[BC] Re: HD Receiver

[Rich Wood]

------ At 10:32 PM 2/15/2007, Robert Orban wrote: -------

>I compared the Polk and BA with exactly the same antenna. The BA got 
>more HD FM stations than the Polk did. My BA is definitely not "deaf 
>as a post"; I get somewhere around 20 HD FM stations solidly with my 
>BA, albeit via a big rooftop antenna.

The big rooftop antenna is the key. How many ordinary listeners will 
install one for their clock radio? How many can you receive with the 
stock rat tail or dipole. Your problem in San Francisco is multipath. 
Mine in mountainous New England is digital signal strength combined 
with deaf receivers. Even my Accurian with an attic antenna which 
doesn't move loses digital fairly often with all but the few stations 
on Mt. Tom about 4 miles from me. With the Kenwood in the car it was 
a lost cause. The Kenwood, in analog, was one of the most sensitive 
receivers I've seen in a while. When the car was moving the mode 
constantly switched.

For this thing to work I believe receivers need to receive the 
digital component as well as it does analog with the antenna the 
manufacturer supplies. With the exception of defective BAs, consumers 
are returning the radios because they paid a lot of money and can't 
receive what they expected. Once you get an IBUZ receiver home it's a 
great letdown. Consumers were sold them with the promise of great 
fidelity (no difference here because of identical processing) and 
awesome new formats. In New England we don't have any of those, 
Unless receiving WTIC-AM on the FM's HD-2 qualifies. The AM is 50Kw 
and I'm well within its city grade signal. I really thought the HD 
Dominion was supposed to ensure that secondary formats would not 
duplicate anything already in the market.

The fact that the receivers are being returned within a few days of 
purchase tells me listeners aren't spending time to experiment or 
install antennas. The dissatisfaction is immediate. I wish stations 
had the luxury of the kind of separate processing you propose. The 
false claim of Seedy Quality would be less deceptive if stations 
could take advantage of the alleged fidelity improvement.

Add my personal experience with throwaway secondaries that aren't 
monitored and the IBUZ experience isn't stellar. I hope San Francisco 
pays more attention.

Rich