Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 07:22 AM
Pete KE9OA
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Randy,
At the Madison, Wisconsin gathering a couple of years ago,
one of the folks brought along his CCRadio. I brought a couple of mine
along, and we just let the CCRadio sit along, looking happy. While the
CCRadio is a good receiver, this new unit of mine will be ten steps above
that in performance. The units that I have built so far have been pretty
comparable in performance to my Racal 6790/GM. Another
analogy..................picture a Collins 75A-4, and picture it with an
antenna with performance better than a Palomar loopstick antenna, but not
quite as good as the large Kiwa antenna, and..............you get the drift.
Even with a 6kHz Murata ceramic filter, the skirt selectivity is steep
enough that you can separate the sideband components from the carrier of an
AM signal. I think that you would be very pleased with the product. It's
going to be a winner.

Pete

Randy Padawer wrote in message
om...
Pete, I have no doubt that you can do it, but it strikes me that your
radio will need to be darned good to beat CCrane's "CCRadio Plus."
Maybe others will disagree, so I'm ready for the education I deserve
if that's the case. However, as it stands now, I'm pretty impressed
with that commercially available receiver.

Randy (WA4FJF)



  #2   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 01:21 PM
Randy Padawer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, Pete, well I'll likely be a customer!
Randy (WA4FJF)


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message ...
Hi Randy,
At the Madison, Wisconsin gathering a couple of years ago,
one of the folks brought along his CCRadio. I brought a couple of mine
along, and we just let the CCRadio sit along, looking happy. While the
CCRadio is a good receiver, this new unit of mine will be ten steps above
that in performance. The units that I have built so far have been pretty
comparable in performance to my Racal 6790/GM. Another
analogy..................picture a Collins 75A-4, and picture it with an
antenna with performance better than a Palomar loopstick antenna, but not
quite as good as the large Kiwa antenna, and..............you get the drift.
Even with a 6kHz Murata ceramic filter, the skirt selectivity is steep
enough that you can separate the sideband components from the carrier of an
AM signal. I think that you would be very pleased with the product. It's
going to be a winner.

Pete

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 05:08 PM
Pete KE9OA
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That sounds good, Randy. I will be going over a few more of the details
today. I do like that modularized approach. If I use a TDA1572 as the 2nd
I.F. subsystem, it is easy to have an I.F. output jack, as well as the
ability to add a Sync detector further on down the line.

Pete

Randy Padawer wrote in message
om...
Wow, Pete, well I'll likely be a customer!
Randy (WA4FJF)


"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message

...
Hi Randy,
At the Madison, Wisconsin gathering a couple of years

ago,
one of the folks brought along his CCRadio. I brought a couple of mine
along, and we just let the CCRadio sit along, looking happy. While the
CCRadio is a good receiver, this new unit of mine will be ten steps

above
that in performance. The units that I have built so far have been pretty
comparable in performance to my Racal 6790/GM. Another
analogy..................picture a Collins 75A-4, and picture it with an
antenna with performance better than a Palomar loopstick antenna, but

not
quite as good as the large Kiwa antenna, and..............you get the

drift.
Even with a 6kHz Murata ceramic filter, the skirt selectivity is steep
enough that you can separate the sideband components from the carrier of

an
AM signal. I think that you would be very pleased with the product.

It's
going to be a winner.

Pete



  #4   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 05:25 PM
Gary
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm getting excited about this new MW receiver. I have the CCRadio
and believe it's reception is only fair, with poor selectivity
compared to my Grundig Satellit 800. Even my Grundig S350 is better
than the CCRadio.

My biggest problem with MW is interference from hologen lamps,
dimmers, etc. I don't know if there is any NB that will eliminate
this type of interference.

What I would like to see is:
A portable with a large enough quality speaker to get a decent bass
response, separate tone controls (or even better, a graphic equalizer
tailored to reduce certains frequencies associated with different
types of interference), at LEAST two GOOD bandwidths, a superior
built-in directional antenna, and of course a selectable sideband
option would certainly be nice.

If your set is a real step up from what I currently have, I will
definitely be a buyer!
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 05:51 PM
Gray Shockley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:25:58 -0500, Gary wrote
(in message ) :

I'm getting excited about this new MW receiver. I have the CCRadio
and believe it's reception is only fair, with poor selectivity
compared to my Grundig Satellit 800. Even my Grundig S350 is better
than the CCRadio.

