FM radio reception question
Kirk McElhearn
fair amount of static, enough that I can't listen to FM, especially
France Musiques, which has lots of good concerts. I was wondering if
there's any way to improve the reception - if I get some kind of
external antenna, or booster (does that exist?), will it improve the
reception, or will I still get static. I don't know exactly where the
transmitter is, but as I'm in the mountains, it's probably not too far
away (unless the static is because the transmitter _is_ far away and
I'm getting a signal from beyond the mountains that surround this
valley.
I'm sure someone here can enlighten me on this question...
Thanks,
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
---MIKE---
There are signal boosters that could help too. The rotor is needed so
you can aim the antenna for the best results.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Kirk McElhearn
> A good outside antenna with a rotor should provide better reception.
> There are signal boosters that could help too. The rotor is needed so
> you can aim the antenna for the best results.
Right, but that would mean making a hole somwhere to get the wire to
the outside antenna, something which, as a rented, I'm not realy
inclined to do. But I see the point about a rotor; in that case,
though, I'd ideally have to put the antenna on the very top of the
roof, right?
Kirk McElhearn
> Kirk, France Musique has an excellent quality Internet broadcast. If
> you have a decent Internet connection, you should not have to rely on
> FM, at least for listening at home.
It's a 64 kbps stream, I think.
> Do you guys have terrestrial digital radio and TV?
I get France Musiques by satellite TV, but I often want to listen in my
home office, which is on a different floor.
Kirk McElhearn
> All right, so you want every comfort... you could feed the signal into
> one of those cheap transmitter stations and listen with headphones in
> your office. If you have thick stone walls, that may not be so great
> though... but if the Internet broadcast quality of France Musiques
> doesn't satisfy you for ordinary listening, you must be a lot pickier
> than me.
Well, yea, it's not that good. And I don't want to be tied to
headphones to listen to the radio; also, it means that the TV can't be
used for anything else at the same time - for example, when there are
concerts in the evening, if someone wants to watch TV, then the radio
would be off-limits.
Bob Lombard
news:46d17568$0$25914$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
OK. If you do NOT have those 'thick stone walls' that Mario mentions, you
can put together a 'quad-cube' antenna, hang it in your office and connect
it to your FM tuner. The antenna is high-gain, unidirectional, and easy to
make from common materials. If a Google search doesn't produce the necessary
info, email me privately.
bl
Alan P Dawes
Yes, the antenna should be as high as possible.
If you have an external TV antenna which already has a cable coming into
the house, it is possible to use a connection to combine the cables from
both the TV and FM antennas outside and then use a splitter to separate
them again inside the house thus not needing 2 holes.
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
Alan P Dawes
It's possible that the distortion you are getting is what is called
multipath distortion which can occur in mountainous regions or commonly in
towns with large buildings surrounding you. Multiple reflections of the
signal off of the mountains / buildings arrive with a very slight time
delay causing distortion.
A signal booster/amplifier will amplify all of this and just make it worse
particularly if the signal is now too powerful and overloads the receiver.
However, with a directional antenna this is reduced as the signal from the
direction you are pointing it at will be magnified and those from other
directions will be drastically reduced.
A good quality directional antenna, set high up and with some means of
rotating it to get the clearest signal (this may not be in the direction
of the transmitter as a reflection may be stronger if there is a mountain
etc in the way) is your best bet for getting a good clean signal.
As I live in the UK which may well use a different frequency /
polarisation, I cannot give you specific suggestions as to suitable
antennas. I found the technical department at the BBC were very helpful
when I was setting ap FM aerial but that was many years ago, perhaps the
TV/radio broadcasters in France have a similar facility. A local supplier
of antenna might also be helpful as they will know what frequencies and
type is needed for your area.
PS Antenna are often called aerials particularly in the UK. So you may
find that 'googling' for 'FM aerial' as well as antenna may give you more
information.
Kirk McElhearn
> It's possible that the distortion you are getting is what is called
> multipath distortion which can occur in mountainous regions or commonly in
> towns with large buildings surrounding you. Multiple reflections of the
> signal off of the mountains / buildings arrive with a very slight time
> delay causing distortion.
It's a hiss; that sounds more like poor reception, right?
>
> A signal booster/amplifier will amplify all of this and just make it worse
> particularly if the signal is now too powerful and overloads the receiver.
> However, with a directional antenna this is reduced as the signal from the
> direction you are pointing it at will be magnified and those from other
> directions will be drastically reduced.
Right.
