So many posts about which stations are launching HD. Does the general public know, care or are they willing to buy the necessary equipment?
-
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
Will HD save radio?
- Thread starter Stench_Dog
- Start date
> > So many posts about which stations are launching HD. Does
>
> > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
> the
> > necessary equipment?
> >
>
>
> Save radio from what?
>
Extinction.
>
> > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
> the
> > necessary equipment?
> >
>
>
> Save radio from what?
>
Extinction.
A
aquamaniac2
Guest
> > > So many posts about which stations are launching HD.
> Does
> >
> > > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
>
> > the
> > > necessary equipment?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Save radio from what?
> >
> Extinction.
>
Extinction??? I hardly think that a business that generated 14 billion dollars in revenue nationally should be worried about extinction. HD will certainly help radio, once consumers are exposed to the benefits and advatages. And of course, as receivers continue to come down in price. Remember, radio was supposed to kill newspapers...never happened. Television was supposed to kill radio...never happened. Satellite is expected to kill radio...also probably will never happen.
> Does
> >
> > > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
>
> > the
> > > necessary equipment?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Save radio from what?
> >
> Extinction.
>
Extinction??? I hardly think that a business that generated 14 billion dollars in revenue nationally should be worried about extinction. HD will certainly help radio, once consumers are exposed to the benefits and advatages. And of course, as receivers continue to come down in price. Remember, radio was supposed to kill newspapers...never happened. Television was supposed to kill radio...never happened. Satellite is expected to kill radio...also probably will never happen.
Sirius is having problems with Stern. Two pirate stations in the NY area have been putting it up on the free airwaves, and other fans are making it available (free) on the internet. Ironic that Stern has to beg the FCC to shut the pirates down. There's even backlash against rich man Stern getting $500,000 and expecting his fans to pay for it.
> > > > So many posts about which stations are launching HD.
> > Does
> > >
> > > > the general public know, care or are they willing to
> buy
> >
> > > the
> > > > necessary equipment?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Save radio from what?
> > >
> > Extinction.
> >
> Extinction??? I hardly think that a business that generated
> 14 billion dollars in revenue nationally should be worried
> about extinction. HD will certainly help radio, once
> consumers are exposed to the benefits and advatages. And of
> course, as receivers continue to come down in price.
> Remember, radio was supposed to kill newspapers...never
> happened. Television was supposed to kill radio...never
> happened. Satellite is expected to kill radio...also
> probably will never happen.
>
> > > > So many posts about which stations are launching HD.
> > Does
> > >
> > > > the general public know, care or are they willing to
> buy
> >
> > > the
> > > > necessary equipment?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Save radio from what?
> > >
> > Extinction.
> >
> Extinction??? I hardly think that a business that generated
> 14 billion dollars in revenue nationally should be worried
> about extinction. HD will certainly help radio, once
> consumers are exposed to the benefits and advatages. And of
> course, as receivers continue to come down in price.
> Remember, radio was supposed to kill newspapers...never
> happened. Television was supposed to kill radio...never
> happened. Satellite is expected to kill radio...also
> probably will never happen.
>
> So many posts about which stations are launching HD. Does
> the general public know, care or are they willing to buy the
> necessary equipment?
>
I don't know about it necessarily "saving" radio, but the rollout of HD has been pretty spotty, to say the least...especially compared to the satellite offerings that are available with everyone and their brother selling receivers dirt-cheap, plug-n-play, ready to rock. I think a good portion of the general public could really care less....right now the cost is prohibitive to most folks, and how many are willing to rip the stereos out of their Ford Focus to install a $600 HD tuner? I think in time, it will be more acceptable as prices come down and receivers become more readily available. I can remember when having a factory-installed FM radio in a car was a big deal, and it was mono at that. The FCC was handing out FM licenses like Christmas candy to the AM guys just to get some activity on the band.It wasn't until FM stations offered something more than just elevator music or a simulcast of their AM before the public realized that it sounded better and was worth spending a little money on. I can personally attest to that back when WNAP signed on in '68. I spent my grass-cutting cash to go buy a small AM-FM radio so I could hear them. HD will definitely follow the same steps and offer more choices for the consumer with multicasting. There is a good article in the latest Radio World about the continuing rollout of HD and what manufacturers such as JVC and Kenwood will be offering in the near future, as well as what Clear Channel has in the works for many of their stations.
