Use Google to research this topic, there have been several threads on it and I
think the Delco car radios were usually rated highly.

My stock stereo in my '92 Subaru does a fine job on AM.

jw
K9RZZ
Milwaukee

J999w wrote:

Use Google to research this topic, there have been several threads on it and I
think the Delco car radios were usually rated highly.

My stock stereo in my '92 Subaru does a fine job on AM.

I've had really good luck with most car radios. Nighttime reception is
usually very good, especially considering the short antenna. On the
weaker stations the reception will vary noticeably as the car turns in
different directions. A ground plane effect by the body, I would imagine.

I've been scrounging the salvage places for a Sony shortwave dash radio,
but no luck. Most places have never even heard of it.



mike

if
people are choosing AM radios based only on price, then they are likely
getting poor radios. If most people don't notice the difference between a
good radio an

I don't thimk that's the problem. Even the expensive AM/FM radios made today
sem to not be able to pick up AM anywhere near as well as the old ones. I
would call all of the modern AM radios I have seen very very very poor at
picking up radio signals in the AM broadcast band, although good at picking up
signals in the FM broadcast band.

I have come to the conclusion (my opinion) that the real reason today's AM
radios are so poor as compred to the old ones of the 70's and earlier is that
today's manufacturerrs think that AM isn't popular, so why bother making it
pick up AM good? FM is the popular band.

Well, they're right that FM is the popular band, and that AM isn't popular
anymore like it was in the early 70's and before.

But to me, that still isn't any excuse to make cheap radios.

In my opinion, IF a radio is sold as covering the AM band, then it SHOULD be
able to pick up the AM band good.

But unfortunately, that's not the case.

In my opinion, if you want good AM reception, you're probably better off going
with an old radio manufactured in the early 1970's or before.

Somewhere in the 1970's (1975?), FM first gained popularity over AM

In many, many applications today where an AM tuner is included (a
low-priced stereo reciever is a good example) the AM circuitry is not
even as good as the better "pocket" transistor radios of the 1960's.
The designer's view is: "Hey, they aren't buying a stereo rceiver to

listen to AM, fercryinoutloud!" - and they save some nickles there

exactly. That has been my experience also. No matter what modern radios I buy
or hear at someone else's house (no matter what the price is) does not do good
at picking up AM and in fact, is very poor at picking up AM, while the FM side
is good.

While the old radios I have seen pick up AM as well as today's radios pick up
FM.

The FM broadcast band first gained popularity over the AM broadcast band
sometime in the mid-1970's to late 1970's).

altthough I'm not sure when the manufacturers decided to stop making AM
reception on radios any good.

The older radios are probably the better bet for good AM reception, in my
opinion.

"Tony Meloche" wrote in message
...




In many, many applications today where an AM tuner is included (a
low-priced stereo reciever is a good example) the AM circuitry is not
even as good as the better "pocket" transistor radios of the 1960's.
The designer's view is: "Hey, they aren't buying a stereo rceiver to
listen to AM, fercryinoutloud!" - and they save some nickles there. The
difference between a workable AM circuit and a really *good* AM circuit
is the width of the Grand Canyon.

Huh. That's got me wondering if one or more of the suppliers has come up
with a cheap, crummy AM section. Generally, I don't expect most of the
manufacturers to do much design. They like to use as many industry standard
parts as possible. If the crummy AM section becomes the industry standard
part, it will greately drive down the manufacturing volume of the better
part, even if there's only a nickel's difference at the start.

Back in the AA5 days, there was a AA4 which didn't use an IF amplifier tube
or a second IF transformer. They were around, but they were known poor
performers and not very popular.

Another possibility is poor alignment, especially with ceramic filters.
Inexpensive ceramic filters might not fall exactly on their nominal
frequency. I have a Realistic DX-100 like that. I suppose it was factory
aligned at 455 kHz, but the IF had a double peak. I realigned it to the
center frequency of the ceramic filter and the adjacent channel rejection
got much better and the sensitivity went up. Doing a careful alignment
takes a little extra time but the manufacturers hate that sort of thing,
especially on assembly lines.





I noticed Doug Smith's post on the increase in noise and interference.
Those are important points and he's right.


Agreed.




What modern (new or used) AM radio can I buy that can pull in distant
stations?

I have a Realistic DX440, which does a good job. Others have tried and
like
the GE superradio and CC radio. The GE is much less expensive.


SuperRadio III is a very good AMDX machine, but the dial pointer is
certainly not the last word in accuracy. Still, with a good longwire,
or even a select-a-tenna, it gives excellent performance. My AMDX log
from my shack here in SW Michigan is 112 verified stations so far with
the Superadio III, and I'm not done covering the bands from all
directions yet.

Tony

Just have to count those 10kHz steps, especially if you're DXing in the
dark!

Frank Dresser

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...


[snip]


I don't recall ever seeing a radio design with more than one amplifier
stage before the mixer.


Two or more RF stages were used on high end single conversion radios to
reduce images. These designs were largely replaced with double conversion
designs.

