|
Question about AM radio reception, equipment, and expectations
After reading some of the sites dedicated to extending the broadcast
range of regional radio stations, it occurred to me that I could avoid paying the NFL for streaming broadcasts of NFL games not available in my area. I'm particularly interested in pulling in the big Chicago AM radio station 780 WBBM. I'm a transplant Bears fan that now lives in the Tampa area. Is it possible to get reliable reception from that distance, with say a GE AM/FM "SuperRadio" III, 7-2887? Or am I just dreaming. Thanks, Mark |
|
DX Ace & M Ball,
|
You could also try to see if you can get it on a good car radio (most OEM
radios have decent am's in them). Whether or not you can receive it reliably has much to do with their particular coverage...the 50 Kilowatters vary tremendously in their coverage areas. I find that "listenable" nighttime reception of 600-700 mile distant signals on decent radios is about 50/50...meaning they can vary from excellent some nights to non-existent others. Since there are so many variables, you won't know for sure whether it is possible unless you try it for yourself over several nights. And, of course, as someone else said, you will get no listenable daytime reception at that distance. Jay "David" wrote in message ... On 16 Mar 2005 14:33:30 -0800, wrote: After reading some of the sites dedicated to extending the broadcast range of regional radio stations, it occurred to me that I could avoid paying the NFL for streaming broadcasts of NFL games not available in my area. I'm particularly interested in pulling in the big Chicago AM radio station 780 WBBM. I'm a transplant Bears fan that now lives in the Tampa area. Is it possible to get reliable reception from that distance, with say a GE AM/FM "SuperRadio" III, 7-2887? Or am I just dreaming. Thanks, Mark Sirius Satellite offers WBBM NFL coverage. www.sirius.com |
Here goes that old refrain again.(I once read somewhere) Look around in
the auto junk yards in your area for Japanese auto/pickuptruck radios which date back to the 1980's.I once read somewhere on the intenet that some of those older model Japanese auto radios are good at picking up long distance AM stations.(Shortwave is the higher end of AM) Someone in this news group probally knows more than I do about that and can tell you how to properly set up older model auto radios to use in your home. cuhulin |
Mark wrote:
I'm particularly interested in pulling in the big Chicago AM radio station 780 WBBM. Is it possible to get reliable reception from that distance, with say a GE AM/FM "SuperRadio" III, 7-2887? _____________ There are a fair number of stations operating on 780kHz from Mexico and Cuba, with night-time operations that will be a problem for you, no matter what receiver you use. Probably the worst interferer will be CKMC in Moa, Cuba with 1kW of night-time power, non-directional. I live about 275 miles from WBBM, and their night-time signal here often has fairly weak, but audible Spanish programming under it from one or more co-channel stations. RF |
Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:16:55 -0600, wrote: Here goes that old refrain again.(I once read somewhere) Look around in the auto junk yards in your area for Japanese auto/pickuptruck radios which date back to the 1980's.I once read somewhere on the intenet that some of those older model Japanese auto radios are good at picking up long distance AM stations.(Shortwave is the higher end of AM) Someone in this news group probally knows more than I do about that and can tell you how to properly set up older model auto radios to use in your home. cuhulin |
David wrote: Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception. Nothing? dxAce Michigan USA |
An R390 or 390A is superior to any sandbox. Your average 5 tube
superhet from the early 60s is superior to 99.99% of the transistor radios around today. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:50:33 -0500, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception. Nothing? dxAce Michigan USA |
In article , Michael wrote:
... Yes... I can hear it, but, the problem is, the signal is going to fade at times to the point where wont hear anything. How localized are these deep fades on Medium Wave? In other words, would a couple of antennas (or receivers) about 100/300/1000(?) feet apart make it possible to dodge the fades by switching from one to another? Mark Zenier Washington State resident |
Could be. Car radios can often be quite good as far as reception, but I
wonder if that is due to the fact you are driving outside, without buildings and other structures in the way. My 2004 Chrysler's stock radio gets excellent reception on AM in the evening. Here in Wisconsin I can pick up the big AM stations from Minneapolis, St. Louis, Dallas, Atlanta, New York, Ontario, and so forth. |
Check to see if the Bears games are on AFRTS.