It will, in time, become affordable and something everyone will want to have.
Kinda like HDTV...it's here, looks great and the prices keep dropping. I just have to convince myself to spend the cash!
> the general public know, care or are they willing to buy the
> necessary equipment?
>
I don't know about it necessarily "saving" radio, but the rollout of HD has been pretty spotty, to say the least...especially compared to the satellite offerings that are available with everyone and their brother selling receivers dirt-cheap, plug-n-play, ready to rock. I think a good portion of the general public could really care less....right now the cost is prohibitive to most folks, and how many are willing to rip the stereos out of their Ford Focus to install a $600 HD tuner? I think in time, it will be more acceptable as prices come down and receivers become more readily available. I can remember when having a factory-installed FM radio in a car was a big deal, and it was mono at that. The FCC was handing out FM licenses like Christmas candy to the AM guys just to get some activity on the band.It wasn't until FM stations offered something more than just elevator music or a simulcast of their AM before the public realized that it sounded better and was worth spending a little money on. I can personally attest to that back when WNAP signed on in '68. I spent my grass-cutting cash to go buy a small AM-FM radio so I could hear them. HD will definitely follow the same steps and offer more choices for the consumer with multicasting. There is a good article in the latest Radio World about the continuing rollout of HD and what manufacturers such as JVC and Kenwood will be offering in the near future, as well as what Clear Channel has in the works for many of their stations.
It will, in time, become affordable and something everyone will want to have.
Kinda like HDTV...it's here, looks great and the prices keep dropping. I just have to convince myself to spend the cash!
> >
> > Save radio from what?
> >
> Extinction.
>
Radio's doing fine - in no danger of anything remotely like extinction. Radio has seen no decline in how many people it reaches - only a slight decline in TSL. The only thing that radio has to worry about is advertisers spreading their ad budgets thinner due to more media choices. Newspapers and Yellow Pages are in much worse shape than radio - they're the ones who should be worried about extinction.
> > Save radio from what?
> >
> Extinction.
>
Radio's doing fine - in no danger of anything remotely like extinction. Radio has seen no decline in how many people it reaches - only a slight decline in TSL. The only thing that radio has to worry about is advertisers spreading their ad budgets thinner due to more media choices. Newspapers and Yellow Pages are in much worse shape than radio - they're the ones who should be worried about extinction.
> So many posts about which stations are launching HD. Does
> the general public know, care or are they willing to buy the
> necessary equipment?
>
I described all of the HD formats that were soon to launch a couple or three weeks ago to a group of about 10 people. No one was like "oh! sweet! more country on Hank" or "I need more classic rock. Thanks Clear Channel." In fact, I got a more "blah" reaction than I expected. Until I mentioned the price of an HD reciever.
If someone can come up with a unique station and put it anywhere, it will be successful. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that on paper in Indianapolis. Ask me again when I get a receiever (that won't be until they cost less than $100).
I don't seriously believe more channels means more creativity, but I've written at length about that in the past.
> the general public know, care or are they willing to buy the
> necessary equipment?
>
I described all of the HD formats that were soon to launch a couple or three weeks ago to a group of about 10 people. No one was like "oh! sweet! more country on Hank" or "I need more classic rock. Thanks Clear Channel." In fact, I got a more "blah" reaction than I expected. Until I mentioned the price of an HD reciever.
If someone can come up with a unique station and put it anywhere, it will be successful. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that on paper in Indianapolis. Ask me again when I get a receiever (that won't be until they cost less than $100).
I don't seriously believe more channels means more creativity, but I've written at length about that in the past.
First, these "HD" receivers must be readily available and less expensive than satellite receivers and media players. At this point receivers are few and far between and cost more than satellite receiver or media player. Second, there must be content to motivate a purchase of an "HD" receiver. At this point, content, much like receiver availability, is few and far between.
Part of the selling point of "HD" radio is more choices via sub channels. As mentioned in another post, radio is already fighting a war against other media competition and new marketing techniques in the battle for the almighty dollar. Increasing radio choices by a third will have a result on the existing part of radio. Keep in mind AM radio was king until the seventies when FM began to take over in listeners and revenue. If "HD" radio was to take off with the mass production of receivers at a giveaway price, it will change once again. It all adds up to 100 when it comes to revenue and listeners, some will gain while other will see a reduction.
