Quality AM radio

[MOP CAP]

Does anyone have a recomendation for a quality AM receiver? I have a
cabin in the low Sierras and have trouble receiving AM. I would prefer
one that would not require an outside antenna.
Thanks,
CP

[olds...@tubes.com]

I live in a rural area, but it sounds like your cabin is even more
rural. No matter what kind of radio you get, you will not get many
stations without an outdoor antenna. The good news, for AM, all you
really need is a piece of wire strung outside. 20 or more feet of wire
between a few sturdy trees works fine, then run it into the house by
drilling a 1/4" hole and caulk around it once it's inside. Pretty much
any sort of wire will work outdoors, insulated or bare. Use some
insulators on the ends. I'd use insulated wire coming in thru the wall.

If your AM radio has no antenna connector, but has a telescoping
antenna, just coil the wire around the telescoping ant numerous times. I
do this in my barns, because they are metal buildings. Without the
outdoor wire, I'd get no stations. That wire works for FM too, but not
quite as good.

If you use trees, be sure to leave some slack in the wire. Trees sway in
winds, and if the wire is tight, it may break.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Assuming you have no internet capability (the best way to receive AM),
then your next best option is to find an old, 1960s vintage, solid
state, car radio. Since few car radios had FM capability back then, the
AM qualities were excellent. If you have lots of cash, then one of these
will provide superb AM performance:

http://classichifi.info/SansuiTU-X1.shtml

I had one on the bench last year. Surprisingly impressive and quite
sophisticated (even has a synchronised detector!) AM section. A bit much
for a cabin radio though.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[John-Del]

I agree with the vintage part Trevor, but I'd go with a typical house radio. I have a bunch of early 60s AM transistor radios and many of them feature an RF amplifier. An Emerson 911 for instance picks up as good as any radio I've ever had, and they're pretty cheap if you catch one just right.

Also, a Select-A-Tenna supposedly works wonders for DXing although I've never tried one:

https://www.amazon.com/Select-A-Tenna-Regular-Model/dp/B0015A81HI

[J.B. Wood]

Hello, and you want a radio of requisite sensitivity so you can enjoy
the "quality' of AM radio? Can you parse languages other than English?
Just kidding. In addition to the advice already provided by others, you
might want to check with a seller like C.C. Crane. I assumed by "AM"
you meant the medium wave (535-1700 kHz) band. A multi-band
"communications" type receiver (with an RF gain control) might be a
solution but likely isn't the least expensive one if bought new. In any
event, reception using a simple, old-fashioned long wire antenna will
most often provide better performance than a built-in telescoping whip
antenna. Another possibility is to use a passive (no batteries
required) variable capacitor tuned loop antenna. These can be built or
bought, can be used indoors, and I've seen them dramatically improve the
MW band performance of inexpensive transistor portables. The radio is
simply positioned at the base of the loop (radio's internal ferrite loop
becomes inductively coupled to the antenna so no wire connection to the
radio is required), the radio is tuned in the vicinity of the AM station
of interest, and the loop capacitor is adjusted for maximum signal.
Sometimes the radio needs to be slightly repositioned to optimize the
radio-to-loop coupling. And finally you can rotate the radio and tuned
loop together for the strongest reception. Please let us known what
works for you. And one last thing: Don't rule out the use of FM
(assuming you like whatever program content is being offered) as I've
seen situations where AM reception is lousy but FM works. Sincerely,

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

[pf...@aol.com]

Mpffff... This is an easy one. If you are looking, primarily, for good reception over top-notch sound (mostly wasted on AM anyway), and this is to be a single-purpose device, look for something like a solid-state GE "Super Radio" or similar. They are fair-enough sounding and far better than average at AM DXing capabilities. Low in cost for very good results.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-GE-SUPERADIO-SUPER-RADIO-LONG-RANGE-AM-FM-HI-PERFORMANCE-VERY-NICE-/401419473964?hash=item5d7677142c:g:e9AAAOSwbRJZvvX8 I keep one of these at our summer house that is no slouch at all. The AM band is pretty busy, especially at night.

A step up from there would be a multi-band radio such as a Zenith TransOceanic. Of those, the ne-plus-ultra would be the RD7000Y - and why that one? All silicon, has the tunable weather band, and will give you some amusing shortwave capacity.

https://www.ebay.com/dsc/i.html?_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_ftrt=901&_ftrv=1&_sabdlo=&_sabdhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=19027&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=200&_nkw=Zenith+RD7000Y&_ex_kw=&_in_kw=1 One of these has lived at my work desk for over 20 years.

Hard-Core would be a Communications Receiver, something in the Hallicrafters, Collins or National lines - which are a whole different can of worms, do want an outside antenna, and likely will contain tubes rather than transistors.

And, one of these will truly separate fly-poop from pepper. Give it an 80' longwire and you will be getting AM from Hawaii - or thereabouts.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[tabb...@gmail.com]

The old Vega/Ocean radios are very cheap dx sets. Some mericans might not like their origins. But don't worry, they don't run Kaspersky.


NT

[pf...@aol.com]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9:09:19 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

The old Vega/Ocean radios are very cheap dx sets. Some mericans might not like their origins. But don't worry, they don't run Kaspersky.

I keep one of these as well - a small hand-held - and, yes, it does very well. Competitive, but not better than my Siemens RK747. They are not easy to find in good condition, nor do they wear well. I paid $2 + about 4 hours of very persnickety work fixing the battery compartment and re-securing the guts on mine. Pure blind luck that it worked at all - but it does, and well.

https://www.doctsf.com/grandlivre/fiche.php?ref=40940 (not mine).

But if we are going into Euro-Exotics, the very best consumer-grade DX radio I have in all bands is this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Grundig-Satellit-700-World-Receiver-FM-SW-Radio-/162699281459?hash=item25e1a20433:g:QTUAAOSwls5Y6-Vk

The second best is the Zenith RD7000Y (and the best for sound overall). Followed by the Grundig YB500.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GRUNDIG-YATCH-BOY-500-YB500-RADIO-IN-BOX-AND-PAPERWORK-/142532921023?hash=item212f9fc6bf:g:pqEAAOSwdKZZ2tbY

Point being that the smaller radios have smaller sound - if that is a consideration.

Repeat: Communications Receivers are a whole different thing. If the OP wants to pull stations from the moon or Mars, that should definitely be a consideration.

