BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by RHF » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:14:38

For One and All,

Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio ?
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/boston-acoustics-recepter-radio...

Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/sangean-hdt-1-hd-radio-componen...

Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
-and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
-and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?

i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF
 .
 .
. .

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by ibocisacr.. » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:36:15



Quote:> For One and All,

> Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio ?http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/boston-acoustics-recepter-radio...

> Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tunerhttp://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/sangean-hdt-1-hd-radio-componen...

> Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

> Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

> Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?

> i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF
> ?.
> ?.
> . .

Here, try this:

"Are HD radios made with crappy tuners?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/are_hd_radios_m.html#comments

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Ron Hardi » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:17:34

I have the HDT-1, and it's okay.  I have an external (active) AM
antenna on it though, and the FM folded dipole that comes with it
*** in a window.

In Central Ohio, there are only 4 AM stations audible with HD,
WLW (Cincinnati) 700, WJR (Detroit) 760, WOSU 820, and WCOL 1230.

There are a half dozen multicast FM stations, mostly with the same
sort of junk as on the regular dial as far as I can tell, except
WOSU and WCLT repeat their AM broadcasts on a subchannel, which is
handy when you can't hear the AM before sunrise.

Its time-of-day clock is no good at all (loses 30 seconds a day, which
is spectacular rottenness in clocks).

It seems to be a very good AM tuner though.  It would need more
knobs to be what you would really want, but it's pretty selective
and sensitive, for instance, at least with the external antenna ;
and it doesn't overload.

But hey my R8B is no good without an external antenna either.

So if you have the audio equipment to follow it, the HDT-1 is
entertaining.

It's certainly the biggest AM/FM tuner I've ever encountered, too.
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Telamo » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:34:29




> > For One and All,

> > Boston Acoustics (BA) Receptor "HD" Radio
> > ?http://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/boston-acoustics-recepter-radio...

> > Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component
> > Tunerhttp://www.ccrane.com/radios/hd-radio/sangean-hdt-1-hd-radio-componen..
> > .

> > Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> > More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

> > Do You Own Both ? -or- Have You Used Both ?

> > Anyone Done Any Side-by-Side Testing ?

> > i want to know - cause iane ~ RHF
> > ?.
> > ?.
> > . .

> Here, try this:

> "Are HD radios made with crappy tuners?"

> http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/are_hd_radios_m.html#comments

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course. Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

"crock" is a good descriptor of the HD sales pitch.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by David Eduard » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:18:00



> The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
> the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
> of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
> bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Quote:> Not only will the broadcasters not save on
> transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
> capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
> save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!
 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by ibocisacr.. » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:33:06





> > The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
> > the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
> > of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
> > bill. It is BS of course.

> Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
> anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

> And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
> HD power.

> I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
> in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
> minor as an expense.

> > Not only will the broadcasters not save on
> > transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
> > capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
> > save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

> Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
> terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
> analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
> especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
> building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
> consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
> system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
> itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
> the transmitter!

The ***keeps flowing - how sad.
 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by David Eduard » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:54:24






>> > The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
>> > the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
>> > of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
>> > bill. It is BS of course.

>> Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
>> anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

>> And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the
>> added
>> HD power.

>> I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money,
>> as
>> in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is
>> relatively
>> minor as an expense.

>> > Not only will the broadcasters not save on
>> > transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
>> > capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
>> > save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

>> Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings
>> in
>> terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
>> analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
>> especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
>> building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the
>> power
>> consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams
>> and
>> system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
>> itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power
>> than
>> the transmitter!

> The ***keeps flowing - how sad.

Showing, of course, how little you know.

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Telamo » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:59:13






> > .


> > > The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
> > > the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
> > > of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
> > > bill. It is BS of course.

> > Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
> > anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

> > And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
> > HD power.

> > I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
> > in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
> > minor as an expense.

> > > Not only will the broadcasters not save on
> > > transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
> > > capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
> > > save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

> > Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
> > terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
> > analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
> > especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
> > building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
> > consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
> > system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
> > itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
> > the transmitter!

> The ***keeps flowing - how sad.

He has his pitch notwithstanding any fact or common sense. The grass is
blue and the sky green and he has the statistics from Arbitron to prove
that most people 55 and under agree with Edweene brand crapola.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Doug Smith W9W » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:14:33


> Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics, so am speaking only to it.  