Also remember the "HD" in "HD" radio doesn't refer to high definition. Its two letters used to give the illusion of quality. The bit rate used is hardly high definition. But since many feel the word "digital" and "High Definition" is a magic wand to make it sound better, it's a pointless argument.
If you consider the cost of upgrade, interference problems, lack of FCC support and the many other discrepancies plaguing "HD" radio, it's easy to see why I’m rather pessimistic. Many radio broadcasters (read: overpaid broadcast executives, amateur investment banker/owners, and the hierarchy of the NAB) feel "HD" radio will be the salvation and competitive against satellite receivers, media players, PSP's, and other portable toys. As long as "HD" radio's negatives outweigh the positives, the competition will win.
<P ID="signature">______________
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.</P>
Part of the selling point of "HD" radio is more choices via sub channels. As mentioned in another post, radio is already fighting a war against other media competition and new marketing techniques in the battle for the almighty dollar. Increasing radio choices by a third will have a result on the existing part of radio. Keep in mind AM radio was king until the seventies when FM began to take over in listeners and revenue. If "HD" radio was to take off with the mass production of receivers at a giveaway price, it will change once again. It all adds up to 100 when it comes to revenue and listeners, some will gain while other will see a reduction.
Also remember the "HD" in "HD" radio doesn't refer to high definition. Its two letters used to give the illusion of quality. The bit rate used is hardly high definition. But since many feel the word "digital" and "High Definition" is a magic wand to make it sound better, it's a pointless argument.
If you consider the cost of upgrade, interference problems, lack of FCC support and the many other discrepancies plaguing "HD" radio, it's easy to see why I’m rather pessimistic. Many radio broadcasters (read: overpaid broadcast executives, amateur investment banker/owners, and the hierarchy of the NAB) feel "HD" radio will be the salvation and competitive against satellite receivers, media players, PSP's, and other portable toys. As long as "HD" radio's negatives outweigh the positives, the competition will win.
<P ID="signature">______________
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.</P>
K
k9ez
Guest
> > So many posts about which stations are launching HD. Does
>
> > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
> the
> > necessary equipment?
> >
> I described all of the HD formats that were soon to launch a
> couple or three weeks ago to a group of about 10 people. No
> one was like "oh! sweet! more country on Hank" or "I need
> more classic rock. Thanks Clear Channel." In fact, I got a
> more "blah" reaction than I expected. Until I mentioned the
> price of an HD reciever.
>
> If someone can come up with a unique station and put it
> anywhere, it will be successful. Unfortunately, I'm not
> seeing that on paper in Indianapolis. Ask me again when I
> get a receiever (that won't be until they cost less than
> $100).
>
> I don't seriously believe more channels means more
> creativity, but I've written at length about that in the
> past.
>
Buuuut does the average listener really care about creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music. At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and loca atthis average listener.
>
> > the general public know, care or are they willing to buy
> the
> > necessary equipment?
> >
> I described all of the HD formats that were soon to launch a
> couple or three weeks ago to a group of about 10 people. No
> one was like "oh! sweet! more country on Hank" or "I need
> more classic rock. Thanks Clear Channel." In fact, I got a
> more "blah" reaction than I expected. Until I mentioned the
> price of an HD reciever.
>
> If someone can come up with a unique station and put it
> anywhere, it will be successful. Unfortunately, I'm not
> seeing that on paper in Indianapolis. Ask me again when I
> get a receiever (that won't be until they cost less than
> $100).
>
> I don't seriously believe more channels means more
> creativity, but I've written at length about that in the
> past.
>
Buuuut does the average listener really care about creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music. At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and loca atthis average listener.
Ummmm...
There's even backlash against rich man Stern
> getting $500,000 and expecting his fans to pay for it.
>
I think you missed a zero or 2 in his pay...the estimate is 500 MILLION.
Nobody is worth that, NOBODY.
Except maybe Lance and Sam.
Nah, not them either...LOL
There's even backlash against rich man Stern
> getting $500,000 and expecting his fans to pay for it.
