1
1290wgli
Guest
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".
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".