[MOP CAP]

Thanks all.
CP

[mako...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-4, MOP CAP wrote:
> Thanks all.
> CP

first depends what you mean by quality,
able to hear weak stations?
or high fidelity?

in either case, the big problem with AM is electrical interference which will sound like buzz noise usually.

if you are out in the woods, your own stuff will be the only source so you have a chance to control it

light dimmer, wall warts, fluorescent lights computers, all these are potential sources of electrical interference.

use a battery operated radio and turn off the electricity and you will be surprised what you can hear especially at night.



m

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:31:26 +1100, Trevor

Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/10/2017 2:44 PM, MOP CAP wrote:
>> Does anyone have a recomendation for a quality AM receiver? I have a
>> cabin in the low Sierras and have trouble receiving AM. I would prefer
>> one that would not require an outside antenna.
>> Thanks,
>> CP
>>
>
>**Assuming you have no internet capability (the best way to receive AM),
>then your next best option is to find an old, 1960s vintage, solid
>state, car radio. Since few car radios had FM capability back then, the
>AM qualities were excellent. If you have lots of cash, then one of these
>will provide superb AM performance:
>
>http://classichifi.info/SansuiTU-X1.shtml

Quite a radio!

But as to the car radio, aren't they so good because of the metal body
of the car that surrounds them? A ground plain? Or is that only for
FM. I know for FM every car radio I had worked better than every table
radio except 1, but I didn't have a chance to compare AM

[pf...@aol.com]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 12:04:43 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

>
> But as to the car radio, aren't they so good because of the metal body
> of the car that surrounds them? A ground plain? Or is that only for
> FM. I know for FM every car radio I had worked better than every table
> radio except 1, but I didn't have a chance to compare AM
> >
> >I had one on the bench last year. Surprisingly impressive and quite
> >sophisticated (even has a synchronised detector!) AM section. A bit much
> >for a cabin radio though.

OK - here is "the deal" about car radios. Keep a few things in mind:

a) Moving cars are noisy, very noisy. Noisier than any listening room in your house by a very large margin.
b) Cars, in general, are tiny as compared to about any room in your house other than, perhaps, the bathroom.
c) Cars move, by their very nature. So they are pretty much always in motion relative to the transmitter by both angle and distance.

So, car radio manufacturers worry very, very little about s/n ratios, stereo separation, muting capacity, stereo/mono switching or any of the niceties found on even a relatively simple home tuner. They DO focus on sensitivity and AFC, some even do AVC based on ambient noise within the car. And, the bandwidth of the typical car radio after filtering is pretty wretched in many cases.

Meaning: a car radio will *receive* acceptably (for a car) under conditions that would have a decent tuner on full mute - or if the mute is disabled, making so much noise as to be intolerable.

Of course, what with HD radio and the concurrent 'cliff effect' of HD listening, how this works is even more obvious.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:09:17 -0700 (PDT),

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, 12 October 2017 12:32:06 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:44:10 PM UTC-4, MOP CAP wrote:
>
>> > Does anyone have a recomendation for a quality AM receiver? I have a
>> > cabin in the low Sierras and have trouble receiving AM. I would prefer
>> > one that would not require an outside antenna.
>> > Thanks,
>> > CP
>>
>> Mpffff... This is an easy one. If you are looking, primarily, for good reception over top-notch sound (mostly wasted on AM anyway), and this is to be a single-purpose device, look for something like a solid-state GE "Super Radio" or similar. They are fair-enough sounding and far better than average at AM DXing capabilities. Low in cost for very good results.
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-GE-SUPERADIO-SUPER-RADIO-LONG-RANGE-AM-FM-HI-PERFORMANCE-VERY-NICE-/401419473964?hash=item5d7677142c:g:e9AAAOSwbRJZvvX8 I keep one of these at our summer house that is no slouch at all. The AM band is pretty busy, especially at night.

I've heard of the GE Superradio, but didn't think I needed anything more
at that time. Is it especially good on FM as well as AM?

>>
>> A step up from there would be a multi-band radio such as a Zenith TransOceanic. Of those, the ne-plus-ultra would be the RD7000Y - and why that one? All silicon, has the tunable weather band, and will give you some amusing shortwave capacity.
>>
>> https://www.ebay.com/dsc/i.html?_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_ftrt=901&_ftrv=1&_sabdlo=&_sabdhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=19027&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=200&_nkw=Zenith+RD7000Y&_ex_kw=&_in_kw=1 One of these has lived at my work desk for over 20 years.

I still have my 1930 Hallicrafter shortwave, not divided by bands as
such, but 4 positions of the switch and continuous tuning from one to
another.

>> Hard-Core would be a Communications Receiver, something in the Hallicrafters, Collins or National lines - which are a whole different can of worms, do want an outside antenna, and likely will contain tubes rather than transistors.

I don't have the best antenna. I took 4-wire phone line, solder two
pair together at one end and one pair at the radio-end so it goes down
and back twice and it was stretched down the stairs. I think I should
more it to the attic.

>> And, one of these will truly separate fly-poop from pepper. Give it an 80' longwire and you will be getting AM from Hawaii - or thereabouts.
>>
>> Peter Wieck
>> Melrose Park, PA
>
>The old Vega/Ocean radios are very cheap dx sets. Some mericans might not like their origins. But don't worry, they don't run Kaspersky.

I run Kaspersky but I lie about what I'm doing so when they report back,
it will just confuse the Kremlin.

>NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 19:32:11 UTC+1, micky wrote:
> In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:09:17 -0700 (PDT),

> tabbypurr wrote:
> >On Thursday, 12 October 2017 12:32:06 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:44:10 PM UTC-4, MOP CAP wrote:

> I don't have the best antenna. I took 4-wire phone line, solder two
> pair together at one end and one pair at the radio-end so it goes down
> and back twice and it was stretched down the stairs. I think I should
> more it to the attic.

I've used lengths of plastic twine at the ends as insulators. Effective, always to hand, easy, cheap.

> >The old Vega/Ocean radios are very cheap dx sets. Some mericans might not like their origins. But don't worry, they don't run Kaspersky.
>
> I run Kaspersky but I lie about what I'm doing so when they report back,
> it will just confuse the Kremlin.

:)

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:32:06 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

I thought all phone line wire was twisted pair. If that's the case
then I would think your setup would tend to keep radio waves, AKA
interference, out. Maybe that's why your antenna isn't working very
well.
Eric

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:31:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I was thinking about using a car radio too. But why limit yourself to
AM. Get an AM-FM. AM radios these days are mostly talk shows and
religious programming. You;ll get more music on FM. If you know someone
who has a junked car, offer them a few bucks for the radio. I'd get the
antenna too. Then all you need is a 12V power supply. Those can easily
be found. In the 70's nearly everyone had one of them, so they could use
an auto CB radio in their house.

If your cabin has no electricity, any car battery can be used to power
this radio, as long as you can charge it. (Use your car to charge it, if
need be).

You can mount the car antenna on the roof, but you'll need an extension
cable for it. The cords on those car antennas have always been a special
cord, and I am not sure what to use to extend it. Maybe someone knows
this.....

However, a long wire outside is still superior for an antenna.