>
> A good quality directional antenna, set high up and with some means of
> rotating it to get the clearest signal (this may not be in the direction
> of the transmitter as a reflection may be stronger if there is a mountain
> etc in the way) is your best bet for getting a good clean signal.
Hence something on the roof...
>
> As I live in the UK which may well use a different frequency /
> polarisation, I cannot give you specific suggestions as to suitable
> antennas. I found the technical department at the BBC were very helpful
> when I was setting ap FM aerial but that was many years ago, perhaps the
> TV/radio broadcasters in France have a similar facility. A local supplier
> of antenna might also be helpful as they will know what frequencies and
> type is needed for your area.
Good point. There is no one local, but there is a town about 20 km away
where I might get info.
>
> PS Antenna are often called aerials particularly in the UK. So you may
> find that 'googling' for 'FM aerial' as well as antenna may give you more
> information.
Actually, when I was young, my father called it an aerial (in the US).
Good point, though; I'll check both.
Kirk McElhearn
>> Right, but that would mean making a hole somwhere to get the wire to
>> the outside antenna, something which, as a rented, I'm not realy
>> inclined to do. But I see the point about a rotor; in that case,
>> though, I'd ideally have to put the antenna on the very top of the
>> roof, right?
>
> Yes, the antenna should be as high as possible.
> If you have an external TV antenna which already has a cable coming into
> the house, it is possible to use a connection to combine the cables from
> both the TV and FM antennas outside and then use a splitter to separate
> them again inside the house thus not needing 2 holes.
We have satellite TV, so don't even have an external TV antenna (or arial).
Steve Emerson
Kirk, the first thing to do is find out where the transmitter is, then
get a standard $3 Radio Shack "folded dipole" antenna, the type that
comes with any tuner or receiver you buy, get it fully stretched out,
and point it at the signal. I.e. it is perpendicular to the line between
you and the transmitter.
If you get a decent result, you can improve it a bit by tuning the
length of the dipole antenna -- shorten it using this formula:
468 divided by FREQUENCY IN MHZ = LENGTH IN FEET
Forget about boosters.
If you're not happy with the results, you can try what Bob mentions, or
you can try this easy-to-make, simple design and put it outside, high --
it is omnidirectional and may or may not improve on the $3 folded dipole
http://www.hamuniverse.com/slimjim.html
Better than that, and probably better than Bob's design, is a
conventional outdoor Yagi antenna, mounted high on a pole, outside, and
pointed at the signal. This would be about $20 plus mounting hardware
and cable at Radio Shack.
If your feed from an outdoor antenna is of any length at all, it should
be done with coaxial cable, and if it's over 20 feet or so, it would be
worthwhile to invest in RG6 as opposed to the prevailing RG59. The
variance in loss is on a per-foot basis and becomes significant.
SE.
William Sommerwerck
The OP lives in France -- they invented the metric system. I don't think
he'll have an English ruler lying around -- or care to use one if he did.
Assuming a half-wave antenna, its length would be
150 / frequency (MHz) = length (m)
Doug McDonald
how to go digital. There are numerous trials, official and
clandestine, going on.
Don't count on the result being better than FM, or even better than
a 96 kb/sec MP3 (which is what they've got across the Channel.)
But being France, they may resist the temptation to
make it sound awful.
Try a better FM antenna and wait for digital to settle out.
Doug McDonald
Kirk McElhearn
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> said:
Yea, they're not even seriously talking about digital. While they've
got digital terrestrial TV in much of the country, I live in a rural
area where the only broadcast TV I can get is three channels. Hence we
have satellite for TV.
I'd like to see digital radio, since that is satellite (correct?), and
would provide good quality anywhere, as well as the same frequencies
across the country. But I think they are going to go that route as late
as possible.
Kirk McElhearn
> Kirk, the first thing to do is find out where the transmitter is, then
> get a standard $3 Radio Shack "folded dipole" antenna, the type that
> comes with any tuner or receiver you buy, get it fully stretched out,
> and point it at the signal. I.e. it is perpendicular to the line
> between you and the transmitter.
Right, but in spite of my searching, I haven't been able to find where
the transmitter is. I think it's possible that I'm sort of between two
transmitters - when driving, I notice a weak section along the main
road between two bigger cities, and I live not far from that. This
said, that would mean I'd have two choices in transmitters...
Kirk McElhearn
<grizzle...@comcast.net> said:
Thanks, but as an American, I grok feet as well as meters. :-)
Bob Lombard
news:mn.db017d780...@free.fr...
