digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at ehow.com

Sound off on HD radio

ehow.com — Talks about HD radio and its benefits. Worth the read.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • johnjenin, on 06/13/2008, -20/+5sound good
  • LewP, on 06/13/2008, -18/+5Dugg and submittedto today's DDD.
  • Falldog, on 06/13/2008, -2/+50Yet I don't seeing anything about not being censored and commercial free...
    • elvenrunelord, on 06/13/2008, -0/+21i'm pretty sure its not commercial free and as for the censoring....lol the FCC has control over everything broadcast except sat radio
    • frascellyboy273, on 06/13/2008, -1/+18...which is why sat radio is better
      • MattB123, on 06/13/2008, -0/+11Or my own extensive music collection.
    • bacon_skoda, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3it's monthly fee free
    • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Heck,. I'm waiting for when they start pushing advertisements to the digital display on the radios..

      I might think about buying one IF they ever get down to about 100$ and they are the size of a Walkman.
      • warplayer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that's what I want, a billboard in my car.
      • eddie72, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The thing is, you don't want one. The article wasn't truthful in any way at all. They don't tell you HD radio cuts in and out. They don't tell you how unreliable the stations are.
    • eschompthis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5free fm blows, now sirius thats where it starts
    • infiniteshadow, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2I'm not you friend, guy!
    • NICU, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1I've had Sirius for a few years, I can't stand regular radio with all their commercials. When my Sirius radio's antenna broke I could drive almost all the way to work without hearing a single song on regular radio. At least it was one of the 5 songs they're allowed to play each month.
      Go Sirius with their variety of stations - the 90's alternative station is awesome.
  • Jasper710, on 06/13/2008, -15/+20HD radio is free and satellite is not.
    • JohnnyRad, on 06/13/2008, -4/+15You mean "free"
    • j3ff86, on 06/13/2008, -3/+13Satellite also has no or limited commercials, and much better content & Stern (if you like him). Now if only I could get a better signal in my car..
    • web2pointYo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+12***** is also free. In fact if your interested i can get you some of that as well.
    • culbeda, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3If you like listening to 12 minutes of commercials and promos during an hour, feel free. If you like struggling to find a decent radio station while you drive around, that's your choice. If you want to keep searching around for a decent song, knock yourself out. I, on the other hand, have several crystal clear stations at my disposal no matter where I go in the country, save the bottom of a parking garage.
    • Trav3133, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4HD radio is not free you have to buy the receiver. Also not many stations aren't even in HD and the HD is just a buzzword it means nothing.
    • etx313, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3HD radio sucks and Sirius does not.

      Seriously, Local, FCC regulated channels are a joke pumping out garbage nobody wants to hear.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3HD radio sets go for $100-200. It's not worth the slightly higher bitrate IMO. But "HD" is a buzzword and people are stupid. If people pay $1000+ for a HD TV, they'll probably buy into getting a "HD" radio too.
  • HSlipwiffle, on 06/13/2008, -6/+42Satellite is the future of radio. Some things are worth paying for.