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 10/12/2017 2:39 PM, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> You can mount the car antenna on the roof, but you'll need an extension
> cable for it. The cords on those car antennas have always been a special
> cord, and I am not sure what to use to extend it. Maybe someone knows
> this.....

It's RG-62 and it's a pain in the ass to work with.


--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

J.B. Wood wrote:
>On 10/11/2017 11:44 PM, MOP CAP wrote:
>> Does anyone have a recomendation for a quality AM receiver? I have a
>> cabin in the low Sierras and have trouble receiving AM. I would prefer
>> one that would not require an outside antenna.
>> Thanks,
>> CP
>
>Hello, and you want a radio of requisite sensitivity so you can enjoy
>the "quality' of AM radio? Can you parse languages other than English?
>Just kidding. In addition to the advice already provided by others, you
>might want to check with a seller like C.C. Crane. I assumed by "AM"
>you meant the medium wave (535-1700 kHz) band.

Right, the AM band, which, regarding radio, is an abbreviation for 'Amplitude Modulation' as opposed to FM (Frequency Modulation). Unless you confuse AM (Ante Meridian) here in this thread to mean morning-time only radio use.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Almost ANY radio that has an FM section has a really crappy AM section
(excepting the Sansui I referenced earlier). Since the early 1970s,
manufacturers have pretty much ignored AM radios. There are exceptions,
of course, but they are very rare. Here in Australia, for instance, FM
transmissions did not begin until the mid 1970s. Hence, there was a
thriving business for manufacturers building high quality AM tuners. And
trust me: They were very good indeed. Back then, it was possible to
deliver sound quality that rivaled FM (mono) under ideal reception
conditions. In fact, I have such an AM tuner in my workshop. I never use
it, of course. For good AM, you need to find an AM only tuner that was
built before FM was really popular.

FWIW: The best AM radio I ever heard was my very own, valved, 4 stage
TRF, radio, which used an infinite impedance detector. The design was
taken from a long-departed New Zealand electronics magazine. I built it
as a teenager and the thing sounded glorious. So good, in fact, that I
called my local radio station to complain about their 'B' turntable,
because I could clearly hear that the stylus was worn/chipped. They
thought I was nuts, but swapped out the faulty stylus anyway.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 10/12/2017 4:18 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> **Almost ANY radio that has an FM section has a really crappy AM section

Quite so, I had a Kenwood "system" with separate components.
The AM/FM tuner was absolute shit on AM.
Single IC "AM subsystem" both sensitivity and selectivity were marginal.

When I was "gifted" a Technics home entertainment system, I threw the
Kenwood in the trash where it belonged.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:52:42 -0700,

et...@whidbey.com wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:32:06 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:09:17 -0700 (PDT),
>>tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, 12 October 2017 12:32:06 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:44:10 PM UTC-4, MOP CAP wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Does anyone have a recomendation for a quality AM receiver? I have a
>>>> > cabin in the low Sierras and have trouble receiving AM. I would prefer
>>>> > one that would not require an outside antenna.
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > CP
>>>>
>>>> Mpffff... This is an easy one. If you are looking, primarily, for good reception over top-notch sound (mostly wasted on AM anyway), and this is to be a single-purpose device, look for something like a solid-state GE "Super Radio" or similar. They are fair-enough sounding and far better than average at AM DXing capabilities. Low in cost for very good results.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-GE-SUPERADIO-SUPER-RADIO-LONG-RANGE-AM-FM-HI-PERFORMANCE-VERY-NICE-/401419473964?hash=item5d7677142c:g:e9AAAOSwbRJZvvX8 I keep one of these at our summer house that is no slouch at all. The AM band is pretty busy, especially at night.

I've heard of the GE Superradio, but didn't think I needed anything more

at that time. Is the GE Superradio especially good on FM as well as
AM?


>>>> ,,,,,

>>>> Hard-Core would be a Communications Receiver, something in the Hallicrafters, Collins or National lines - which are a whole different can of worms, do want an outside antenna, and likely will contain tubes rather than transistors.
>>
>>I don't have the best antenna. I took 4-wire phone line, solder two
>>pair together at one end and one pair at the radio-end so it goes down
>>and back twice and it was stretched down the stairs. I think I should
>>more it to the attic.
>>
>>>> And, one of these will truly separate fly-poop from pepper. Give it an 80' longwire and you will be getting AM from Hawaii - or thereabouts.

Counting back and forth twice, it's 80' or a little more. Maybe I
should shorten it to 80' ???
>>>>
>>>> Peter Wieck

>>>
>>>The old Vega/Ocean radios are very cheap dx sets. Some mericans might not like their origins. But don't worry, they don't run Kaspersky.
>>
>>I run Kaspersky but I lie about what I'm doing so when they report back,
>>it will just confuse the Kremlin.
>>

>I thought all phone line wire was twisted pair.

All the indoor phone wire I've seen has been 4-wire untwisted. Red,
yellow, black, and green.

> If that's the case
>then I would think your setup would tend to keep radio waves, AKA
>interference, out. Maybe that's why your antenna isn't working very
>well.
>Eric

Thanks but it's not twisted. My next-door neighbor is, but that's
another story.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:39:48 -0500,

https://www.ebay.com/i/191802218181?chn=ps&dispItem=1
12 Foot Auto Antenna Extension Cord Male Female
$6.49 and free shipping to the US but he also ships to Shipping to:
United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Romania,
Slovakia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Estonia, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Slovenia, Japan, China,
Sweden, Korea, South, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Africa, Thailand,
Belgium, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Italy,
Germany, Austria, Russian Federation, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand,
Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Croatia, Republic of,
Malaysia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica

Although then he excludes the whole world: Excludes: Africa, Asia,
Central America and Caribbean, Europe, Middle East, North America,
Oceania, Southeast Asia, South America

OR

https://www.ebay.com/i/141820947090?chn=ps&dispItem=1
20FT ANTENNA EXTENSION CABLE CAR STEREO MALE FEMALE PLUG AM/FM
$9.60 Free Shipping

Another one on ebay was 24 feet.

https://www.amazon.com/Metra-44-EC204-204-Inch-Antenna-Extension/dp/B0007WQ8MU
Metra 44-EC204 204-Inch Antenna Extension Cable
$9.27 & FREE Shipping on orders over $25. (sort of like the drug dealers
that give you the first one free.)

>However, a long wire outside is still superior for an antenna.
>

We don't know where the cabin is. Or what kind of programming the OP
wants to listen to.

I'd get am/fm to because I listen to talk mostly. If he's in the hills
or mountains he might have great line-of-sight.

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:18:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson

I can understand what you're saying, but to enjoy it, you first need
radio stations worth listening to. You may have it completely different
in Australia, but where I live, AM is just talk radio (mostly
politics), or religious stuff. For that, who needs quality sound?

