What Is Cheapest Tabletop HD Radio For Sale?

[Chuck]

As for my friend w9wi, I believe his "locals" are actually quite a distance away (40-50 miles, if memory serves) over some pretty lousy ground conductivity, which is to say that he has to be a DXer to hear them, period.

Scott, I really like your pictures of towers etc, and I know you are a huge fan of Broadcasting.  I even saw you from across the room at Barry Mishkind’s luncheon at NAB.  On many things, we are on the same page.

Even so, where I live (Texas) 40-50 miles is more or less considered to be local.  Unfortunately, this technology doesn't seem to work very well at that distance.  Perhaps HD really does make a new definition of "Local Radio."

[Chuck]

Actually, let me add a fourth and fifth sample(grin)..  Same radio, in Madison, Wis., with the loop receives WHA-970 reliably in HD from about six miles, in a motel room.  (normally a pretty noisy location)  Didn't have enough daylight to test any other stations, and this was before nighttime IBOC was allowed. 

And in Menomonee Falls, with the loop it gets WTMJ-620 and WISN-1130, both about 30 miles away.  I think the lower dial positions of both stations help, as well as the much better ground conductivity *and* the fact that both stations are directional, favoring the location where I was staying.  (effective radiated power well over 50,000 watts in both cases)  I could *not* however lock on WOKY-920, 5,000 watts also aimed in my direction and 5-10 miles *closer* than WTMJ and WISN.

Has anybody thought of the fact that LPFM stations get similar range in analog?  They are only 100 watts or less.  7-15 miles is pretty typical range, depending on conditions.  Are we making progress?

[Dighton Rockhead]

The point I was attemptinng to make earier in the thread (poor choice of language notwithstanding)......is that the average Mr. & Ms. America won't bother going to the extraordinary lengths that hobbyists and other assorted broadcasting and radio afficianados will in order to secure a "lock" on local or even semi-local HD signals.

Since I am not an engineer, not a DX hobbyist, not in the employ of the broadcasting industry, I consider myself a lot closer to the "just plain folks" out there than those hobbyists who have the available land (which I don't) and the inclination (which I don't) to string up elaborate long wire antennas just to DX local and semi-local HD signals.

For HD, or any other new technology for that matter, to really catch on with us "just plain folks", it's going to have to be made really esay to use, and work well right out of the box.

I plainly admit, I just don't have the patience to fiddle around with anything more elaborate that the supplied FM whip on my ancient GE Superadio 2, and I suspect I am a lot closer to the norm than the early adopter types who see HD radio as some sort of DX challenge.

[Radioman100]

The point I was attemptinng to make earier in the thread (poor choice of language notwithstanding)......is that the average Mr. & Ms. America won't bother going to the extraordinary lengths that hobbyists and other assorted broadcasting and radio afficianados will in order to secure a "lock" on local or even semi-local HD signals.

Since I am not an engineer, not a DX hobbyist, not in the employ of the broadcasting industry, I consider myself a lot closer to the "just plain folks" out there than those hobbyists who have the available land (which I don't) and the inclination (which I don't) to string up elaborate long wire antennas just to DX local and semi-local HD signals.

For HD, or any other new technology for that matter, to really catch on with us "just plain folks", it's going to have to be made really esay to use, and work well right out of the box.

I plainly admit, I just don't have the patience to fiddle around with anything more elaborate that the supplied FM whip on my ancient GE Superadio 2, and I suspect I am a lot closer to the norm than the early adopter types who see HD radio as some sort of DX challenge.

And therein lies the rub that I have with most anti-HD types.  Most of them haven't used the technology, yet that doesn't stop them from drawing conclusions.  Usually flawed ones.

I have zero trouble picking up FM HD signals from my home and office using just the simple wire antenna that came with my radios.  For both my Sony and my BA Receptor, I use just a simple wire antenna, about 5 feet long, not even a dipole.  The Sony is a better radio than the Receptor, but both do a fine job of picking up all locals and most rimshots in HD.

In the car, I've also had great luck with FM HD.  AM HD is a different matter.  It goes in and out quite a bit in town.  I've had better luck with it on the open road away from the interference generators you have in the city.

[SUPERCASTER]

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF HD SUPPORTERS.
Radioman100 falsely assumes anyone that has ever used an HD Radio will be overwhelmed by it's shining perfection and compelled to love it as much as he does. In Radioman's mind, how could they possibly resist throwing out all their old analog radios and rushing out to replace them all with expensive, problematic new HD Radios?

