Frank Dresser wrote:

"MossadAgent86" wrote in message
...
I want to rant a short while and then ask a question about AM reception.

Years ago (I think) all radio's had superheterodyne circuits which allowed
for
great sensitivity and selectivity. I figured that, for all time, all
radio's
would be superhet circuitry. Now the modern AM radio's I buy are all crap,
esp
car radio's. They can not pull in stations, for nothing.

Nearly all radios still are superhets, they may be crap superhets, but they
are superhets. I don't have any radios made in the last few years, but, if
people are choosing AM radios based only on price, then they are likely
getting poor radios. If most people don't notice the difference between a
good radio and a poor one, then the extra money is wasted.


In many, many applications today where an AM tuner is included (a
low-priced stereo reciever is a good example) the AM circuitry is not
even as good as the better "pocket" transistor radios of the 1960's.
The designer's view is: "Hey, they aren't buying a stereo rceiver to
listen to AM, fercryinoutloud!" - and they save some nickles there. The
difference between a workable AM circuit and a really *good* AM circuit
is the width of the Grand Canyon.



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


Agreed.




What modern (new or used) AM radio can I buy that can pull in distant
stations?

I have a Realistic DX440, which does a good job. Others have tried and like
the GE superradio and CC radio. The GE is much less expensive.


SuperRadio III is a very good AMDX machine, but the dial pointer is
certainly not the last word in accuracy. Still, with a good longwire,
or even a select-a-tenna, it gives excellent performance. My AMDX log
from my shack here in SW Michigan is 112 verified stations so far with
the Superadio III, and I'm not done covering the bands from all
directions yet.

Tony