The best AM receiver

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

The best AM receiver

Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.

For the uninitiated, a "crystal radio" has nothing to do with a
crystal in the modern sense, the resonant piece of quartz used to
define frequency in RF circuits including most every computer in
existence. Crystal tuning for receivers and transmitters goes back to
the twenties or thirties, but in this context we mean a crystal
detector,i.e., a semiconductor diode, called a "crystal" because in
the old days it consisted of a fine wire poked onto a chunk of lead
pyrite or some other rock so that the wire or needle and rock formed a
semiconducting PN junction. The actual tuning is done with LC
circuits, traditionally made from a coil wound on a Quaker Oats
container or similar. With a good antenna and ground, you could pick
up enough RF so when the modulated signal was detected it would
directly drive a pair of the old high impedance watchcase headphones.
No battery was needed: it worked for free. All the energy used to
drive the diaphragms of the headset came from the transmitter, tens,
hundreds, perhaps under ideal conditions thousands of miles away.

A surprising amount of energy can be had this way. Within a few miles
of a 50 kW daytimer or clear channel station, enough actual power can
be developed-with the right RF and output matching- to light a
flashlight bulb and certainly a LED. In fact, Klipsch used to have a
demonstrator radio that would drive the midrange horn of a Klipschhorn
or similar and provide a surprisingly loud signal in the room. At
night one could listen to several stations in most cities almost as
loudly as a nine-volt-powered transistor portable could play, and with
better fidelity.

Of course, with enough power, an inadvertent crystal set can be
accidentally assembled with humorous consequences-such as the elderly
couple who complained that when Howard Stern was on the local station,
sounds surprisingly resembling penis, vagina, and Baba Booey would
emanate from the tub of their washing machine-or tragic ones such as
the occasional premature dynamite explosion on a road project when
some trucker with a 'foot warmer' keys his trusty CB rig.

A crystal radio, then is a passive, tuned-radio-frequency RF tuner. If
the output were plugged into a good high impedance amplifier, the
result is audio amplified as loud as we want it, just like any other
line level audio source. In the beginning days of high fidelity, the
RF coil houses like Miller introduced passive AM tuners that were
nothing more than the old crystal radio. Because of the gain in a good
preamp and power amplifier, you got good results in many cases with
only a small antenna. Sensitivity and selectivity were not of the
highest order, but with a good local station without much
interference, the fidelity was superb. And, it still is. These passive
AM tuners can still be found fairly cheaply or you can build one
yourself, like generations of boys did in the past.

If on the other hand, you want broadcast band overall DX capability,
you can either buy a serious communications receiver, or the next best
thing-an old car AM radio converted to work at home. By the end of
WWII, car radios were generally better radios than their domestic
counterparts. They had to be, because of the environment they worked
in. This was true until AM functionality came to be regarded as just a
legacy as compared to FM performance around the early 1980s, at which
time they cheapened the AM sections of the radios.

You want an AM only set for best Am performance. Either tube or solid
state sets will work fine, but avoid like monkey plague the GM hybrid
radios with 12 volt plate supply tubes and transistor output. Avoid
Wonderbar or other auto tune radios: in fact a non-push-button set is
best if you can find one made by Delco, Philco Ford or other Big 3
supplier. Avoid most aftermarket or foreign radios: the only ones any
good are Blaupunkts or Beckers worth a lot to VW or Mercedes buffs.
Overall, I think Delcos are the best. YMMV.

Needless to say, avoid ones with tape players, CB radios or the like.
The cheapening started before digital came out, so avoid digital units
entirely. You want either a 1947-1955 tube set or a 1964-1975 or so
solid state one.

In the case of the solid state set you just need a 12.6 volt DC
supply. These can be bought or built. It does not need to be regulated
but it should be pretty quiet.

Tube sets can be run the same way, but it's inefficient. Instead,
remove or disconnect the stock vibrator, power transformer and
rectifier and provide a B+ supply with a conventional HV transformer,
diodes and filter caps. You will also need a 6.3 or 12.6 volt heater
supply of course. Generally, the limiting sonic factor is the stock
output transformer, which you will want to replace with a larger and
heavier one for a single ended amp using whatever tube is in there,
usually a 6V6.

Most of the pure tube sets are for 6 volt supply, meaning they'll have
6 volt heater tubes, but some were 12 volt for the few cars and trucks
that were 12 volt before the hybrid and full transistor sets came in.
Usually those just have a different power transformer and use 12
versus 6 volt heater tubes. In some cases they seriesed the heaters on
the small signal tubes and just used a 12V6, or used other odd
arrangements. Almost always the filaments were run directly off the DC
supply though.

[J.B. Wood]

On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rrus...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The best AM receiver
>

Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
cheap). Sincerely,


--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[dave]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:

> On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rrus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The best AM receiver
>>
>>
> Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
> and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> cheap). Sincerely,

Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.

[J.B. Wood]

Hello, and it's a very good and veeeery heavy vacuum tube receiver and
was the main USN shipboard receiver for many years. Another excellent
USN receiver is the later Harris R-2368 (and a lot lighter than the
R-390). The W-J line would still be my pick for sensitivity and image
rejection and were also used by the USN for special purposes. Sincerely,

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 7, 1:32 pm, "J.B. Wood" <john.w...@nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 08:29 AM, dave wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:41 -0500, J.B. Wood wrote:
>

> >> On 02/04/2012 12:41 AM, rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> The best AM receiver
>
> >> Hello, and assuming you don't want to roll your own, you can always try
> >> and obtain a used Watkins-Johnson receiver (but it ain't gonna be
> >> cheap).  Sincerely,
>
> > Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
>
> Hello, and it's a very good and veeeery heavy vacuum tube receiver and
> was the main USN shipboard receiver for many years.  Another excellent
> USN receiver is the later Harris R-2368 (and a lot lighter than the
> R-390).  The W-J line would still be my pick for sensitivity and image
> rejection and were also used by the USN for special purposes.  Sincerely,

I would put certain Racal sets ahead of either. Actually, for BCB
listening alone, I might even prefer certain prewar EH Scott sets to
the 390.

But I misstated my goal here, first fidelity given excellent signal
strength for which a common crystal set will beat these communication
receivers for distortion and sound quality, or in the case of the car
radio, clearly i DD say "the next best thing" to a good communications
receiver. And the R-390 in stock form is a terrible BCB receiver, as
it is intended to drive RTTY "modems" or controllers and not for audio
fidelity. Modification does improve them drastically though.

[dave]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:44:14 -0800, rrusston wrote:

RA-117 and variations sound very nice, too.

[John Byrns]

In article <718bb4d3-1d5b-4c6f...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Was the fidelity of a crystal set really łsuperb˛? I have several of the Miller
crystal tuners, although I haven't used them in years as there is no longer
anything worthwhile on AM, and I no longer have a suitable antenna. There were
three or four 50 kW clear channel stations within single digit mileage distance
from my old home, and a 1 kW station at the high end of the band 10 or 11 miles
distant, and they all came in well with a simple 45 foot wire antenna with a 25
foot vertical run and a 20 foot horizontal piece at the top in the form of an
inverted L. I had no complaints abut the fidelity, but I have to wonder how
good it actually was? At the signal levels provided by a small wire antenna I
would think that the diode would be operating as an exponential detector, not as
a switch, leading to what I suspect would be rather high distortion, although
the distortion was probably euphonic, but łsuperb˛?

I know crystal receivers were sometimes used in professional applications, like
some of the old British Rediffusion systems in the 1930s, however those systems
used rather large receiving antennas, sometimes approximating a smaller AM
transmitting antenna. A large antenna would let the diode operating more like a
switch improving the fidelity.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Michael A. Terrell]

Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency Selective
Voltmeter'

I used to own one of these:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sierra-Electronics128A-Frequency-Selective-voltmeter-/220313039122>
here is a manual:
<http://eshop1.chem.buffalo.edu/images/PDF-Files/MDL-128A.pdf>

and another Philco/Sierra that had a digital display that I can't
remember the model number. I got rid of it in the '70s because it was
full of bad RTL ICs in the freqency display. RTL was already obsolete,
and damned expensive on the surplus market for what it needed.

I currently have a HP 312B 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter', and the
ARN-6 DFR was one hell of an AM only reciever, with multiple tuned RF
stages and different IFs depending on the band you selected.

