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

"" ) writes:
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
Are they different stations up and down the dials, or is it overloading
so the same station appears in multiple places?

This is one of the myths of "expensive stereos". People pay good money
for them, and assume they will have good radios in them. But they are
buying more than a radio (depending on what's included, a cassette deck
a CD player, flashing lights graphic equalizer, a higher power amplifier,
etc). The radio may not even be seen as important, something to put
in but with the knowledge that few will use it and even fewer will care
about anything but a handful of stations.

Under those conditions, why should they allocate money into the design
and construction of a good radio, especially when there are things
that the buyer would find more appealing?

The same myth applies to a shortwave radio that happens to include
an FM section. Too many beleive that since it's an expensive radio,
that will be reflected in the FM section. But, the circuitry doesn't
overlap, the FM section requires a whole extra radio in there, and
the people wanting it want it for local reception. So they add it
in because it will increase sales, but don't spend too much on
the section because that will take away from the main feature, the
shortwave reception.

Michael

Michael Black schrieb:

"" ) writes:
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 !

Now what happens if you bring a decent FM tuner (an average 4-ganger
with 3 IF filters should do), the humble Radio Shack 6-element yagi and
possibly a rotor into the equation?

Are they different stations up and down the dials, or is it overloading
so the same station appears in multiple places?

Good point. I wouldn't expect ultra-simple scan radios to have much
front-end tracking.

This is one of the myths of "expensive stereos". People pay good money
for them, and assume they will have good radios in them. But they are
buying more than a radio (depending on what's included, a cassette deck
a CD player, flashing lights graphic equalizer, a higher power amplifier,
etc). The radio may not even be seen as important, something to put
in but with the knowledge that few will use it and even fewer will care
about anything but a handful of stations.

Yep.

Under those conditions, why should they allocate money into the design
and construction of a good radio, especially when there are things
that the buyer would find more appealing?

The same myth applies to a shortwave radio that happens to include
an FM section. Too many beleive that since it's an expensive radio,
that will be reflected in the FM section. But, the circuitry doesn't
overlap, the FM section requires a whole extra radio in there, and
the people wanting it want it for local reception. So they add it
in because it will increase sales, but don't spend too much on
the section because that will take away from the main feature, the
shortwave reception.

That's also partly true... the current Degens and Tecsuns do seem to put
some emphasis on FM (e.g. DE1103/E5), but Sony has been selling 7600s
with 280 kHz barn doors for ages now (at least they still have two, the
simpler stuff has to make do with one FM IF filter and no IFT *ouch*)
where 180s would cost insignificantly more and give *much* better
selectivity. If you want to take a look at a simple but effective FM
receiver concept, the service manual of the Grundig Sonoclock 900 clock
radio to be found on the web should be interesting. Something analog
built around a CXA1019S (all mono) shouldn't be too outlandish, but they
put in nothing less than two 150 kHz filters. (I should have one of
these coming soon, btw. ) Reportedly these Grundigs (typically FM
only) have always been good performers, and when I look at the number of
11 tuned circuits in the very first ones around 1970 (later ones had 10,
which still was the same as in contemporary Concert-Boys) I'm inclined
to believe it. If you can find what seems to be a fairly fancy model of
the past on the used market, do give it a try even if some are a bit
funky looking. (Clock radios seem to be a bit out of fashion these days,
all the better for collectors.)

Stephan
--
Home: http://stephan.win31.de/
Ist ein Sammler von Grundig-Uhrenradios eigentlich ein Sonoclocker?

I easily pick up fourteen loud and clear FM stations on any of my radios
which have FM tuners.There are at least six other FM stations which dont
come in so loud and clear,but still listenable.
cuhulin

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.

"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

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.