Re: Outside antenna for HD radio?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:445f2610.250466906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Digital Radio is fairly new to N. America (it's in wider use in Europe) so
I
> haven't seen much on it. I don't know but would expect that it has
reception
> sensitivity that is more or less the same as standard AM & FM.

I didn't know much about it, but in my reading last nite the Boston unit got
slammed for having no equalization controls and for drifting in and out of
multicast the way stereo FM radios can drift in and out of stereo lock.  The
only problem is there's no way to force the Boston radio into the non-HD
mode or the other.  The first units were supplied with a very small FM wire
aerial that proved to be pretty useless.  It was quickly supplanted by the
7' dipole now included.  Various users reports on the "Recepter" HD radio
indicate that plain ol' rabbit ears pull in most stations quite nicely.

> The manual for the radio you cite indicates there is an internal AM
> antenna which, if necessary, can be replaced with a supplied external
> antenna (the one Bobby Green cited). The manual also indicates it
> comes with an FM antenna connected to the 75-ohm F connector.

The HD receivers are alleged to make the new AM sound like the old FM and
the new FM sound like DVD surround sound.  It's unclear which stations Mr.
Wiss would be listening to, so I suspect he needs to concern himself with
both types of aerials, AM and FM.   Reviews of the AM capabilities of the
radio suggest that the unless the radio is placed near a window, the
additional external antenna will be required.  I haven't been able to
determine if HD AM is more hum-resistant than its analog counterpart, but my
guess is that it is.  Maybe that would make a long, shortwave aerial
practical.  IIRC, some people were using a COTS Radio Shack shortwave
antenna kit that included wire, connectors and standoffs for the AM side of
the equation.

> I doubt you will need an external AM antenna but if you do, the one
provided
> is small and unobtrusive. Quarter-wavelength AM antennas are of the size
of
> the WLW tower. You probably won't need that.
>
> Any of the Yagi or Turnstile FM antennas shown on the cite I referenced
will
> work. They probably have 75-ohm F connectors. If not, there are 50-ohm to
> 75-ohm (or 300-ohm to 75-ohm) adapters readily available. The radio's
manual
> has complete instructions, including pictures.
>
> Whether you need an omnidirectional or unidirectional antenna depends on
the
> station(s) you wish to receive. Unless you are in an area of fringe
> reception, the omnidirectional turnstile is likely to be adequate.
>
> I wonder whether digital radio will make any significant penetration. The
> receivers are expensive, few stations broadcast digital signals and since
> most of the standard AM band has been taken over by wing-nut talk while
much
> of the lower end of the FM band has been taken over by religious
> broadcasters, it would appear that there is a lack of content to fill the
> additional channels that digital radio makes available. With XM, Sirius,
> cell phones and iPods to compete with, they have a lot of work ahead of
> them.

There seems to be some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" among HD radio
broadcasters that they will broadcast commercial-free on the subchannels for
at least 18 months.  The HD radio folks are very hard at work trying to make
deals with auto manufacturers because they believe that they will live or
die based on whether new cars can receive the signals.  They know they're
going head to head with satellite radio and they also know that people hate
paying monthly fees.

For my $, the greatest benefit will be not having to listen and pray that
the DJ will announce the name of a song that just plaued.  You can read it
right off the radio display.  How long will it be before some advertiser
figures out how to walk over that information with a popup ad of some sort?

> Like with HDTV they can either improve fidelity or squeeze more channels
> into the same bandwidth. Cable TV has by and large chosen the latter route
> and I suspect the radio conglomerates will do the same. I think this will
be
> another case where "more is less".

The infamous "I have 500 channels on my cable so why isn't there anything to
watch other than B movies, LawnOrder reruns or shark documentaries?

> Most public TV and public radio programming has become an endless
begathon.
> I don't see how adding more channels helps that.
>
> For those who haven't heard about digital radio...
>
>      http://www.ibiquity.com/hdradio/index.htm
>
> It's been a year or so since I last visited the site and I see only a few
> additional digital stations. At least now there are a couple of receiver
> suppliers. Last time I looked there were none.

For those interested in the Boston Audio unit just search on the terms
"Recepter" and "HD" or "Boston" - lots and lots of information.

--
Bobby G.