"Richard" wrote in message
...

[snip]


That article really does scathe rec.radio,shortwave"!! Ha!! That was
just
unfortunate, I was not concentrating on that part of the article. Just
came
with the bit I was interested in.:c)



My mistake, Richard. I was hoping you were the "former broadcast
engineer", posting under a false name.

I'd really love to have learned more about this undocumented double
image superhet effect. And what is the exact number of bargain basement
radios a really sharp consumer needs to buy before he realizes that they
don't perform as well as expensive older radios.

Well, maybe the "former broadcast engineer" will start posting here on
rec.radio.trailer_park. Always room for another, well -- you know.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

You might want to consider radios larger than shirt pocket size. In my
expirence, the larger portables are the better performers.

Yea true. I've actually got I've got a DX-392, (Roberts RC818) so my focus
has been on the shirt/pocket size. And it could be that with pocket-sized
radios the chances of getting good FM performance is reduced. Made worse if
it's cheap as in cost, like the Sony ICFM33RDS is.

One could in theory say then, that generally speaking pocket portables
will not have particularly good performance on FM. That is different from
saying modern PLL portables generally speaking have not particularly good FM
performance. But even if this was true, that PLL portables in general
(not pocket) have not good FM performance, it could be price sensitive.
And you can probably always find something that does not fit the general
case. We are always looking out for these. :c) Or pay the higher price,
which may translate to no option but to go for bigger than pocket portable.
But, sometimes you really want a pocket portable.

I must suss out the right pocket portable in my price range (say up to £80
($120-ish). Whether I can get good FM performance for this cost I know not
yet. If it is true that FM performance is mediocre for modern pocket-sized
PLL RX's, then I'll not find what I'm after.Unless I were to find an
exception in that price bracket.

Frank Dresser wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...

[snip]


That article really does scathe rec.radio,shortwave"!! Ha!! That was
just unfortunate, I was not concentrating on that part of the article.
Just came with the bit I was interested in.:c)



My mistake, Richard. I was hoping you were the "former broadcast
engineer", posting under a false name.

I'd really love to have learned more about this undocumented double
image superhet effect. And what is the exact number of bargain basement
radios a really sharp consumer needs to buy before he realizes that they
don't perform as well as expensive older radios.

Well, maybe the "former broadcast engineer" will start posting here on
rec.radio.trailer_park. Always room for another, well -- you know.

Frank Dresser

To be honest, I don't know the details of the sets he claims were not up to
a late 1960's Grundig. I got the drift though, rightly or wrongly that
todays FM portables (especially pocket?) are pretty poor on FM. Deaf and
maybe full of spurious stations in vicinity of local FM channels.

Was re-inforced by what I read previously about the Sony ICFM33RDS:

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/t/98752/ds.html

----------------------
"Anybody got one of these personal radios?

[Richard: He's talking about a Sony srf 59 personal radio bought for about
$30]

I've just brought one, and I really don't rate it. I get a 'ghost' radio 4
signal up and down the FM band, and there is a fair amount of hiss with the
radio on and the volume right down, the same on both AM and FM so I don't
think it's radio interfernce- more likely coming from the internal
circuitry?

OK so 20 quid isn't a kings ransom, but it is considerably more than a Bush
or Alba walkman-which has tape too.

I've been a 'fan' of Sony's radios for a while, and this is the first time
I've been disappointed by one

Anyone else out there happy/disappointed with one?
---------------------
[Richard: Kev replies:]

my ICF-M33RDS does the same - except in my case it's 96 Trent FM below 96.2,
Faza until 97.1 and radio Nottingham from 87 - 103.8 and 107.2FM
---------------------
[Richard: Later UNcabled says:]

I find that budget Sony radios have too much sensitivity in the FM band, and
consequently there is always a certain amount of overloading which causes
ghost stations (it's always Radio 1 in my experience), and a station 'pile
up' around the 100MHz point.

