Michael Black wrote:
"John S." ) writes:
RJ wrote:
My "bookshelf stereo" cost a couple hundred bucks.
On a good day, with antenna, I get maybe four FM stations.

On a recent trip to a casino, I got a souvenir pocket radio.
( probably costs less than a buck )
and I get (FM) stations all across the dial !

It ain't fair !

rj

A better antenna will do wonders.

Maybe not.

For a lot of FM receivers, they are actually too sensitive, which
means in a strong RF field, ie a major city with lots of radio stations,
they start overloading, preventing the reception of lesser stations. Add
a "good antenna" and it will just make matters worse.

The best FM receiver I've ever had (which I admit does not encompass
a wide variety of FM receivers) was a Sony from about 1971. It
was quite "deaf", but unlike a lot of average receivers, it didn't overload.
The trick was it lacked an RF stage, the antenna connecting directly
to the mixer via the front end filtering. When I was given it about
twenty years ago, it was the first time I actually did any FM DXing.

I've read articles about Henry Kloss and he lamented that too many
FM radios had been designed for maximum sensitivity, which worked
fine if you were out in the wilderness, but didn't work at all
if you were in a big city. Apparently his designs were less
spectacular in specs, but resulted in better performance overall.

Michael

Well, yes that is true in some situations. But in others, especially
the typical suburban setting a simple dipole FM antenna will result in
a big improvement. The OP offered no information aout the environment,
so it's anyones guess as to what will really work.