"Richard" wrote in message
...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/%7Esrw...rundig-100.htm

"FM? Whazzat?


snipped

I found FM performance to be excellent from my old Grundig
Satellit 1400 (c.1983). Got many a continental European from up here
in Scotland, during Sporadic 'E' lifts in the summer.

--
Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m asl

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
"Richard" wrote in message
...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/%7Esrw...rundig-100.htm

"FM? Whazzat?


snipped

I found FM performance to be excellent from my old Grundig
Satellit 1400 (c.1983). Got many a continental European from up here
in Scotland, during Sporadic 'E' lifts in the summer.

--
Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m asl

Yep.

Reading some comments about the Sony ICFM33RDS, and the bit I text I quoted
to start the thread, I've somehow got the impression that many modern
portable PL sets are "rap" with a capital "C"on FM. Radio Shack DX-397 and
the Sony 7600GR quoted as not being that good. Not sure how expensive these
radios are, but, the ICFM33RDS is only£35, so maybe poorish FM performance
is to be expected for this set. If I pay say £80 or £100 for a PLL radio,
maybe FM performance would get to as good as the old Grundig. I don't want
the RX to be deaf on FM, or have images from localstations all over the
band.

I wonder then if I need double conversion on FM.I bet ICFM33RDS is not
double. Thats actually just a two band RX. I probably should spend a bit
more and go for worldband. I vacillate between worldband and not worldband.
:c)

"Richard" wrote in message ...
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
"Richard" wrote in message
...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/%7Esrw...rundig-100.htm

"FM? Whazzat?


snipped

I found FM performance to be excellent from my old Grundig
Satellit 1400 (c.1983). Got many a continental European from up here
in Scotland, during Sporadic 'E' lifts in the summer.

--
Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m asl

Yep.

Reading some comments about the Sony ICFM33RDS, and the bit I text I quoted
to start the thread, I've somehow got the impression that many modern
portable PL sets are "rap" with a capital "C"on FM. Radio Shack DX-397 and
the Sony 7600GR quoted as not being that good. Not sure how expensive these
radios are, but, the ICFM33RDS is only£35, so maybe poorish FM performance
is to be expected for this set. If I pay say £80 or £100 for a PLL radio,
maybe FM performance would get to as good as the old Grundig. I don't want
the RX to be deaf on FM, or have images from localstations all over the
band.

You've made a classic mistake, that because shortwave receivers carry
relatively high price tags, that they then offer superior FM broadcast
reception.

In the first place, a higher price tag may reflect the limited interest
in shortwave. If you have to design something out of the ordinary,
it will cost more than an average design. And if fewer people are
interested, then you have to recoup the cost by a higher price.

But more important, any design concerns will be put into what
the radio is intended for, ie shortwave. And for anyone
who understands radio design, there is virtually no overlap
between what's good for an FM broadcast receiver in the 88 to 108MHz
range, and a shortwave receiver. One is for FM reception, the other
is for AM reception. One is for wideband signals relative far
apart in a part of the spectrum that is at least three times the
upper frequency of the other, while the other is for narrow signals
with narrow spacing between channels and still at a relatively low
frequency. Shortwave and the FM broadcast band are not close
together. All of this means that there is very little where
the designs overlap. What you are buying is a shortwave radio
(and maybe/likely that circuitry is used to tune the AM broadcast
band since the frequencies are adjacent and the mode and signal
bandwidth would be the same) and an FM broadcast radio in
the same box. Traditionally, shortwave radios did not include
an FM band, with a few exceptions; it changed as small shortwave
receivers from Asian companies became the norm. In other words,
the FM BCB section is thrown in as a marketing matter.

Since that FM section does nothing for the main selling point
of the radio, that shortwave reception, then any money put
into that section will take away from the design of the
shortwave section. So realistically, one might as well
put in as cheap an FM section as possible, since it's just
added circuitry, and one can so very easily pick the
same sort of circuit that is in any average FM radio.

Buying a shortwave radio will not automatically give better
FM reception, and depending on specific design, it may be
inferior to what you could find elsewhere.

