[BC] Sangean HD component tuner and Infusion portable Internet radio

[James Somich]

WNCX (CBS-Oldies) in Cleveland is set-up so that there is absolutely NO
change when the Sangean blends to HD. WGAR(CC-Country) sounds perceptively
better in HD. This is not a big difference, but I think the improvement is
appealing. WGAR also has the best sounding HD-2 (Classic Country) in the
Cleveland market. It has no competition on the HD-2 dial. The others sound
underprocessed or not processed at all! Thin, dead, lifeless, boring.
WMJI (CC-Oldies) sounds very much the same in HD or Analog. Ditto WMVX (CC).

My Conclusions: HD radio has more sonic potential than the Cleveland
broadcasters are using (except for WGAR). I don't go in for these little
table radios with the micro speakers. The Sangean lets me hear "everything."
And I don't hear a lot of digital artifacts on anybody's station.

Of course, one very real improvement is when the analog reception is plagued
with multipath. It just disappears!!  Very nice.

Only one AM-HD here, WTAM (CC-Newstalk). Yes, HD makes AM sound like FM. No
kidding! I like it. A much greater improvement than FM-HD... even on a
newstalk format.

But why does WTAM drop the analog delay during a football game without
turning off the HD? This pleases no one!  The HD listener in a car is
annoyed during the blends and the HD listener at home, watching tv is out of
sync.

Just came back from Detroit area today. WJR (Disney) STILL sounds horrible
in analog with the HD on. They have super major problems. The HD actually
puts a loud whine behind all programming. This is absolutely unlistenable,
even in the car at 70mph!

Hey, the world is NOT going to rush out and buy an HD radio...especially at
today's prices. The lack of portables or pocket radios is another negative.
But read Chris Scheer's editorial in BE Radio this month about the adoption
of HD. I think it makes a lot of sense.

HD is relatively cheap to implement and the public will gradually be buying
radios that have HD capability. I don't think it is going away, but it's not
going to be a revolution either.

It has some warts, but it really isn't a bad system. And I was a skeptic.


On 12/20/06, Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> ------ At 04:39 AM 12/20/2006, James Somich wrote: -------
>
> >The unit has nice audio quality on my big system. It is easy to use. I
> have
> >no complaints on the sensitivity. I can't get WJR(AM) in HD, but they are
> 65
> >miles away (as the crow flies).
>
> Are there any stations in your market processing separately? Can you
> tell the difference when it switches to digital? A former CC employee
> on this list says their stations are but both analog and digital are
> identically processed here, so I can't hear any difference on my
> Accurian. I wish I had waited and bought the Sangean. The audio
> sections of all the table radios are pretty dull and lifeless. One
> thing I don't understand is why a component digital radio wouldn't
> have digital outputs.
>
> >The audio quality surprised me. It is certainly "good enough."
> >I hear more problems due to lack of processing or poor processing.
>
> Is "good enough" good enough to get the average consumer to notice a
> difference and consider the radio worth buying? Is it as dramatic an
> increase in quality as the cheerleaders claim? It certainly isn't on
> the BA Receptor, the Accurian or the Polk. The Kenwood is good and, I
> assume, the Sangean is dependent on the audio system you use with it.
>
> Like most people, I have no intention of buying more than one receiver.
>
> Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>