I do have to compliment a local station though. For years there were
about a dozen FM stations that all played country music. (It seems that
when you live in a rural area, they think everyone listens to country
music). That station recently started an AM station that plays oldies
rock, pop, and some country too. All from the 50s thru the 90s. Thats
the first time I listened to AM in many years.

Since wer are talking AM radio. I recall back in the 90s or was it the
early 2000s, they were working on AM Stereo. What ever happened to that?
I have not heard anything about it in years.

Ok, now i have to ask..... What kind of music do the kangaroos prefer to
listen to in Australia? :)

They claim that cattle prefer country music in America, but when I was
working for a dairy farm, I changed the radio to a rock station and the
cows seemed happier..... (However, the owner of the farm was not real
pleased).

[Phil Allison]

olds...@tubes.com wrote:

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

>
>
> I can understand what you're saying, but to enjoy it, you first need
> radio stations worth listening to. You may have it completely different
> in Australia, but where I live, AM is just talk radio (mostly
> politics), or religious stuff. For that, who needs quality sound?
>

** Australian AM radio is also dominated by talk / talk back programs.

There is some music still and the government broadcaster (the ABC) keeps the signal pretty clean and wide band - up to 12kHz at most.

> Since wer are talking AM radio. I recall back in the 90s or was it the
> early 2000s, they were working on AM Stereo. What ever happened to that?
> I have not heard anything about it in years.
>

** No longer in use, but AM stereo receivers give top sound quality in mono long as you have a strong local signal.

> Ok, now i have to ask..... What kind of music do the kangaroos prefer to
> listen to in Australia? :)

** Has to be " hip-hop " of course .....



.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

olds...@tubes.com wrote:

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

>
>
> I can understand what you're saying, but to enjoy it, you first need
> radio stations worth listening to. You may have it completely different
> in Australia, but where I live, AM is just talk radio (mostly
> politics), or religious stuff. For that, who needs quality sound?
>

** Australian AM radio is also dominated by talk / talk back programs.

There is some music still and the government broadcaster (the ABC) keeps the signal pretty clean and wide band - up to 12kHz at most.

> Since wer are talking AM radio. I recall back in the 90s or was it the
> early 2000s, they were working on AM Stereo. What ever happened to that?
> I have not heard anything about it in years.
>

** No longer in use, but AM stereo receivers give top sound quality in mono long as you have a strong local signal.

> Ok, now i have to ask..... What kind of music do the kangaroos prefer to
> listen to in Australia? :)

[John-Del]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:18:34 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
> FWIW: The best AM radio I ever heard was my very own, valved, 4 stage
> TRF, radio, which used an infinite impedance detector. The design was
> taken from a long-departed New Zealand electronics magazine. I built it
> as a teenager and the thing sounded glorious. So good, in fact, that I
> called my local radio station to complain about their 'B' turntable,
> because I could clearly hear that the stylus was worn/chipped. They
> thought I was nuts, but swapped out the faulty stylus anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

LOL! They must have hated getting phone calls like that. Is there a schematic anywhere on line for that circuit?

Re: GE Super Radios, they're really good, but the one I have is not quite as sensitive as some of the vintage 8 transistor AM battery radios that I have squirreled away. The Emerson 911 I cited is basically an 8 transistor with a push pull output section. For a small radio it has decent tone. It has an RF amplifier and a separate oscillator and mixer. Since most people don't DX AM for music, it's clear and toney enough. They were also made in large enough numbers that they can be had fairly cheaply, but most vintage domestic radios of the time that were an honest 8 transistor design are very sensitive. Pretty much any leather cased Zenith, Motorola, Admiral and RCA radios of the early 60s are excellent performers, and the larger of them have really nice tone.

BTW, I remember repairing a 60s Japanese transistor radio that had the transistor count proudly printed on the front of the radio (either 6 or 8 - can't remember), but two of the transistors had a leg cut off and used as diodes. Technically they were transistors but sheesh.

[pf...@aol.com]

Just a few things in general from questions asked:

a) GE Super Radios are very good general consumer radios with excellent AM and FM capacities.
b) I am a bit of a collector of radios, with one foot pretty deep into Audio as well. So, I have a large number of comparison points from the 1920s through the 1990s. Of all of those, the best AM reception I get (without an external antenna) is on my Zenith RD7000Y TransOceanic. With an external antenna, it would be the Hallicrafters SX16. The Halli is a beast in weight, takes an external speaker, lots-O-real estate and will heat a small room in the winter. It is also my only communications receiver - chosen because I tripped over it (no kidding) at a flea-market, the seller was an old friend, and the price was right.

Tied for second place: Grundig Satellit 700 and my B600L TransOceanic.

Tied for third place: The GE, YB500 and H500 TransOceanic.

All of the above are very good radios, all but the GE designed specifically with DXing in mind, and really with very little to choose between them. The GE is a happy accident of good design and good execution resulting in a pretty hot radio.

On the audio side, I own two component tuners with AM sections. The Soundcraftsmen T100 AM section is an unhappy joke. I can get the local torches reasonably well (KYW being one). But no real distance. On the other hand, the Dynaco AF6 is not half-bad for AM. I have never tried it with other than the ferrite antenna on board, but I suspect it may have hidden depths with a very good antenna. It also helped that I aligned it for AM when I got it. Being able to do AM and SW alignments is a side benefit of the hobby, but does give me a good base for judgment.

But, if an inexpensive, reasonably well sounding stand-alone portable radio is desired - the GE Super Radio is a fine option with not a half-bad FM section as well.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <a651be8f-5d43-4bfc...@googlegroups.com>,
ohg...@gmail.com says...

>

> BTW, I remember repairing a 60s Japanese transistor radio that had the transistor count proudly printed on the front of the radio (either 6 or 8 - can't remember), but two of the transistors had a leg cut off and used as diodes. Technically they were transistors but sheesh.

Back then many of the transistor radios had a transistor or more used as
a diode. Guess that was a big selling point for them as to how many
transistors a radio had. Just like the watches of the time had so many
jewels in them.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Fri, 13 Oct 2017 01:28:32 -0500,

olds...@tubes.com wrote:

>
>
>I can understand what you're saying, but to enjoy it, you first need
>radio stations worth listening to. You may have it completely different
>in Australia, but where I live, AM is just talk radio (mostly
>politics), or religious stuff. For that, who needs quality sound?

So true. And the politics are, fwiw, mostly conservative.

>
>I do have to compliment a local station though. For years there were
>about a dozen FM stations that all played country music. (It seems that
>when you live in a rural area, they think everyone listens to country
>music). That station recently started an AM station that plays oldies
>rock, pop, and some country too. All from the 50s thru the 90s. Thats
>the first time I listened to AM in many years.