My biggest problem with MW is interference from hologen lamps,



Generally, there is no interference from halogen lamps themselves, I have two
in my radio room and there is no interfernce whatsoever from them.

However (and you knew this was coming, right? grin) these have off-lo-hi
switches. I have one in the living room which has a dimmer switch and it
tears up anything that gets close. Some of this latter design will even
interfere when they're turned off.


dimmers, etc. I don't know if there is any NB that will eliminate
this type of interference.

What I would like to see is:
A portable with a large enough quality speaker to get a decent bass
response, separate tone controls (or even better, a graphic equalizer


Over the years, I've used from one tone control to nine and the simplest that
worked well was three controls, the standard trebel and bass and a "midrange"
that covered (typically) from 300 to 3000cps/Hertz.


tailored to reduce certains frequencies associated with different
types of interference), at LEAST two GOOD bandwidths, a superior
built-in directional antenna, and of course a selectable sideband
option would certainly be nice.

If your set is a real step up from what I currently have, I will
definitely be a buyer!



Gray



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 11th 03, 08:16 AM
Pete KE9OA
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks, Gary. I think that a portable will definitely be on the horizen, and
the tone control circuit is beginning to sound like a better and better
idea. I think that this can be implemented into the design. The main thing
is the choice of turnover frequencies of the tone control circuit, for the
best sound. Back in the early to mid 90s, I used to design and build custom
acoustic instrument amplifiers, so I've got a bit of experience with tone
control circuitry.
Thanks for those comments!

Pete

Gray Shockley wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:25:58 -0500, Gary wrote
(in message ) :

I'm getting excited about this new MW receiver. I have the CCRadio
and believe it's reception is only fair, with poor selectivity
compared to my Grundig Satellit 800. Even my Grundig S350 is better
than the CCRadio.

My biggest problem with MW is interference from hologen lamps,



Generally, there is no interference from halogen lamps themselves, I have

two
in my radio room and there is no interfernce whatsoever from them.

However (and you knew this was coming, right? grin) these have off-lo-hi
switches. I have one in the living room which has a dimmer switch and it
tears up anything that gets close. Some of this latter design will even
interfere when they're turned off.


dimmers, etc. I don't know if there is any NB that will eliminate
this type of interference.

What I would like to see is:
A portable with a large enough quality speaker to get a decent bass
response, separate tone controls (or even better, a graphic equalizer


Over the years, I've used from one tone control to nine and the simplest

that
worked well was three controls, the standard trebel and bass and a

"midrange"
that covered (typically) from 300 to 3000cps/Hertz.


tailored to reduce certains frequencies associated with different
types of interference), at LEAST two GOOD bandwidths, a superior
built-in directional antenna, and of course a selectable sideband
option would certainly be nice.

If your set is a real step up from what I currently have, I will
definitely be a buyer!



Gray



  #7   Report Post  
Old September 9th 03, 06:53 PM
MRe
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pete KE9OA" schreef in
bericht

..net...
My employer has given me the go ahead to design a new

product. If there is
enough interest, I will design a new MW receiver for the

market. What would
you be more interested in......................a small

table top type, or a
portable?
Performance wise, I am talking about something like that

of an AOR7030.
I don't think that I would be inplementing Sync Detection,


Synch detection is a MUST for a high quality AM radio.

but a couple of
I.F. bandwidths could be possible. Definitely,
double conversion, and
digital readout,


Single conversion with a good preselector is O.K
Up conversion may also be considered

with good audio quality.


For mediumwave reception LOWE's HF150 should be your guide
in performance,
(Not in ergonomics). The synch detector is very high quality

Would you want any presets? How about target price? Do

you want a built in
antenna, or external antenna only? High and low impedance

antenna inputs?
How about a built in tunable preselector?
E-mail me directly, and we will see what happens.


This is usenet, more people are interested in the
discussion.

Any of you who have built
any of me receivers know what I am talking

about...............I plan to
take the design to the next couple of steps up in

performance.

  #8   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 07:59 PM
Matt
 
Posts: n/a
Default



I think the idea of a high performance MW radio is a great idea!
There is definately a good market for it. The main competitor I would
imagine would be the CC Radio, so your end price would have to be
comparative to that. I am a MW DXer, so I hope I can give you some
helpful advice and encouragement. No matter how the radio takes
shape, it probably goes without saying that it should be able to be
powered by both AC and DC. If you can only pick one, go with DC.