    The future of free radio is the internet.
    • purelithium, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11Exactly. People will pay for it. This is the same argument that happened when Cable/Satellite TV came out.
    • rkzda, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7True, I'm rockin Sirius myself. Only issue with it is current bandwidth, they need to shed some of the channels and put more bandwifth toward the popular channels where sound quality could be much improved. Going from listening to a song on Sirius to listening to the same song @ even 192kbps on my Sansa is night and day. Sirius sounds like a 96-128k mp3 with the equalizer(Their's) adjusted to make it bearable.
      • priegog, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Then it begs the question: why would you pay for such a horrible service when it's main feature is supposed to be the fact that it's DIGITAL and therefore of a higher quality?
        • rkzda, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The thing is I pay for it because it is better than any stations around me, most are out of Denver and I am about 10 miles too far out for them to come in clearly as there are no translators around here in northeastern Colorado. Even if they came in clear, well, there is the whole commercials issue, and I am not talking one commercial, 3-6 every two songs, plus the radio show in the afternoon, where 3/4 of it is two guys talking and being "funny", only idiots find them funny, the same idiots that call in. I'm speaking of the Uncle Nasty show, on 106.7 KBPI. The service isn't so terrible, after listening to it for a few days, you don;t notice the quality difference until you go to an mp3 player for tunes. Which lately has been less and less because Sirius is now asking for song suggestions via different listener programs like the Octane Air Force on Octane which is named "AltNation Music director" on altnation. But they are the same thing: The listeners voice on what should be played more often, and what should not.
        • priegog, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1@rkzda: (sorry for some reason it won't let me reply to your post)
          So to recap, you're saying tou pay for a service which is supposed to be awesome, then isn't but it's kindda ok because you get used to it's crappy quality?
          I have a couple of sugestions for you, to help make your life easier.
          1) subscribe to last.fm and "train it" to your tastes, by enabling your music programs to submit there what you've listened. After that, it should start to give you suggestions. You what you do is grab all those suggestions, bulk download them, put them on your mp3 player and use that. Rinse and repeat.
          2) (my preffered one) If you have an unlimited wireless plan for your phone ( if you don't already it would be impractical, but depending on what you pay for the satellite radio, maybe this would be cheaper?), get a carputer, tabletpc, nokia tablet thinguies, eeepc... etc, and listen to internet radio stations There ought to be at least the same (but I'd bet it's much more) variety to choose from than on the sirius, plus the quality is a guarantee (you get to seee the bitrate of the stations). Of course this would require a lot of work to hook it up to your car stereo (unless it's got an audio jack in), but I think nothing beats this, and you being on Digg makes me think you'd be up for the challenge.. And I also think some sort of device that brings all of these things together will be what ultimately kills the crappy satellite radio business. You're free to steal my idea for such a product... I'd do it myself, but alas, I chose the medical field.
    • jstem1994, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3I had XM for about 3yrs, until this past Xmas when I got an MP3 player as a gift.

      Got tired of the same music, on the same stations. Decided I could save $15 or so a month with Torrents. And still no commercials or censorship.
      • reed311, on 06/14/2008, -4/+3Yep, and you can walk into the grocery store and walk out with a cart full of groceries without paying. You are comparing apples to oranges as you are stealing music (and due royalties) via torrents; while you are supporting the copyright holders when you pay for satellite radio.

        It's like bragging about to someone who actually buys or rents their movies that you just download them off the Internet for free. Nobody cares, as theft isn't a viable alternative.
        • turkeyssr, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1"...theft isn't a viable alternative" Oh, really? Then why are music sales down? Where have you been since 1997? Douche.
      • priegog, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1RAmen, brother.
  • darkane, on 06/13/2008, -4/+41HD, in the context of radio, does not stand for high-definition. So I think comparing hybrid digital radio to high-definition television is enough proof that this article was directly taken from other websites, and the writer has no particular insight or knowledge of the technology. Oh, wait. It's eHow. That's the purpose of the site, to poorly rehash information from the rest of the interwebs.
    • Chalks777, on 06/13/2008, -6/+5Huh. was all ready to tear you a new one for saying HD didn't stand for 'High Definition'. I was surprised to find out that (I think) it stands for 'Hybrid Digital'... the wikipedia article isn't very clear and I don't really care enough to research it past that.

      On the other hand, "I think comparing hybrid digital radio to high-definition television is enough proof that this article was directly taken from other websites", is retarded. It is an obvious comparison to make and just because someone else made the comparison first doesn't mean eHow plagiarized. So, you've both a thumbs up and down from me. Congratulations.