> Ce cher mammifère du nom de Kirk McElhearn nous susurrait, le dimanche
> 26/08/2007, dans nos oreilles grandes ouvertes mais un peu sales quand
> même, et dans le message <46d17202$0$25915$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>, les
> doux mélismes suivants :
>
>> I get France Musiques by satellite TV, but I often want to listen in my
>> home office, which is on a different floor.
>
>
> --
> Car avec beaucoup de science, il y a beaucoup de chagrin ; et celui qui
> accroît sa science, accroît sa douleur.
> [Ecclésiaste, 1-18]
> MELMOTH - souffrant
>
>
----------
Because Kirk is interested in only one broadcast, the antenna need not be
rotatable; it just has to be pointed in the right direction. Because he is
reluctant to drill a hole through the wall of his rented house, the downlead
from a roof-mounted antenna becomes a problem. There is a way around that
problem, but it creates an entry path for interference. So... a directional
antenna inside his upstairs office should be the 1st option.
This logic seems unassailable to me.
bl
Thornhill
The best thing to do, is place an antenna outside of your home, like
ones people used to mount to their roofs for TV reception.
If erecting an outdoor rooftop antenna is a bigger investment than
you're looking to get into, then get an indoor rabbit ear antenna.
Boosters and so called "powered" antennas are junk. Do not buy them.
Alan P Dawes
Do you have a letterbox or a catflap that the cable could pass through?
Kirk McElhearn
>> We have satellite TV, so don't even have an external TV antenna (or
>> arial).
>
> Do you have a letterbox or a catflap that the cable could pass through?
Again, not in my office, where I want to connect the antenna... To get
a wire outside, I'd have to drill holes, and, as I said, I rent the
house.
Kirk McElhearn
> Boosters and so called "powered" antennas are junk. Do not buy them.
Really? Why? They don't work at all?
Bob Lombard
---------
They will amplify everything that the antenna is pulling in - the static and
multi-path as well as the desired signal. Same effect as turning up the
volume control.
bl
Bob Lombard
news:46d2daf3$0$25940$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
I get the impression that I am in your killfile; so never mind.
bl
William Sommerwerck
>> Do not buy them.
> Really? Why? They don't work at all?
Boosters are effective only when they are very carefully engineered.
Specifically, they must have a very low noise level -- lower than the tuner
they're feeding.
Thornhill
wrote:
> "Kirk McElhearn" <kir...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46d2daf3$0$25940$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>
> >> Boosters and so called "powered" antennas are junk. Do not buy them.
>
> > Really? Why? They don't work at all?
>
> > Kirk
> > --
> > Read my blog, Kirkville
> >http://www.mcelhearn.com
>
> ---------
> They will amplify everything that the antenna is pulling in - the static and
> multi-path as well as the desired signal. Same effect as turning up the
> volume control.
>
> bl
Yep. The 3 foot wire that comes with any receiver is more effective
than the $50 booster antennas TREK sells.
If you're going to be living in the country for a while and want
decent FM reception during that time, I say buy the outdoor antenna --
should cost only $50 -- and an afternoon attaching it to your roof and
running wire into your home.
Bill Anderson
This may seem a bit odd, but what about an smaller outdoor, 'whip'
antenna, but located IN the office?
I use a Dynalab ST-2 (prox 45 inches tall) and have it in my living
room, hidden by accent panels in the corner. Performance is quite
acceptable. You could, for example, put it horizontally above the
window frame, hopefully out of direct site.
Also, you may want to check out the audio discussion groups for
additional opinions and options.
- Bill
William Sommerwerck
He's not kidding. Almost 20 years ago I tested one in an area of serious
multipath (Bellevue, WA). A 3' length of wire did a better job of delivering
a _clean_ signal than did the TERK powered antenna. They weren't happy when
I reported that in Stereophile.
Thornhill
I tested one in Philadelphia a few years ago -- I got nothing but
static.
Steve Emerson
Bill Anderson <william....@sap.com> wrote:
> Hello Kirk -
>
> This may seem a bit odd, but what about an smaller outdoor, 'whip'
> antenna, but located IN the office?
>
> I use a Dynalab ST-2 (prox 45 inches tall) and have it in my living
> room, hidden by accent panels in the corner. Performance is quite
> acceptable. You could, for example, put it horizontally above the
> window frame, hopefully out of direct site.
Glad you've had good results with the whip, Bill. (45" -- really?)
--Just for the record, I did not. I mounted mine outside the house,
fairly high up (second floor, on a hill). It definitely underperformed a
properly aimed and tuned folded half-wave dipole (the $3 twin-lead
piece).