Car radios are often good, because they require sensitivity yet
also the ability to withstand strong signals. FM reception is
a key part of the design, so it gets the attention. I have various
digitally tuned Delco car radios around the house, and they are
the best FM radios I've ever had. I have no idea of the absolute
performance, just that in my passing contact with relatively low
end receivers the FM section is great. On FM, the PLL is well
designed so I don't get spurious responses. The sensitivity seems
good, yet it doesn't overload. It is rare to find a station where
it doesn't belong. Selectivity is pretty good. The other day,
conditions were great and a non-local station was booming in.
It's adjacent to another non-local station but which comes in
regular (though it's strength varies). There was no problem
that day from adjacent channel interference.

FM broadcast receivers intended for good performance will also
be good contenders. Note that you have to go for something
with a beyond average design. Just as in those shortwave radios,
FM (and AM even moreso) are considered not so important in a "hifi"
situation, so they put little money into the tuner section. You would
have lousy FM radios in consumer equipment twenty and thirty years
ago, and you have it today, whether they are digitally tuned or
not. Such receivers are intended for local reception (who would
be interested in that noisy signal from a bit further out, especially
since the ads and traffic reports aren't local?) so weak signal
reception is not a concern in the design. And as with a lot of
FM receivers, they tend to be too sensitive, but that never becomes
useful for weak signal reception because that sensitivity also
means a tendency to overload on the local and strong signals.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

You've made a classic mistake, that because shortwave receivers carry
relatively high price tags, that they then offer superior FM broadcast
reception.

In the first place, a higher price tag may reflect the limited interest
in shortwave. If you have to design something out of the ordinary,
it will cost more than an average design. And if fewer people are
interested, then you have to recoup the cost by a higher price.

But more important, any design concerns will be put into what
the radio is intended for, ie shortwave. And for anyone
who understands radio design, there is virtually no overlap
between what's good for an FM broadcast receiver in the 88 to 108MHz
range, and a shortwave receiver. One is for FM reception, the other
is for AM reception. One is for wideband signals relative far
apart in a part of the spectrum that is at least three times the
upper frequency of the other, while the other is for narrow signals
with narrow spacing between channels and still at a relatively low
frequency. Shortwave and the FM broadcast band are not close
together. All of this means that there is very little where
the designs overlap. What you are buying is a shortwave radio
(and maybe/likely that circuitry is used to tune the AM broadcast
band since the frequencies are adjacent and the mode and signal
bandwidth would be the same) and an FM broadcast radio in
the same box. Traditionally, shortwave radios did not include
an FM band, with a few exceptions; it changed as small shortwave
receivers from Asian companies became the norm. In other words,
the FM BCB section is thrown in as a marketing matter.

Since that FM section does nothing for the main selling point
of the radio, that shortwave reception, then any money put
into that section will take away from the design of the
shortwave section. So realistically, one might as well
put in as cheap an FM section as possible, since it's just
added circuitry, and one can so very easily pick the
same sort of circuit that is in any average FM radio.

Buying a shortwave radio will not automatically give better
FM reception, and depending on specific design, it may be
inferior to what you could find elsewhere.

Car radios are often good, because they require sensitivity yet
also the ability to withstand strong signals. FM reception is
a key part of the design, so it gets the attention. I have various
digitally tuned Delco car radios around the house, and they are
the best FM radios I've ever had. I have no idea of the absolute
performance, just that in my passing contact with relatively low
end receivers the FM section is great. On FM, the PLL is well
designed so I don't get spurious responses. The sensitivity seems
good, yet it doesn't overload. It is rare to find a station where
it doesn't belong. Selectivity is pretty good. The other day,
conditions were great and a non-local station was booming in.
It's adjacent to another non-local station but which comes in
regular (though it's strength varies). There was no problem
that day from adjacent channel interference.

FM broadcast receivers intended for good performance will also
be good contenders. Note that you have to go for something
with a beyond average design. Just as in those shortwave radios,
FM (and AM even moreso) are considered not so important in a "hifi"
situation, so they put little money into the tuner section. You would
have lousy FM radios in consumer equipment twenty and thirty years
ago, and you have it today, whether they are digitally tuned or
not. Such receivers are intended for local reception (who would
be interested in that noisy signal from a bit further out, especially
since the ads and traffic reports aren't local?) so weak signal
reception is not a concern in the design. And as with a lot of
FM receivers, they tend to be too sensitive, but that never becomes
useful for weak signal reception because that sensitivity also
means a tendency to overload on the local and strong signals.