      /I'm bored
      • darkane, on 06/13/2008, -9/+3I'm sorry to hear that you suffer from Slow Mind. That's a difficult and incurable disease that, while not life threatening, will never go away. If you weren't under the effects of Slow Mind, surely you would realize that I'm saying the comparison between hybrid digital radio and high-definition television is a red flag for plagiarism because the author of the article clearly has no understanding of the technology. I was not implying that making the comparison is plagiarism.
        • jemka, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6I'm sorry to see that you all take way too long to make your point.
    • sleotta, on 06/13/2008, -0/+14i love how no one knows that HD radio does not mean high def... the radio industry sells it that way
    • humperdeath, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2I thought HD is dead. I'm gonna go out and buy a Blu-Ray radio tonight and enjoy the crystal clear tuneage.
  • Sheri123, on 06/13/2008, -15/+4I've never heard of high definition radio. I'll have to check it out.
    • palmer, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5WHAT AN EMBARRASSING, OBVIOUS SHILL YOU ARE.
    • IllBeBack, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6It does not stand for "high definition" and it's not. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
  • GhostWithToast, on 06/13/2008, -1/+73Unfortunately, they are broadcasting the same horrible, ClearChannel operated, repetitive swill that is radio today. It's just static-free swill.
    • MattB123, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Whis is the biggest problem with radio. Heading crap more clearly is still a bad experience!
    • jemka, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6I need to start using the word "swill".
    • spilk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7except for NPR stations.
      • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3NPR.. heh.. frankly all i listen to now days. Tho I get very irritated when the ipod junkies come flying by with their radio transmitters overpowering my radio.
  • whataboutdave, on 06/13/2008, -2/+24One-sided cheerleading. Here are just some of the criticisms against "HD Radio":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio#Criticisms
    • cthielen, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Yes, HD radio is a good concept but it was poorly executed: it is more corporate-controlled than regular FM (the FCC at least mandates the FM band below 92.0 be used for non-commercial and community purposes only, although unfortunately churches with the bank accounts of corporations are considered non-profit) and, to make matters worse, it does not play nicely with existing FM as it advertises: it causes terrible sea-saw noises on certain frequencies.

      To put it simply, HD radio is a blatant advertising platform for major labels and their affiliates. Keep your Internet radio and FM, and keep it dialed below 92.0!!
  • mghwom1, on 06/13/2008, -7/+27Are you kidding me?!?!? HD RADIO!?!?!?
    Regular radio is dead and full of commercials. Satellite is where it's at.

    Bababooey.
    • JohnnyRad, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9Xm's gettin' cluttered with commercials now adays. I liked it a lot better when nobody cared about it so it was continuous music.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 06/13/2008, -0/+18 I remember cable in the early days where the main selling point was no commercials. Then they figured out they could have people pay and take money from advertisers also.
        • bacon_skoda, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2and have weaker channels pay to be on cable
      • richlizard24, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2You're listening to the wrong channels then.
        • JohnnyRad, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2no way! XMU and the Chill station were once awesome
      • bacon_skoda, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4so now, XM is like paying for free water.
    • joel8x, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Bababooey! Ha Ha, I remember back in 1989 when a guy called the local news channel and yelled bababooey. That was funny then.
    • Sarek1701A, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5Faffafooey that's babaooey
    • cthielen, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Oh yea, I'd love to pay for what was once free for a quality upgrade that wasn't necessary. Awesome ....
      • NICU, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Blame the FCC for ruining good free radio and forcing them to go to satellite.
  • SmartedPanda, on 06/13/2008, -1/+20I have HD Radio, it sucks balls. Reception is hard as hell to grab, unless you got some Huge Satelliate dish in your car, it's not beneficial for a vehicle. Home it's alright, but unless you got some good speakers, you can't really tell the difference.
    • green1152, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I feel your pain. I just bought an hd radio for my car. It was exciting at first when I turned it on, but my first drive through some trees made it impossible to listen to. Every 10 seconds I would get "Linking" displayed on the screen and it would cut off all sound. Rather annoying! I would take static over that any day.
  • JohnnyRad, on 06/13/2008, -0/+28HD Radio does not stand for Hi Def radio. deceptive much?
  • diggingaround, on 06/13/2008, -0/+20HD does not stand for 'Hight Definition"...
    Industry have label it as "HD" to misled the people to believe is High Definition as HDTV.

    HD stands for "Hybrid Digital" ... and that's all. It's better than analog, but not High Definition.

