I was wondering to possibly buy a Sony XDR radio, either the XDR-F1HD, XDR-S3HD, or the XDR-S10HDIP. I heard a lot of good things in the DX apartment for the F1, and I have not heard much about the others. I do not know which one is the best of the three though. Can you guys give some insight on the selectivity, DXing abilities, etc, and overall performance of them, and which one is the best? Thanks a lot.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Which Sony HD Radio is Better?
- Thread starter AlNYRadio
- Start date
As far as I'm aware, it's the same chipset in all three, so it's really just a question of what form factor appeals to you. If all you need is a standalone tuner, the F1HD is the box of choice. If you want built-in speakers and an iPhone dock, that's where the S3 and S10 come in. And of course as supplies dwindle and prices go up, it's also a question of what you can find most cheaply from a secondary source.
(It's odd; the chipset used in these radios is still in production, and one would think there's enough demand out there for Sony to do a second production run, maybe with some minor modifications like a better heatsink for the F1. If money's not a factor, BW Broadcast in England uses the Sony chipset to make a professional-grade receiver that provides complete control of all the chipset's functions, including manual modification of the IF bandwidth and other goodies. It comes at quite a price, though - in the $1500-$2000 range.)
(It's odd; the chipset used in these radios is still in production, and one would think there's enough demand out there for Sony to do a second production run, maybe with some minor modifications like a better heatsink for the F1. If money's not a factor, BW Broadcast in England uses the Sony chipset to make a professional-grade receiver that provides complete control of all the chipset's functions, including manual modification of the IF bandwidth and other goodies. It comes at quite a price, though - in the $1500-$2000 range.)
Love my Sony XDR S3Hd, but to me its big disadvantage (and presumably the other Sony units as well) is that it stores a station's HD2 (and beyond), so when you tune through stations, that space is "reserved" so it'll always stop at that extra channel unless you detach antennas and patch cords to weaken the channel enough that the radio doesn't see the HD.
But then, I listen mostly in analog, so wish there was an analog-only mode or that that sort of place marker storage didn't exist.
Otherwise, you can't go wrong with the XDR S3Hd, and probably the others, too.
I presume the others also exhibit this same behavior.
But then, I listen mostly in analog, so wish there was an analog-only mode or that that sort of place marker storage didn't exist.
Otherwise, you can't go wrong with the XDR S3Hd, and probably the others, too.
I presume the others also exhibit this same behavior.
Unlike multiplex I love it that the Sony radios remember the HD sub-channels as you tune. That is a big advantage if one listens to HD sub-channels as I do. I very much dislike having to tune into an HD1 channels first on most radios when tuning.
The thing I hate about the XDR-F1HD is that the display is to small to see unless your right up on it. So it does not work very well for a living room radio.
And the XDR-S3HD and the XDR-S10HDIP do not have audio out which makes them useless if one wants to connect them to some nice speakers. The speakers within them do not sound that great to really enjoy music.
The thing I hate about the XDR-F1HD is that the display is to small to see unless your right up on it. So it does not work very well for a living room radio.
And the XDR-S3HD and the XDR-S10HDIP do not have audio out which makes them useless if one wants to connect them to some nice speakers. The speakers within them do not sound that great to really enjoy music.
I have an XDR-F1HD and had to put a Yagi on the roof to get HD reliable. It gets very hot and it was made very cheaply. I could see it as an analog FM DX receiver with the HD defeated as some DX'ers do but if you are looking for an IBOC radio to listen to HD, it's a waste of your money, mine has been gathering dust now almost since I bought it 3 or 4 years ago. I do want to keep it though as it will be a curiosity in a few more years. Kind of like the old 42-50 mHz FM receivers.
XDR-S3HD does have audio out I just found out. If I had known that I would have bought one before but likely will now.
Since the XDR-S10HDIP does not have audio out I assumed the XDR-S3HD did not either.
Since the XDR-S10HDIP does not have audio out I assumed the XDR-S3HD did not either.
