Boston Acoustics = Garbage

[1290wgli]

I saw the Boston Acoustics radio today at the Radio Systems show in
South Jersey

1) The audio is WAY to tubby.  Needs a treble control (to turn up)
or a bass control to (turn it down).  Also, the lack of highs seems
to mask some of the artifacts on FM, which are more noticable when
you slap on some headphones.

2) I was impressed with the multicast I heard (92.5 WXTU in
Philly).  It sounded like different processors for the HD and the
analog and the audio was more CD-like on the main HD channel.  The
secondary channel was liveable and better than expected.
Considering the fact I would be using that for content over quality,
this is tolerable.  Overall, the radio had no problems delivering HD
or multicast on any station running HD for FM, but this is what you would expect.  We were not far from Philly and even with the supplied FM antenna should have had decent signals.  Some were there, others were noisy.  ?  For $300, should be alot better.

3) AM was picking up WPEN very clear, they were obviously running HD
with the sidebands, but it would not give us more than the call
letters on the display (no HD audio).  Obviously, with a very
useable AM signal in analog, digital was nowhere to be found.  WIP
was lost in a sea of noise.  We were using a loop antenna outside.

4) The AM seems to mute when the signal falls below a certain
level.  PROBLEM.  Basically, the AM sucks and again is the bastard step-child.

5) The unit seems to lose sensitiity above 1500kHz (I gathered that
because the radio was really muting up there compared to stations
below 1500... this may be a quality control issue that is different
from set to set).

I don't think it's worth $500, I don't think it's worth $300.  Really, this is a $99-$149 radio AT BEST when you factor in reception and their idea of sound quality.  I'm just thankful I was able to see a demo and that I didn't buy this "thing".

[1290wgli]

Another BA user said there is a bass cut option (somewhere).  This will help the radio (unless we were listening with it already on!)

[JM_pstar]

> I saw the Boston Acoustics radio today at the Radio Systems
> show in
> South Jersey
>
> 1) The audio is WAY to tubby.  Needs a treble control (to
> turn up)
> or a bass control to (turn it down).  Also, the lack of
> highs seems
> to mask some of the artifacts on FM, which are more
> noticable when
> you slap on some headphones.
>
> 2) I was impressed with the multicast I heard (92.5 WXTU in
> Philly).  It sounded like different processors for the HD
> and the
> analog and the audio was more CD-like on the main HD
> channel.  The
> secondary channel was liveable and better than expected.
> Considering the fact I would be using that for content over
> quality,
> this is tolerable.  Overall, the radio had no problems
> delivering HD
> or multicast on any station running HD for FM, but this is
> what you would expect.  We were not far from Philly and even
> with the supplied FM antenna should have had decent signals.
>  Some were there, others were noisy.  ?  For $300, should
> be alot better.
>
> 3) AM was picking up WPEN very clear, they were obviously
> running HD
> with the sidebands, but it would not give us more than the
> call
> letters on the display (no HD audio).  Obviously, with a
> very
> useable AM signal in analog, digital was nowhere to be
> found.  WIP
> was lost in a sea of noise.  We were using a loop antenna
> outside.
>
> 4) The AM seems to mute when the signal falls below a
> certain
> level.  PROBLEM.  Basically, the AM sucks and again is the
> bastard step-child.
>
> 5) The unit seems to lose sensitiity above 1500kHz (I
> gathered that
> because the radio was really muting up there compared to
> stations
> below 1500... this may be a quality control issue that is
> different
> from set to set).
>
> I don't think it's worth $500, I don't think it's worth
> $300.  Really, this is a $99-$149 radio AT BEST when you
> factor in reception and their idea of sound quality.  I'm
> just thankful I was able to see a demo and that I didn't buy
> this "thing".
>

Thanks for the review. That'll help me make a decision as to which HD radio to buy. Sensitivity is a huge issue for me...and it doesn't seem like this radio cuts it from that standpoint. Now I thik I'll wait to see how sensitive the Radiosophy unit is...

However, I do hear that a powered FM/AM antenna works wonders (and the Boston Acoustics unit does have a place to plug these in).

[Rich Wood]

> 1) The audio is WAY to tubby.  Needs a treble control (to
> turn up)
> or a bass control to (turn it down).  Also, the lack of
> highs seems
> to mask some of the artifacts on FM, which are more
> noticable when
> you slap on some headphones.

I have the analog version. There are no "tone" controls on the unit and it is a little tubby. The HD unit, I'm told, has a setup menu that allows you to reduce the low end.

Rich