    One can still broadcast low fidelity material (audio or video) in digital form... just check the regular NTSC digital signal on your HDTV.
  • bimtott, on 06/13/2008, -2/+18"The HD radio AM stations sound as good as the regular FM stations of today"
    "and the HD radio FM stations sound good enough to where you would swear your listening to a CD"
    Why the ***** would they design it that way? how about make ALL the radio stations sound BETTER than CD?
    Buried as snake oil.
    • megaton, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5CD quality playback reaches the absolute extents of human hearing. Higher sample rates make no difference, and a higher bit depth would be negligible, especially in a car.
    • Chalks777, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3dugg. For snake oil.


      In a car.
    • spilk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Bandwidth. These stations live in the same radio channels as the FM and AM stations they correspond with, and must coexist with the analog signal as well, limiting the number of bits that you can push through. The audio is compressed in a modified version of MPEG-4 AAC, using spectral reconstruction techniques similar to AACplus or what XM/Sirius use. The AM stations can get about 40kbit/s audio, and FM gets about 100-150kbit/s. Compare this to XM radio, which has channels ranging from 4 to 64kbit/s.
    • Lewiji, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Because HD radio isn't a format in itself, it is a digital signal that's transmitted alongside the regular radio signals. Boosts the quality slightly.
  • WhatInThe42o, on 06/13/2008, -1/+10There's no new information here. I've heard the commercials, and this simply rehashes that info: more stations, better sound, track info, you don't have to have it. Buried as lame.
  • woofers07, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2multi-casting was something I was not aware of and sounds pretty bad ass.
  • Snick422, on 06/13/2008, -3/+10HD radio sucks. Unless of course you like Clear Channel shoveling commercials and the same old music down your throat. Sirius Radio is the future of radio. Eventually all of the people who don't get internet radio and satrad will die off, literally. Once that happens, free radio is doomed. Sure, it's free, so there will ALWAYS be listeners. However, they will not be able to maintain their huge bank accounts once most of the audience tunes out. Clear Channel executives will have to find some new way to line their pockets. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE SO ***** SCARED OF THE SIRIUS+XM MERGER?! HD Radio is a FARCE and a FRAUD. It's not even true HD. It's 100% pure commercial, censored, corporate *****.
    • mattomondo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Geeze, if HD radio is free and even just marginally better than analog I'll still take it. I don't see free sound quality improvements as corporate fraud- it's not like broadcasters are always making outrageous claims about it.
    • shniper, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3LONG LIVE SIRIUS. Stern is the man (for a couple more years) Ellis is the future!!
  • palmer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+20Why was this not buried as spam? USELESS, TRAFFIC-DRIVING GARBAGE.

    Nothing about how the data rate is pathetically low. And the touted feature of artist/title info has been available for years in the form of RDS.
  • cjh79, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8"One thing I must point out that unlike the forced transition we face with HDTV, HD radio will be a side offering in addition to regular radio programming."

    What is he talking about? I wasn't aware of anyone being forced into HDTV. Is he mixing up HDTV with digital TV?

    Also, any article that says "According to Wikipedia..." to back up their arguments is automatically filtered into my B.S. pile.
    • humbled, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Interestingly enough, the very same Wikipedia article has a criticisms section which details how many of the supposed benefits listed in this blogspam (or whatever it is) aren't really there - it's a bunch of marketing hooey. For example, if the broadcaster chooses to multicast, audio quality may be worse (!) than current terrestrial radio technology. And "HD" does not mean high definition, it's purely a marketing term given to this technology. It's a joke, bordering on farce. In other words - good point.
  • mechanisma22, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7I have one and it's OK. The only real benefit is it sounds slightly better and I can see the song title and band name. I do however like the 102.1 HD2 EDGE cutting edge station because it plays some new stuff that isn't the same old. What sucks is my iPhone is incompatible with the JVC iPod adapter, I feel cheated. You're better off getting a regular radio with a mp3 adapter or satellite radio IMO
    • mustafya, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The whole band names thing is called "Radio Data System" and is available on non-HD sets. Has been since the 1990s. My stock headunit in my 07 jeep wrangler can pull in band names, song titles, station formats etc for FM stations.
  • AARGH2K, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10It only sounds as good as a CD until they start multicasting and quality is downgraded by how much it is split.
  • ANT1138, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5When will they start streaming internet radio stations to cars? So many good ones... Thankfully, many of have them podcasts.
    • analogpark, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I remember hearing Slacker was developing an automotive unit to stand along side their portable player and internet radio stations. Thats what I'm holding out for. Free podcasts updated through wifi around town.
    • Burn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Using my Nokia E51 3.5G mobile I already do this on a daily basis...DI.fm FTW! :)
  • OBAMA4POTUS, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1sounds interesting but how much does it cost for the consumer and won't it have even more commercials due to the increased broadcasting cost?
    • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Unfortunatly..