First, I offer three suggestions if you must keep it cheap.

1. Analog tuning. However please keep the dial accurate and as even
and as spread as possible, with a marking for each kHz. This will
enable the listener to know if he is tuned to 832 kHz or 837 kHz for
example. The needle which shows the listener where he is tuned should
be narrow yet brightly colored. Many current radios suffer from
squashing the high end frequencies together... this should be avoided.
In fact, I'm sure many MW DXers would agree with me that although they
might prefer digital tuning, if you could produce a radio with a very
accurate and evenly spread analog dial, they would gladly accept the
trade-off. No matter what you do, please keep the noise floor as low
as humanly possible in this radio (another reason to go analog).

2. Make sure the radio's own antenna can swivel independently from
the radio itself. Some old radios have this helpful feature. It
allows you to keep the radio pointed right at you so you can read the
dial, and just swivel the antenna. Make the antenna as big and as
sensitive as possible, whether it be a loop or a stick. Also, please
allow for the ability to switch off this antenna so that an external
antenna could be added by the listener. Would it be possible to
incorporate some sort of phasing relationship between the external
antenna and the radio's antenna without adding much cost? If so, that
could be a third switch position on the radio's antenna controls.

3. Use high quality filters with 3 different positions... wide,
narrow, and super narrow. If only two are feasible, I would strongly
recommend narrow and super narrow.... not many listen to music for
enjoyment on MW radio these days, and since this radio is designed
mainly for distance listening I'm sure a wide position wouldn't be
missed.


If you can add a few more expensive features, I'll rank them in
importance.

1. Sync detector. The sync detector on my Sony 2010 really helps me
dig out stations that my other non-sync radios cannot. How much per
unit would a sync detector cost?

2. If this radio does take a digital form, a dozen presets would be
nice. If at all possible, it would be great to have a memory scan
feature where these 12 stations could be scanned repeatedly, with the
radio pausing 10 seconds on each frequency before moving on to the
next. The listener could program in 12 MW stations they use as
benchmarks for DX conditions, and then let the radio scan through them
automatically.


That's it for me... I really think this is a great project and wish
you all the luck in the world. I would be glad to publiicize too on
the various MW groups and lists on the net as well once it is
produced.
  #9   Report Post  
Old September 10th 03, 10:51 PM
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Matt wrote:
1. Sync detector. The sync detector on my Sony 2010 really helps me
dig out stations that my other non-sync radios cannot. How much per
unit would a sync detector cost?


The sync detector on the 2010 was born because Sony had tons of AM stereo
demultiplexor chips and nothing to do with them. By the time the 2010
came out AM stereo was dead.

Anyone out there with a AM stereo receiver? (mine was stolen in 1989).

A brilliant engineer figured out that with a slight circuit modification,
he could add a sync detector (unheard of on a consumer radio) and get
rid of those chips.

With the demise of the SW77, I doubt those chips are still available.

Now, to throw my own two cents in. :-) I'd like to see the unit
"EMP hardened" to the point that a nearby lightening strike would not
damage it. I live 3,000 feet up in the desert and we get some very strong
lightening storms.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM:
(Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.

  #10   Report Post  
Old September 11th 03, 12:20 AM
Frank Dresser
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

The sync detector on the 2010 was born because Sony had tons of AM stereo
demultiplexor chips and nothing to do with them. By the time the 2010
came out AM stereo was dead.


It's true that AM stereo isn't the big deal that it's promoters claimed it
was,
but it's hardly dead. It certainly wasn't when the 2010 was introduced.

By the mid 80's, I'd say the AM stereo receiver market was still growing.
AM stereo was approved in 82.

There's three AM stereo stations here.

Anyone out there with a AM stereo receiver? (mine was stolen in 1989).


Two. One's the car radio.

[snip]


Geoff.



Frank Dresser




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems Paul Policy 0 January 10th 05 05:41 PM
W7ZOI/K5IRK High Performance RX Dale Parfitt Homebrew 0 June 30th 04 02:20 AM
High school radio stations alive and well Mike Terry Broadcasting 4 May 25th 04 03:55 PM
a page of motorola 2way 2 way portable and mobile radio history john private smith Policy 0 December 22nd 03 02:42 AM
stuff for all hams [email protected] General 0 December 19th 03 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017