If someone has a shortage of radio but plenty of bytes, I recommend
RadioMaximus**. It has a free version that does everything the paid
version does except you can't schedule a recording in advance. You can
still record, but I wanted to record The Big Broadcast on WAMU on Sunday
nights when I wasn't here, so I bought it, maybe $40.

He has a list of hundreds of online stations from all over the world,
categorized by location, type of radio, talk, oldies, classical, and I'm
pretty sure you can find religious too.

It doesn't depend on a webbrowser, so when you open too many tabs in FF
and it freezes or crashes, it doesn't interfere with listening.

Then you can get wireless speakers for the rest of the house and even
outside. 20 years ago I got 2 1/2 pairs of RCA wireless for very
cheap, but now they are harder to get and they are pushing bluetooth,
which is more expensive and afaik, the range is less. I listen mostly
to talk and even when it's music, it doesn't have to be stereo, so I put
one speaker in my bedroom, one in the bathroom, one in the basement, the
kitchen, and there's a spare for outside though I never use that. But I
can have the same station no matter where I go. Both RCA and bluetooth
run on batteries too.

**He has a second product too, RadaralTuner or something like that. They
seem very similar, and the biggest problem with radiomax is that some
stations are not available all the time -- one oldies station .977 the
Oldies Channel** will play for 30 minutes or 2 hours and then stop, but
181FM Good Time Oldies will play for days in a row with no problem --
and I figure he provides the same list of stations to both programs (you
can add them yourself also) so changing programs won't affect that.

**They give some of them numbers although I think the numbers don't mean
anything.

These station urls are not widely available. I think volunteers have
collected the list for him, although last I looked, WYPR was not on his
list and when I went to its website and clicked Listen Live and got that
url and copied it to RadioMaximus, it didn't work. I wonder why. So
when I want that I listen on the radio. It's competitor 40 miles away,
WAMU, I can only get on car radios and my expensive table radio and
sometimes on a very cheap radio but that one seemed to break (not even
on some fancy tuner), but I listen to it on Radiomax for hours on end.
Listening to it now.

[Dave Platt]

>> BTW, I remember repairing a 60s Japanese transistor radio that had the
>transistor count proudly printed on the front of the radio (either 6 or
>8 - can't remember), but two of the transistors had a leg cut off and
>used as diodes. Technically they were transistors but sheesh.
>
>
>Back then many of the transistor radios had a transistor or more used as
>a diode. Guess that was a big selling point for them as to how many
>transistors a radio had. Just like the watches of the time had so many
>jewels in them.

Yes, it was a competitive advantage for advertising purposes. And,
the manufacturers could use "bad" transistors for this - ones which
had failed the test for one reason or another, had an open emitter or
open collector, etc. They could get these cheaply, or use the bad
ones out of a large lot they'd bought in bulk.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

Another thing about crappy AM is bandwidth. Normally it is narrow and will not reproduce the highs well. I guess they were going for selectivity and lower noise. With FM the frequency response remains but a narrow bandwidth IF will increase distortion. Some high end FM tuners had switchable bandwidth which allowed for the lower distortion (especially in stereo) when set to wide and better selectivity when set to narrow. I remember seeing an AM with that feature but for the life of me can't remember what make or model. I think it had shortwave.

If you want talk radio shortwave is the way to go, especially the forbidden band. I don't know exactly what frequencies are forbidden but all you have to do is look at the in the stores or read the specs, you will find frequency ranges missing. The politically incorrect go there, like American Dissident Voices. Those bands are omitted ostensibly because the programming is US based and intended for non-domestic audiences.

The same FCC are the ones that mandated tuners must have both AM and FM. This is one reason, people with separate tuners want high fidelity and are not concerned with AM.

[pf...@aol.com]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

I remember seeing an AM with that feature but for the life of me can't remember what make or model. I think it had shortwave.

The Zenith RD7000Y has that feature as well as a BFO.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/10/2017 10:23 PM, John-Del wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:18:34 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW: The best AM radio I ever heard was my very own, valved, 4 stage
>> TRF, radio, which used an infinite impedance detector. The design was
>> taken from a long-departed New Zealand electronics magazine. I built it
>> as a teenager and the thing sounded glorious. So good, in fact, that I
>> called my local radio station to complain about their 'B' turntable,
>> because I could clearly hear that the stylus was worn/chipped. They
>> thought I was nuts, but swapped out the faulty stylus anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
> LOL! They must have hated getting phone calls like that. Is there a schematic anywhere on line for that circuit?

**I knew that question was coming. I am pretty certain I still have the
original magazine stored away somewhere (well, I know approximately
where). One day, I will dig it out, scan it and post. How long does
copyright hold sway? 75 years? Could be a problem, though I suspect no
one who was every involved in the magazine is on the right side of the
dirt anymore.

>
> Re: GE Super Radios, they're really good, but the one I have is not quite as sensitive as some of the vintage 8 transistor AM battery radios that I have squirreled away. The Emerson 911 I cited is basically an 8 transistor with a push pull output section. For a small radio it has decent tone. It has an RF amplifier and a separate oscillator and mixer. Since most people don't DX AM for music, it's clear and toney enough. They were also made in large enough numbers that they can be had fairly cheaply, but most vintage domestic radios of the time that were an honest 8 transistor design are very sensitive. Pretty much any leather cased Zenith, Motorola, Admiral and RCA radios of the early 60s are excellent performers, and the larger of them have really nice tone.
>
> BTW, I remember repairing a 60s Japanese transistor radio that had the transistor count proudly printed on the front of the radio (either 6 or 8 - can't remember), but two of the transistors had a leg cut off and used as diodes. Technically they were transistors but sheesh.

**My old man had this really fancy, National Panasonic, three band, two
speaker, 12 transistor radio, back when I was a kid. We used it on
caravan holidays. When is was about 12, I acquired this really ancient,
Australian made 7 transistor radio. I was built on a chassis, that was
clearly derived from a portable valve radio by the same manufacturer.
The transistors were inserted into grommets, then mounted in the holes
that would have been punched for the valve sockets. The thing was
amazing. Superior sensitivity than the old man's fancy Jap set and
significantly better sound quality (big old 7" X 5" oval speaker). Still
have that too.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**True enough. Most AM is not worth listening to. Back in the early
1970s (don't forget: We did not have FM back then), I used to visit my
girlfriend and we would snuggle (well, fuck our brains out, actually) in
her parents lounge room, with the light off, listening to 2CH. 2CH was
this station that played 'easy listening' music. Nothing too serious,
but great to snuggle by. I have my bedside radio (a DAB+ one) tuned to
them. DAB+ is, for all intents, on a portable radio, as good as FM.

http://www.2ch.com.au/

Most of the other AM stations are occupied by right wing 'shock-jocks',
whose combined IQ doesn't reach room temperature.