At my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, external antennas
*are* critical for HD reception.  Right now

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Doug Smith W9W » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:23:28


> Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

I have only the Boston Acoustics.

FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
antenna is critical for HD reception.  Right now, I have a set of TV
rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations.  Five
more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those.  I'm near Nashville -
which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM.  We have two local
HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
provided with the radio.  Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
ham antenna.  I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference.  (the
radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...)  It
may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
with the stations...

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by RHF » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:10:44



> > Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> > More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

> I have only the Boston Acoustics.

> FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
> antenna is critical for HD reception.  Right now, I have a set of TV
> rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations.  Five
> more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
> ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those.  I'm near Nashville -
> which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
> are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

> AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM.  We have two local
> HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
> Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
> provided with the radio.  Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
> ham antenna.  I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
> need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

Wonder if any one is using a simply 14"-24" AM/MW "Box"
Loop Antenna with with one of these "HD" Radios and -if-
They are good enough to acquire a reliable "HD" Signal ?
-But- That requires Tuning the Radio and the Antenna every
time you change an AM/MW Radio Station.

Quote:> The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference.  (the
> radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...)  It
> may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
> the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
> necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
> with the stations...

Sounds like the same problem that I have with the Analog
version of the BA Receptor up here In-them-there-Hills.
Needs both an AM and FM Antenna to be able to receive
any signals reliabily -except- for KXSR which is up the
Hill about a Mile on 91.7 with 4 KW ERP.
KXSR => http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=8328

DS [W9WI] - Thank Your for Your Reply ~ RHF
 .
 .
. .

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by RHF » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:08:17





> > The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
> > the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
> > of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
> > bill. It is BS of course.

> Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
> anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

> And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
> HD power.

> I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
> in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
> minor as an expense.

> > Not only will the broadcasters not save on
> > transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
> > capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
> > save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

> Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
> terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
> analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
> especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
> building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
> consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
> system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
> itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
> the transmitter!

DE - The Reality is that -if- a 1% Digital Signal will cover the
same 10mv/m Contour as the 100% Analog Signal : Radio
Stations will in-time Crank-Up the ERP of the "HD" Digital
Signal and Turn-Down the ERP of the Analog Signal.

Think-About-It : -IF- a 1% Digital Radio Signal will "Cover"
the 'same' 10mv/m Contour as an Analog Radio Signal :
Then at some Point-in-Time Radio Stations will go-up-to
10% Digital and go-down-to 50% Analog.

And 'Each Day' that another "HD" Radio Station goes
On-the-Air-in-Digital they will begin the Top-of-the-Hour
Radio Station ID with the Call Letters, Frequency and
those little words "Now Broadcasting in High Difinition
'HD' All Digital Radio".

Yes - It will take Years but it will occur -and- Yes while
NO Radio Station is turning 'Off' their Analog Signal at
this time -once again- in-time they will.

At some point in time there will be a "Tipping Point" where
there are More {Good} Under-Age-35 "HD" Radio Listeners
then {Bad} Over-Age-50 Analog Radio Listeners -and- Then
100% All Digital will start becoming the Norm in FM Radio
Broadcasting.

As for AM/MW Radio Broadcasting it may be 25 Years before
the 'last-and-only'' Analog AM/MW Broadcaster goes Off-the-Air.

da da digital digital - i want to hear digital !
-doh- i want me a digital 'hd' radio ~ RHF
 .
-But- For Now up here In-them-there-Hills there are
NO "HD" Radio Stations close enough to Receive
and Listen to . . . That my Tired-Old-Ears would like
to Listen To !   However, IF-and-When KMPH-AM
840 kHz out of Modesto,CA goes to Digital -then-
I would have to get me an "HD' Radio.
KMPH => http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?list=0&facid=137401
 .
OBTW - What's Happening at KTRB-AM 860 kHz
out of the SF Bay Area => http://www.ktrb860.com/
 .
 .
. .

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by dxAc » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:37:13





> > The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
> > the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
> > of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
> > bill. It is BS of course.

> Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
> anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

> And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
> HD power.

> I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
> in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
> minor as an expense.

> > Not only will the broadcasters not save on
> > transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
> > capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
> > save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

> Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
> terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
> analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
> especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
> building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
> consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
> system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
> itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
> the transmitter!