A good test for whether the whip (which of course is omnidirectional) is
going to work: take a TV rabbit ears and extend both ears out flat, then
tune its length to the target signal using the formula cited earlier.
Set the rabbit ears straight up and down. This is, give or take a
little, the same as the whip and may save you its price (mine cost about
$80 but was accepted as a return by the mfr., Fanfare). Fanfare whip was
56", although I see they now have a longer one to address the low end of
the FM band.
For omnidirectional, I'm using a version of this thing, made out of
twinlead:
http://www.hamuniverse.com/2meter300ohmslimjim.html
I stretched the twinlead out on a length of 1-inch molding and hung from
the ceiling.
The 58" length shown would be approximately half-wave for 98 MHz. It
could be lengthened to tune for the lower end of the FM band, e.g.
61.68" for 91 MHz. The 19" section in the example is simply 1/3 of the
total length and would be adjusted accordingly.
I put a 4-5" loop into the coax adjacent to the antenna itself -- a
"choke." This cleaned up the signal considerably. Some people advocate
multiple loops.
Signal strength with the above, for a given station, is nearly as good
as that from a standard twin-lead folded dipole aimed at the
transmitter--which is not feasible in the room where I use it. Your
mileage my vary.
SE.
---MIKE---
>>Again, not in my office, where I want to
>> connect the antenna... To get a wire
>> outside, I'd have to drill holes, and, as I
>> said, I rent the house.
One solution would be to run a short piece of 300 ohm twinlead under a
window. You could run coax (RG-6) to a balun on the outside of the
twinlead and another balun on the inside to match the impedences. (75
ohm to 300 ohm to 75 ohm). If your receiver has a twinlead (300 ohm)
input you could eliminate the inside balun.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Bill Anderson
Hi Steve -
The Dynalab and Fanfare are quite similar at least in outward
appearance. The 45 inch height was a guess (I' m on the road - again)
so it might be closer to the size you mentioned.
I may try this experiment you mentioned, though in my case I can't
return the antenna as I've owned for 3 years or so (dealers are so
unreasonable!)
Chicago is extremely flat and most stations I visit are within 30
miles of my place (also, I live on the top floor of a 3 story walkup),
so signal strength and imaging are usually not issues.
That being said, putting a large antenna in a room may have a low WAF
(Wife
Acceptance Factor - like dealers, they, too, can be unreasonable). But
it is an option for Kirk, though maybe not an optimal solution.
richard...@gmail.com
is OK try to find a tuner from the 70 or so with a high-blend option.
This eliminated the stereo separation ( and hiss) at the highest
frequencies while leaving the midrange stereo separation. The ear
repaired the stereo imaging quite well.
I have not seen this feature on any moderately priced tuners based on
integrated circuits, but it might be there if you ask. I really
appreciated it on a Leak StereoFETic, and on a Trio/Kenwood years ago.
This made listening to distant signals enjoyable at a time in the US
(SF Bay area then NJ) when there were actually several stations with
classical music programming that were worth listening to. A Jerrold
QFM9 (9 ft long) and a rotator were later additions that helped even
more.
Are the transmitters in France set up as they are in the UK: different
transmitters carrying the same signals distributed across the country
to give high-quality signals nearly everywhere - or like the US where
each station seems to have only one or 2 transmitters and there is
nearly no 'network' coverage of interest.
You might look into satellite reception too. The Sky service targeted
at the UK carries the same digital radio as Freeview but with higher
bit-rates. SInce there is no subscription charge for the Free
channels you might be able to get reception in France. Depending on
where you are in France you might be able to get satellite radio from
other European countries too.
If anyone has any info about this extra-territorial reception I'd be
interested to learn about it for family living in the UK.
Richard Simnett
Kirk McElhearn
> That being said, putting a large antenna in a room may have a low WAF
> (Wife
> Acceptance Factor - like dealers, they, too, can be unreasonable). But
> it is an option for Kirk, though maybe not an optimal solution.
In my case, I'm putting this in my office, which is OLtW (off-limits to
wife). :-)
Kirk McElhearn
<richard...@gmail.com> said:
> Do you get hiss on mono signals or only on stereo?
I get it on all stations.
> If the mono signal
> is OK try to find a tuner from the 70 or so with a high-blend option.
> This eliminated the stereo separation ( and hiss) at the highest
> frequencies while leaving the midrange stereo separation. The ear
> repaired the stereo imaging quite well.