The XDR-F1HD is a very good radio to listen to HD radio on. HD haters are useless in giving advice because they are biased with hate. I wish they would go away. The kind of antenna you need depends on your location and the power of the HD station. An HD station at 1 percent power may require an outside or attic antenna for best reception. But if power is boosted to 4% of analog or more reception at home through walls is good inside the stations 60 dbu.
I hate people who post baloney and wishful thinking on message boards and I wish THEY would go away. I post the truth and that is it, HD does not work unless you want to go back to the roof top antenna days. All your posts are HD cheerleader posts, are you employed by HD radio in some capacity or are you just a happy ahem, customer? How may stations are broadcasting at 4% of analog? Not many I bet.
What's the difference. You've been predicting the end of HD radio for almost as many years as Harold Camping predicted the end of the world. Apparently neither is ending any time soon. MY XDR-F1HD works perfectly as do both of my Sangean tuners and my BA HD tabletop. The only problem with the BA is that my cat keeps turning it on when he steps on the top of the radio on his way off the bed.
I live about 25 miles from NYC and even with analog FM I can't get satisfactory reception without a external antenna and I don't mean a dipole. So what's the difference if your using a roof/attic antenna for analog of HD. As to DXing, fun hobby but it's not 1925 when people on the east coast listened to stations from Iowa. Sorry to burst your bubble, DXing is a non factor.
What's the difference. You've been predicting the end of HD radio for almost as many years as Harold Camping predicted the end of the world. Apparently neither is ending any time soon. MY XDR-F1HD works perfectly as do both of my Sangean tuners and my BA HD tabletop. The only problem with the BA is that my cat keeps turning it on when he steps on the top of the radio on his way off the bed.
As they say, HD is a dead man walking, it just doesn't know enough to lie down.
I get excellent reception from Boston in analog at 40 miles out with a dipole on my wall for most Boston FM's with both the Sony and my Bose Wave radio. I got an HD 100 KW FM (WGBH) at the same distance with dropouts with the same dipole on the Sony. Reception for rest of them in HD was very spotty with the dipole. I do not DX HD as I find it a futile waste of time. My Sony works very well besides the fact that you can fry an egg on the power supply and the many display quirks, no complaints on the performance of the tuner, my complaints are with the fact that HD just doesn't work very well and doesn't really sound all that different.
As of now many IBOC signals are 20 db down from their analog equivalent. Coverage on such a signal has proven to be spotty no matter what the mathematicians believe. If the day ever came that the analog signal was shut down so would any interference you now claim to suffer from would disappear as well. If you have anyone to blame go after the FCC who refused to a lot new spectrum. The industry is doing what it can to move into the 21st century even while the commission pushes to keep it back in the 19th century as the rest of the world switches to digital transmission systems. I’d go with DRM given a choice but if that happened in the US stations could either move to all digital or stay analog. As I say if you want to blame anyone blame the FCC who appears to be more interested in selling spectrum than governing the public airwaves. By the way, the same is true of television. The digital power numbers don't provide equal coverage to the analog equivalent.
D
diymedia
Guest
No thanks, I'll blame the industry *and* FCC. The industry for foisting a protocol upon us that it acknowledged was more science-project than actually useful and extensible system, and the FCC for going along with it with no independent oversight or analysis. There is plenty of blame to go around, no story is as cut-and-dried as the lovers or haters purport it to be. In the larger picture, you make terrible media policy when the foxes run the chicken coop.
And if you want to blame somebody for not acquiring new spectrum for digital radio, blame the Pentagon and the NTIA for refusing to free it up after the NAB endorsed the Eureka system some 20-odd years ago.
I'm all for debating merits and detriments, but I'd also like to ground it in facts (beyond anecdotal evidence).
And if you want to blame somebody for not acquiring new spectrum for digital radio, blame the Pentagon and the NTIA for refusing to free it up after the NAB endorsed the Eureka system some 20-odd years ago.
I'm all for debating merits and detriments, but I'd also like to ground it in facts (beyond anecdotal evidence).