      >Another such conflict arises from the extra "free" programs available today. iBiquity is seeking FCC approval for "conditional access," that is, enabling the extra programs to be available only by paid subscription (on future models of HD Radio). NDS, a maker of digital media encryption technology, has a deal with iBiquity to provide HD Radio with an encrypted content-delivery system called RadioGuard.[40] NDS claims that RadioGuard will "provide additional revenue-generating possibilities." iBiquity has stated that RadioGuard will become a standard feature of the HD Radio system.

      These competing capabilities mean that purchasers of early models of HD Radio have no guarantees of continued broadcasts of either high-quality audio or extra channels. Audio quality will suffer as broadcasters decide to subdivide their streams into extra "HD-2" and "HD-3" channels. And if the extra channels become subscription channels, they will become invisible to older radios without RadioGuard (and to those unwilling to pay for them).<

      Once HD radio takes root, I am waiting for free radio to not be so free in the future.
  • Beatmiser, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3I'd be happy to go with Sirus if the satellite coverage would extend to Hawaii =(
    • richlizard24, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I wonder if coverage will be extended to Hawaii after the merger. Each satellite radio company has about 4 satellites each so it shouldn't be that difficult.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1 A clean FM signal sounds pretty damm good all things considered, way better than the MP3's we all listen to.
    • myk7, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6What, do you listen to mp3's at 32k? Most people listen to mp3zy's at LEAST 192k, a lot at 320k.. but even a 128k MP3 is better quality than the radio, silly.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1 A majority of the people are listening to Mp3's in 128kb. A good FM signal sounds better than a 128kb mp3. Maybe you live out in the sticks where the signal is bad.

        And a lot of people listen to mp3's in 320kb? Really? I've collected mp3's from dozens of people and never saw a bit rate that high once. I have my own mp3's at high bitrate but outside the audiophile/technophile crowd you just don't see that.
      • rkzda, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, if the signal is strong it does sound better than some 128kbps mp3's I have heard. I download all my music from services that offer at least 192k.
    • joel8x, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I have finally found someone dumber than a friend of mine who thought cassettes sounded better than CD's.
    • Lewiji, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Here in the UK, FM radio is pretty damn good quality. Might be different in the US I guess, as the transmitters have to send the signal further.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1 I'm in NYC and the signal is great, very clear and the stations are using top notch equipment. I'm guessing the people who disagree so strongly don't near as good a quality.
  • wirez, on 06/13/2008, -0/+11I'll stick with my ipod.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2Commercial free music, Perfect reception all the time. And, you can choose what you want to hear.

  • myk7, on 06/13/2008, -5/+0Best part: record and burn CD's for free HQ :) (no pirate)
  • PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -0/+13The picture quality is so much clearer than regular radio.
  • GyroLC, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Can HD AM radio be received in large buildings like standard FM radio can and regular AM cannot? If so, it may be worth getting just for that.
    • Burn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I doubt it, it's still being transmitted on the same frequencies using the same modulation, it's just extra data alongside the old-fashion analog signal.
  • leonwestbrook, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4Screw XM, Sirius and HD Radio. I have my ipod where I listen to what I want, when I want for FREE.
    • GuyHersh, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4What about "purchasing" all of your songs? Everything comes at a price when you do things legally..
    • joel8x, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4Really? How's that live sporting event sound on that iPod? Ohhh...
      • leonwestbrook, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Its called "watching it on TV" or "listening to it online or on regular radio"

        and ***** buying music.
  • ePuck, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2HD Radio is the bomb. If you ever listen to the radio you should get HD Radio
  • PBRbeer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4HD Radio blows!!! now you can hear those annoying car lot commercials in CD quality, great. It makes me want to shove ice picks in my ears.