They don't have AGC, but automatic gain control can be added at the
front end if you listen to fading signals.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 8, 3:51 pm, John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <718bb4d3-1d5b-4c6f-b082-4c25f5af2...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> Was the fidelity of a crystal set really ³superb²?  I have several of the Miller

> crystal tuners, although I haven't used them in years as there is no longer
> anything worthwhile on AM, and I no longer have a suitable antenna.  There were
> three or four 50 kW clear channel stations within single digit mileage distance
> from my old home, and a 1 kW station at the high end of the band 10 or 11 miles
> distant, and they all came in well with a simple 45 foot wire antenna with a 25
> foot vertical run and a 20 foot horizontal piece at the top in the form of an
> inverted L.  I had no complaints abut the fidelity, but I have to wonder how
> good it actually was?  At the signal levels provided by a small wire antenna I
> would think that the diode would be operating as an exponential detector, not as
> a switch, leading to what I suspect would be rather high distortion, although

> the distortion was probably euphonic, but ³superb²?
>

I heard one quite often in the 80s and early 90s. Its owner lived in
a small town. Hooked to an otherwise all tube Marantz system driving
big Altecs (not the VOT's, a home system) it sounded very good indeed,
from a longwire it was picking up St. Louis roughly 120 miles away.
During the day the local daytimer came in with fine fidelity too, but
the programming tended toward the prices of pork bellies and grain and
ads for new combines.

I wanted to test one at work in our receiver screen room but the
owner wasn't letting go of it. Would have been interesting to drive it
with a good HP bench generator and check for distortion at various
levels, but a suitable balun for input would have had to be designed.

[dave]

AGC is just as important with very strong signals, more so maybe. I have
an old Drake SW2 that I use these days. Got tired of powering up the boat
anchors.

[Michael A. Terrell]

No, it isn't since strong signals don't fade. The equipment I'm
talking about has a step attenuator on the front end to set the gain
range, and they are calibrated in microvolts. It looks like you've
never seen one, which isn't surprising. They were used in engineering
departments to design receivers, and on some production lines to certify
their products. The units I used are all solid state. They are large,
because they were built to tight specifications that require a lot of
shielding and so that they could be aligned and calibrated.

Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
friends who worked there.

[John Byrns]

In article <LbSdnWZTzsNgV67S...@earthlink.com>,

Why is AGC important with very strong signals? I'm assuming that there is a
manual RF/IF gain control.

[Carter]

On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> friends who worked there.

Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake
being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are
referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.

And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products.
Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO
they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than
Collins and did it for less than half the price.

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Carter wrote:

> On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
>> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
>> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
>> friends who worked there.
>
> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake being an
> "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are referring to;
> towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.
>

It seemed clear that "that Drake" was in reference to the mentioned Drake
SW2.

It gets garbled. Drake was importing in the early seventies, though
unlike some of the competition, didn't move completely over to imports.
So the TR-22 portable FM transceiver from about 1971 was an import with
the Drake name put on it, it was available from someone else too, and I
think it came from Kenwood-Trio.

A year or so later, they had a solid state SW receiver that wasn't in
their 4-line, the SSR-1. I think that used the Wadley loop, but there's
been garbling about what receivers used it so I'm not certain. That
always struck me as a Japanese import, not sure who made it.

There was also the DSR-2, well beyond the means of most of us, but
apparently that was Drake designed.

Then before Drake stopped making receivers, they had the R8 line, which
was their design, and I thought the SW-2 and the like were derived from
that.

What Drake did do is the design for the Grundig Satellite 800, so maybe
the SW-2 was a variant of that or something.

> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products. Their
> "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO they
> out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than Collins and
> did it for less than half the price.
>
>

Drake is an interesting company, since they existed from about WWII, but
manufacturing accessories until they had the 1A in the late fifties. An
SSB receiver when the Big Receiver Manufacturers were just or not even yet
adding proper SSB receivers to their lines. Then Drake moved into the ssb
transmitter and transceiver business, they were not unlike Swan in
starting out with SSB products (Hammarlund, Collins, Hallicrafters were
making receivers and/or transmitters well before SSB became common).

And so Drake's shortwave receivers were closer to their SSB receivers than
the old style general coverage receivers.

Then there was a lull, Drake gets out of the ham and SW business and
spends time in satellite tv, returning with the R8 after some years of
absence, then a string of SW receivers, and then stopping that. I guess
they still exist, moving into something other than "consumer" products.

Michael

[Xmttrman]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:41:54 -0800 (PST), rrus...@hotmail.com wrote:

>The best AM receiver
>
>Answering the question of "What's the best AM receiver/tuner I can
>get" is contingent on your definition as to what "best" means. If you
>want the best quality audio from local stations with a good antenna
>and ground, the old crystal radio is still the best.
>

I'm with you ... In the early 60s I lived a couple of miles from a 50 kW -DA rocker that beamed
right over our area. I used a diode and tunable loop to listen with a 20 watt mono Eico amp; talk
about fidelity! The station's rig was a 1950 Westinghouse blaster. The CE used an audio equalizer to
tweak the audio to sound like a juke box on a good receiver. The local churches had to shield their
PA systems to eliminate interference.
Later I went to college in a small northern Minnesota town with one AM station, no FMs within 100
miles.
Living in a dorm meant bad AM reception and lots of static from lights and motors. I solved that
problem with a 1955 Ford radio that was modified with a power transformer from a junk Webcor tape
recorder. It fit perfectly... removed the vibrator and transforrmer and the 6X4 rectifier was
retained. Allthat was needed for an antenna was about 6 feet of wire hung from the dorm window. The
blowtorch stations from Chicago, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, NYC, Winnipeg came blasting in.
I managed to save that radio, I wonder if it still works?

Xman

[Carter]

On 2/9/2012 1:21 PM, Michael Black wrote:

> Drake is an interesting company, since they existed from about WWII, but
> manufacturing accessories until they had the 1A in the late fifties. An
> SSB receiver when the Big Receiver Manufacturers were just or not even
> yet adding proper SSB receivers to their lines. Then Drake moved into
> the ssb transmitter and transceiver business, they were not unlike Swan
> in starting out with SSB products (Hammarlund, Collins, Hallicrafters
> were making receivers and/or transmitters well before SSB became common).

A limited analogy to Swan, in that they both started in the SSB world.
Otherwise, IMHO Drake was far superior to Swan. Drake was the
"engineer's radio", the ham radio for true hams -- 160 meters, AM, SSB,
CW, very easy to add FSK RTTY, easy to add additional 500 kHz segments
for whatever need you had, things that weren't available from Swan or
even Collins, at any price.

AFAIK, Swan was noted for only two things: getting a bazillion watts out
of TV sweep tubes (but you'd better tune up *really* quickly) and
horrible drift (remember the Swan 'Drifty 350'?) Not saying there wasn't
a market for Swan, but in my book no comparison between them and Drake.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Carter wrote:
>
> On 2/9/2012 10:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> > people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> > Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> > friends who worked there.
>
> Not sure of the point you are trying to make, especially about Drake
> being an "also ran". Also not sure what products or time frame you are
> referring to; towards the end, they did import some stuff from the Orient.

The model he mentioned, the 2SW.

>
> And yes, I have been to the factory and owned some of their products.
> Their "4-line" (A, B and C- models) and the TR-7 were superb and IMHO
> they out-Collinsed Collins. They did more and had more features than
> Collins and did it for less than half the price.

The 4 line was in production, but a local ham needed parts for the 2
line. Drake also sold reject cabinets for project boxes. Later, a
freind of mine was working production when the UV3 was introduced.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

I think the Drake was considered the equal of Collins for receive
quality but their transmitters used sweep tubes which were considered
infra-dig by the real buffs. The Collins was somewhat better (more
ruggedly) built.

[George Conklin]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Lp-dnZyPuLFnqqnS...@earthlink.com...

Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from C. C. Crane?
Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what? I don't think people are going to run
out and try to find a pre 1954 auto radio with a vibrator and dead caps to
work on to try to fix it up. I admit those pre-1954 radios in cars were
nice, especially the 6V6 push-pull output stages. I rebuilt one in my 1954
Buick, but ran into tons of trouble doing so. Not always a good outcome.
So what about today's radios?