Best, Joe |
David wrote: Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception. Thats fairly silly...Whether it has tubes or not will not be a deciding factor. He wants a radio with good selectivity. When I was listening to the station last night, I was *not* using a tube radio, and to tell you the truth, I doubt any of my older tube radios would have had the needed selectivity to weed that station out of the muck. A car radio would have been *useless*. A normal tube radio with standard wide filters would have been *useless*. But my icom with it's narrow filter was the cat's ass when it came to weeding that station out, with a local "next door" on 790kc. Not a tube in sight... Sensitivity will not be a factor unless the radio is "really" lame. MK |
Your average 5 tube
superhet from the early 60s is superior to 99.99% of the transistor radios around today. ....... Thats just plain silly... MK |
M Ball,
|
What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the
reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know. Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types... The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity. And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio.. :( If you have the selectivity, you have it half won... The rest is using the antenna/s, to null unwanted stations. Now , some tube sets might *sound* better to the ear, than some solid states, but thats a whole nother thing... It's the filtering that is the main thing as far as the audio quality. My icom has real good audio on AM, if you are using the wide filter. A R-390 would probably be real good, as I *think* it has narrow filters for any frequency, including MW. So yes, it would be great if so...My old Drake R4 would be good *if* I had the optional low band converter..The drake has narrow filters available, and they work anywhere. But having tubes has little to do with anything, except many the tone of the audio output. Being the Drake needs the converter to work MW, the icom 706g is my best MW radio right now. Hands down when it comes to weeding tough ones out of the muck. It's "narrow" filter for AM is really narrow..It makes "next door" local stations go on vacation. I'm sure a lot of bigger modern rigs would be even better. IE: the various 756/746 pro's, etc, etc... MK |
dxAce wrote:
David wrote: Nothing beats a tube radio for long distance medium wave reception. Nothing? Right off the bat I can say what beats it: a tube radio hooked to a really long, really high antenna. |
On 17 Mar 2005 18:09:44 -0800, wrote:
What does being tube or transistor really have to do with how good the reception of a receiver will be anyway? Nothing, as far as I know. Nothing really...There are good and bad of both types... The real deal in hearing something like that is selectivity. And unfortunately, that usually means more $$$$ for the radio.. Balderdash! http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/e...ceiver_lrg.jpg ''Probably the most revered receiver from the 1950s and 60s was, and still is, the Collins-designed R390A/URR. Made by several manufacturers under contract to the U.S. military, this radio was once considered "Top Secret" because of its exceptional performance. Many serious broadcast DXers managed to get their hands on the famed R390, and the receiver is revered by many as superior to the solid-state radios produced today. Hundreds of them have been restored and maintained, and occupy prominent places in the homes of DXers all over the world.'' ''A personal experience which speaks volumes about the performance of a properly working R390A happened only a few years back. A group of some of the "heavy hitters" in the SWBC DX community, myself included went on a DX'pedition to Cape Hatteras, NC. Known for its incredible radio conditions as early as 1902, Cape Hatteras was the scene of some of the early research done by radio pioneer, R.A. Fessenden. Today, this remote location is a top choice for Medium and Shortwave Broadcast DX'ers. Quite an array of receivers had been brought along including a Drake R8 and R8A. A pair of Watkins-Johnson HF-1000's, an R388, R390A and a JRC NRD-535. It was a particularly good morning with extraordinarily quiet conditions and a strong opening into the Pacific and Asia. Around 1130 UTC I checked 3304.8 for the Radio Republic Indonesia outlet in Dili, once Portuguese Timor. Although it had not been reliably logged since the late 70's, it was there that morning weakly, just a het in the R8A. Everyone quickly tuned to the frequency determined not to miss the opportunity to log such a rare station. However, even the $4,000 Watkins-Johnson receivers could not extract more that a few words of copy. Our R390A was equipped with a Sherwood SE-3 synchronous detector and I quickly tuned to 3304.8. The R390A and Sherwood SE-3 extracted recordable audio from that signal when no other receiver we had could. That put the receiver in a whole new category not only for me but the others in attendance. Of the R390A's I own, 3 are capable of sensitivity performances in the ..07-.08uv for 10db S/N + N using the 4 kc filter and standard AM detection. I know of few receivers available today at any price able to duplicate of that level of performance'' http://www.r390a.com/html/history.htm |
dxAce wrote: David wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:35:00 -0500, dxAce wrote: I hate to tell Chuck, the apparent author, that I reliably copied, logged and QSL'd RRI Dili prior to his reception using a Drake R7 here in 1990. dxAce Michigan USA But you weren't on that particular DXpedition with your R7, were you? No, but if you read the article it states something about not being reliably logged since 1970... by whom I guess is uncertain, I would guess in the USA, but who knows. If I recall I had reported both the reception and later QSL to NASWA, of which Chuck is (was?) a member. At any rate, it was about 5 years or so previous to their dxpedition. I'm quite pleased that we were all able to hear it, as it was indeed rather rare. The QSL is #192 on my list: http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxlist.htm dxAce Michigan USA |
Well, first off thanks for all the great idea's folks!