    Satellite radio is so superior to HD a comparison can't even be made, 100% commercial free music, 50+ stations of pure music to choose from, including possible genre you can think of. Nation wide reception.

    How many of you still watch television with a broadcast antenna.

    HD radio is like comparing Rabit Ears on a TV to digital cable or satellite. for 12.99 a month i'll never go back to regular radio.
    • byronm, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I still watch TV with an antenna. I ditched cable almost 2 years ago. I built a Windows Media Center system with 2 analog and 2 digital receivers. I live in a market where i get Philly, Baltmore, Lancaster and Harrisburg Channels. Yes my attic is full of antennas and the computer looks like an octopus but i don't pay for tv and i get HIGH QUALITY HD and great quality analog. I'd take OTA HD anyday over sat or cable.

      On the flipside, i do subscribe to Sirius :)

      Antenna's aren't dead and i've pursuaded many friends to go with them and ditch cable. Cheaper to have OTA HD & Netflix
  • MrVeal, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Here is a legit question... Can I only pick up HD radio stations in my area?
    • spilk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3HD radio stations are broadcast from the exact same transmitters on the exact same frequencies as the stations you currently pick up on AM/FM radios, so yes, only stations in your area.
      • Subcranium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2That doesn't really answer the question. An analog signal will let you listen with a lot of noise to a distant station. I assume that with a digital signal it's either perfect or it blanks out.

        Or is it more like listening to RealPlayer on a phone line, with garbled playback if all the data doesn't come through?
        • Leomarth, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Digital signals can have distortions to them as well; commonly from impulse noise which can wipe out a data stream segment. It's just more resilient than an analog signal due to things like error detection and correction.
  • laseractive, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2HD radio blows and so does Sirius and XM. The real future is the internet and my MP3 player.
  • Idrive, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Reasons Satellite Radio is worth looking into:
    1. Less commercials...yes their are commercials but much less than terrestrial radio
    2. Uncensored content...people are able to speak their mind...**cough** Howard Stern **cough**
    3. Tons of stations to fit everyone's wants and needs...I am sure you will find a few stations you love.
    4. Fairly inexpensive...I honestly can't even remember what my bill is a month for Sirius...thats because I enjoy it so much it doesn't matter but I think its only around 12 or 13 bucks
    5. Long distance driving?....no more changing stations...coast to coast on the same station with the same content.
    • aelias, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3Reasons Satellite radio is not all that.

      1.) If your radio has no aux input, you're stuck with an fm modulated signal for the most part, which sounds like baked *****.
      2.) Much like cable, there are a ***** ton of stations, but if you only listen to 6 out of 100, you start to feel a little bit like a chump.
      3.) The playlists are short as hell. Listen to the same channel for 6 hours and you'll hear every song repeated twice. They don't update them fast enough, either.
      4.) Stern spends less time in the office than Bush.
      Other than that, it's worth every cent. I have two.
  • allanj37, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Buried for grammar.
  • Psythik, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3But my regular FM radio has always been able to tell me artist and song title info. Plus there's like 3 HD radio stations in my area -- not nearly enough to convince me to buy a tuner.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah, my local FM stations do that through some witchcraft in my car. I don't know how it works, but I think it involved goat's blood.
  • More4, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I really like the Roku internet radio, over 6,000 stations, all free. It uses a wi-fi connection to receive internet streams.
    http://www.roku.com/products_soundbridgeradio.php
    http://www.amazon.com/Roku-SoundBridge-R1000-Netwo ...
    • clockdist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2nice, but I only listen to the radio in my car
  • Typhoon2009, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The other thing is that most HD tuners are a bit unsightly... they scream "ricer"/"bling" to me. Big flashy purple lights and *****... blech. The more integrated it looks with the rest of the car's interior, the better.
  • sentinel106, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Pretty cool technology, it's about time that non-satellite radio got a facelift. But to be honest the only time I really listen to my radio these days is in the car, and I'm not as bitchy about quality as I am when it comes to a HDTV, for example.
  • Subcranium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Best Buy sells HD radios in my city, but we have 0 HD radio stations. Can I expect to get a signal from cities that are 200 miles away?
    • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1nope, cuts the receive range of FM severely, down to about 20-25 miles per one of the inventors. It needs an outside antenna to even receive half the distance your normal receiver does with a rat tail antenna. AM IBOC (HD) is even worse, it is completely useless, even most FM IBOC boosters admit that, it covers both adjacent channels with white noise rendering them useless for listening, try scanning up and down the AM band some night, try tuning to 700 or 720, what do you hear? noise from WOR 710. Try listening to 650 or 670 on AM, what is that terrible noise? It is hash sidebands from WFAN NY on 660, a sports channel no less.
      • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1another site also says.