Michael

Points:

I think some of the the points you raise are probably applicable to any
radio that is not FM only.

I do not think I can buy a PLL FM only RX, and besides I'd want AM broadcast
band at least, in addition.

One would imagine a portable that was just FM and broadcast band (no
shortwave) the money would be spent on better FM performance. But, I
suspect that in many cases that might not be the case.

Not sure whether poor FM perfornance is related to PLL. Maybe not, but
generally to use of IC's.

Maybe biggest reason that the the ICFM33RDS FM performance at FM might not
be that good is because it's an inexpensive set. Maybe.

Maybe no modern worldband RX will be that good on FM. Then again maybe some
are at least as good as (say) an old Grundig. Perhaps the likely candidates
would be FM/Broadcast band ony RX. Or the more expensive worldband. As
usual, you get what you pay for.

Bottom line for me I guess is that I'd like to feel that if I went ahead an
spent say £80 to £100 on a PLL radio, that FM performance would be as good
as an old Grundig. Worldband RX or no. Or is it the case that I could
spend much more than this and still not get the old Grundig performance. If
that was the case, surely that would say something about modern FM design?

I could end up with two radios, a FM/Broadcast band RX. Plus a worldband
set.

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)

In article ,=20
says...
Michael Black wrote:
=20
You've made a classic mistake, that because shortwave receivers carry
relatively high price tags, that they then offer superior FM broadcast
reception.

In the first place, a higher price tag may reflect the limited interest
in shortwave. If you have to design something out of the ordinary,
it will cost more than an average design. And if fewer people are
interested, then you have to recoup the cost by a higher price.

But more important, any design concerns will be put into what
the radio is intended for, ie shortwave. And for anyone
who understands radio design, there is virtually no overlap
between what's good for an FM broadcast receiver in the 88 to 108MHz
range, and a shortwave receiver. One is for FM reception, the other
is for AM reception. One is for wideband signals relative far
apart in a part of the spectrum that is at least three times the
upper frequency of the other, while the other is for narrow signals
with narrow spacing between channels and still at a relatively low
frequency. Shortwave and the FM broadcast band are not close
together. All of this means that there is very little where
the designs overlap. What you are buying is a shortwave radio
(and maybe/likely that circuitry is used to tune the AM broadcast
band since the frequencies are adjacent and the mode and signal
bandwidth would be the same) and an FM broadcast radio in
the same box. Traditionally, shortwave radios did not include
an FM band, with a few exceptions; it changed as small shortwave
receivers from Asian companies became the norm. In other words,
the FM BCB section is thrown in as a marketing matter.

Since that FM section does nothing for the main selling point
of the radio, that shortwave reception, then any money put
into that section will take away from the design of the
shortwave section. So realistically, one might as well
put in as cheap an FM section as possible, since it's just
added circuitry, and one can so very easily pick the
same sort of circuit that is in any average FM radio.

Buying a shortwave radio will not automatically give better
FM reception, and depending on specific design, it may be
inferior to what you could find elsewhere.

Car radios are often good, because they require sensitivity yet
also the ability to withstand strong signals. FM reception is
a key part of the design, so it gets the attention. I have various
digitally tuned Delco car radios around the house, and they are
the best FM radios I've ever had. I have no idea of the absolute
performance, just that in my passing contact with relatively low
end receivers the FM section is great. On FM, the PLL is well
designed so I don't get spurious responses. The sensitivity seems
good, yet it doesn't overload. It is rare to find a station where
it doesn't belong. Selectivity is pretty good. The other day,
conditions were great and a non-local station was booming in.
It's adjacent to another non-local station but which comes in
regular (though it's strength varies). There was no problem
that day from adjacent channel interference.

FM broadcast receivers intended for good performance will also
be good contenders. Note that you have to go for something
with a beyond average design. Just as in those shortwave radios,
FM (and AM even moreso) are considered not so important in a "hifi"
situation, so they put little money into the tuner section. You would
have lousy FM radios in consumer equipment twenty and thirty years
ago, and you have it today, whether they are digitally tuned or
not. Such receivers are intended for local reception (who would
be interested in that noisy signal from a bit further out, especially
since the ads and traffic reports aren't local?) so weak signal
reception is not a concern in the design. And as with a lot of
FM receivers, they tend to be too sensitive, but that never becomes
useful for weak signal reception because that sensitivity also
means a tendency to overload on the local and strong signals.