> I have not seen this feature on any moderately priced tuners based on
> integrated circuits, but it might be there if you ask. I really
> appreciated it on a Leak StereoFETic, and on a Trio/Kenwood years ago.
I'm not planning on buying a new tuner. I'm using an all-in-one stereo
in my office, and just want to listen to pianissimo without hiss.
>
> Are the transmitters in France set up as they are in the UK: different
> transmitters carrying the same signals distributed across the country
> to give high-quality signals nearly everywhere - or like the US where
> each station seems to have only one or 2 transmitters and there is
> nearly no 'network' coverage of interest.
They have several transmitters in a local area, but in different areas
the frequencies are different.
>
> You might look into satellite reception too. The Sky service targeted
> at the UK carries the same digital radio as Freeview but with higher
> bit-rates. SInce there is no subscription charge for the Free
> channels you might be able to get reception in France. Depending on
> where you are in France you might be able to get satellite radio from
> other European countries too.
No satellite radio here. I get radio on satellite TV, but, as I pointed
out earlier, that's in a different room, and it would mean the TV
couldn't be used if I wanted to listen to the radio (ie, piping the
signal up to my office).
td
> I live in rural France, and my radio reception here is pretty bad - a
> fair amount of static, enough that I can't listen to FM, especially
> France Musiques, which has lots of good concerts. I was wondering if
> there's any way to improve the reception - if I get some kind of
> external antenna, or booster (does that exist?), will it improve the
> reception, or will I still get static. I don't know exactly where the
> transmitter is, but as I'm in the mountains, it's probably not too far
> away (unless the static is because the transmitter _is_ far away and
> I'm getting a signal from beyond the mountains that surround this
> valley.
>
> I'm sure someone here can enlighten me on this question...
Happy to.
You can solve your problems overnight by the purchase of a really good
tuner (the MacIntosh MR-78 is the finest analogue tuner ever designed
and available from Audio Classics in Binghampton, NY, for about $1200.
US. Alternatively you can get one of those fabulous Canadian-made
Magnum Dynalab Tuners, www.magnumdynalab.com. Either option will yield
the best results humanly possible).
Then you need a rotary highly directional designated FM antenna on a
mast. Don't be confused by TV antennas. They don't do the trick.
The total should cost you about $2000. US.
Bliss follows.
TD
tho...@antispam.ham
> Don't be confused by TV antennas. They don't do the trick.
Huh? The FM band occupies the space between channels 6 and 7. In fact,
the audio carrier for channel 6 is at 87.75 MHz (the 6 MHz bandwidth
occupied by channel 6 extends from 82 to 88 MHz). Some FM tuners do
tune below 88 MHz and can pick up the audio from channel 6. Of course,
that's in the U.S. There are slight variations elsewhere in the world,
where the FM band can extend down to 76 MHz. But the main point is:
if a TV antenna works for channels 6 to 7 in the VHF band, then it will
also work for the FM band. In other words, they do do the trick.
William Sommerwerck
> The FM band occupies the space between channels 6 and 7. In fact,
> the audio carrier for channel 6 is at 87.75 MHz (the 6 MHz bandwidth
> occupied by channel 6 extends from 82 to 88 MHz). Some FM tuners
> do tune below 88 MHz and can pick up the audio from channel 6.
> Of course, that's in the U.S. There are variations elsewhere, where
> the FM band can extend down to 76 MHz. But the main point is:
> if a TV antenna works for channels 6 to 7 in the VHF band, then it
> will also work for the FM band. In other words, they do do the trick.
Not necessarily. Some TV antennas include a trap to remove FM frequencies.
Kirk McElhearn
> The total should cost you about $2000. US.
>
> Bliss follows.
And where do I apply for a grant for this bliss? :-)
tho...@antispam.ham
Why would they do that?
td
European FM is wider than North American FM. Moreover, tuning OUT the
television bands only allows the antenna to be focused solely on FM,
which is what is wanted in this instance.
I stripped my television antenna off the mast and placed a designated
high resolution FM antenna in its place and together with my Mac MR 78
I am able to receive fringe stations in stereo without hiss.
TD
td
In order to concentrate on the television signals.
This is the reverse of what a good FM antenna does.
Specialisation is a good thing in antennas.
TD
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Don't be confused by TV antennas. They don't do the trick.