Frank Dresser

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
 
pPaul_Morphy wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITEI agree, Paul. When I was working in the Oil Patch
in 1984, my little Datsun (also a bygone name) only had an AM radio. Most
mornings on the way in to the office site I would tune in the news and
at the end of the hour they always had the farm report. It helped to remind
me that there were a lot of people in those areas that made their livings
in ways other than by working for the Seven Sisters. On the whole however,
other than the local news programs there was little worth tuning in to;
even then the AM dial was full of talk show drek./blockquote

pbrAs to the original topic, I find I can do some nice DXing with my
Radio Shack SW-100. The "direction finder" on the top is actually the ferrite
bar, which allows me to turn the antenna up to 35 degrees in either direction
without moving the radio. When I add the Radio Shack AM loop antenna, here
in southern Maine I'm able to pick a bunch of Canadian stations, both French
and English, and a whole lot of balsams. These old radios can be had for
about $20 on ebay.
pHave fun!
pPete Davis
blockquote TYPE=CITE 
pAs long as we're kvetching about AM, what bothers me is that so many
brstations just run satellite feeds and there is very little diversity
in
brprogramming. Broadcasting has become too homogenized. It's fun to pick
up
brdistant stations but the program content that made it interesting in
the
brpast is rarely there. When you heard the hog report from some little
town
brwest of nowhere, you _knew_ you were DXing!
p"PM"/blockquote
/html

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
I meant a whole lot of ball games, not balsams. Operator spell check error.
Sorry. We have a lot of trees here in Maine, but they're no more worth
listening to than the talk show bozos.
pPete Davis
pPete & Renee Davis wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITE 
pPaul_Morphy wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITEI agree, Paul. When I was working in the Oil Patch
in 1984, my little Datsun (also a bygone name) only had an AM radio. Most
mornings on the way in to the office site I would tune in the news and
at the end of the hour they always had the farm report. It helped to remind
me that there were a lot of people in those areas that made their livings
in ways other than by working for the Seven Sisters. On the whole however,
other than the local news programs there was little worth tuning in to;
even then the AM dial was full of talk show drek./blockquote

pbrAs to the original topic, I find I can do some nice DXing with my
Radio Shack SW-100. The "direction finder" on the top is actually the ferrite
bar, which allows me to turn the antenna up to 35 degrees in either direction
without moving the radio. When I add the Radio Shack AM loop antenna, here
in southern Maine I'm able to pick a bunch of Canadian stations, both French
and English, and a whole lot of balsams. These old radios can be had for
about $20 on ebay.
pHave fun!
pPete Davis
blockquote TYPE=CITE 
pAs long as we're kvetching about AM, what bothers me is that so many
brstations just run satellite feeds and there is very little diversity
in
brprogramming. Broadcasting has become too homogenized. It's fun to pick
up
brdistant stations but the program content that made it interesting in
the
brpast is rarely there. When you heard the hog report from some little
town
brwest of nowhere, you _knew_ you were DXing!
p"PM"/blockquote
/blockquote
/html

Quoth (MossadAgent86) in
:

What modern (new or used) AM radio can I buy that can pull in distant
stations?

I want to pick up from here to ask another question -- has anyone here played
with any old marine AM DF radios for MW DXing? Someone elsewhere suggested
it, and it sounds like a great idea to me, especially as most of them have
built in loops.

--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.

(Diverd4777) wrote in message ...


Some older models people on this newsgroup swear by are the GE 780, a
monster portable AM radio with a huge chrome grill like a 50's Caddy,
the legendary Panasonic 2200, the Sony 2010, the Panasonic 1150, and
the GE Superadio(s) I and II. Radios which are still available which
people like for broadcast band DXing are the GE Superadio III, the
Palstar R30, the Drake R8B which people go into raptures over, and for
quasi-DXing, the surprisingly good pocket radio, the Sangean DT-200V.

Regards,

Grumpus



MossadAgent86:

I have had excellent luck using a Radio Shack Loop antenna and a Sangean 606A;

- ALSO, I have picked up 770 WABC ( N.Y.C. AM Station)
Way down in the Bahamas, on Andros Island, with a $29/95 Short Wave radio and
~15 feet of wire antenna... ( very Quiet ( & relaxing !) Environment)

So if your serious about A.M. reception,
Big, directional antennas & any reasonable radio seem to be the way to go

Dan

Subject: Best AM Reception
From: "el lector se guarda"
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 07:16:28 -0700

Take a look at the GE Super Radio and the CCrane Radios -- URL's:
http://www.ccrane.com/radios_and_antennas_index.asp

http://www.ccrane.com/ge_super_3.asp

Some antenna accesories there also
http://www.ccrane.com/am_antennas.asp
--
el lector se guarda

Amateur Radio is the best back-up
communications system in the world,
and that's the way it is. Walter Cronkite





"MossadAgent86" wrote in message
...
I want to rant a short while and then ask a question about AM reception.

Years ago (I think) all radio's had superheterodyne circuits which allowed
for
great sensitivity and selectivity. I figured that, for all time, all
radio's
would be superhet circuitry. Now the modern AM radio's I buy are all crap,
esp
car radio's. They can not pull in stations, for nothing.

What modern (new or used) AM radio can I buy that can pull in distant
stations?
Is there a way to boast the strength of a common AM radio (by placing a
pipe
alongside it...or some such)? Lately, I buy cheap (old transistor) radio's
at
yard sales, hoping that some of them will have good AM reception. Very few
do
have.