Radioman100 said:

And therein lies the rub that I have with most anti-HD types.  Most of them haven't used the technology, yet that doesn't stop them from drawing conclusions.  Usually flawed ones.

A totally biased and false assumption. Most "anti-HD types" have used various types of HD Radios, some at a number of locations. Their opinions are valid and based upon their actual experience with HD Radios, and it's negative effects on existing analog radios. Indeed, some have returned several HD Radios because of dissatisfaction and very poor performance.
Most "anti-HD types" also have friends that are also dissatisfied with their HD Radios' operation and performance.
Most posters here originally wanted to embrace this new broadcasting technology, in spite of being skeptical about the viability of low power adjacent channel digital broadcasting on the severely congested bands in "RF challenged" populated areas where most live.
Most "anti-HD types" are so because they been very disappointed with HD Radio.

HD Radio promises much but delivers little, for most users. That's the problem with HD Radio. In the HD broadcasters myopic view they might be sold on it because they see potential benefits for them. But HD Radio has little to offer the public, especially with the advent of newer, better, more reliable, less troublesome technologies.

The only flawed conclusions are, without a doubt, those of HD promoters and the HD cartel.

[Mike Walker]

I'm an "HD Supporter", but there are definitely some things keeping what's offered to the public minimized. Like the "cartel" (ALLIANCE, PLEASE!) committee approach to format suggestion. Are you freakin' kidding? What could be more offensive than some committee "taking under advisement" what format(s) I should offer! PLEASE! At least restrictions (by Alliance members, others are free to do as they choose) on "monetizing" multicast streams are being eased.

As to the other issues, FM HD (AM still doesn't work at my location) isn't a fraction as "fussy" to receive as many claim, and works just fine with simple wire antennas when they're properly aligned (thumbtacked to a wall, for instance), rather than folded in a ball behind the equipment rack. In my experience, an antenna type and orientation that would offer clean, noise-free, un-blended analog fm stereo also works for the vast majority of HD FM  (in my rural location). HD FM is FAR easier to "lock in" than over the air HDTV from the same distances (I get EVERY HD FM station in Charlotte, 80 miles away. Sometimes the Charlotte HDTV stations, through the same antenna, are much more "fiddly"). The fact that bitrates are MUCH lower for radio than tv no doubt contributes to this discrepency.

[Radioman100]

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF HD SUPPORTERS.
Radioman100 falsely assumes anyone that has ever used an HD Radio will be overwhelmed by it's shining perfection and compelled to love it as much as he does. In Radioman's mind, how could they possibly resist throwing out all their old analog radios and rushing out to replace them all with expensive, problematic new HD Radios?

Radioman100 said:

And therein lies the rub that I have with most anti-HD types.  Most of them haven't used the technology, yet that doesn't stop them from drawing conclusions.  Usually flawed ones.

A totally biased and false assumption. Most "anti-HD types" have used various types of HD Radios, some at a number of locations. Their opinions are valid and based upon their actual experience with HD Radios, and it's negative effects on existing analog radios. Indeed, some have returned several HD Radios because of dissatisfaction and very poor performance.
Most "anti-HD types" also have friends that are also dissatisfied with their HD Radios' operation and performance.
Most posters here originally wanted to embrace this new broadcasting technology, in spite of being skeptical about the viability of low power adjacent channel digital broadcasting on the severely congested bands in "RF challenged" populated areas where most live.
Most "anti-HD types" are so because they been very disappointed with HD Radio.

HD Radio promises much but delivers little, for most users. That's the problem with HD Radio. In the HD broadcasters myopic view they might be sold on it because they see potential benefits for them. But HD Radio has little to offer the public, especially with the advent of newer, better, more reliable, less troublesome technologies.

The only flawed conclusions are, without a doubt, those of HD promoters and the HD cartel.

I stand by my statement.  You only have to look back through this forum to read the proud proclamations by many naysayers that they don't own and haven't really used an HD Radio, yet that certainly doesn't keep them from bashing away.

And no, most "anti-HD types" here aren't disappointed with HD Radio, they're fanatical about their own special interests which they feel it threatens, DXing, webcasting and late coming, shoehorned AM operations.