I've signed up for the streaming WBBM. It remains to be seen if they'll "black out" that service during Bear's games due to contractual constraints - but definitely worth a try. As for moving back to Chicago... it's a fantastic city and great sports town with vibrant media, world-class architecture, and a wonderful mid-western style, but DANG! those winters are soooooo looong! -mb wrote: I know I will probally get slapped for it,but he could always move back to Shy town and get excellent WBBM reception on his radio. cuhulin |
Well, from my point of view Steve has it dead right.
I have a pal who I DX with who has a Drake R7A and he beats us hollow with the feint/rare DX he gets that we can hardly copy. I have had experience of many famous boatanchors including the Racal R-17, but never does their performance come anywhere near a modern Drake receiver like the R8B. I think the boatanchor lads still live in dreamland -- John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods RX Drake R8B, SW8 & ERGO software Sony 7600D GE SRIII BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A. Hallicrafters SX-100, Eddystone 940 GE circa 50's radiogram Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx I hate to tell Chuck, the apparent author, that I reliably copied, logged and QSL'd RRI Dili prior to his reception using a Drake R7 here in 1990. dxAce Michigan USA |
JP,
" I think the boatanchor lads still live in dreamland " Ah - The GLOWING Memories of Yesteryear ~ RHF |
You still haven't explained how the tubes fiqure into this...
Of course it's a good receiver. It was pretty much a lab instrument. But it's the overall attention to detail, rather than the use of tubes that makes it good. If the one picking up the het couldn't get the audio, it's due to poor filter shaping in that radio.. The sensitivity pretty much means nada for him in Fla. You'd have to be on a frozen desert Isle to have quiet enough cdx to take advantage of that sensitivity on MW. Severe overkill for 99%...I'm sorta dubious of how those numbers were measured also, but thats another story... Doesn't really matter as even 1 uv for 10 db s/n+n is overkill in the MW band.. I don't dispute that it's a good radio. It's one of the best. But the same could be done solid state, if they still built radios like collins did 50 years ago... The sensistivity on my icom on MW-AM is way less than those numbers, and I still have way more sensitivity than I could ever use, unless I was waaaaayyyy out in the sticks , in the dead of winter...And even then, I probably have enough.. In his case in Fla, just having a R-390 alone is not the answer. His location is not quiet enough to take advantage of any great sensitivity numbers. The only thing he needs is good selectivity. Any half decent radio, tube or s/s, will have enough sensitivity if any kind of decent antenna is used. The station will either be there, or it won't, due to cdx. If it isn't, nothing he uses will likely help too much. On HF, the 706g does .15 uv for 10db.. .12 on six meters. ..11 on vhf/uhf.. Thats overkill for HF and six...I never use the preamp...It's *too* much sensitivity, so I actually use less than those numbers ..Those are with the preamp on. It's reduced on AM mode, how much depending on the band, but it's still never lacking for sensitivity. Not even close. And it's a fairly cheap radio, relatively speaking. Much less than the R-390 when it was new...About 1/20th the size and weight...:/ BTW, I do have both tube and solid state radios, so it's not like I've never used a tube rig before to compare... Receiving wise, there is nothing done with tubes, that can't be done with solid state. Now audio....That's open to real debate.. I don't deny many tube radios have great audio to the ears. But so does my 706 if I'm going into the sound card, and to my kenwood stereo audio amp, good speakers, etc... It's my best sounding radio for listening to the "rack" crowd, that run all the transmit audio gear. Way better than my old all tube Drake R4, which sounds thin in comparison, due to it's filtering. Not much low end on that radio... MK |
Chicago is a Great City.I have been there before in 1956.
cuhulin |
|
David wrote: The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) makes abig difference. As does the absolute silence of the circuitry. Still, no one mentions where the tubes come into play... All the above could apply to my old drake R4...Except I disagree about the absolute silence of the circuitry... Nothing is absolutely quiet... The front end (tracking preselector, RF amp, Mixer) of my kenwood TS-830 is very good, and it has no tubes... Are you telling me it would be better if I converted those circuits to tubes? Sorry, I just don't buy it... The R-390 is a great receiver because it was a *very* expensive, carefully designed radio made for commercial/lab and gov use. Not because it has tubes. I can list a whole slew of other all tube models that are fairly pathetic in performance compared to the collins. Why didn't the use of tubes help those models? MK |
|
Why didn't the use of tubes help those models?