>> Huh? The FM band occupies the space between channels 6 and 7. In fact,
>> the audio carrier for channel 6 is at 87.75 MHz (the 6 MHz bandwidth
>> occupied by channel 6 extends from 82 to 88 MHz). Some FM tuners do
>> tune below 88 MHz and can pick up the audio from channel 6. Of course,
>> that's in the U.S. There are slight variations elsewhere in the world,
>> where the FM band can extend down to 76 MHz. But the main point is:
>> if a TV antenna works for channels 6 to 7 in the VHF band, then it will
>> also work for the FM band. In other words, they do do the trick.
> European FM is wider than North American FM.
So what? Unless it's wider than the television spectrum, then you'll
still cover it. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll note
that I already mentioned that the FM band can extend down to 76 MHz
elsewhere in the world.
> Moreover, tuning OUT the
> television bands only allows the antenna to be focused solely on FM,
> which is what is wanted in this instance.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether a TV antenna does the trick
or not. They certainly can.
> I stripped my television antenna off the mast and placed a designated
> high resolution FM antenna in its place and together with my Mac MR 78
> I am able to receive fringe stations in stereo without hiss.
That doesn't prove that TV antennas don't do the trick. It only says
that if you limit the width of the band of interest, you can optimize
the design for that band and improve performance.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>> Don't be confused by TV antennas. They don't do the trick.
>>>> The FM band occupies the space between channels 6 and 7. In fact,
>>>> the audio carrier for channel 6 is at 87.75 MHz (the 6 MHz bandwidth
>>>> occupied by channel 6 extends from 82 to 88 MHz). Some FM tuners
>>>> do tune below 88 MHz and can pick up the audio from channel 6.
>>>> Of course, that's in the U.S. There are variations elsewhere, where
>>>> the FM band can extend down to 76 MHz. But the main point is:
>>>> if a TV antenna works for channels 6 to 7 in the VHF band, then it
>>>> will also work for the FM band. In other words, they do do the trick.
>>> Not necessarily. Some TV antennas include a trap to remove FM frequencies.
>> Why would they do that?
> In order to concentrate on the television signals.
That doesn't make any sense. The television signal encompass the FM
signals.
> This is the reverse of what a good FM antenna does.
Not at all. The FM band is narrower than the TV band, thus your
antenna design doesn't have to accommodate as wide a range of
frequencies, thus simplifying the design.
> Specialisation is a good thing in antennas.
Which does nothing to prove that TV antennas don't do the trick.
William Sommerwerck
> does the trick or not. They certainly can.
Can and do are not the same thing.
tho...@antispam.ham
Irrelevant, given that I never said that they are the same
thing. The claim was that TV antennas do not do the trick.
It is sufficient to show that they can do the trick to
disprove the claim that they do not do the trick.
William Sommerwerck
news:46d561f2$0$18959$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> William Sommerwerck writes:
I'm going to pester you on this, because your original posting said "do the
trick" not "can do the trick".
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> That's not the issue. The issue is whether a TV antenna
>>>> does the trick or not. They certainly can.
>>> Can and do are not the same thing.
>> Irrelevant, given that I never said that they are the same
>> thing. The claim was that TV antennas do not do the trick.
>> It is sufficient to show that they can do the trick to
>> disprove the claim that they do not do the trick.
> I'm going to pester you on this, because your original posting said "do the
> trick" not "can do the trick".
I was responding to someone who claimed that they do not do the trick.
I also haven't encountered one that doesn't do the trick.
William Sommerwerck
news:46d568f8$0$15385$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> William Sommerwerck writes:
I did some checking at the Channel Master site. All of their current VHF
antennas are spec'd as being able to receive FM signals, so they should work
with a TV/FM splitter.
There is something sticking in the back of my mind, from 45 years ago, about
the "fact" (???) that not all TV antennas provide adequate FM reception,
whether by accident or design. (If only I still had my "Electronics World"
collection!) The FM band takes as much space as three TV channels; there is
no guarantee that a TV antenna will cover it adequately, though, apparently,
most do. I suspect this is because the introduction of the log-periodic
design in the '60s made possible a wider-band antenna (versus Yagi).
William Sommerwerck
> broadcasts intolerable. This is one reason why I'm not fond of FM
> radio, at least for classical music. It's OK for jazz.
You should complain to the station.
I used to listen fairly regularly to KING FM. The compression was so severe
there was virtually no dynamic range. Indeed, you could hear the room or
background noise of the recording rising and falling. KING FM has since
either stopped compressing, or switched to something much less obnoxious.
I can understand using heavy compression during peak drive hours, when most
of your audience is in cars. But not at other times.