Their AM performance however is usually really good, especially if you live
in a city where the signals are clean and strong.
---------------------



What strikes me now is that this is all in relation to cheap (cost wise)
radios. Have I managed to tar all pocket radios re FM performance with the
same brush? Wrongly? I thought not somehow when I read at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/%7Esrw...rundig-100.htm

Tivoli Model One has the best tough-signal performance of any 3 digit
FM radio I've run across. I can get 3,000 Watt stations 40+ miles
away perfectly.

http://www.tivoliaudio.com/pM1CLA.htm

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:07:15 -0000, "Richard"
wrote:



I'm wanting a pockety sized PLL radio that will, on FM performance, actually
equal, at least an, old Grundig radio for sensitivity, cross-modulation and
image rejection!

"Richard" wrote in message
...

Yea true. I've actually got I've got a DX-392, (Roberts RC818) so my
focus
has been on the shirt/pocket size. And it could be that with
pocket-sized
radios the chances of getting good FM performance is reduced. Made
worse if
it's cheap as in cost, like the Sony ICFM33RDS is.

One could in theory say then, that generally speaking pocket portables
will not have particularly good performance on FM. That is different
from
saying modern PLL portables generally speaking have not particularly
good FM
performance. But even if this was true, that PLL portables in general
(not pocket) have not good FM performance, it could be price
sensitive.
And you can probably always find something that does not fit the
general
case. We are always looking out for these. :c) Or pay the higher
price,
which may translate to no option but to go for bigger than pocket
portable.
But, sometimes you really want a pocket portable.

I must suss out the right pocket portable in my price range (say up to
£80
($120-ish). Whether I can get good FM performance for this cost I
know not
yet. If it is true that FM performance is mediocre for modern
pocket-sized
PLL RX's, then I'll not find what I'm after.Unless I were to find an
exception in that price bracket.



A good performing small PLL portable may be hard to find. People tend
to treat shirt pocket radios as disposable items.

I can't offer much advice on buying a good shirt pocket PLL radio, but I
have an old Sony Walkman SRF-19W analog AM-FM radio which is at least a
decent performer. It suffers from the usual headphone cord/antenna
problem, and it would be better with a FM stereo switch. The radio
autoswitches back and forth between stereo and mono on weak FM signals.
There used to be a few FM mono stations on the low end of the band and
the Walkman worked well there.

So, I suppose a FM stereo/mono switch would be a clue to the radio's DX
ability.

Frank Dresser

Just to encapsulate:

It's either true or false to say:

1 All modern PLL portables are not good FM performers.

2 All modern pocket-sized PLL portables are not good FM performers.

3 All budget pocket-sized PLL portables are not good FM performers.

It could be that only 3 is generally true. And if that were to be the case
it would be a matter of buying a non-budget pocket portable, worldband or
otherwise.

If all were true, then I'm stuck!! :c) Because I want a digital PLL.

(I'm hoping some one is going to sayonly 3 is true! :c)

3 is probably true in general, but I wondered whether 1 & 2 is true. That's
why the subject header says,"Is FM performance on modern PLL radios "rap"
with a capital "C"?")

Richard wrote:
Just to encapsulate:

It's either true or false to say:

1 All modern PLL portables are not good FM performers.

2 All modern pocket-sized PLL portables are not good FM performers.

3 All budget pocket-sized PLL portables are not good FM performers.

It could be that only 3 is generally true. And if that were to be the case
it would be a matter of buying a non-budget pocket portable, worldband or
otherwise.

If all were true, then I'm stuck!! :c) Because I want a digital PLL.

(I'm hoping some one is going to sayonly 3 is true! :c)

3 is probably true in general, but I wondered whether 1 & 2 is true.
That's why the subject header says,"Is FM performance on modern PLL
radios "rap" with a capital "C"?")

BTW, when I say pocket portable I mean small enough to perhaps fit in a
pocket, not one made to go in your pocket!!

I'm after a radio about 6" x 4" x 1" ish. With telescopic antenna. That's
what I have called a pocket portable.