Do you really expect everyone to believe you're sooooooo concerned for their technology buying dollar that you endlessly rail against HD?  You're altruisticly looking out for everyone's wallet?  I don't buy that for a second, and neither would anyone else with statements like "SAVE ENERGY - REDUCE AIR POLLUTION.
TELL HD RADIO TO "BUZZ OFF"!" and "HD Radio-much more harm then good" in your signature.

Do you own an HD Radio?

[Chuck]

BSW, the mail order broadcast supply company will be happy to help you own one, if you don't already.  Their latest sale flyer which came in the mail yesterday has the BA Receptor on sale for $199.  That doesn't sound like much of a sale to me, since Fry's in Dallas was blowing them out for $109.99 not long ago.  Nonetheless, their sales pitch is not "Discover the stations between the stations."  Instead they are suggesting that you buy one because "It is sure to become a collector's item." How amusing.

They are probably right, I can put it on the same shelf as all my old quad equipment. 

[Cal Stymes]

Radioman100 postulated:

You only have to look back through this forum to read the proud proclamations by many naysayers that they don't own and haven't really used an HD Radio, yet that certainly doesn't keep them from bashing away.

I don't believe that you have been on this forum long enough to realize that most of us who do not care for AM IBOC do indeed own and tried listening to an HD radio, even if only an early and badly engineered one.

And no, most "anti-HD types" here aren't disappointed with HD Radio, they're fanatical about their own special interests which they feel it threatens, DXing, webcasting and late coming, shoehorned AM operations.

I am completely disappointed with AM HD radio and not interested enough in FM HD radio to listen.  I am also a member of "the camp" that believes that no technological innovation (no matter how poorly engineered or shoved down the public's throat) will "save" AM radio from the oblivion that the AM haters here predict is coming.  I have no special interests "to protect".  I am neither a DXer, a webcaster nor the owner (or lover) of a "shoehorned" AM operation although I do admit that I am no longer able to listen to some small AM stations in areas where I was formerly able to do so.

There are several like me on this forum.  You cannot simply explain away or trivialize our ill feelings for AM IBOC with the "rotten apples" argument.  The fact is, AM HD is badly engineered and the FCC has ignored solid engineering data demonstrating it.  This has been rehashed here over and over and over again.  Follow the money.  iBiquity MUST have its public offering soon, otherwise all of the speculators who invested financing capital in it are going to rake its chairman over the coals.

[clouseau]

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF HD SUPPORTERS.
Radioman100 falsely assumes anyone that has ever used an HD Radio will be overwhelmed by it's shining perfection and compelled to love it as much as he does.

Again with the projected assumptions from ol' Sup.   He claims to know what Radioman100 thinks.  Just look...

In Radioman's mind, how could they possibly resist throwing out all their old analog radios and rushing out to replace them all with expensive, problematic new HD Radios?

First off, as you have been shown time and time again, there is no need to throw out any radios.  If you say we need to throw out our radios and buy new radio to continue to listen in analog, YOU ARE WRONG.

Secondly, he has never said anything about "How could they possibly resist...".  Again, you're fast and loose with what is quickly becoming NO TRUTH at all.  You're just making things up and it's very clear. 

HD Radio promises much but delivers little, for most users.

Again, the claim of knowing what HD delivers for most users.  I don't know the situation for "most users" and NEITHER DO YOU.  You do not KNOW most HD radio users.  Neither do I.  Notice I don't claim to speak for them, though.  YOU DO.

That's the problem with HD Radio.

It's good to know that you completely understand "The problem with HD radio".  An entire industry is working to refine how the system and the programming and the profitability model fit together,  but YOU know the "Problem with HD radio. 

I guess that's what comes from having ALL CAPS in your screen name.  My hat's off to ya... You truly know "The problem."

  In the HD broadcasters myopic view they might be sold on it because they see potential benefits for them. But HD Radio has little to offer the public, especially with the advent of newer, better, more reliable, less troublesome technologies.

Myopic.  As in "unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted."   Short sighted. 

You know,  I could see calling HD misguided.  I could see calling it pointless.  But Short-sighted?   As in "Expect return today,  the heck with the future?"  I don't get this at all.  If EVER there was a "Spend a bunch now - Hope for a return later", HD radio is it.

Never mind, though.  I forgot you know it all. 

The only flawed conclusions are, without a doubt, those of HD promoters and the HD cartel.

Without a doubt.  And a Problematic early on followed up by a "Cartel" to boot.

-2 for no defective though



Clouseau