[dave]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:00:57 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> dave wrote:

>> >>
>> >> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
>> >
>> >
>> > Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
>> > blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency

>

> Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> friends who worked there.

AGC way more important to prevent non linear operation of mixer stage in
presence of strong signals, than on weak signal downward expansion. True
weak signal DX really should never even move the needle.

The reviews of the SW2 panned it as an SWL receiver but universally said
it was great for MWDX, which is what I use it for. The SW2 has
synchronous detection and selectable sidebands, and an infrared remote,
btw. I also had a Drake R8B, but sold that when I bought my Elecraft K3.

I have seen the selective voltmeters in HP and Tektronix catalogs and did
know they were laboratory instruments. I am drawn to Rohde and Schwarz,
because they are hams.

The 390s and the RA-*17s both have detector outputs (diode load?) at mic
level and +10 dBm (local) line level outs, which nicely drive a speaker
with a suitable transformer. The RF performance is on the level of the
fine lab gear you mentioned. I have aligned several R390As and they tweak-
up very nicely.

The Elecraft K3 ham transceiver, with a set of general coverage bandpass
filters will run you about $2k; that is probably the best AM receiver on
the market, dollar for dollar for features and performance.

[dave]

Vibrators can be bypassed if you have AC power. They were for generating
"B+". The permeability tuned oscillators in those old Delcos were works
of art.

[Adam Sampson]

"George Conklin" <nilkn...@earthlink.net> writes:

> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from
> C. C. Crane? Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what?

You'll probably find it interesting to have a look at the reviews that
medium-wave DXers produce, particularly those who use "ultralight"
radios. There are some surprisingly good cheap receivers out there now,
built around chips like the Si4734 that use software-defined radio
techniques internally -- which, if implemented properly, gives you
really good filtering. Try:

http://www.dxer.ca/ulr/75-introduction-to-ulr
http://home.comcast.net/~phils_radio_designs/

I'd expect the bang-per-buck to improve further over the next couple of
years as new generations of chipsets appear.

The "repurpose a car radio" suggestion's still a good idea if you're
after a radio to drive some speakers in your garage, or similar -- old
car radios (even with CD players now) are essentially free these days...

--
Adam Sampson <a...@offog.org> <http://offog.org/>

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, George Conklin wrote:

> Ths issue is what is the best AM receiver TODAY. Is it from C. C. Crane?
> Or is it the GE Superradio? Or what? I don't think people are going to run
> out and try to find a pre 1954 auto radio with a vibrator and dead caps to
> work on to try to fix it up. I admit those pre-1954 radios in cars were
> nice, especially the 6V6 push-pull output stages. I rebuilt one in my 1954
> Buick, but ran into tons of trouble doing so. Not always a good outcome.
> So what about today's radios?
>

Most people don't care, indeed there are all those MP3 players out there
that have FM radios but no AM.

But the people who care are much more likely the type to spend money
and/or effort on this. They want good sound, or they want good reception.
I've used a Delco digitally tuned car radio as a bedside radio for
fifteen years, AM is certainly better than on a lot of radios (especially
adjacent signal rejection) but FM is wonderful, good selectivity and lack
of overload. There is obviously lots out there that I haven't tried, but
it cost me $7.00.

The GE Superradio is often tossed into these discussions, but they are
relatively modest radios. It's never clear if they really are that great,
or simply a lot of people rush to them before trying what's around, so
they have no real benchmark. It almost seems like random people no longer
tune up and down the AM band at night, so if suddenly they get the
hankering to listen to distant stations, they feel they have to get a
"good radio" first. It's also confounded since some people place "good
sound" beyond good reception, and for local stations obviously that might
be why someone is paying more money for a better radio. But I've seen
people dismiss better radios "because they have bad sound" when it's far
easier to hook an external speaker to a good radio than to try to improve
reception on a bad radio.

I think of Henry Kloss's designs, especially that FM radio from the early
seventies with the external speaker (but he obviously went that route
earlier too). IN just putting the speaker in a separate but good box, he
can vastly improve the sound of the radio. In the old days, shortwave
receivers often did not have a speaker inside, but the external speakers
were pretty unimportant, matching the receiver in looks but adding nothing
much in sound. You can take any radio, add one of those Radio Shack
Minimu-7 speakers (or their descendents) and sound-wise, not many portable
or clock radios can beat it.

Michael

[George Conklin]

"Adam Sampson" <a...@offog.org> wrote in message
news:y2ak43u...@cartman.at.offog.org...

What about the C.C. Crane radios? Does anyone here know about them
specifically?

[Fred Kent]

"George Conklin" <nilkn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f_idnasfa74I4ajS...@earthlink.com...

>
>
> What about the C.C. Crane radios? Does anyone here know about them specifically?
>
>

There are several different CC radios. I've played with a few at the radio meets,
but didn't like the feel, the control layouts, or the needless complexity of
operation. They also didn't have the room-filling sound that I would like to have in
a radio of their cost.

You can go to Amazon.com, pick a model, and read the reviews. Overall it looks
pretty mixed, some love 'em, some hate 'em. Typical of reviews from people that had
nothing else to compare them to, or very little experience with quality radio
reception. Many note that the CC radios had a lot of failures and needed to be
returned. That alone would keep me from buying one.

About the Superadios---

I'm very happy with my GE Superadios I & II. Superadio III does not live up to the
first two in feel, sound, or reception. I don't even know if it is available anymore
under the GE brand (GE 7-2887), all I've seen for years in the stores is the same
radio marketed with the RCA tag (RP-7887). Although I really wouldn't recommend the
SR-III, they do retail pretty cheap locally. Fleet Farm usually has them under $55,
and on sale now and then as low as $40. You could always buy and try one, and return
it if you aren't satisfied with it. You can also do the same with a Crane radio, but
you'd have to pay shipping both ways.

I've also had some very good Panasonic and Sony radios in the past, and even a couple
of other multi-band GEs, but for overall sound quality, reception strength, and
ruggedness, the GE SR-I and GE SR-II get my overall vote. And they are a lot cheaper
than most any of the other good ones. I've picked up and flipped several from
Goodwill and St. Vincent's over the years, often finding them for under $10.

[George Conklin]

"Fred Kent" <7-...@upallnight.com> wrote in message
news:lxfZq.19205$%17....@newsfe06.iad...

Thanks. I got the Radio Shack so-called superradio about 7 years ago and it
is awful. I then got the Superradio, model ?. (It is at the cabin). It
seems quite good, but even in a very rural area, there is hash galore on the
AC lines which drowns out much of the AM band. I think it might be coming
from electric fences. Unfortunately I find most of what I want to listen to
is streaming these days, using Receiva technology or dirctly to web pages,
such as WAMU's bluegrasscountry. There is even an app for that. I'm
listening to it now on my cell phone via. the speaker tower from Brookstone.
Good sound from my mancave.

[William Sommerwerck]

I haven't been following this closely, but...

Wouldn't the receiver in a good amateur transceiver -- such as Yaesu -- be
far superior to any of these?

[Michael A. Terrell]

I haven't seen a radio built in the last 15 years that I liked. If
you want lots of opinions, go to news:rec.radio.shortwave and wade
through the trolls and idiots. :(

I am going to build one from scratch. Multiple IF stages with
selectable bandwidth. Traps for the carriers on adjacent channels. A
DDS LO, with a tuned RF stage. Selectable Envelope detection with a
precision rectifier or Synchronous Detection. The AVC will be able to
switch out the RF stages on strong signals. I just wish they still made
the FETs we used for our linear AGC system in the Microdyne 700 series.
It's been out of production for 10 years, and no suitable replacement
was ever found. SOme interesting components go away when the
semiconductor fabs change processes.

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:00:57 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > dave wrote:
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Best AM radio ever is the R390. Second best is the R390A.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any decent 'Frequency Selective Voltmeter' (AKA: 'Wave analyzer')
> >> > blows them away. I've owned several Philco/Sierra 'Frequency
>
> >
> > Some people consider that Drake an 'also ran' that was marketed to
> > people buying a name. That includes people who worked for R.L. Drake in
> > Miamisburg. Have you ever been to their factory? I have. I also had
> > friends who worked there.
>
> AGC way more important to prevent non linear operation of mixer stage in
> presence of strong signals, than on weak signal downward expansion. True
> weak signal DX really should never even move the needle.