>
> I do have to compliment a local station though. For years there were
> about a dozen FM stations that all played country music. (It seems that
> when you live in a rural area, they think everyone listens to country
> music). That station recently started an AM station that plays oldies
> rock, pop, and some country too. All from the 50s thru the 90s. Thats
> the first time I listened to AM in many years.
>
> Since wer are talking AM radio. I recall back in the 90s or was it the
> early 2000s, they were working on AM Stereo. What ever happened to that?
> I have not heard anything about it in years.

**Dunno if anyone bothers anymore. Certainly not here in Oz. DAB+ or
internet radio is pretty much dominant. And FM, of course.

>
> Ok, now i have to ask..... What kind of music do the kangaroos prefer to
> listen to in Australia? :)

**I see that Phil has provided you with the correct answer.

>
> They claim that cattle prefer country music in America, but when I was
> working for a dairy farm, I changed the radio to a rock station and the
> cows seemed happier..... (However, the owner of the farm was not real
> pleased).
>

**Oh well.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:06:09 -0400, Ralph

A friend and I were talking for the first time about watch jewels just 2
hours ago. Yours is the first reference I've seen to watch jewels in
years.

I think they might still be talking about watch jewels if digital hadn't
arrived, though there were tuning fork watches. Didn't they have gears?

It seems to me only the balance wheel (is that it?) and two or three
gears beyone it turn enough to need jewels. ????

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:16:27 -0700,

I"ve always guess that the cheap digital watches were made the same as
the better ones, but it turned out they didn't keep good time, so they
sold them cheaply. ???

BTW, both my and my friend's Philips DVDR with HDD have clocks that keep
time badly, It starts recording earlier and earlier as months go on, so
wwhen I went away for 3 months, I had to record 1 minute after it should
have stopped, and I should have made it 2 minutes.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:38:43 +1100, Trevor

Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>**My old man had this really fancy, National Panasonic, three band, two
>speaker, 12 transistor radio, back when I was a kid. We used it on
>caravan holidays. When is was about 12, I acquired this really ancient,
>Australian made 7 transistor radio. I was built on a chassis, that was
>clearly derived from a portable valve radio by the same manufacturer.
>The transistors were inserted into grommets, then mounted in the holes
>that would have been punched for the valve sockets. The thing was
>amazing. Superior sensitivity than the old man's fancy Jap set and
>significantly better sound quality (big old 7" X 5" oval speaker). Still
>have that too.

Not nearly as difficult, but somewhere I got a console record player
from the 30's or 40' and I removed the ~10" woofer and hte small speaker
(not sure what it takes to qualify as a tweeter) and mounted them on a
board in a corner of the bathroom ceiling. Got great sound, maybe partly
becuase of the tile walls. That was 1975. I've moved once and I'm
using it in the new place but the TV might have a week audio. Sound is
not loud enough. I have to change tvs.

I take showers in another bathroom and never take steamy baths, but
still after 42 years the tan burlap that I used as grill cloth has
discolored.

>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au

[Dave Platt]

In article <1237d9c8-de45-41d1...@googlegroups.com>,

<jurb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you want talk radio shortwave is the way to go, especially the
>forbidden band. I don't know exactly what frequencies are forbidden but
>all you have to do is look at the in the stores or read the specs, you
>will find frequency ranges missing. The politically incorrect go there,
>like American Dissident Voices. Those bands are omitted ostensibly
>because the programming is US based and intended for non-domestic
>audiences.

The only "forbidden" frequencies (as far as radio receiption goes)
I've ever heard of, are the UHF frequencies used by the
older-generation (analog) cellular phone systems. The FCC prohibited
(and still prohibits) making general-purpose radio receivers that can
tune to them, reportedly due to influence from the cellphone companies
who could then claim that these phone systems were "secure".

As far as shortwave goes... I have never heard of the FCC, or anyone
in this country somehow "forbidding" radios from receiving any of
these frequencies. Just doing a quick look at multi-band receivers on
the market today (a quick web search), most of those which offer
shortwave at all have continuous coverage from below 2 MHz up to 22
MHz or more (many to 30 MHz which is the nominal end of the "high
frequency" radio range and hence where "short wave" is usually
considered to end).

Above 30 MHz, long-distance (e.g. international) signal transmission
is difficult and unpredictable... it depends a lot on the state of the
ionosphere, which depends on the solar cycle and time of day.

>The same FCC are the ones that mandated tuners must have both AM and
>FM.

Can you cite the regulation in which they actually mandated this?
I've never heard of it.

Ditto for the "forbidden frequencies" - where are the laws or
regulations which "forbid" them?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"where are the laws or
regulations which "forbid" them? "

Poor choice of words, there probably is no actual law or regulation, but for some reason manufacturers omit those frequencies.

There is something though because years ago the FCC was considering pulling a station's license because their programming "appeared to be intended for domestic audiences". Need I mention that the station was full of dissidents who were very critical of the US government ?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Can you cite the regulation in which they actually mandated this?
I've never heard of it. "

The both AM and FM thing I remember distinctly due to my exposure to high fidelity. I'm pretty sure it was in the 1970s. A quick Google does not turn up anything on it though, but that is not uncommon. Much of this older stuff was simply never archived. Suffice it to say I didn't make it up. I didn't imagine it.

I wonder if I could at least get the date from archives of High Fidelity magazine, to which I subscribed for a time. They used Hirsch-Houck (sp) labs to test everything and though AM was no big deal they tested it anyway to see if the manufacturer was lying in the manual. Of course the consistently found poor performance, but then they didn't lie about it. The AM section was there, I bet some people never ever used it.

These old laws and regulations can be hard to find. We've heard about the crazy laws like against French kissing in public, that you can only beat your Wife on Sunday and all that, but that info is from specialty sites. To find them on an actual government site can be nerve wracking.

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:46:56 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>

You know, I was thinking about the solid phone wire, 4 conductors, two
twisted pairs, surrounded by a loose fitting jacket. The stuff you run
inside walls. But of course I didn't think enough 'cause then I would
have thought about the flat 4 conductor interior phone wire used for
extensions and the like. Duh.
Eric

[Dave Platt]

>>"Can you cite the regulation in which they actually mandated this?
>I've never heard of it. "
>
>The both AM and FM thing I remember distinctly due to my exposure to high fidelity. I'm pretty sure
>it was in the 1970s. A quick Google does not turn up anything on it though, but that is not uncommon.
>Much of this older stuff was simply never archived. Suffice it to say I didn't make it up. I didn't
>imagine it.

I find this quite curious, because I subscribed to those same
magazines (Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio, the Sensible Sound)
through the same era, and never read or heard anything about that sort
of requirement by the FCC.

