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.

The best receivers were those of the tube days, and were determined by the
number of tuned RF stages BEFORE the first mixer. (Three stages seemed to be
the maximum, but even one was very good.)

That's where good selectivity began, too. The RF stage(s) kept out the adjacent
signals which cause problems when they are allowed into the rest of the
receiver.

Today's crap, as you put it, lets everything in through the barn door front end
and then tries to sort it out with whiz bang, floor noise generating circuitry.

If I were a DXer and not a SWLer, I would get a WWII military receiver. Those
were no-frills radios that could just about hear anything that was on the air.
And when a band was open, the receiver would sound dead -- except when there
was a signal.

73,
Bill, K5BY

Get a 5 tube superhet at a garage sale. No RF stage and image prone
but very sensitive.

Or an old car radio with a sliderule dial. One of the major
shortcomings of today's AM radios is the lack of fine tuning.

On 10 May 2004 12:22:53 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

The best receivers were those of the tube days, and were determined by the
number of tuned RF stages BEFORE the first mixer. (Three stages seemed to be
the maximum, but even one was very good.)

That's where good selectivity began, too. The RF stage(s) kept out the adjacent
signals which cause problems when they are allowed into the rest of the
receiver.

Today's crap, as you put it, lets everything in through the barn door front end
and then tries to sort it out with whiz bang, floor noise generating circuitry.

If I were a DXer and not a SWLer, I would get a WWII military receiver. Those
were no-frills radios that could just about hear anything that was on the air.
And when a band was open, the receiver would sound dead -- except when there
was a signal.

73,
Bill, K5BY

"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.

I've picked up US medium wave stations in winter on a Sony 2001D (2010) in
the UK using the sync mode. Getting an RX with a sideband selectable
synchronous detector will make big difference.

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W™
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

WShoots1 wrote:
The best receivers were those of the tube days, and were determined by the
number of tuned RF stages BEFORE the first mixer. (Three stages seemed to be
the maximum, but even one was very good.)

Uh, most tube (consumer) radios didn't have *any* RF amplifiers before
the mixer. They did have one tuned circuit before the mixer - which is
more than you can say for most radios today.

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

Today's crap, as you put it, lets everything in through the barn door front end
and then tries to sort it out with whiz bang, floor noise generating circuitry.

I'm not so sure the radio is usually the problem today. It's not that
hard (or expensive) to make a decent AM radio. The problems with AM
reception a

- Noise. Back in the 60s the only real noise source in your car was the
ignition system, and that was relatively easy to filter. Today your car
is full of computers - which seem to do a pretty good job of drowning
out the ignition noise! Home environments are even worse.

- Interference. There are roughly 5 times as many stations in the U.S.
as there were in 1950. More recently, the vast majority of daytime-only
stations have been allowed to run at least a few watts at night. New
stations have been authorized on channels where formerly only one
station was allowed to operate at night. (for example, I remember a
time when WOAI was the ONLY station in the US or Canada allowed to
operate at night on 1200. Today, there are 17.)

IMHO the most important component of good AM reception is the antenna.
A few hundred feet of wire hooked to just about any halfway-decent radio
will bring in plenty of DX.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

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.

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.

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
I'm not so sure the radio is usually the problem today. It's not that
hard (or expensive) to make a decent AM radio. The problems with AM
reception a

- Noise.

Yes.

- Interference.

Yes.

IMHO the most important component of good AM reception is the antenna.

I'm with you so far. A dime in the antenna is worth a buck in the receiver.

A few hundred feet of wire hooked to just about any halfway-decent radio
will bring in plenty of DX.

True, but as long as we're talking hypothetical best-case scenario, I would
opt for low-noise, directional antennas. You can't beat a long Beverage
antenna, but a large-enough loop _properly installed_ away from metal
objects and noise sources, will do well, especially if it's tiltable. A loop
can be used to null interference and, being electrically short-circuited, is
quiet. Crane's loop probably does a good job but I never bought one to try.
I had a 4-foot-square loop that turned and tilted, and an SP-600 receiver,
that made a good combination for AM DXing. SuperPros are overpriced now,
IMO, but I believe the extra shielding paid off.

As long as we're kvetching about AM, what bothers me is that so many
stations just run satellite feeds and there is very little diversity in
programming. Broadcasting has become too homogenized. It's fun to pick up
distant stations but the program content that made it interesting in the
past is rarely there. When you heard the hog report from some little town
west of nowhere, you _knew_ you were DXing!

"PM"

"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.


Nearly all radios still are superhets, they may be crap superhets, but they
are superhets. I don't have any radios made in the last few years, but, 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 and a poor one, then the extra money is wasted.

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



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.

What sort of radio are you looking for? A portable, table top or a car
radio?


Is there a way to boast the strength of a common AM radio (by placing a
pipe
alongside it...or some such)?

Sure. You want a good antenna. An outdoor random wire will get much more
signal. A tuned loop antenna can reduce off channel interference and be
rotated to null out interfering stations.


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.

Those radios may need repair, or may never have been very good. AM dxing is
more of a challenge than it was 25 years ago, but it can still be done.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"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.

Nearly all radios still are superhets, they may be crap superhets, but they
are superhets. I don't have any radios made in the last few years, but, 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 and a poor one, then the extra money is wasted.


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.



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