What part of 'A step attenuator on the input' don't you understand?

> The reviews of the SW2 panned it as an SWL receiver but universally said
> it was great for MWDX, which is what I use it for. The SW2 has
> synchronous detection and selectable sidebands, and an infrared remote,
> btw. I also had a Drake R8B, but sold that when I bought my Elecraft K3.
>
> I have seen the selective voltmeters in HP and Tektronix catalogs and did
> know they were laboratory instruments. I am drawn to Rohde and Schwarz,
> because they are hams.

So? Some of their equipment is good, and some isn't. I wasn't
impressed with their designs or the construction quality, but I did read
the technical articles in Ham Radio magazine. At my last job they had
over 1000 pieces of test equipment, and none was Rohde and Schwarz. We
built high end telemetry equipment and needed test equipment that was
reliable, easy to repair and stayed in calibration. I see 495 Rohde
Schwarz items on Ebay right now. Care to guess how many thousands of
HP/Agilent, Tektronix Boonton or fluke there are?

I used one of the Sierra FSVM for MWDX for years. I haven't even
turned on the HP 312B yet, but I got a great deal on it. I got it, the
National NC183R and a pickup truck load of parts & manuals for free when
one of the engineers left Microdyne.

> The 390s and the RA-*17s both have detector outputs (diode load?) at mic
> level and +10 dBm (local) line level outs, which nicely drive a speaker
> with a suitable transformer. The RF performance is on the level of the
> fine lab gear you mentioned. I have aligned several R390As and they tweak-
> up very nicely.

Good for you, but I'll keep my national NC183R.

> The Elecraft K3 ham transceiver, with a set of general coverage bandpass
> filters will run you about $2k; that is probably the best AM receiver on
> the market, dollar for dollar for features and performance.

I'm not a ham, and don't need or want a transceiver. I spent too
many years with big transmitters, from 5 KW AM BCB to 5 MW EIRP UHF TV
transmitters. The hams I've listened to were jerks and idiots. I used
to repair their equipment, till I got fed up with their smug, 'I have a
license and you don't!' attitude. I told the cheap SOBs to fix their
own crap from now on. I've worked with radio for over 50 years, in RF
repair, broadcast, two way and telemetry so you aren't going to pull the
wool over my eyes.

[John Byrns]

In article <2MmdnVlMBJIhp6jS...@earthlink.com>,

dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:

>
> AGC way more important to prevent non linear operation of mixer stage in
> presence of strong signals, than on weak signal downward expansion. True
> weak signal DX really should never even move the needle.

AGC is not necessary "to prevent non linear operation of mixer stage in presence
of strong signals", a manual RF gain control will do that just as well. In fact
manual gain control will sometimes do better as it can be adjusted to
accommodate "strong signals" that are causing interference with a desired weaker
signal, AGC responds to the weaker desired signal ignoring the undesired "strong
signals" that can cause interference.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

>    I'm not a ham, and don't need or want a transceiver.  I spent too
> many years with big transmitters, from 5 KW AM BCB to 5 MW EIRP UHF TV
> transmitters.  The hams I've listened to were jerks and idiots.  I used
> to repair their equipment, till I got fed up with their smug, 'I have a
> license and you don't!' attitude.  I told the cheap SOBs to fix their
> own crap from now on.  I've worked with radio for over 50 years, in RF
> repair, broadcast, two way and telemetry so you aren't going to pull the
> wool over my eyes.

Many, not all, hams are jerks. I DO believe that "The True Ham
Builds". That isn't to say they build every thing they use but they
should have the desire and drive to build SOMETHING, or else they are
overgrown CBers.

The old car radios are unbeatable for the price, which is still low
for almost all solid state ones, there are still a lot of the good
Delcos in junkyards that can be had for five bucks. Car swap meets
have them too. The tube ones are no longer as cheap but they do turn
up cheap from time to time.

Both tube and solid state radios can do a great job but it's tough to
beat the front end performance of good tube stages and a remote cutoff
pentode still gives the best AVC although strong signal performance
isn't so dependent on it as others have commented. And then too there
was the Wunderlich....

[Michael Black]

The way I remember the history, "AVC" (which is what it was originally
labelled) was a convenience, not unlike ganging the tuning controls.

With automatic gain control, you don't have to fiddle with a manual gain
control, worrying that you have the gain way up to hear those weak
signals, but if you tune across the band and hit a local signal (or the
local station comes on at that frequency), you don't have to scramble for
the gain control to save your ears.

There was a period when there was a reversion to manual gain control, when
amateur radio switched over to SSB. The old AM receivers weren't made for
SSB, so the trick was to turn off the AGC, turn up the audio gain, and
turn down the RF gain. That way, the relatively weak BFO was strong
enough compared to the incoming signal to actually properly beat it down
to audio. Otherwise, you didn't get proper demodulation.

Then real SSB receivers came along, and they all went back to AGC.

A lot of consumer SW receivers no longer have the ability to turn off the
AGC, so there's no manual RF gain control. At best, you get a 1step
attenuator that you can kick in (still seen on many consumer receivers, in
the form of "local/DX" switches.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Traditionally, no. In the old days they were ham band only, an obvious
issue. And once SSB came along, many of them were SSB only and if they
had AM reception, one didn't have much choice of bandwidth.

My circa 1980 TS-830S would be horrible, since it's ham band only and no
way to easily extend the tuning, and no AM detector, and SSB bandwidth
filter.

That has changed more recently, the move to synthesizers meant full tuning
of the HF range became as easy as ham band only tuning. But even after
that happened, some lacked AM filters and/or AM detector. Even now, when
there may be schemes such as DSP to provide filtering, many ham
transceivers lack synchronous detectors, that have become the cat's meow
in SW listener circles, even though nobody complained before any receiver
included a synchronous detector.

They also may suffer at the AM broadcast band, at least some equipment
adding high pass filters that get in the way of proper AM BCB reception.

I don't know what the designs are like these days, but it's easier to
provide good front end filtering if only covering a few small segments of
the SW spectrum, and more difficult if covering the full band. Certainly
VHF ham transceivers suffer when they've added wider coverage (basically
wide band scanners), not enough front end selectivity, sacrificed for the
sake of wider tuning. I don't know whether that applies to HF
transceivers, there's no point in having better front end mixers if the
local stations still get through and are strong enough to overload those
better mixers.

And of course, one pays a lot for them. It's fine if you're going to use
the transmitter, might as well get something that can serve as a shortwave
receiver too, but if you don't have a license, the transmitter is wasted,
yet you pay for it.

The thing is, SW receivers have become much cheaper. I paid about $80
Canadian for my first one, a Hallicrafters S-120A in the summer of 1971.
It was awful, a low end receiver that also suffered because it was an
early solid state receiver. It was junk. I bought a Grundig G3 a little
over a year ago, for the same price (it was on sale, there was an
additional pre-Christmas discount). I get digital tuning, wider range, the
dial is accurate, good SSB reception plus a synchronous detector for AM,
an actual ceramic filter rather than IF transformers for selectivity, and
two bandwidths. It's more sensitive, virtually no image problem, not much
overload. It's not perfect, but pretty good.

You'd have to go far up the price range even forty years ago to get that
level of reception. But of course it's a different scene, table top sw
receivers have virtually disappeared, portables have taken over no matter
where you might use them. You can still get junk, but that junk is
digitally tuned, complete with direct frequency readout, and it probably
costs less to get a "decent" receiver than in the old days.

Michael

[Michael A. Terrell]

A pentode wouldn't approach the linear AGC we had on our telemetry
products. 0 to 5 volts from each reciever, and a combiner for diversity
reception that could recover a datastream from a deep space probe with
no change in the recovered level, no matter how bad te signals faded
between the seperate antennas.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Many, not all, hams are jerks. I DO believe that "The True Ham
> Builds". That isn't to say they build every thing they use but they
> should have the desire and drive to build SOMETHING, or else
> they are overgrown CBers.

Arguably true. But the days of relatively simple tube equipment are decades
away.

I had a high-school friend who built his own equipment. He told me how he
opened up his dad's Marantz electronics and gazed at it for inspiration.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net...

