 16, 2006 at 08:17 AM
HD is DOA. I'm a bit of a radio geek and early adopter, and buying an HD radio doesn't interest me in the least.
Looks to me like the friut is dead on the vine based on the lack of progress with product rollout and "content".
Posted by: tim wallick June 16, 2006 at 01:51 PM
I think it is fair to say that the audiophile community, those people who take their FM seriously, is dead set AGAINST HDRadio.
Not only do most people never intend to buy a radio, unless as a plaything for early adopters and collectors, but are aghast at the FCC for even allowing IBOC to thrash up the FM bandwidth.
Plus, people with enough technical savvy to read the specs are insulted by the false claims of "CD sound quality" or even "near-CD sound quality." These are transparent marketing hype, beyond mean puffery.
Sorry, but HDRadio has sworn enemies. This goes beyond just business but has political reprecussions for FCC and for Congress. This has the whiff of political scandal - and I'm a rock-ribbed Republican! The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is especially vulnerable.
My advice for any businessman is to avoid any association with HDRadio.
There are a couple of other benefits for HDRadio: it effective blocks listeners from tuning in suburban stations on adjacent frequencies (an HD station on 92.9 can occupy 92.7 and 93.1 with its digital hash), and it basically locks out LPFMs, programmed translators, and other threats to the FM spectrum.
Posted by: MattS June 18, 2006 at 05:49 AM
Here is the rest of the story:
At times, tuning in digital radio reminded me of trying to lock in digital TV broadcasts. The signals were weaker than their analog counterparts, as mandated by Federal Communications Commission regulations, and could drop out, then resume for no apparent reason. The HD signals of classical WGMS (104.1 FM) and smooth-jazz WJZW (105.9 FM) never got past that shakiness -- and The Post's WTWP (107.7 FM) was complete static the whole time.
HD radio on AM delivers a much bigger improvement in sound -- but only if you can get the signal, something the Recepter had serious trouble doing. Whether I used its internal AM antenna or the external one included in the box, it pulled in only one HD AM signal, "SportsTalk" WTEM (980 AM). It detected an HD signal on two others, WKDL (730 AM) and WTWP (1500 AM), but never tuned it in; all-talk WTNT (570 AM) never even showed one.
Here is the link:
HD Radio-DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY-WHAT USERS SAY
Written by mrcomment, Las Vegas on July 14, 2005
Disappointing & pricey.Digital range is less than analog.Digital AM has horrible artifacts.Digital FM wipes out rimshot stations.Digital FM makes multipath worse.Gen#1 receivers don't work with multicast audio.Current receiver won't pick up future surround sound.
HD Radio HypeWritten by Toby Williams, Santa Clara, CA on June 16, 2005
I was terribly disappointed with the Kenwood HD tuner. It's probably an okay product, but HD radio itself is not.Several San Francisco area stations are sending HD radio. Unfortunately I get a lot of digital breakup when I listen to HD radio while driving around. The analog signals are all fine. The audio quality doesn't seem to be any better than the analog. It seems very compressed and doesn't sound like a CD at all. It might sound a little better than my XM radio, but not much. Don't waste your money on HD radio. I thought I was going to get more program choices, but that's not the case. I get the same old stuff, and it doesn't really sound enough better to justify the expense. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I put my money down for this tuner. I'll stick with XM.Toby Williams
Written by Timothy, Newport, Mi on July 15, 2006
tuner gets terrible reception, hd fades in and out at only 28 miles from detroit, had to reset the balance every time i started my truck, very disappointed with this unit, sent it back for another brand.
Junk compared to original recepter radio
by Jerry747 - May 2, 2006
Second speaker, hd capable
Nonexistant fm tuner sensitivity, ridiculous power brick.
The disappointments are weak treble, poor sensitivity in AM and FM (the inexpensive Sony "shelf system" that it replaced has much better FM sensitivity), and the inability to force to analog mode. The latter is not much of a problem here as even in this large metro area (Baltimore-Washington), there are only a few HD stations in range; I can't receive Washington stations, about 40 miles away.
Had a chance to use this radio for awhile. Im not really sure about the glowing reviews I keep reading for it here. Im more with the guy who said its just as worse as a regular radio cause I cant get no reception in my office either. "HD" indeed.
There should be the ability to keep the station in analog mode, in the event the digital signal is marginal. Otherwise, the radio blends in and out of digital mode, and if the station is not utilizing the 8.4 second delay in their analog signal, the audio jumps back and forth like a skipping CD player.
It takes about 5 seconds after you tune-in to a station for the radio to acquire the digital signal (it instantly acquires the analog signal). There is no analog version for the additional digital channels, so you hear about 5 seconds of nothing before the radio tunes-in to one of these channels.
So it sounds like good FM not CD quality audio.
The reception is lousy though. I can't pick up any HD Radio stations in my office and it is worse than my analog radio for regular stations. Also seems to get stuck when I press too many buttons. Save your money and buy several year's worth of XM or Sirius.
Written by teery, kokomo, in on February 9, 2006
i live about 50 miles from several HD transmitters. i purchased the HD tuner for am reception. my experiance was disappointing and ive returned my tuner and radio. i travel over a wide area of central indiana and the HD signal was intermittant even though the signal was strong. 50,000 watt wibc signal is clear during daylight hours, however the HD signal would come and go and as a result there was a 2 second delay which drives you crazy. the signal kept shifting from HD to analog. also wnde signal is broadcast in HD but you have to be with 25 miles of the transmitter for it to work effectively even though the analog signal is clear for 50 miles. this defeats the purpose of the HD radio as i was trying to eleminate drift and interference. the bottom line is that the HD signal strength is much weaker than the analog signal. so, the HD tuner is only functioal for a limited range. also, when you attach the tuner you can no longer dial up weaker distant stations manualy. if you live near a major metropolitan area the HD radio is great. if you travel 25-50 away from the transmitter you really dont have HD capability anymore.
By: James P., Somich 05/26/06Overall rating: The Receptor HD is a good example of an "early adopter" product. It is a good idea, not quite ready for prime time. The sensitivity in the HD mode leaves a lot to be desired. I had to use a rooftop antenna to pickup local HD stations. The price is way too high for what it is, but that is to be expected with a brand new product like this. The sound tends to be on the bassy side (which some people may like). This is certainly not high fidelity and it is certainly not CD quality. The miniscule data rates for HD radio permit only an "acceptable" sound quality. This is a good start, but HD radio has a long way to go before it will be accepted by the masses.
Here is the link:
Ease of useValueReliabilityPerformance