>
I think you missed a zero or 2 in his pay...the estimate is 500 MILLION.
Nobody is worth that, NOBODY.
Except maybe Lance and Sam.
Nah, not them either...LOL
> Buuuut does the average listener really care about
> creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about
> creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of
> music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music.
> At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and
> loca atthis average listener.
>
Creative meaning a format that isn't otherwise available in the market. For example, the HD Country stations in NY and SF are "creative" formats for HD and will help HD be adopted in those places. In Indianapolis, "Americana" on Hank's HD2 channel doesn't seem like it would be a good format for the market.
Unique might have been a better word for me to use.
> creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about
> creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of
> music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music.
> At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and
> loca atthis average listener.
>
Creative meaning a format that isn't otherwise available in the market. For example, the HD Country stations in NY and SF are "creative" formats for HD and will help HD be adopted in those places. In Indianapolis, "Americana" on Hank's HD2 channel doesn't seem like it would be a good format for the market.
Unique might have been a better word for me to use.
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Does Radio need saving?
That's a better question. HD is meant to improve the product, not to save it. Plain old analog radio isn't in any danger. It's shares are eroding, to be sure, but it's far from being dead.
HD is a way for terrestrial radio to be better. To offer more choice and better quality.
Regardless of what the radio-types here say, Joe Public is still listening to the radio, and probably always will.
There are a lot of people listening to Satellite, but a lot less listening EXCLUSIVELY to satellite!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
That's a better question. HD is meant to improve the product, not to save it. Plain old analog radio isn't in any danger. It's shares are eroding, to be sure, but it's far from being dead.
HD is a way for terrestrial radio to be better. To offer more choice and better quality.
Regardless of what the radio-types here say, Joe Public is still listening to the radio, and probably always will.
There are a lot of people listening to Satellite, but a lot less listening EXCLUSIVELY to satellite!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Buuuut does the average listener really care about
> creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about
> creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of
> music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music.
> At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and
> loca atthis average listener.
If a listener only cares about the music, then what is the point of "HD" radio or radio in general? There are many choices providing music interactively as oppose to the assembly line delivery system called radio.
Think about it. An iPod, or any media player for that matter, allows you to fill it with a large music selection and play it on demand. Radio can't do that. Radio is limited to a rotation of well tested songs and God help you if you tamper with the sacred rotation.
The music is important, but the creativity between the songs is why they listen. Did you listen to John Records Landecker every night thirty years ago to hear "I Write The Songs" every 70 minutes or to hear what Landecker was going to do next? Creativity is the spice that sets you apart from your competition.
<P ID="signature">______________
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.</P>
> creativity? The answer is no. Just broadcasters care about
> creativity. The average listener cares about what peice of
> music is playing and how easy it is to receive that music.
> At some point we must all take our broadcasters hat off and
> loca atthis average listener.
If a listener only cares about the music, then what is the point of "HD" radio or radio in general? There are many choices providing music interactively as oppose to the assembly line delivery system called radio.
Think about it. An iPod, or any media player for that matter, allows you to fill it with a large music selection and play it on demand. Radio can't do that. Radio is limited to a rotation of well tested songs and God help you if you tamper with the sacred rotation.
The music is important, but the creativity between the songs is why they listen. Did you listen to John Records Landecker every night thirty years ago to hear "I Write The Songs" every 70 minutes or to hear what Landecker was going to do next? Creativity is the spice that sets you apart from your competition.
<P ID="signature">______________
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.</P>
My shallow rant...
Doc, very well put!
Contrary to what Satellite listeners and providers would have you believe, radio is far from “turning off the lights and going home”. They have less than a half percent penetration rate right now. Sure, that makes for a few million at best but they face the same challenges that terrestrial radio does. iPods, CD’s, internet radio and the like.
As I have said before, I am not sure we need to change the delivery method but seriously look at the content being delivered and the manner in which it’s delivered, such as the “same 20 songs” and “too many commercials”. That being said, I would rather see something like FMextra work because it appears to be a little more simplistic in nature. The unfortunate thing is, AM is being forgotten in this digital push and it needs the most help. My night pattern sounds awful but will anybody really be listening to AM in 5, 10 or 20 years?