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Wouldn't the receiver in a good amateur transceiver -- such as Yaesu
>> -- be far superior to any of these?

> Traditionally, no. In the old days they were ham band only, an obvious
> issue. And once SSB came along, many of them were SSB only and
> if they had AM reception, one didn't have much choice of bandwidth.

I wasn't asking about "traditional". And I was using transceivers as an
example, as high-grade general-coverage receivers are uncommon.

My FTD-1000 has the features you say are commonly missing from receivers --
product detector, variable bandwidth, etc.

[dave]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:32:29 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


>
> I'm not a ham, and don't need or want a transceiver. I spent too
> many years with big transmitters, from 5 KW AM BCB to 5 MW EIRP UHF TV
> transmitters. The hams I've listened to were jerks and idiots. I used
> to repair their equipment, till I got fed up with their smug, 'I have a
> license and you don't!' attitude. I told the cheap SOBs to fix their
> own crap from now on. I've worked with radio for over 50 years, in RF
> repair, broadcast, two way and telemetry so you aren't going to pull the
> wool over my eyes.

The discussion was best AM receiver, not your personal hangups.

I don't like talking to hams either, which is why I mainly work
autospotters. The K3/10 is more like an exciter than a broadcast
transmitter. It is analog until the final IF which is a 32 bit DSP.

In the business I was in the Rohde FSH-313 was the preferred piece of
test gear. I also used Tek Signal Scouts from time to time. But I'm not
bitter.
pskreporter.info

BTW: I recommend the Gordon West study guides. Much easier then the
Arrgghhh R-L-L

[dave]

Look up "blanking"

[dave]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:38:48 -0800, rrusston wrote:

> The old car radios are unbeatable for the price, which is still low
> for almost all solid state ones, there are still a lot of the good
> Delcos in junkyards that can be had for five bucks. Car swap meets have
> them too. The tube ones are no longer as cheap but they do turn up cheap
> from time to time.
>
> Both tube and solid state radios can do a great job but it's tough to
> beat the front end performance of good tube stages and a remote cutoff
> pentode still gives the best AVC although strong signal performance
> isn't so dependent on it as others have commented. And then too there
> was the Wunderlich....

I prefer the PTO Delco radios over any digital for the simple reason that
you can slightly mis-tune and get some treble. The PLL killed AM radio.

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:32:29 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not a ham, and don't need or want a transceiver. I spent too
> > many years with big transmitters, from 5 KW AM BCB to 5 MW EIRP UHF TV
> > transmitters. The hams I've listened to were jerks and idiots. I used
> > to repair their equipment, till I got fed up with their smug, 'I have a
> > license and you don't!' attitude. I told the cheap SOBs to fix their
> > own crap from now on. I've worked with radio for over 50 years, in RF
> > repair, broadcast, two way and telemetry so you aren't going to pull the
> > wool over my eyes.
>
> The discussion was best AM receiver, not your personal hangups.
>
> I don't like talking to hams either, which is why I mainly work
> autospotters. The K3/10 is more like an exciter than a broadcast
> transmitter. It is analog until the final IF which is a 32 bit DSP.

The Microdyne RCB2000 was a dual diversity DSP based telemetry system
with a 40 MHz wide digital IF centered at 70 MHz. It used sets of FIR
forthe IF bandwidth & video bandwidth. It went into production in 2000,
after I finished prepping the design from engineering units to full
production. They were around US $80,00 each when introduced.

> In the business I was in the Rohde FSH-313 was the preferred piece of
> test gear.

That is useless on a lot of the spectrum we built equipment for.
Like the kU band system that's aboard the International Space Station.
It is a modified Microdyne 700 series that runs of the space station's
48 volt DC power rails. It is used for private video, audio and data
communications, at up to 40 Mb/s.

> I also used Tek Signal Scouts from time to time. But I'm not
> bitter.
> pskreporter.info
>
> BTW: I recommend the Gordon West study guides. Much easier then the
> Arrgghhh R-L-L

Talk about hangups. I have no desire for a ham ticket. My interest
was microwave communications, so I ended up at Microdyne building
Telemetry equipment for NASA, NOAA, ESA and a laundry list of other
govenment agencies that were only idenified buy a contract number. I
worked in broadcast, starting in the US Army. I tested out of the three
year Broadcast Engineering school at Ft Monmoth while in basic training.

[William Sommerwerck]

The topic is about the best existing or available AM receiver -- not what
might be. But...

No one has said anything about DSP. The Sony XDR-F1HD tuner uses DSP to
perform most of the functions that were previously effected by tuned
circuits. The potential seems great -- but no one appears to be doing much
about it.

[Carter]

On 2/10/2012 9:38 PM, rrus...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Many, not all, hams are jerks. I DO believe that "The True Ham
> Builds". That isn't to say they build every thing they use but they
> should have the desire and drive to build SOMETHING, or else they are
> overgrown CBers.

Let me respectfully disagree with you...

You say "Many, not all, hams are jerks".

IMHO that's quite an inflammatory statement. I'm sure that -some- hams
are indeed "jerks", but by the same token, I have no doubt that some
NON-hams are jerks. To broadly categorize "many" as jerks is grossly
unfair of you.

As to your simplistic comment "The True Ham Builds", that might have
been true (if not a necessity) back in the 30s, but today that's not a
valid statement, for a couple of reasons.

First, not all hams enjoy building; some like contesting, some like rag
chewing, some like chasing DX, some like QRP (low power) operation, some
like experimenting with antennas. Heck, some even like restoring or
using antique "boat anchor" ham equipment as occasionally mentioned on
this very news group. There are many, many facets of the hobby besides
building. This I firmly believe is one of the strengths of the hobby --
bus drivers, plumbers, teachers, all with many different interests. Not
everyone is (or should be) an electrical engineer.

Next, in this day of advanced technology, there is not much in the way
of major equipment (like transceivers) that can be built at home, either
from a technical complexity or economic basis. Also, it's generally no
secret that the ham population is aging and may not have either the
eyesight or the steady hands required for surface mount technology.

Finally, I suggest you look at any QST magazine; they usually contain
several construction articles each month.

Carter, K8VT

P.S.

Just to set your mind at ease, I HAVE built a lot of stuff back in the day:

RTTY demodulator and AFSK unit (using ICs)
Solid state RTTY solid state tuning scope
RTTY character memory to replace punched paper tape
Slow-scan TV receiver
IC Morse keyer (in 1966, the RTL chips cost me almost a week's wages)
Many other projects and "war surplus" conversions too numerous to mention.

[Carter]

On 2/11/2012 10:45 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> Talk about hangups. I have no desire for a ham ticket. My interest

> was microwave communications...

Let me respectfully point out that hams do microwave communications,
have many microwave ham bands, microwave contests (even one on 10 GHz).
Heck, QST even has a monthly VHF/UHF/microwave column.

[Michael Black]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, dave wrote:


> I prefer the PTO Delco radios over any digital for the simple reason that
> you can slightly mis-tune and get some treble. The PLL killed AM radio.
>

But it makes things so much easier. You can tune up and down the band, and
if you find an interesting station, stuff it into one of the memory
positions then keep going, popping back to listen for an ID.

On FM, it's wonderful. We've pretty much lost any empty slots here due to
increased local stations, but a decade ago there were some US stations
that weren't receivable here all the time. I'd keep them in presets,
making it easy to check if they did come in. And that was sometimes a
good indicator of better radio conditions.

That morning one summer when I heard a Mississippi station booming in, if
I'd been using an analog tuned receiver, I'd have feared tuning elsewhere,
worried that I'd misplace the station. But I popped it into memory, and
found some other not quite as far stations coming in. It all lasted a few
minutes, I was lucky to have turned on the radio right at that point.

Michael

[John Byrns]

In article <358c786d-9521-4c59...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Never saw an auto radio with a Wunderlich, can you elaborate on auto radios and
the Wunderlich?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not to start an argument, but how many hams were doing that in the
'60s & '70s? I'm familiar with the Gunnplexer. I was one of the group
that built a two meter repeater for my high school radio club in 1968.
It was on 01/61 in Monroe Ohio. I also repaired a lot of used TVs
radios and phonos for the club to sell to raise money for the ham gear
in '67 & '68.

