-
Posts
-
This just in from Fantasy Land: http://home.iprimus.com.au/toddemslie/howtoselectatunerforfmdx.html
Total posts : 45366This has HI-FI tuner performance in a home portable. Amazon has these…check it out.
The overload of strong stations(imaging) when strong stations are all over the band making noise all over the band like on cheap radios, blocks the weaker stations from being received and is a major set back to good range of a part 15 signal.
Wish people would have better radios so we could have better coverage.
Mark
Total posts : 45366That dude Todd Emslie (in your link above)
is one of the top FM DXers in the world – so
they say.
In the year 2003 – a guy in Ireland(?) recieved
2 or 3 FM stations from Canada and a couple more
U.S. FM stations via multihop E-skip. At least E-skip
is the mode that people THINK occured. They really
don’t know. The FM DX audio from some of these is
on Youtube. If you’re into this sort of thing – it will
blow your mind.
Brooce, DOGRADIO, etc
Total posts : 45366Some of that Youtube stuff is still there.
CKLE 92.9 NewBrunswick, CA heard in
Bathurst, Ireland. 2506 miles/4033 KM
The recording goes on for almost 10 minutes.
I bet that guy could hear Part 15.239 stations
for a long long way.
Brooce
Total posts : 45366I doo think some of the POS FM receivers made today should be outlawed. Interference from strong stations can actually hurt licensed stations due to the junk receivers sold in the USA Today.
Total posts : 45366Richard Nixon.
Total posts : 45366The FCC seems unwilling to do anything to help with the quality of radios, so maybe part 15’ers could start pushing congress? If congress took action, they could force the FCC to enforce it by making FCC funding conditional on enforcing the radio receiver requirements.
If a new all channel receiver act was passed it could do wonders for radio across the board. It would need to specify some minimum criteria for sensitivity and selectivity for the FM tuner, ideally with an easy to use stereo/mono switch. It would need to require including a good AM tuner, possibly with AM stereo capability and variable frequency response. SDR and DSP would be able to do a lot to make a good radio. Quality filters and low noise amps would also help.
I could see that getting bogged down if the HD radio folks wanted HD radio chips required in all new radios. That would make every radio cost at least $50 and consumers would say “hell no”. Elected people would never want to make their constituents buy a $50 radio when radios used to cost $5 at the drug store. (Granted the $50 radio would be much-much better than the $5 radio, but if someone only wanted to listen to a local station while jogging the $5 radio would have been good enough.) So there you have it, a good idea that would be likely to dead end because of HD radio.
(I am serious, we should draft a letter for board members to send to their senators and representatives, we just need to figure out how to keep the HD people from forcing expensive HD licensing on every radio sold. I bet the AM station owners would get on board, many new pieces of electronics with an FM radio lack an AM tuner.)
Total posts : 45366Push a bunch of technical know-nothings to lean on the FCC to improve radio receivers? This would be the same congress that can get nothing done on things that far outweigh Part 15 radio.
Total posts : 45366The electronic engineers who design radios must be interesting characters, it would be fun to hold conversations with them.
As Artisan found in recent survey their are radios of good, medium and poor quality available at any given time.
As I’ve noticed in periodic radio shopping, good models appear and disappear, new models pop in, and the day never dawns when we settle on permanent radio models you can trust.
From the sales perspective a good radio is a bad radio, because it might last for years, during which its owner won’t need another radio. The radio store needs customers, and low quality radios soon need replacement.
Radio stations, and their representative NAB should take a keen interest in the quality of radios, but no no matter how good a radio is bad programming is still bad programming. The good thing about bad programming is that it’s inexpensive.
What the radio industry needs is a public satisfied with cheap quality all the way around.
Total posts : 45366What the radio industry needs is a public satisfied with cheap quality all the way around.
I think we are almost there.
Total posts : 45366The object is to convince the NAB that it is in their best interest to petition the FCC for better made Radio receiver enforcement. The quality of reception of their licensed FM signal can only be as good as the receiver. And if everyone has better receivers the ones who use part 15 FM transmitters will not need as much power. Not needing as much power helps to solve the interference issue. If you can receive ¼ mile on a 250 uVm signal to a good Radio the use to be higher power micro broadcasting stations will see less need to push the signal so hard. So as we push for more field strength we also can give the NAB a bone they can use and that is to petition the FCC to stop these junk receivers from entering store shelves. With technology the way it is now it is cheaper to make a high quality Radio now days. I do remember back in 1979 a cheap transistor Radio in which I could receive WRIF 101.1 FM in Lansing , Michigan where as on my Home stereo’s (High End) had barely received the signal. But on that little transistor Radio I could be walking around outside and listening to WRIF. I was amazed. So it can be done I’ve seen it at a cheap price.
Total posts : 45366A Part 15 FM station on a well chosen channel using proper modulation control is NOT interference!
I have noticed several writers refer to limiting Part 15 FM signal strength as a way of “reducing interference.” This is false talk.
Total posts : 45366Makes Sense.
Total posts : 45366Any changes coming in the forseable future for radio receivers will be the forced adoption of 100% digital radio, both AM and FM. This is going to happen a lot sooner than anyone thinks. I’m betting AM digital radios will be in the stores within 10 years, and you’ll need an adapter to listen to digital on your analog radio, just like what happened to TV. I can promise you 150% that NO new rules for better quality AM or FM receivers will even be entertained. I don’t want to admit it anymore than ya’ll do, but with all digital on the horizon there’s no WAY they’re going to consider forcing better quality analog radios.
This is not just the ravings of some lunatic — this is the future whether we want it or not.
Tim in Bovey
Total posts : 45366I don’t want a digital future and am a lunatic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