I've never seen a reference to such a requirement, anywhere. I've
never seen a receiver, tuner, or integrated circuit described as
complying with a "Part XXX" requirement of this sort (while they're
often tagged as complying with Part 15 rules for RF interference).

I've never heard tell of a manufacturer being cited for failing to
comply, or a bunch of illegal FM-only radios/tuners being seized by
the FCC, or any company fined for selling them.

And, I know there were a bunch of FM-only tuners and radios being made
and sold through that era... Kloss made several FM-only radios, Scott
and others made FM-only tuners, I've still got a Dynaco FM-3 in my
collection (no AM).

So, I'm not sure what you read. It's possible the FCC may have been
_considering_ such a mandate (possibly someone in the AM broadcast
industry filed a petition to ask for a rule-making of this sort) and
this was mentioned in the magazine, but I don't think I've ever seen
any evidence that such a mandate was ever actually implemented. There
_ought_ to have been plenty of traces, visible over the years and even
now, and I haven't seen any.

If it had been I suspect that it might have been unenforceable, as
being outside the FCC's authorized regulatory powers. The FCC has a
lot of authority over what can be _transmitted_, and how, but a lot
less over what can be _received_ (and I think even less over the
question of what must be _required_ to be receivable).

>I wonder if I could at least get the date from archives of High Fidelity magazine, to which I
>subscribed for a time.

Please pass the info along if you do find it - I'm quite curious.

> They used Hirsch-Houck (sp) labs to test everything and though AM was no big
>deal they tested it anyway to see if the manufacturer was lying in the manual. Of course the
>consistently found poor performance, but then they didn't lie about it. The AM section was there, I
>bet some people never ever used it.

I suspect _lots_ of people never used it. Even by the 70s, FM (with
its better performance and stereo capability) had pretty much kicked
AM's butt, as far as quality sound distribution goes.

The presence of the AM section was pretty much a "check-box" item for
most buyers, I think. They expected it to be there (because they were
used to it) and they'd consider a receiver not having it to be
"inferior" and thus less worthy of purchase. That's probably why the
manufacturers (1) continued to include it and (2) didn't bother to
make it a good one - it had to be there to keep their product from
losing sales, but its quality was pretty much irrelevant to those
sales.

The devices which didn't have it, were ones which were being marketed
to an audiophile crowd, I think, where people wanted the best FM sound
for their dollar and didn't care a fig about AM.

[Dave Platt]

In article <7ff5c2cc-83d4-4c9d...@googlegroups.com>,

<jurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"where are the laws or
>regulations which "forbid" them? "
>
>Poor choice of words, there probably is no actual law or regulation, but for some reason
>manufacturers omit those frequencies.

Probably because it costs something (in engineering and in dollars) to
implement a "DC to daylight" design. The manufacturers don't really
have any incentive to do this, and include the "missing octave" (above
the medium-wave AM band, and below the start of HF at around 3 MHz),
because very few of their customers care about this, because there
isn't any commercial or social programming using these frequencies.
The semiconductor companies which make specialized ICs for receiving
middle-wave AM, VHF FM, etc. probably don't make chips specific to
these frequencies because there's no commercial demand.

If you want a radio which receives these, they're certainly available
"off the shelf". "Communications receiver" radios like the Icom
IC-R8500 will do this very well indeed - that one receives everything
from 100 kHz to 2 GHz, except (in the U.S.) for those cellphone band
frequencies I mentioned.

These receivers aren't cheap, of course.

Or, build any of numerous LF/MF receiver designs out there on the
net... a simple MW AM superhet design can be adapted easily enough, or
use an NE602 and make a single-chip direct-conversion receiver (add a
transistor or two to drive a loudspeaker).

>There is something though because years ago the FCC was considering pulling a station's license
>because their programming "appeared to be intended for domestic
>audiences".

If they were trying to abuse an "international short-wave" station
license to do domestic broadcasting, I'm not surprised. The FCC
regulations on stations for those frequencies are very clear - they're
to be used only for broadcasting programming to other countries. You
have to have at least 50 kilowatts of transmitter power, _and_ a
directional antenna with at least 10 dB of gain (which means "big!")
aimed at the specific area your broadcast is intended to serve.

The FCC points out that the costs are high (maybe a million dollars)
and it's not a very efficient way to reach international audiences
these days.

The frequency uses are coordinated between the FCC, and other ITU
countries, to minimize interference in these broadcasts between
countries. I haven't read the ITU regs (a treaty to which the
U.S. has been signatory for a lot of decades) but I strongly suspect
that the international agreements for these frequencies _forbid_
signatory countries using them for in-country broadcasting... there
are other frequencies set aside for that.

The FCC's regulations are quite clear:

§ 73.788 Service; commercial or sponsored programs.

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

These aren't new regs; this section dates back to 1963 and was last
amended in 1973.

> Need I mention that the
>station was full of dissidents who were very critical of the US government ?

No, you don't need to mention it, because it's really rather
irrelevant. The FCC regulations apply to _any_ US organization that
wants to set up an international broadcast station. Dissidents have a
right to equal treatment before the law, _and_ they have an equal
obligation to respect the rules (or step up and face the consequences
for not doing so).

So, if that group of dissidents applies for an international broadcast
authorization, asked for a frequency assignment, and then tried to
"re-purpose" their station in a way which is _specifically_ prohibited
by the regulations, it's not surprising they got slapped... and I have
no particular sympathy for them. I expect a similar thing would
happen to any other "international" broadcaster that tried a similar
stunt.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:40:27 -0700,

My attempted shortwave antenna didn't use that either. It used the round
white wire with for separate, unattached conductors inside, each with
its own separate insulation. Don't you remember those days?

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 10/14/2017 8:02 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> Please pass the info along if you do find it - I'm quite curious.

Don't hold your breath.
jureb6006 is full of unsubstantiated nutter
conspiracies.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:46:13 -0700 (PDT), jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

>>"where are the laws or
>regulations which "forbid" them? "
>
>Poor choice of words, there probably is no actual law or regulation, but for
>some reason manufacturers omit those frequencies.

There were a few cheap AM/FM/SW receivers on the market in the 1960's
that used 10.7MHz for the first IF frequency. Trying to listen to
anything within about 2 MHz of 10.7MHz was difficult because of
spurious receiver responses from the AM broadcast band. So, there was
a hole in the tuning range from about 9MHz to 12.3MHz. Is that what
you're talking about?

There was also a move during the AM stereo wars (approx 1980 - 1995)
to require AM stereo in all automotive radios. Manufacturers were
worried that there might not be a mass market for AM stereo (which was
proven correct) and that the general public was better served by
having AM stereo shoved down their throat. Similar requirements have
been proposed for satellite radio, and HD FM Radio. To their credit,
the FCC has rejected all such proposals.