Here is a 10 GHz doppler motion detector for $8:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/130512020245>

Most hams I knew at the time thought anything above 20 meters was a
waste of time and ridiculed the idea of a repeater, even though you
could use it's phone patch to call middletown or Monroe from Hara
Arena. It was built with Twin-V, Preprog, WE surplus and a lot of
homebrew hardware, including the diplexer. All the locals wanted to do
was argue Collins VS national VS Drake, and who had the biggest
antenna. If you changed it to Johnson VS Regency VS Lafeyette it
sounded just like the CBers and I just wasn't interested in it. I
didn't see much signs of Microwave until the late '80s at the Dayton
Hamfest.

[Michael A. Terrell]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> The topic is about the best existing or available AM receiver -- not what
> might be. But...
>
> No one has said anything about DSP.

Yes, dave did. It was in the message that I replied to.

---

> I don't like talking to hams either, which is why I mainly work
> autospotters. The K3/10 is more like an exciter than a broadcast
> transmitter. It is analog until the final IF which is a 32 bit DSP.

---

[Brenda Ann]

"dave" wrote in message
news:CrmdncAs0Lp996vS...@earthlink.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or "desensitization"

[Brenda Ann]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
news:byrnsj-5A6846....@news.giganews.com...

Never saw an auto radio with a Wunderlich, can you elaborate on auto radios
and
the Wunderlich?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nostalgiaair.org/PagesByModel/891/M0010891.pdf

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 1:15 pm, John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <358c786d-9521-4c59-a4a9-61a5da810...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

You wouldn't be asking that if you didn't know the answer.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 1:47 pm, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
wrote:

Wow, there really WAS one. Never would have thought. I never said
there was a CAR radio with a Wunderlich only that it was still
considered an optimum AGC principle by some, 70+ years on.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 9:21 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Yes, it's been discontinued, the audio guys were nuts on it for
awhile.

A whole AM receiver can be done in raw DSP but the results so far are
not amazing. But you can play with it using some public domain design
boards and software if you want.

I like analog better.

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 11:43 am, Carter <k...@ameritech.net> wrote:

Sorry, I stand by my statement knowing a LOT of hams.

The younger hams could build but have no interest in learning. Most
don't. There are younger hams, not a smany. The middle aged ones are
all yupsters, around here, working too much with no time for a hobby
OR their families or civic activities.

They still make through hole parts and in fact you can still build
tube stuff. the audio guys do.

Hams tend to be a certain personality type though. And that
personality type can easily come off like a jerk in certain, even
many, situations.

BTW-contesters especially, are usually out and out pricks.

[John Byrns]

In article <CrmdncAs0Lp996vS...@earthlink.com>,

I looked up "blanking" and didn't find anything that seemed relevant. The only
radio related use of the word "blanking" that I am familiar with was in relation
to the Television Transmitter at the TV-FM transmitter site I worked at in my
college days. There were three big knobs on the transmitter control console
that adjusted, IIRC, the "blanking" level, the peak sync level, and the white
level, as displayed on a waveform monitor scope.

If by "blanking" you meant "desensitization" as suggested by "Brenda Ann", that
is a problem of some AM BCB radios, but not decent ones. Back in the late 1960s
the radio in my automobile suffered from this problem when I would drive past
the antenna of one of the local 50 kW clear channel stations, the radio in
question had AGC that obviously didn't solve the problem. The radios in more
recent automobiles I have owned didn't suffer from this "desensitization"
problem. It's hard for me to imagine how AGC could fix this problem as the AGC
in most AM BCB radios responds to the level of the desired station, not the
interfering station that is causing the "desensitization". If anything AGC
probably aggravated the problem by increasing the gain when the
"desensitization" was occurring, thus further compounding the problem.

[John Byrns]

In article <ba6690f9-6b1b-42f5...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Huh, I don't follow your logic here, I didn't know the answer, and still don't
beyond the fact that after I asked the question here I thought to "Google" it
and found at least one example, although I am not sure that really answers my
question.

[John Byrns]

In article <0bdc0a8f-7ff0-4c36...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

I'm not sure why it would be ³considered an optimum AGC principle by some²?
From an AGC perspective it appears to simply operate as a full wave diode
rectifier, with the grids acting as diode plates, it is not clear to me why this
should be noticeably better than a single diode from the AGC perspective. A
full wave rectifier mainly helps with the tangential clipping vs. IF attenuation
tradeoff. Can you explain how the Wunderlich tube helps optimize AGC?

[Brenda Ann]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

news:byrnsj-20E971....@news.giganews.com...

If by "blanking" you meant "desensitization" as suggested by "Brenda Ann",
that
is a problem of some AM BCB radios, but not decent ones. Back in the late
1960s
the radio in my automobile suffered from this problem when I would drive
past
the antenna of one of the local 50 kW clear channel stations, the radio in
question had AGC that obviously didn't solve the problem. The radios in
more
recent automobiles I have owned didn't suffer from this "desensitization"
problem. It's hard for me to imagine how AGC could fix this problem as the
AGC
in most AM BCB radios responds to the level of the desired station, not the
interfering station that is causing the "desensitization". If anything AGC
probably aggravated the problem by increasing the gain when the
"desensitization" was occurring, thus further compounding the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Desense in this situation is caused by the AGC. When a sufficient signal
enters the detector stage, it will cause a high AGC voltage, turning down
the stage gain. Car radios, though better shielded than most, are not
perfectly shielded. We have a problem with desense in our travels here,
because we tend to listen to fairly low powered AFN outlets from various
bases, whereas many of the local Korean plants run into the 500KW~1.5MW
range. When we pass through a strong node, we lose all but the strongest
stations (and, of course, the offending signal).

I once had a '69 Pontiac with a stock radio in it. One time I had some
friends with me as we were going to be passing a three tower array next to
the freeway (KEX, 1190, 50KW). We were listening to another station, and not
really having a big problem with it.. but I had to be clever.... I told them
"hey, I bet we can pick up KEX from here REALLY well." I punched the button
for KEX just as we were passing the primary node, and the radio just went
dead silent. When I got home and pulled the radio, I found that the RF
ampifier, mixer and detector diode were all shorted. That was the first and
only time that I had ever had this happen. I do know this... I never tried
that trick again.

[dave]

Mr. Terrell would probably really enjoy QEX, which is the egghead
publication of the ARRL. I know I do. My biggest thrill is using the sky
to help me talk to the other side of the world on less than 4 Watts.

I build my own HF antennas and switching. I modify everything except my
iPod.

[dave]

I meant "blanketing" not blanking. Thanks

[Carter]

On 2/11/2012 9:34 PM, rrus...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Sorry, I stand by my statement knowing a LOT of hams.
>
> The younger hams could build but have no interest in learning. Most
> don't.

Why -should- they build? You seem to think this is the 1930s, with
"building" being the end all and be all. Again, building is just *ONE*
facet of a *multi* faceted hobby. It's virtually impossible to
economically and technically build major equipment, leaving smaller
accessories or gadgets to be built. And just how do you know they don't
build the smaller stuff?

> There are younger hams, not as many.

True, In this day of competition from computers and the internet, I
think the ham community is glad for any new recruits.

> The middle aged ones are
> all yupsters, around here, working too much with no time for a hobby
> OR their families or civic activities.

True, life gets in the way, people need to put food on the table, no
time for ham radio -- or fishing or stamp collecting. If the middle aged
-are- hams, this makes them jerks per your original contention? Sorry,
but I miss the connection between your "middle aged yupsters" to hams
being jerks.

> They still make through hole parts and in fact you can still build
> tube stuff. the audio guys do.

Yet again, you've circled around to "building" being the end all and be
all definitive characteristic of ham radio (and apparently the audio
hobby). Most if not all of the "through-hole" projects are just small
accessories -- that they either may not need or want. But according to
you, they are jerks for not building. Furthermore, you've apparently not
compared the technical complexity of a modern ham transceiver versus the
1930s-1950s triode audio amplifiers that the audiophiles love so dearly.
Finally, I would bet that maybe 10% of the audiophiles actually build
their stuff. The other 90% just enjoy listening. By your criteria, does
this make those 90% jerks because they don't build?

> Hams tend to be a certain personality type though. And that
> personality type can easily come off like a jerk in certain, even
> many, situations.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion (biases?), but as many of us
have found out in life, broad generalizations usually don't work.