Michael
=20
Points:
=20
I think some of the the points you raise are probably applicable to any
radio that is not FM only.
=20
I do not think I can buy a PLL FM only RX, and besides I'd want AM broadc=
ast
band at least, in addition.
=20
One would imagine a portable that was just FM and broadcast band (no
shortwave) the money would be spent on better FM performance. But, I
suspect that in many cases that might not be the case.
=20
Not sure whether poor FM perfornance is related to PLL. Maybe not, but
generally to use of IC's.
=20
Maybe biggest reason that the the ICFM33RDS FM performance at FM might no=
t
be that good is because it's an inexpensive set. Maybe.
=20
Maybe no modern worldband RX will be that good on FM. Then again maybe so=
me
are at least as good as (say) an old Grundig. Perhaps the likely candida=
tes
would be FM/Broadcast band ony RX. Or the more expensive worldband. As
usual, you get what you pay for.
=20
Bottom line for me I guess is that I'd like to feel that if I went ahead=
an
spent say =A380 to =A3100 on a PLL radio, that FM performance would be as=
good
as an old Grundig. Worldband RX or no. Or is it the case that I could
spend much more than this and still not get the old Grundig performance. =
If
that was the case, surely that would say something about modern FM design=
?
=20
I could end up with two radios, a FM/Broadcast band RX. Plus a worldband
set.
=20
That article really does scathe rec.radio,shortwave"!! Ha!! That was jus=
t
unfortunate, I was not concentrating on that part of the article. Just ca=
me
with the bit I was interested in.:c)
=20
=20
=20

My Panasonic RF-2200 was fantastic on FM, I could hear stations 50+=20
miles away on it, and it actually sounded good too. The next best one I=20
ever had was an old Delco car radio, with the "wonderbar" seek deal that=20
I bought at a garage sale for 10 bucks. I ran it off a 12V power supply.

I had it for about 20 years, then it suddenly died without warning. It=20
was playing away, I went to get something to snack on, and when I came=20
back it was sizzling away. It really smoked itself. I ended up tossing=20
it out in the yard so it wouldn't stink the place up.=20

I miss that thing.

BDK

"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:
"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

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 in message
...


Yep.

Reading some comments about the Sony ICFM33RDS, and the bit I text I
quoted
to start the thread, I've somehow got the impression that many modern
portable PL sets are "rap" with a capital "C"on FM. Radio Shack DX-397
and
the Sony 7600GR quoted as not being that good. Not sure how expensive
these
radios are, but, the ICFM33RDS is only£35, so maybe poorish FM
performance
is to be expected for this set. If I pay say £80 or £100 for a PLL
radio,
maybe FM performance would get to as good as the old Grundig. I don't
want
the RX to be deaf on FM, or have images from localstations all over
the
band.

My DX 440 is a PLL portable and it's a good FM DXer, although I rarely
get to FM DX due to the crowed frequencies here. I was picking up a
small station, maybe 5kW or less, almost 200 miles away when conditions
were good.

Shirt pocket portables have some problems the larger portables don't.
Most small portables use the headphone cord as an antenna. The antenna
may be off it's ideal length. Stretching the cord out straight makes it
a better antenna and a poorer headphone cord.

Small portables have to use small batteries, so power consumption
becomes an important issue. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but a
RF stage which operates a high power is less prone to overloading than a
RF stage which operates on minimal power. The power consumption issue
becomes more important on radios which use power hungry PLL circuits.
So I suppose small PLL radios might starve the RF amp to preserve the
batteries. But that's just speculation.

I wonder then if I need double conversion on FM.I bet ICFM33RDS is not
double. Thats actually just a two band RX. I probably should spend a
bit
more and go for worldband. I vacillate between worldband and not
worldband.
:c)


The normal 10.7 Mhz IF is OK. You'll get an extra set of images with
each conversion. A poorly done double conversion radio is worse than a
single conversion radio.

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





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.