        the WAMU-FM map shows that only 20 to 30 percent of their regular FM listeners can pick up the HD broadcasts. The station suggests attaching your new Hybrid Digital Analog (HD) radio to your old TV roof antenna.
      • dfeifer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2and from another ham..

        You want decent HD reception beyond the overly optimistic 10-20 miles under optimum conditions claimed by HD aficionados? (all three of them)? Get a Yagi antenna cut to the FM band and raise it about 50 ft above your roof with attendant guy wires of course so it won't fall and kill someone, you may, if you are lucky get reception comparable to an analog FM radio that has a crumpled up dipole antenna on the floor behind the bookcase it is setting it which is the usual case (the antennas that come with FM receivers). AM HD is even worse, you need at least a 100 ft. long wire antenna out your back window to the a tree and that will not even approach the receive range of a tabletop antenna with a ferrite loop built in. HD just plain sucks, it's junk and nothing will fix it, it's concept was fatally flawed, bad technology like this can not be improved, it needs to be scrapped and rethought.

        Bob Young
        KB1OKL
  • nutmac, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5The article appears to be paid for by NAB. HD Radio does not sound anywhere near as good as CD.
    • Leomarth, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Because it's not "high definition". It's "hybrid digital". They can make that digital component at whatever level of quality they like really.
  • pantah, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0A national indie rock station is up and streaming @ erockster.com. On the internet AND on HD2! Listen now!
  • Leomarth, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Reminder.

    HD Radio is not "high definition". It's "Hybrid-Digital".
  • geardosdotnet, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The NAB claims satellite radio is a monopoly, bribes people in congress, then works on putting out a competing product.

    HOW IS THIS NOT COMPETITION TO SATTELITE RADIO, WHICH YOU HAVE TO PAY SUBCRIPTION FEES FOR?
  • nakile, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1FM radio has always been considered a high-fidelity source by audiophiles. And if those crazy bastards approve of it, then it's got to be good.
    • humbled, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1FM ... considered high-fidelity ... by audiophiles? Audiophiles may believe a lot of woo about their home theater systems, but trust me, there isn't one who will tell you that FM is high-fidelity. These are people who think CDs are crappy. 64-96k mp3 streams are a good approximation of FM.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1If I were an enterprising individual, I would develop a way of integrating the hardware with an online music store, so when you heard a song on the radio you could mark it with a button push and when you get home sync that up and buy the song. Thus the radio station could earn commission.
  • larryk12308, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Not all new tech catches on.

    At the risk of dating myself, anyone else remember Quadraphonic sound, aka 4 Channel?

    HD and/or Satellite Radio might wind up going the way of Quad.
  • larryk12308, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Not all new tech catches on.

    At the risk of dating myself, anyone else remember Quadraphonic sound, aka 4 Channel?

    HD and/or Satellite Radio might wind up going the way of Quad.
    • elvenrunelord, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1I actually had a quad radio back in the day......it did sound pretty damn good
    • humbled, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Umm. Quadraphonic *totally* caught on. Just... not back then, at the precise moment when it first came out. And they've added a channel (or four) since then, and now they call it 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1. There are a lot of 4 and 4.1 computer speaker sets on the market, too.
  • myhandleondigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3i've seen a lot of discussions about hd radio lately, as if there has been some major promotional push. i worked at circuit city 3 years ago and didn't sell a single one.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.