> BTW-contesters especially, are usually out and out pricks.

Some probably are, many aren't -- I'm sure you could say the same thing
about stamp collectors.

Sorry that you have such a grumpy, gloomy, negative outlook about ham
radio. Cheer up!!

[Michael Black]

But that's a symptom. When I first got QST, in April of 1971, I couldn't
understand any of it. Well the editorial and the letters section, and
then the operating news. The first article was technical, and others
followed, to about the mid-way of the issue. Some were advanced, some
were for beginners.

And then when the ARRL decided to spin some of that off, QST became less
technical. Maybe a reflection of reality, but it also feeds reality.
Whether or not you were interested in technical things, you could't be
blind to it in the old days when reading QST. They still run construction
articles in QST, but they aren't like the old days when they'd run
articles on reception under the noise or when Copthorne McDonald first
wrote about SSTV.

Here in Canada, about 20 years ago the rules changed so the beginner
license was much easier to get. But, the rules changed so you could no
longer build your own transmitter. You needed the advanced license for
that. Maybe it didn't matter, except it changes reality. In the old
days, lots of people would buy a receiver, and then build a one tube
transmitter, and surely getting something out of it.

The rules don't seem to have changed much in terms of more people coming
into the hobby. Sadly, the hobby is much less visible nowadays than in
the old days. I knew about it because I read about it in magazine for
scouting in Canada, likely also read about it in some children's magazine.
And every so often, amateur radio would be mentioned in the local paper.

But now that it's even eaiser to get a license (including the more recent
dropping of the code test), few even seem to be making an effort to get
the word out about the hobby.

It probably was better as "elite", you don't get the numbers, but at least
people coming in have accomplished something.

But then, when I licensed in 1972, it was still called the "Amateur
Experimental Service" here in Canada, the "experimental" dropped a few
years later.

Michael

[Steve Stone]

>The PLL killed AM radio.

I have a late 1970's Lafayette LT-40 AM/FM PLL tuner and matching LA-40
stereo amp with an analog freq readout that is quite good for AM BCB
reception.

Your complaint is with digital readout locked to 10KHz tuning is another
story.

Steve
N2UBP

[rrus...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 9:47 pm, John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <0bdc0a8f-7ff0-4c36-901a-0ae12890e...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  rruss...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 1:47 pm, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
> > wrote:
> > > "John Byrns"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:byrnsj-5A6846....@news.giganews.com...
>
> > > Never saw an auto radio with a Wunderlich, can you elaborate on auto radios
> > > and
> > > the Wunderlich?
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
>
> > >http://www.nostalgiaair.org/PagesByModel/891/M0010891.pdf
>
> > Wow, there really WAS one. Never would have thought. I never said
> > there was a CAR radio with a Wunderlich only that it was still
> > considered an optimum AGC principle by some, 70+ years on.
>
> I'm not sure why it would be ³considered an optimum AGC principle by some²?
> From an AGC perspective it appears to simply operate as a full wave diode
> rectifier, with the grids acting as diode plates, it is not clear to me why this
> should be noticeably better than a single diode from the AGC perspective.  A
> full wave rectifier mainly helps with the tangential clipping vs. IF attenuation
> tradeoff.  Can you explain how the Wunderlich tube helps optimize AGC?
>

To tell you the truth I never really studied it. Ed Romney was a big
fan and gave me an explanation, and now he is long since passed away,
so I can't ask him again.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I've read most of the ham radio magazines, but 'Ham radio' was my
favorite. QEX had some good articles, but disappeared from local
bookstores a long time ago. 73 was generally good, but QST was hard to
read due to the small print and the font they used. They were also bad
at breaking up articles into bits, to make you see more advertising.
Who wants to filp back and forth between a lot of pages to read bits &
pieces?

I like 'Circuit Cellar' because of the wide ranges of electronics
projects and articles presented.

[Carter]

On 2/12/2012 9:34 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> ... but QST was hard to read due to the small print and the font they

> used. They were also bad at breaking up articles into bits, to make
> you see more advertising.

> Who wants to filp back and forth between a lot of pages to read
> bits& pieces?

Who?

Just a guess, but probably people that realize QST would be waaay more
expensive if they did not have advertising. <grin>

[dave]

but somehow the concept got communicated anyway...

I have a Sangean ATS-606-AP with 5 Khz coarse steps and 1 Khz fine steps.
The ability to "tune for cymbals" makes a big difference. No contemporary
car radio has this "fine tune" feature. AM can sound very nice with
music, but not with most radios in the hands of the great unwashed.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Grin all you want. It's also one of two reasons that I never
subscribed, and new bought an issue new. The other was all the space
wasted on contest results. I picked them up for a few cents each at
hamfests, if I bought them at all.

[Michael Black]

No, it was something about the way QST formatted itself.

"73" existed most of its life without "continued on page XX", and an
actual indication of its decline was that they suddenly started doing that
(and doing it sloppily). 73 would buy filler, little tips like Bill
Turner's bit about making soldering gun tips last longer, and then when an
article finished and there was space, they'd run one of those. 73 for
much of its run had lots of ads, it was seen as a healthy thing since it
not only helped pay for the magazine, but provided a place for many a
small company to advertise when first starting out.

QST put their ads in the back. I don't know if that's changed, but they'd
have a couple of ads at the front, then the rest would be back in the
section news section.

And then I realized QST wasn't that different from 73. They had filler
too, little bits of who worked who, or milestones, or even little
reminders about "switching to safety". Yet they did indeed regularly send
people to another page to see the rest of the article. It had to be
philosophy, 73 deliberately avoiding it, QST either not seeing the point
or deciding to do it for some reason.

QST was more rigid in that it had lots of columns (missing from much of
73's run), and they tended to keep layout fixed from issue to issue, so
yes, if that technical article ran on long, it would be continued later,
to make room for Hints & Kinks or the reviews, that were generally in the
same place each month.

I just remembered, things did improve. Looking at much older QSTs, they'd
even continue articles way back in the section news section, while by
about 40 years ago, they made sure the continuations were in the front of
the magazine.

I always though 73, when it was fat and running lots of interesting
articles, should have put out a hobby electronic magazine along the same
lines. The existing ones all had perfectly built projects, made for exact
duplication, while in 73 people would write about what they'd built, the
looks less important. A hobby magazine like that would have been
interesting.

Michael

[Brenda Ann]

"dave" wrote in message
news:GqydnUkw2JLdgaTS...@earthlink.com...

> Your complaint is with digital readout locked to 10KHz tuning is another
> story.
>

but somehow the concept got communicated anyway...

I have a Sangean ATS-606-AP with 5 Khz coarse steps and 1 Khz fine steps.
The ability to "tune for cymbals" makes a big difference. No contemporary
car radio has this "fine tune" feature. AM can sound very nice with
music, but not with most radios in the hands of the great unwashed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My sentiments exactly. And not only that, it can also be helpful when trying
to catch that elusive DX if you can tune to the sideband AWAY from an
interfering signal.

I have an even worse problem... the only car radios I've been able to get
that are worth a damn for our Chevy Tracker are all hard locked to 10 KHz
steps.. not at all ideal when the locale they are used in has 9 KHz spacing.
Fortunately, our local AFN plant runs 1440, which is on a 9 KHz channel, and
the main plant in Seoul runs 1530. Not so fortunate are some of the other
stations, on 1161, 1197, 1512. 1161 isn't so bad, but doesn't get listened
to much since it's only a 250 watt plant to cover a small base and doesn't
cover for beans. 1197 gets used more often as it covers much of the country
north of Seoul, but it pretty irritating because of the splatter.

The radio in our Ford Flex is a bigger problem, because even if we could
find a decent radio with 9 KHz (or switchable) steps, everything in the car
is proprietary.. :(

[George Conklin]

"Brenda Ann" <newsg...@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:ZsqdnVeBxttKwKTS...@giganews.com...

Car radios today are intergrated into the car computer, using steering wheel
controls, and handle all types of functions for the running of the car, even
bluetooth. When a call comes in, the radio is silenced and is used for the
phone. I am not sure how you could even use most of those radios in remote
settings.

[George Conklin]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net...

Well, most hams are within 10 years of death right now.

