For One and All,

Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...-radio-hd.aspx

Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...ent-tuner.aspx

Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?


i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF

In article .com,
wrote:

On Mar 31, 10:14?pm, "RHF" wrote:
For One and All,

Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio
?http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radi...recepter-radio...

Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component
Tunerhttp://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/sangean-hdt-1-hd-radio-componen..
.

Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?

i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF
?.
?.
. .

Here, try this:

"Are HD radios made with crappy tuners?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/are_hd_....html#comments

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course. Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

"crock" is a good descriptor of the HD sales pitch.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.


Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the
added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money,
as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is
relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings
in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the
power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams
and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power
than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

Showing, of course, how little you know.

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

He has his pitch notwithstanding any fact or common sense. The grass is
blue and the sky green and he has the statistics from Arbitron to prove
that most people 55 and under agree with Edweene brand crapola.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:38 -0700, RHF wrote:
Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics, so am speaking only to it.

At my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, external antennas
*are* critical for HD reception. Right now

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:38 -0700, RHF wrote:
Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics.

FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
antenna is critical for HD reception. Right now, I have a set of TV
rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations. Five
more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those. I'm near Nashville -
which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM. We have two local
HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
provided with the radio. Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
ham antenna. I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference. (the
radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...) It
may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
with the stations...

On Apr 1, 2:23 am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:14:38 -0700, RHF wrote:
Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics.

FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
antenna is critical for HD reception. Right now, I have a set of TV
rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations. Five
more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those. I'm near Nashville -
which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM. We have two local
HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
provided with the radio. Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
ham antenna. I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

Wonder if any one is using a simply 14"-24" AM/MW "Box"
Loop Antenna with with one of these "HD" Radios and -if-
They are good enough to acquire a reliable "HD" Signal ?
-But- That requires Tuning the Radio and the Antenna every
time you change an AM/MW Radio Station.

The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference. (the
radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...) It
may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
with the stations...

Sounds like the same problem that I have with the Analog
version of the BA Receptor up here In-them-there-Hills.
Needs both an AM and FM Antenna to be able to receive
any signals reliabily -except- for KXSR which is up the
Hill about a Mile on 91.7 with 4 KW ERP.
KXSR = http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=8328

DS [W9WI] - Thank Your for Your Reply ~ RHF

On Mar 31, 8:18 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

DE - The Reality is that -if- a 1% Digital Signal will cover the
same 10mv/m Contour as the 100% Analog Signal : Radio
Stations will in-time Crank-Up the ERP of the "HD" Digital
Signal and Turn-Down the ERP of the Analog Signal.

Think-About-It : -IF- a 1% Digital Radio Signal will "Cover"
the 'same' 10mv/m Contour as an Analog Radio Signal :
Then at some Point-in-Time Radio Stations will go-up-to
10% Digital and go-down-to 50% Analog.

And 'Each Day' that another "HD" Radio Station goes
On-the-Air-in-Digital they will begin the Top-of-the-Hour
Radio Station ID with the Call Letters, Frequency and
those little words "Now Broadcasting in High Difinition
'HD' All Digital Radio".

Yes - It will take Years but it will occur -and- Yes while
NO Radio Station is turning 'Off' their Analog Signal at
this time -once again- in-time they will.

At some point in time there will be a "Tipping Point" where
there are More {Good} Under-Age-35 "HD" Radio Listeners
then {Bad} Over-Age-50 Analog Radio Listeners -and- Then
100% All Digital will start becoming the Norm in FM Radio
Broadcasting.

As for AM/MW Radio Broadcasting it may be 25 Years before
the 'last-and-only'' Analog AM/MW Broadcaster goes Off-the-Air.


da da digital digital - i want to hear digital !
-doh- i want me a digital 'hd' radio ~ RHF