Paul Ciszek ) writes:
I realize that this is the wrong sort of "radio" newsgroup, but I
cannot find any newsgroup dedicated to consumer AM/FM receivers. I
figure you folks would have opinions on the relative merits of
digital vs. analog tuners.

rec.radio.shortwave is the proper group, it's intended for any distant
listening of radio stations, not just shortwave. (THis isn't a
retro-definition, it was there from the start and "shortwave" just
seemed like the best way to name the group.)

You have to "define" best, when shopping for a radio. In a lot
of consumer equipment, the radio sections are an afterthought, and
certainly not intended for much beyond local stations. That's what
most people are interested in, if they even care about radio, so
there's no real incentive for manufacturers to design good radios.
So if you ask for "best", it may turn out that the salesmen are
thinking in terms of sound or some other function, when you are
talking "radio that is good at receiving distant signals". And cost
isn't necessarily a factor. Since an expensive stereo receiver may
be sought after for sound and features, the cost may not be reflected
in the radio. Of course, in the past, there were some very good
stereo receivers with good reception qualities.

I once got into an argument with someone about their having a "good FM
receiver" when it turned out to be a portable shortwave receiver that included
FM. They thought since they'd paid a lot for it, the FM section
is naturally good. But the FM section would not use any of the circuitry
from shortwave section, so it was a "feature" added to sell more radios,
and the designer likely wouldn't have allocated much to the FM section,
since it would raise the cost or reduce the shortwaver performance.

Car radios have traditionally been good because of the environment
they are operating in. One minute they could be near a radio station,
and if they overload then that whipes out the other stations. The
next, they could be way out in the middle of nowhere, where all
the stations are distant. Or a combination, where you need to separate
out a strong signal from a weaker signal. So car radios traditionally
were designed better. An rf stage at the antenna, better selectivity
in the intermediate frequency.

Meanwhile, other AM/FM radios have pretty much kept the same design
for decades, with very little innovation unless you get a really expensive
radio. And since the "standard" design doesn't take into consideration
much beyond local stations, there's no incentive to change.

If this was for a non-portable use, the cheapest solution would be
to buy a car radio at a garage sale for a few dollars, power it up
with a power supply, and there you have it. A relatively decent
redio for a few dollars. I've had a Delco digitally tuned radio
next to my bed for a decade, and it's pretty much the best AM/FM
radio I've had. Certainly on FM, it beats anything I've tried.
(And if the need is semi-portable, get a speaker in a cabinet and
strap the car radio to the top.)

Most people never tune the bands to try for those distant stations,
so they don't get an idea of what might be better. Distant AM stations
at night are easy to receive, sensitivity isn't usually an issue. But
separating them out may require something better. On FM, distant stations
often require good radio conditions, so no matter what the radio, you
will need height to get a distant station on a regular basis. But an
FM receiver's ability to stand up to strong signals is important, because
too many low end radios (and the expensive units that don't spend much
on the FM radio) overload from strong signals. You can never hear the
weaker signals, even when they are receivable, because the local signals
overload the receivers and mask the weak signals. But here again, better
selectivity becomes important, so you can hear the distant station that's
adjacent to a local and far stronger signal. (And in the past, when
radio was more important, there were high end receivers that dealt with
this, having two selectivity positions, one for normal reception and
a narrower one for when a signal was weaker.)

Digitally tuned radios mean you are more likely to check those distant
stations. Keep the local stations on the memories, and then tune around
the band, knowing you can easily get back to the locals. Or when conditions
are good, when you find a station pop it into a memory, so you can tune
about while waiting for an identification on the first station. There
are some FM stations here that are just over the horizon, and are
receivable sporadically, and since I like the stations, I keep them
in memory. It's really easy to check them, so I am more likely to
check them. And digital readout makes it far easier to know what
frequency the station is on (which helps to identifiy it's location.)

Analog tuning has the advantage that when trying to deal with a weak
signal adjacent to a stronger signal, being able to tune around a bit
can sometimes help to separate the stations. You don't have that ability
with digital tuning. Again, some of the better stereo receivers in
the past included some odd (and I have no idea how successful) designs
that tried to compensate for this, trying to give the best of both
worlds). Or things like shortwave receivers allow for finer tuning
steps. They'd allow 1KHz steps on AM because that's needed for shortwave
tuning and the AM section is usually part of the shortwave section. And
if they include FM reception, they might have 50KHz steps instead of 200KHz
steps, to accomodate different standards around the world, but which
incidentally allows for finer tuning on FM.

Michael VE2BVW