I have no more problem with IBOC than I do with digital TV. Actually, IBOC digital is more robust on FM then ATSC is on TV which suffers from lightning and other types of noise. Please show me where the industry "acknowledged" that IBOC was more science project than a useful operating system? I've attended a multitude of SBE IBOC demonstrations with Ibiquity, Harris, Nautel and B.E. Are you saying that they have all conspired against the public to foist this system on an unsuspecting public which yearns for the return of AM stereo. I'm not looking to place the blame on anyone. I am looking at an industry which is trying to move into the 21st century technologically within the parameters set forth by the government.
Hi RF,
I think one of the problems is it appears that someone coerced the government to set the parameters. It seems odd that the only approved system requires royalty payments to a private company. I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise in an era when it appears that our government is for sale to the highest bidder. Such are the times we live in.
I think one of the problems is it appears that someone coerced the government to set the parameters. It seems odd that the only approved system requires royalty payments to a private company. I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise in an era when it appears that our government is for sale to the highest bidder. Such are the times we live in.
D
diymedia
Guest
Chuck hits the nail on the head, though "coerced" is a tad strong. The FCC is predisposed to consider economic metrics above all others, and radio is an afterthought in its priority-list. So when a constituency comes in claiming to represent the majority of industry revenue (plus NPR, to add a patina of political legitimacy) and declares that the industry wholeheartedly supports this technology, that's the ball game right there. The debate over the technical or business legitimacy of HD Radio is just background noise. The policy record clearly reflects this.
The FCC is to blame because its regulatory perspective is skewed and there was no due diligence worthy of the name when it came to actually evaluating the standard.
The "industry" is to blame because its major players did foist this onto everyone, even though the record is quite clear there was a lot of resistance.
We (the public) are to blame because we've become so jaded about how public policy is made...and many of those who actually care about radio were wholly distracted by LPFM.
This is a simplification, but it is what it is.
Oh, and Robert Struble himself called it a "science project," describing the initial efforts of USADR. If TL;DR: "The first efforts at creating an in-band, on-channel DAB system was a partnership between Westinghouse, CBS, and Gannett, and it was called USA Digital Radio,” Struble recalls. “The initial four or five years of the effort really were a big a science project. There were a lot of designs that were tried and scrapped, a lot of tests, some research and development, and some patent work. But it really wasn’t a whole-hog effort."
The FCC is to blame because its regulatory perspective is skewed and there was no due diligence worthy of the name when it came to actually evaluating the standard.
The "industry" is to blame because its major players did foist this onto everyone, even though the record is quite clear there was a lot of resistance.
We (the public) are to blame because we've become so jaded about how public policy is made...and many of those who actually care about radio were wholly distracted by LPFM.
This is a simplification, but it is what it is.
Oh, and Robert Struble himself called it a "science project," describing the initial efforts of USADR. If TL;DR: "The first efforts at creating an in-band, on-channel DAB system was a partnership between Westinghouse, CBS, and Gannett, and it was called USA Digital Radio,” Struble recalls. “The initial four or five years of the effort really were a big a science project. There were a lot of designs that were tried and scrapped, a lot of tests, some research and development, and some patent work. But it really wasn’t a whole-hog effort."
Last edited:
I totally agree with Chuck's statement. It is ridiculous that number one, the system is royalty based. There were similar royalty issues at the industry's birth (Think western electric transmitters, & super heterodyne circuits)and when FM was developed. The problem is that the world has changed and our reliance on this technology is much greater than it was at the start of the 20th century. How many years will it be until IBOC's developers no longer qualify for royalties? Secondly, it was very shortsighted & interesting that the digital systems used by different countries is not compatible. This seems to limit our access to information. When I visited Europe in the 1990's I was able to carry a radio which worked perfectly even with the 9 khz spacing issues. Instead we've moved backwards to what are incompatible systems. If we are to go all digital this means that I can not travel overseas and still use my standard radio receiver. The world is getting smaller. Isn't it time for some form of international standard? As bad as radio is, digital television standards are ridiculous. One would have thought that the idea of a single standard would have been pushed by manufacturers.
- Status