Bob Lombard
news:46d568f8$0$15385$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
----------
Quite a tricky subthread going here. Many (most?) TV antenna installations
include a device that filters out frequencies in the FM radio range. The
antenna itself will "do the trick" fairly well for the upper part of the
radio range, because the lowest TV channel frequency is just above the
highest radio frequency.
Now you can decide if this post is a trick.
bl
Norman M. Schwartz
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MsmdnZYQsscU9kjb...@comcast.com...
IIRC TV antennae of old had two elements; one covering CH 2-5 and another
for CH 7-13, but nothing specifically designed for in between.
>
Norman M. Schwartz
"Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:13darva...@corp.supernews.com...
Just keep your thumb applied to the antenna terminal and shut-up so that I
can listen.
> bl
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:xegBi.30$1V2...@newsfe12.lga:
> IIRC TV antennae of old had two elements; one covering CH 2-5 and
> another for CH 7-13, but nothing specifically designed for in between.
I think you mean 2-6 and 7-13. What was in between was the FM radio
spectrum.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Tom Deacon is a liar and a scoundrel who cannot hold on to a job.
Norman M. Schwartz
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns999B5A727C9...@216.168.3.70...
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:xegBi.30$1V2...@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> IIRC TV antennae of old had two elements; one covering CH 2-5 and
>> another for CH 7-13, but nothing specifically designed for in between.
>
> I think you mean 2-6 and 7-13. What was in between was the FM radio
> spectrum.
>
You are too kind, I was simply all wrong.
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper:
Matthew B. Tepper
You were close enough that it was evident you were on the right track.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> That's not the issue. The issue is whether a TV antenna
>>>>>> does the trick or not. They certainly can.
>>>>> Can and do are not the same thing.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never said that they are the same
>>>> thing. The claim was that TV antennas do not do the trick.
>>>> It is sufficient to show that they can do the trick to
>>>> disprove the claim that they do not do the trick.
>>> I'm going to pester you on this, because your original posting
>>> said "do the trick" not "can do the trick".
>> I was responding to someone who claimed that they do not do
>> the trick. I also haven't encountered one that doesn't do the trick.
> I did some checking at the Channel Master site. All of their current VHF
> antennas are spec'd as being able to receive FM signals, so they should work
> with a TV/FM splitter.
Or without, if you only need to feed one device.
> There is something sticking in the back of my mind, from 45 years ago, about
> the "fact" (???) that not all TV antennas provide adequate FM reception,
> whether by accident or design. (If only I still had my "Electronics World"
> collection!) The FM band takes as much space as three TV channels;
In the U.S. it's three and a third. Some places have FM down to 76 MHz,
or two television channels lower than 88 MHz, the lower limit in the U.S.
> there is no guarantee that a TV antenna will cover it adequately,
When is the last time you saw a TV antenna designed to receive just one
channel? There are a lot of VHF-only and a lot of UHF-only antennas
out there, but a VHF-only antenna will still be designed to cover
channels 2 through 13. With FM conveniently occupying the space
between channels 6 and 7, if the antenna covers VHF television, it also
covers ALL of the FM band.
> though, apparently,
> most do. I suspect this is because the introduction of the log-periodic
> design in the '60s made possible a wider-band antenna (versus Yagi).
Thanks for supporting my position that TV antennas can do the trick.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Quite a tricky subthread going here. Many (most?) TV antenna installations
> include a device that filters out frequencies in the FM radio range.
Why? I haven't encountered any.
> The
> antenna itself will "do the trick" fairly well for the upper part of the
> radio range, because the lowest TV channel frequency is just above the
> highest radio frequency.
Huh? The highest FM radio frequency in the U.S. is 108 MHz (or to be more
exact, occupies 107.8 to 108.0 MHz). The lowest TV channel frequency is
channel 2, which starts at 54 MHz (occupies 54 to 60 MHz). Hardly "just
above".
> Now you can decide if this post is a trick.
If you equate "trick" with "wrong", it is a trick. And it's not even
Halloween yet.
tho...@antispam.ham
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
What about channel 6?
Note that channels 2 through 6 occupy 54 to 88 MHz. That's 34 MHz of
spectrum. The FM band is 20 MHz above that. If one element is
designed to handle a bandwidth of 34 MHz, it won't be too bad for
another 20 MHz. There is a whopping 66 MHz of spectrum between the
top of the FM band and channel 7, however, so that second element
isn't going to work nearly as well for FM.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>> IIRC TV antennae of old had two elements; one covering CH 2-5 and
>> another for CH 7-13, but nothing specifically designed for in between.
> I think you mean 2-6 and 7-13. What was in between was the FM radio
> spectrum.