Just of few of my thoughts and are not meant to incite anybody and I know they are superficial statements but I am too tired to go into depth on anything…LOL
G
Doc, very well put!
Contrary to what Satellite listeners and providers would have you believe, radio is far from “turning off the lights and going home”. They have less than a half percent penetration rate right now. Sure, that makes for a few million at best but they face the same challenges that terrestrial radio does. iPods, CD’s, internet radio and the like.
As I have said before, I am not sure we need to change the delivery method but seriously look at the content being delivered and the manner in which it’s delivered, such as the “same 20 songs” and “too many commercials”. That being said, I would rather see something like FMextra work because it appears to be a little more simplistic in nature. The unfortunate thing is, AM is being forgotten in this digital push and it needs the most help. My night pattern sounds awful but will anybody really be listening to AM in 5, 10 or 20 years?
Just of few of my thoughts and are not meant to incite anybody and I know they are superficial statements but I am too tired to go into depth on anything…LOL
G
Re: Will HD save radio?-No, it will ruin it!
The limited coverage area, the need for expensive new HD radios, outside antennas, terrible jamming, and digital interference to analog signals, ensures HD digital radio will do more to DESTROY AM and FM then any competition from Serious, XM, iPods or internet streaming COMBINED!
Radio broadcasting is comitting digital suicide.
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com/
The limited coverage area, the need for expensive new HD radios, outside antennas, terrible jamming, and digital interference to analog signals, ensures HD digital radio will do more to DESTROY AM and FM then any competition from Serious, XM, iPods or internet streaming COMBINED!
Radio broadcasting is comitting digital suicide.
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com/
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Not true at all.
> The limited coverage area, the need for expensive new HD
> radios, outside antennas, terrible jamming, and digital
> interference to analog signals, ensures HD digital radio
> will do more to DESTROY AM and FM then any competition from
> Serious, XM, iPods or internet streaming COMBINED!
> Radio broadcasting is comitting digital suicide.
> http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com/
>
Care to offer proof? We've asked you several times to offer proof other than conjecture and the one faulty spectrum analyzer shot you've offered. You have yet to do that.
We've also asked you to tell us more about yourself since you claim to be an expert. I'm the Director of Engineering for two large markets (6 stations) and K9EZ is a large market guy with several stations. We're willing to back up everything we say with real-life experience and real proof, when necessary.
Come on back when you can prove whatever it is you're trying to say.
One more time:
The HD signal is meant to cover a stations city grade signal. In the case of my Class B FM's, I get around 30 miles or so solid, farther depending on antenna.
There is an HD on 103.7 in Milwaukee, and 103.5 in Chicago. Neither is interfereing with the other.
I can easily receive an HD signal inside of our city-grade contour with a tabletop radio. In fact, I can get WKKV-HD/Racine inside our conference room (which is at the same site as our 50KW FM at 99.1 running HD) using a tabletop Boston Acoustics receiver. WKKV's antenna is 20 miles away. If you'd like, I can videotape that to "prove it".
By the way, $100 radios are right around the corner. They'll be less than that inside of a year.
So yeah, your "facts" are unsubstantiated.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> The limited coverage area, the need for expensive new HD
> radios, outside antennas, terrible jamming, and digital
> interference to analog signals, ensures HD digital radio
> will do more to DESTROY AM and FM then any competition from
> Serious, XM, iPods or internet streaming COMBINED!
> Radio broadcasting is comitting digital suicide.
> http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com/
>
Care to offer proof? We've asked you several times to offer proof other than conjecture and the one faulty spectrum analyzer shot you've offered. You have yet to do that.
We've also asked you to tell us more about yourself since you claim to be an expert. I'm the Director of Engineering for two large markets (6 stations) and K9EZ is a large market guy with several stations. We're willing to back up everything we say with real-life experience and real proof, when necessary.
Come on back when you can prove whatever it is you're trying to say.
One more time:
The HD signal is meant to cover a stations city grade signal. In the case of my Class B FM's, I get around 30 miles or so solid, farther depending on antenna.
There is an HD on 103.7 in Milwaukee, and 103.5 in Chicago. Neither is interfereing with the other.