Back to the "Quality AM Radio"... To deal with complaints about lousy
mono AM quality, the AMAX certification program was established:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAX>
"According to the EIA and National Association of Broadcasters,
tuners and receivers that are qualified to carry the AMAX stereo
certification logo will capture the widest audio frequency
response and highest quality stereo separation of AM stereo
broadcasts that modern technology can offer. In addition,
AMAX tuners and receivers will capture all of the fidelity
transmitted from monaural AM stations. Its audio response
is more than two octaves greater than a standard AM radio."

So, is your favorite AM stereo tuner AMAX certified?
<http://pdf.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheet/motorola/MC13122P.pdf>
(See Pg 6) Notice that the AMAX spec required a wide/narrow bandwidth
IF switch in order to get decent audio quality. I couldn't find
anything on how or where to get something certified.

Stations still doing AM stereo:
<http://meduci.com/stations.html>
Better quality AM receiver retrofit (using C-QuAM modulation):
<http://meduci.com>





--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:28:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Back to the "Quality AM Radio"... To deal with complaints about lousy
>mono AM quality, the AMAX certification program was established:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAX>

Some more detail on AMAX, improvements to AM broadcasting, and AM
stereo:
<http://www.radioworld.com/am_king>

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:43:47 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>

Yeah, I remember that wire. I though that the wires in them were
twisted pairs though. Not a very high rate of twist though. Are you
sure those wires aren't twisted pairs?
Eric

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:32:03 -0700 (PDT), "pf...@aol.com"
<pf...@aol.com> wrote:

>And, one of these will truly separate fly-poop from pepper.
>Give it an 80' longwire and you will be getting AM from
>Hawaii - or thereabouts.

Yeah, that's the conventional wisdom. I have a different view.
A bigger broadband antenna does not produce a better AM signal.
What happens when you install a bigger antenna is that you
simultaneously increase the signal and the noise pickup with the SNR
(signal to noise ratio) being constant. At BCB (broadcast band)
frequencies, the atmospheric and man made noise is quite high.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Atmosphericnoise.PNG>
Hearing a distant station with good fidelity and low noise is not so
much a matter of having a strong signal, but more a matter of reducing
the noise. The noise can be switching power supplies, motors,
appliances, and mixing between two or more out of band stations.

The antenna does not need to be huge. See various version of the
PA0RDT mini-whip antenna for clues on what can be done with very small
antennas:
<http://dl1dbc.net/SAQ/miniwhip.html>
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/Ham-Amateur-Radio-Antennas/4672/i.html?_nkw=mini+whip+antenna>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=pa0rdt+mini+whip&tbm=isch>

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:25:19 -0700,

et...@whidbey.com wrote:

>
>>My attempted shortwave antenna didn't use that either. It used the round
>>white wire with for separate, unattached conductors inside, each with
>>its own separate insulation. Don't you remember those days?
>Yeah, I remember that wire. I though that the wires in them were
>twisted pairs though. Not a very high rate of twist though. Are you
>sure those wires aren't twisted pairs?
>Eric

I stripped back 6 inches on one occasion, I'm pretty sure, and I saw
no twisting.

I'm sure I still have more of it, and I have some new stuff tooMaybe 5
years old.

I bought a new roll of 100' a while back, but I haven't stripped that
type of wire back more than an inch or two.

[Frank]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:25:58 -0700, Dave Platt wrote:

> The FCC's regulations are quite clear:
>
> § 73.788 Service; commercial or sponsored programs.
>
> (a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
> an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
> this country and which will promote international goodwill,
> understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
> directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
> the requirements for this service.
>
> These aren't new regs; this section dates back to 1963 and was last
> amended in 1973.

So what? American domestic SW stations have been broadcasting to a
domestic audience since at least around 1970 when I was entertained by HL
Hunt sponsored right wing propaganda on radio station WINB.

It reached a peak around the Y2K period when overtly racist neo-nazi
babblers could be found among the end time preachers, conspiratorialists,
and other kooks of domestic SW radio.

Domestic SW broadcasting has been a real world fact, if not a legal fact,
for decades.

I'm not aware of the FCC enforcing any speech codes or domestic SW
broadcasting requirements in modern times. Maybe it's not enforceable?
I dunno.

>
> No, you don't need to mention it, because it's really rather irrelevant.
> The FCC regulations apply to _any_ US organization that wants to set up
> an international broadcast station. Dissidents have a right to equal
> treatment before the law, _and_ they have an equal obligation to respect
> the rules (or step up and face the consequences for not doing so).
>
> So, if that group of dissidents applies for an international broadcast
> authorization, asked for a frequency assignment, and then tried to
> "re-purpose" their station in a way which is _specifically_ prohibited
> by the regulations, it's not surprising they got slapped... and I have
> no particular sympathy for them. I expect a similar thing would happen
> to any other "international" broadcaster that tried a similar stunt.
>

Kookcasters don't have the budget for their own radio station. They buy
time on brokered SW stations. A broadcaster like the Jeremiah 33:3
Ministries guy has been kicked off at least a couple of stations for not
paying his bills. A real loss for those who need to learn every kooky
detail on the Masonic/Alien/David Rockefeller Conspiracy which controls
EVERYTHING.

I haven't heard ADV in a while. Sometimes broadcasters go vagabond,
sometimes they're just gone.

[amdx]

Finally some recommendations for his question.
I agree with the GE Super Radio, it is a good radio at a reasonable price.
If you want to go up in price the Sangean ATS 803A was good and then
there is the Sony 2010. 3 of them for sale on Ebay as I write.
Mikek

[John-Del]

As much as I hate to disagree with Peter, let me offer this example as a potential candidate for a quality AM radio (about two weeks left on auction for those reading this from the future):

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-RARE-L-M-co-model-2TR-TWO-TRANSISTOR-RADIO-in-GOOD-CONDITION-and-WORKS-/322812826908?hash=item4b2924d51c:g:tHoAAOSwGNtZ2TOt


John
Wolcott, CT

[amdx]

Are you sure, or is the owner of a $550 handheld transistor radio
just going to to insist it is high quality?
At best the ferrite rod will only be 4" long and probably only 3-1/2".
Mikek

[John-Del]

Did you read the whole description? That baby is sporting two (2!) transistors, which means it has twice as many transistors as a one transistor radio!!

John
Wolcott,CT

[amdx]

Less transistors to introduce noise and distortion! :-)
Mikek

[pf...@aol.com]

Well, there is a pretty good chance that neither of those transistors is being used as a diode... . Although I once had a one-transistor radio that amplified a germanium crystal permeable tuner. Interesting device.

[John-Del]

Yes!!! See, was it so hard to see the quality of that radio?