Not exlcusively. In the U.S., Channel 6 tops out at 88 MHz, and
Channel 7 bottoms out at 174 MHz. That's 86 MHz of spectrum between
the two. FM occupies only 20 MHz of that. The other 66 MHz is
allocated for other uses.
William Sommerwerck
>> most do. I suspect this is because the introduction of the log-periodic
>> design in the '60s made possible a wider-band antenna (versus Yagi).
> Thanks for supporting my position that TV antennas can do the trick.
I never said they couldn't. I said that they didn't _necessarily_ do it.
tho...@antispam.ham
Where were you when the claim was made that TV antennas do not do the
trick?
William Sommerwerck
news:46d5e68b$0$6446$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I was rat there.
richard...@gmail.com
wrote:
This discussion seems to be completely beside the point, as the OP is
in France, not the US. In the US there is still TV on the VHF
channels 2-13, but in most of Europe (I don't know about rural France)
there is no VHF TV. The only TV antennas sold are UHF, and these, most
definitely, are not well suited to VHF radio.
Norman M. Schwartz
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46d5d2bf$0$18797$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
In my early teens my parents had a Dumont Chatham 121/2" TV-Radio ( RA-103)
having a tuner of this type:
http://www.tvontheporch.com/photo2_2.html
Our roof top antenna had 2 elements; a top smaller one (designed to pick up
the higher numbered TV channels) and the lower and larger element for the
lower numbered TV channels. As seen by the description of this set's tuner,
we were expected to be able to pick up satisfactory FM using its "continuous
tuner" and we did. The take home lesson is that we used one "TV antenna"
which yielded both good TV and good FM reception on this "TV-Radio" as it
did for other TV-Radios of the period (1948).
Gerard
>
> This discussion seems to be completely beside the point, as the OP is
> in France, not the US.
The OP is in the wrong newsgroup anyway.
I think he can get good (and better) advise in newsgroups about radio and TV,
and the best advise in French newsgroups about these subjects.
Kirk McElhearn
<richard...@gmail.com> said:
> This discussion seems to be completely beside the point, as the OP is
> in France, not the US. In the US there is still TV on the VHF
> channels 2-13, but in most of Europe (I don't know about rural France)
> there is no VHF TV. The only TV antennas sold are UHF, and these, most
> definitely, are not well suited to VHF radio.
Then why do they sell antennas here in France that are for TV and FM
(as well as for digital terrestrial TV)?
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
Kirk McElhearn
> Kirk, those antennas will work. For terrestrial digital TV, they work
> better with a booster, depending on where you are, but I have never
> needed even that. Do the ones you looked at look like a couple of
> crutches put together at an angle? Those are the ones I have used for
> everything, and they work. They turn on a pole to which they're
> attached with a brace, so you can adjust them directionally. Cheap and
> pretty good. The experimentation on the roof is easier if you have a
> flat or not too sloped surface to work on, though. Don't break your
> neck in the process...
You won't catch me on the roof! I'll try on one of the terraces (we
have terraces on two sides of the house).
Alan P Dawes
1) They may actually combine 2 antennas one for the VHF waveband and the
other for UHF TV.
2) If you are in a strong VHF reception area then provided there is no
filter on the aerial to attenuate the VHF frequencies, a UHF aerial will
give some VHF signal. I've used this in the past whilst in the process of
replacing my VHF aerial but I live in East London where the signal from
the Wrotham transmitter is particualrly strong.
3) Of course the real reason may be advertising with the expectation that
in a competitive market they may sell more if the public think they may
get 2 aerials for the price of one!
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
norman...@comcast.net
"Kirk McElhearn" <kir...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d16bd5$0$27408$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>I live in rural France, and my radio reception here is pretty bad - a fair
>amount of static, enough that I can't listen to FM, especially France
>Musiques, which has lots of good concerts. I was wondering if there's any
>way to improve the reception - if I get some kind of external antenna, or
>booster (does that exist?), will it improve the reception, or will I still
>get static. I don't know exactly where the transmitter is, but as I'm in
>the mountains, it's probably not too far away (unless the static is because
>the transmitter _is_ far away and I'm getting a signal from beyond the
>mountains that surround this valley.
>
> I'm sure someone here can enlighten me on this question...
Have you checked to make sure the station you want isn't available over the
internet? Check the station's web site.
Norm Strong
Alan P Dawes
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote:
Even if it is, the low bit rate used compromises the quality. A good FM
tuner will produce higher quality audio if fed with a decent signal.