I can easily receive an HD signal inside of our city-grade contour with a tabletop radio. In fact, I can get WKKV-HD/Racine inside our conference room (which is at the same site as our 50KW FM at 99.1 running HD) using a tabletop Boston Acoustics receiver. WKKV's antenna is 20 miles away. If you'd like, I can videotape that to "prove it".
By the way, $100 radios are right around the corner. They'll be less than that inside of a year.
So yeah, your "facts" are unsubstantiated.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Not true at all.
Hey Doc, since you have "blazed the HD trail", any chance of posting how you accomlpished this feat with 1 station? Did you low or high level combine, separate processors? Approximate cost involved to turn one station on. Feel free to go into as much detail as possible. I swear, I don't ever see us going HD. Some things our owner is just dead set against and dropping that much cash on something this new isn't something he is willing to do.
But, in the event he decides it is time, I want to be armed with as much info as possible.
Hey Doc, since you have "blazed the HD trail", any chance of posting how you accomlpished this feat with 1 station? Did you low or high level combine, separate processors? Approximate cost involved to turn one station on. Feel free to go into as much detail as possible. I swear, I don't ever see us going HD. Some things our owner is just dead set against and dropping that much cash on something this new isn't something he is willing to do.
But, in the event he decides it is time, I want to be armed with as much info as possible.
Boston HD radio
> I can easily receive an HD signal inside of our city-grade
> contour with a tabletop radio. In fact, I can get
> WKKV-HD/Racine inside our conference room (which is at the
> same site as our 50KW FM at 99.1 running HD) using a
> tabletop Boston Acoustics receiver. WKKV's antenna is 20
> miles away. If you'd like, I can videotape that to "prove
> it".
>
> By the way, $100 radios are right around the corner.
> They'll be less than that inside of a year.
Now that several stations in Cincinnati including WLW are broadcasting in HD, I definatly plan to purchasing an HD radio. Comparing the Radiosophy and Boston receivers, I like the looks of the Boston radio. However, I read in another post that the audio sounds too "tubby." I assume the poster was saying the receiver lacks treble. Please give me a report on that radio. Thanks in advance.
> I can easily receive an HD signal inside of our city-grade
> contour with a tabletop radio. In fact, I can get
> WKKV-HD/Racine inside our conference room (which is at the
> same site as our 50KW FM at 99.1 running HD) using a
> tabletop Boston Acoustics receiver. WKKV's antenna is 20
> miles away. If you'd like, I can videotape that to "prove
> it".
>
> By the way, $100 radios are right around the corner.
> They'll be less than that inside of a year.
Now that several stations in Cincinnati including WLW are broadcasting in HD, I definatly plan to purchasing an HD radio. Comparing the Radiosophy and Boston receivers, I like the looks of the Boston radio. However, I read in another post that the audio sounds too "tubby." I assume the poster was saying the receiver lacks treble. Please give me a report on that radio. Thanks in advance.
R
RadioDoc
Guest
Re: Boston HD radio
>
> Now that several stations in Cincinnati including WLW are
> broadcasting in HD, I definatly plan to purchasing an HD
> radio. Comparing the Radiosophy and Boston receivers, I like
> the looks of the Boston radio. However, I read in another
> post that the audio sounds too "tubby." I assume the poster
> was saying the receiver lacks treble. Please give me a
> report on that radio. Thanks in advance.
>
My opinion is that it sounds a bit "boxy", though I didn't find it objectionable. The radio has small speakers, so what you hear is a reflection of that. I considered "hacking" mine to add external speakers.
Since this is a very subjective area, I can't give you a real in-depth report. All I can say is to be sure to get one from a place with a return policy so you can return it if you don't like it.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
>
> Now that several stations in Cincinnati including WLW are
> broadcasting in HD, I definatly plan to purchasing an HD
> radio. Comparing the Radiosophy and Boston receivers, I like
> the looks of the Boston radio. However, I read in another
> post that the audio sounds too "tubby." I assume the poster
> was saying the receiver lacks treble. Please give me a
> report on that radio. Thanks in advance.
>
My opinion is that it sounds a bit "boxy", though I didn't find it objectionable. The radio has small speakers, so what you hear is a reflection of that. I considered "hacking" mine to add external speakers.
Since this is a very subjective area, I can't give you a real in-depth report. All I can say is to be sure to get one from a place with a return policy so you can return it if you don't like it.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
- Status