[dave]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:58:25 -0500, George Conklin wrote:

>
>>
> Well, most hams are within 10 years of death right now.

You're headin' for the last Solar Max, Cowboy...

I still think my R390-A was the best AM radio I've ever owned; sold it
because it wastes electricity.

The Grundig Satelit 800 (with Drake innards) is an excellent program
listening receiver, and much easier to "tote".

I am a radio freak. I like all kinds of radios, from foxhole receivers to
Mr. Terrell's selective voltmeters; to my S-38 knocking me across the
high school lab with its hot chassis to the Tivoli Model One in the
kitchen. I love them all. I have scanners, table radios, desktop radios,
portable radios, and loops bigger than the house to feed them.

If you want to do radio sport you should probably transmit, too, but it's
not absolutely necessary.

pskreporter.info

SWLs Welcome!

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:58:25 -0500, George Conklin wrote:
>

> ?
> ??
> ? Well, most hams are within 10 years of death right now.

>
> You're headin' for the last Solar Max, Cowboy...
>
> I still think my R390-A was the best AM radio I've ever owned; sold it
> because it wastes electricity.
>
> The Grundig Satelit 800 (with Drake innards) is an excellent program
> listening receiver, and much easier to "tote".
>
> I am a radio freak. I like all kinds of radios, from foxhole receivers to
> Mr. Terrell's selective voltmeters; to my S-38 knocking me across the
> high school lab with its hot chassis to the Tivoli Model One in the
> kitchen. I love them all. I have scanners, table radios, desktop radios,
> portable radios, and loops bigger than the house to feed them.
>
> If you want to do radio sport you should probably transmit, too, but it's
> not absolutely necessary.

The last transmitter I built was at 4 GHz, to test C-band equipment.
It was later replaced with a Microdyne C-band signal generator wit a
$1000 variable attenuator that's calibrated in microvolts. They were
used for burn-in and final test of their commercial 1100 series Sat TV
equipment. I think that it's the only unit still in existence. OTOH,
L3-Com/Microdyne has the only existing 'Terrell Electronics DA-1 32
output 10 MHz Distribution Amplifier' that is used to synchronize all
the test equipment in the plant.

[dave]

Like a pair of these?

http://www.ese-web.com/210.htm

In TV we mainly use Wegener IRDs and Cali Microwave LNCs.

[William Sommerwerck]

What is the current opinion of the Sony 2010? It's certainly a classic
radio -- but that doesn't mean it's among the top performers.

[dave]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:47:53 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> What is the current opinion of the Sony 2010? It's certainly a classic
> radio -- but that doesn't mean it's among the top performers.

I was thinking the same thing. There were much cheaper receivers with the
same detector. I have a little AM/FM/WB Sony Walkman that sounds great on
MW on cheap earbuds.

[Michael A. Terrell]

dave wrote:
>
> Like a pair of these?
>
> http://www.ese-web.com/210.htm
>
> In TV we mainly use Wegener IRDs and Cali Microwave LNCs.

No. It had one input and 32 outputs. It was built on eight circuit
boards with four current buffers on each board. It cost me $10 to
build, and the one they were trying to budget was over $1500, used.

The first DA I used for television were made by Grass Valley, and
they had different modules for different signals. We also had a dual GV
sync generator with automatic switchover. I don't remember any DAs at
WACX (Ch 55) since the 3M video router had more outputs than we needed.
It was something like 24 in, 32 out but that was over 20 years ago. The
studio wasn't complete when I left WMRX (Ch 58) in Destin. I had moved
and reassembled the RCA TTU-25B UHF transmitter and used a SX 64
computer for a video test generator to test the video modulator and
driver stages. I had my HP video waveform monitor and some other video
test gear from my personal testbed with me to do the initial testing.
They didn't have enough power in the building to power the output
stages, and the tower wasn't up yet so I finished my contract & went
home.

[dave]

These days all stations have a router. Only some have a switcher, which
is actually a control surface for the router. ESE is the go-to name for
time code and standard frequency distribution. Nice people. The factory
is a block from the beach.

[Michael A. Terrell]

We had both. A Vital Industries system for production and the 3M to
route signals where they were needed. It had multiple remote controls,
as well. One was in the maintenance shop for the six lines available
for I/O to do maintenance without going into the studios or control
room. The sound booth had another, and one in the equipment closet
behind master control that was used to select & lock the feed to the
STL.

Some things are better built in house. They can be cheaper, and
configured to exactly what you need. You can also make sure spare parts
are available for a long time. We used the same National Semiconductor
LH0002 buffer in some of our products, so the shop wouldn't go down for
a few dollars worth of parts. Typically, there was one drop per
workbench or testbed fed the external input so the equipment was
frequency & phase locked. This was critical for some tests. The in
house 10 MHz standard was GPS derived, and we had a Fluke 700 derived
WWVB based backup.

I walked away from full time broadcast 20 years ago, and consulting
10 years ago. That was when I left Telemetry manufacturing, as well.

Here is a LH0002 datasheet from a second source:

<http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/57191/CALOGIC/LH0002.html>

[Tim Mullen]

In <auCdnZEJPZuiiqHS...@earthlink.com> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> writes:

> The first DA I used for television were made by Grass Valley, and
>they had different modules for different signals. We also had a dual GV
>sync generator with automatic switchover.

That Grass changeover with the weird rotary solenoid? One of
the strangest things I'd seen amongst the people selling junk on
6th Avenue and 23rd Street in NYC (spillover from the fleamarket)
was one of those changeovers. Guy probably found it in the trash.

--
--------------------------- Tim Mullen ---------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552
----------- Living in the future, playing in the past ------------

[Tim Mullen]

In <8vednaJ4G5J7FKHS...@earthlink.com> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> writes:

>dave wrote:
>>
>> These days all stations have a router. Only some have a switcher, which
>> is actually a control surface for the router. ESE is the go-to name for
>> time code and standard frequency distribution. Nice people. The factory
>> is a block from the beach.

And a router's just a DA with a switch. :) Man, I can't wait
for circuit-switched systems to ride off into the sunset, where they
belong.

Speaking of Grass, they really dropped the ball. Brilliant design
in their later stuff, then poof! Gone. We use Evertz for terminal
gear now.

> We had both. A Vital Industries system for production

OMG! You had a Vital switcher? Was that the weird one with A and
B bus internally, plus another transition C buss? Or am I thinking of
another switcher manufacturer that began with a "V"?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Mullen wrote:
>
> In <auCdnZEJPZuiiqHS...@earthlink.com> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > The first DA I used for television were made by Grass Valley, and
> >they had different modules for different signals. We also had a dual GV
> >sync generator with automatic switchover.
>
> That Grass changeover with the weird rotary solenoid? One of
> the strangest things I'd seen amongst the people selling junk on
> 6th Avenue and 23rd Street in NYC (spillover from the fleamarket)
> was one of those changeovers. Guy probably found it in the trash.

No, this was all done with ICs.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Mullen wrote:
>
> In <8vednaJ4G5J7FKHS...@earthlink.com> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >dave wrote:
> >>
> >> These days all stations have a router. Only some have a switcher, which
> >> is actually a control surface for the router. ESE is the go-to name for
> >> time code and standard frequency distribution. Nice people. The factory
> >> is a block from the beach.
>
> And a router's just a DA with a switch. :) Man, I can't wait
> for circuit-switched systems to ride off into the sunset, where they
> belong.
>
> Speaking of Grass, they really dropped the ball. Brilliant design
> in their later stuff, then poof! Gone. We use Evertz for terminal
> gear now.
>
> > We had both. A Vital Industries system for production
>
> OMG! You had a Vital switcher? Was that the weird one with A and
> B bus internally, plus another transition C buss? Or am I thinking of
> another switcher manufacturer that began with a "V"?

It was a switching in two parts. The control board was huge, and the
electronics filled a full height rack. We also had the companion
Squeeze Zoom that filled another rack, with it's own controls. We
caught the video engineer gone one day and ysed the Squeeze Zoom to
create a moving starfield, and the Cyron to overlay "GAME OVER!!!" in
alternating red & white letters that covered most of the master
monitor. He did a doubletake & freaked out, because that monitor
usually monitored the STL feed when the control room wasn't in use. ;-)