David wrote:
Tivoli Model One has the best tough-signal performance of any 3 digit
FM radio I've run across. I can get 3,000 Watt stations 40+ miles
away perfectly.

http://www.tivoliaudio.com/pM1CLA.htm

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:07:15 -0000, "Richard"
wrote:



I'm wanting a pockety sized PLL radio that will, on FM performance,
actually equal, at least an, old Grundig radio for sensitivity,
cross-modulation and image rejection!

Great :But not PLL or small portable.:c)

RC & All,

KDFC 102.1 Classical FM Radio in the SF Bay Area is listed for RDS
and it does broadcast an RDS Signal.

KDFC 102.1 Classical FM Radio in the SF Bay Area is also listed for IBOC.

Does anyone know if KDFC 102.1 Classical FM Radio in the SF Bay Area
is In-Fact broadcasting in IBOC at this time ?

IF So... How does the IBOC Signal Sound from KDFC ?

iwtk ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Richard Cranium)
= = = wrote in message . com...
- - - S N I P - - -
But a late-60's Grundig Music-Boy germanium transistor radio (original
manual at left) picks it up quite clearly! This shows the sad deterioration
of FM radio design over the decades; the old discrete-component radio, with
excellent selectivity, could pull KDFC out of the hiss and mush; the new
ones, with their short whip aerials and IC cookbook designs, just did not
have the power and discrimination."


I'm wanting a pockety sized PLL radio that will, on FM performance, actually
equal, at least an, old Grundig radio for sensitivity, cross-modulation and
image rejection!

While it is certainly unfortunate that KDFC is the only classical
station left in the SF Bay Area, you overlook (perhaps deliberately?)
a few of the root causes of this problem: More stations jammed onto
the band as close together as permitted, most of them using higher
power than the good old days, and the fact that stereo requires a
better signal to get through.

You really cannot blame the receivers for this mess.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message

I read the linked web page and it says:

"Earlier in the year 2003, we made the mistake of taking seriously some
very enthusiastic posts on rec.radio.shortwave -- "the trailer-park
shortwave newsgroup" according to one of our acquaintances -- by
dim-wits who were overjoyed with a ten-dollar multiband radio with the
unexpected brand name "Bell & Howell""

"dim-wits"? "the trailer-park shortwave newsgroup" ?

Who is the *real* dimwit here? You would have to be the original
dimwit to really expect a $10 radio to actually be very useful. Good
grief...I've never seen one, even the picture, and I know it sucks
just from the description. They DO NOT build good shortwave radios and
sell them for $10. I have to good sense not to believe
otherwise...Mamma didn't raise no "trailer park" fool.




The page's insults and cheap shots on cheap radios continue:

"clipped from that site"...
If someone posts an enthusiastic comment about one particular brand of
sw radio or scanner, this is immediately "rebutted" (allegedly) by
those who disagree. This is, as I state in my Icom articles, a futile
act. Everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of the hobby and to
appreciate his or her own radio. By telling an enthusiast that his
"radio is bad" or that his or her taste is faulty, nothing positive is
accomplished....

OK, let me get this right...He's complaining because no one would say
the B@H was a piece of dime store junk, but now he's complaining
because some might or did in other cases with other brand
radios...Hell, I think most all portables are basically junk. I've
never seen one that was really worth a hoot for anything serious. I
wouldn't buy any of them. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. I
don't care if I'm chased out of this house, and forced to a trailer
park to live next door to the guy that wrote that web page. Normally,
I never comment on specific radios, unless it's a question on own I
actually own. I realize not all people need radios that cost several
hundred dollars or more to listen to VOA or whatever. I don't normally
comment on other peoples radios, unless they start developing
incorrect delusions regarding some aspect of it's performance, and
even that is rare. I know the B@H would be useless to me, but there is
no point on raining on someone elses parade just to act radio
snobbish. That's why I never add to threads like that. If the poster
likes the thing, more power to him. He's certainly a lot less lighter
in the pocket than I am with my various models. MK