MK Dynamic range. Overload immunity. ........... Because of tubes? I dunno...All of my radios have good enough dynamic range, and none overload...Tube, or solid state...That doesn't tell me too much... Only cheaper radios have poor dynamic range, and overload...:/ But, we ain't talking about R-390's. We are talking about tubes themselves vs solid state.. I'm still waiting to hear why the use of tubes didn't help some radios to avoid being pieces of junk... If tubes themselves are so great, *all* tube radios should be about on the level of a R-390. But they ain't... Not by a long shot. The old collins/R390's, etc, etc, and the collins A and S amateur line, and the older 4 line drakes are about the only tube radios that I still consider worth using. All the rest are basically junk, for my needs. I'm sure this will attract flames 0-plenty, but I'm picky. I demand *very* good stability. The collins and drakes basically used the same type of circuitry. A collins or drake is just as stable at 30 mc as it is at 3 mc. And the readout scale is the same also..You can't say that for many other old tube rigs. I can think of a few that are best used as doorstops...Unstable at higher freq's, and drifty as a Chicago snowstorm. :( Both my kenwood and icoms can be turned on dead cold, and never need to be retuned to clarify a SSB signal. Ever. I can sit on freq for weeks at a time, and never have to touch up my tuning..."Sure, they may microdrift with temp changes, but it's never enough to notice by ear" Most tube rigs can't do that. I know my drakes can't. They can come close, but after about a day, you will usually need to touch up the tuning a tad. I don't know how a R-390 fares in this regard, but if it's *rock* stable, it's the tube exception to the rule. And if it is, it's probably cuz it has a xtal oven, etc...Not cuz it uses tubes... I won't mention that most of my tube gear needed annual alignment tweaks and tube checks/changes to keep 100% up to par. My solid state rigs never change...Don't have to be fussed with every few months, if you leave them on all the time like I did/do. I still like tube radios, and still have a few, but I'm not blind to reality...There are not many tube radios that are up to R-390 standards. Tubes look warm, and may add slightly to the BTU rating of the heating system in the winter, but they ain't the magic answer to SW-MW nirvana... Heck, I hardly use mine anymore..Overall, I find them inferior for *everyday* use. IE: readout resolution, stability, tuning rates, memories, heck , I could go for days... The R-390 is a great radio, but not all tube radios can claim to be R-390's.....Quite possibly none can. The collins and drake ham radios are fairly close though. But neither of those were cheap radios when they were built either. MK |
|
David wrote: I think you answered your own questions, several times over. So, this still means you think everyone should go out and buy an old tube radio, even if it's not a R-390? FYI, a well maintained aligned R390A in a stable environment can be tuned within 300 Hz of a target frequency and will drift less than half that figure over 24 hours. Sorry. Not good enough...I used to get anal cuz my 830's internal VFO drifted 40 cycles with A/C cycling off and on.. Even thats enough to require retuning of a SSB signal. Thats why I went to the VFO-230 on the 830, which drifts nada.. My 706 will tune within 1 hz of a target frequency as far as readout...If you count slewing error thoughout the HF spectrum, the max error might be hummmm, 1-20 cycles depending on the freq being used...Being I calibrate the radio at 10mhz, and say I'm on 40 meters, the error will be under 5 cycles. And I don't even have the hi-stab xtal...It could be even better, if I wanted to spend a lil more $$$. Within 300 hz of a target freq? Man, that's pitiful for the year 2005... Drift? If the room temp is stable, the icom has no real drift. Not enough to ever require retuning SSB anyway. You'll be a long ways off from me, if you drift 150 hz in a day. Same applies to the kenwood using the external VFO. You may have dynamic range, but your readout and stability are fairly lame to my standards.. There ain't a $10 transistor made with the dynamic range of a tube designed for small signal RF amplification. Doesn't really matter if dynamic range is not a really much of an issue to begin with...MK |
"... Car radios can often be quite good as far as reception...."
This again. I'm not disputing you. In fact, I have yet to encounter the home hi-fi stereo receiver that approaches a car radio in terms of AM-MW performance. I can attest to the remarkable ability of a run of the mill Delco car radio to haul in AM stations from miles away. There was a page at the C. Crane site commenting on this. brief delay while I search my files. SFX: the song played near the end of Jeopardy while the contestants think of the answer to the final question. Ah, here we go: Subject: AM Car Radios For DX? Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Date: 2003-02-03 14:46:59 PST Here's that website at C. Crane: http://www.ccrane.com/news/archives/...ws10.28.02.htm Never throw anything away. Yeah, but, attempting to open that site, I find that the URL no longer works. One is referred to http://www.ccrane.com/news/news-archives.aspx and from there to http://www.ccrane.com/news/car-radio....10.28.02.aspx and http://www.ccrane.com/news/car-radio....11.11.02.aspx These pages deal largely with poor reception and noise suppression. |
I agree with everything you say here.
I remember the series of modules for the High erformance HF Receiver from the Amateur' Handbook and the discussion on the mixer as the first active stage. Still, to get R390-like performance (quietness, more than anything else) a fairly esoteric receiver is necessary. On 23 Mar 2005 18:21:13 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com