Wow! Gee whiz!
 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by ibocisacr.. » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:44:38



> > Which is the Better "HD" FM Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External FM Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" FM Radio Reception ?

> > More importantly which is the Better "HD" AM/MW Radio ?
> > -and- Is and External AM/MW Antenna 'critical'
> > for "HD" AM/MW Radio Reception ?

> I have only the Boston Acoustics.

> FM: at my location, 25 miles from the nearest HD station, an external
> antenna is critical for HD reception.  Right now, I have a set of TV
> rabbit ears connected, and can reliably receive three HD stations.  Five
> more local stations are known to be HD but don't come in on the "bunny
> ears" - I need the rooftop TV antenna for those.  I'm near Nashville -
> which is Class C territory, so if you're in the Northeast where stations
> are limited to 50,000 watts a better antenna will be even more important.

> AM: An external antenna is even more critical for AM.  We have two local
> HD AM stations, WPLN-1430 (15,000 watts) and WLAC-1510 (50,000 watts).
> Neither can be received for more than a few seconds with the antenna
> provided with the radio.  Both can be received reliably with my 160-meter
> ham antenna.  I don't have anything between the two - I suspect you don't
> need anything nearly as big as the ham antenna but have no way of knowing.

> The BA is to a considerable degree subject to self-interference.  (the
> radio emits spurious signals that interfere with its own reception...)  It
> may not be as much that the external antennas are necessary to increase
> the signal strength of the HD signals, as that the external antennas are
> necessary to reduce the amount of the radio's own spurious RF interfering
> with the stations...

Yea, just like this article stated, consumers are not going to the
trouble of mounting external antennas - no wonder, few HD radios have
sold, and many returned:

"HD Radio Effort Undermined by Weak Tuners in Expensive Radios"

"External Antennas

"As I pointed out earlier, the HD radios all came with simple external
antennas, essentially 9' pieces of wire.The AM band utilized a
straight length of copper while the FM band employed a T-shaped
stretch. Attaching these radios to a outdoor aerial such as an old TV
antenna will make a dramatic improvement in reception. Unfortunately,
in the cable TV era not a lot of homes have outdoor aerials anymore.
This means additional cost and effort. Most consumers who purchase one
of these radios will never bother do that and, to be perfectly frank,
they shouldn't have to."

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/hd-radio2.html

Eduardo will be along, shortly.

 
 
 

BA Receptor "HD" Radio -vice- Sangean HDT-1 "HD" Radio Component Tuner ? ? ?

Post by Doug Smith W9W » Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:12:57


> Wonder if any one is using a simply 14"-24" AM/MW "Box"
> Loop Antenna with with one of these "HD" Radios and -if-
> They are good enough to acquire a reliable "HD" Signal ?
> -But- That requires Tuning the Radio and the Antenna every
> time you change an AM/MW Radio Station.

That would be a decent option and would probably work.  At least you
wouldn't have to rotate the loop, since you know where the main source of
interference is coming from regardless of frequency!

But as the other post says, nobody except us DXers is going to bother.

It's unfortunate for HD promoters that the BA was the first home HD
receiver generally available.  (it was preceded by a number of car radios,
but most people aren't going to go to the trouble of having an aftermarket
car radio installed if they aren't sure they're going to like the results.
 It's harder to undo than replacing a table radio!)

A lot of us "early adopters" based our opinions of HD on this set.  I'm
coming to the belief that HD works a LOT better than I first believed.
From what I'm hearing the Sangean tuner works pretty well; if it had
beat the BA to market I think the early word on HD could have been quite a
bit better.

(which does NOT mean I think it was a good idea to adopt HD instead of
Eureka, nor that I've changed my mind about the interference issues HD
presents)

Quote:> Sounds like the same problem that I have with the Analog version of the
> BA Receptor up here In-them-there-Hills. Needs both an AM and FM Antenna
> to be able to receive any signals reliabily -except- for KXSR which is
> up the Hill about a Mile on 91.7 with 4 KW ERP. KXSR =>
> http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=8328

Interesting.  I wonder how long the analog version has been available?
I'd figured the self-interference problem was the result of inadequate
shielding/filtering of the HD chipset - maybe it's actually from the
radio's general CPU?