Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves. Trouble is, we live in a kind of
remote area (foothills in Central/Southern California, USA), and the
signal is often really poor. I would love to get her a real nice
"AM/FM/shortwave/weather band" radio, but I don't want to spend a large
hunk of cash only to find out the she can't pull in those signals on
the new radio any better than she can on the radios she currently uses.

What affects a radio's ability to pull in distant and faint
signals...some internal amplification system? A more discriminating
tuner? Any models, brands, features I should look for (or avoid)?
"Weather band" would be nice, but we already have a weather radio, so
that is not a necessity. I have no idea what kind of content is on
shortwave, so that is not a priority either. For her talk-radio, she
won't care about the size/volume of the radio, but we often do work
outside and try to listen to football on the radio as we work, and for
that application, I imagine we might want to be able to get at least a
medium amount of volume.

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

Chuck

In article .com,
"Chuck" wrote:

Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves. Trouble is, we live in a kind of
remote area (foothills in Central/Southern California, USA), and the
signal is often really poor. I would love to get her a real nice
"AM/FM/shortwave/weather band" radio, but I don't want to spend a large
hunk of cash only to find out the she can't pull in those signals on
the new radio any better than she can on the radios she currently uses.

What affects a radio's ability to pull in distant and faint
signals...some internal amplification system? A more discriminating
tuner? Any models, brands, features I should look for (or avoid)?
"Weather band" would be nice, but we already have a weather radio, so
that is not a necessity. I have no idea what kind of content is on
shortwave, so that is not a priority either. For her talk-radio, she
won't care about the size/volume of the radio, but we often do work
outside and try to listen to football on the radio as we work, and for
that application, I imagine we might want to be able to get at least a
medium amount of volume.

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

The usual suspects are Tivoli and similar table-top units from Boston
Acoustics, Cambridge Soundworks, etc. There's also the GE Superadio and
various Grundig models.

Of course, you may just need a better antenna, preferably an outdoor
model. There could be radio on your cable system, although this service
is growing rare.

Stephen

"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves.

1. Cheapish alternative:

Radio
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...able/3500.html

No weatherband but I know that it works because I own one. Sounds OK too.


Or, if you absolutely must have weatherband, try this
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...lus/index.aspx

I used to own one and its reception is OK. But it sounds really muffled and
nasty.


and antenna
http://ccrane.com/antennas/am-antenn...m-antenna.aspx

Although the radios work without the external antenna the external antenna
makes all the difference in difficult locations. And please read the manual
and learn how to use the antenna.




2. Near SOTA alternative:

Radio
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...rxvr/0330.html

and antenna
http://www.dxtools.com/QX.htm

The antenna is mandatory since the radio does not include a built-in one. If
you learn to use this combo (it is NOT that difficult) and cannot get
satisfactory results, it is time to move! This radio has neither FM nor
weather band but I know of no receiver anywhere near its price that can
approach its AM performance while also including FM and weather bands.


Cheers,

Margaret

"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves. Trouble is, we live in a kind of
remote area (foothills in Central/Southern California, USA), and the
signal is often really poor. I would love to get her a real nice
"AM/FM/shortwave/weather band" radio, but I don't want to spend a large
hunk of cash only to find out the she can't pull in those signals on
the new radio any better than she can on the radios she currently uses.

What affects a radio's ability to pull in distant and faint
signals...some internal amplification system? A more discriminating
tuner? Any models, brands, features I should look for (or avoid)?
"Weather band" would be nice, but we already have a weather radio, so
that is not a necessity. I have no idea what kind of content is on
shortwave, so that is not a priority either. For her talk-radio, she
won't care about the size/volume of the radio, but we often do work
outside and try to listen to football on the radio as we work, and for
that application, I imagine we might want to be able to get at least a
medium amount of volume.

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

Chuck

You need an antenna. Once the AM radio meets minimum standards, and all of
the good ones do, the reception is completely dependent on the antenna, and
the terrain. For good reception, you need
1. A big antenna, and a really big lot to put it on. If you have several
acres, you can put up one of several sophisticated long wave antennas that
cancel out atmospheric, the big killer at the 200 meter wavelength.
2. Terrain which undulates only a little in the direction you want to
receive.

Modest improvements can be had with external antennas, some of which are in
the form of inductive pickup coils.

Any chance these talk show guys are streamed on the Internet? This would be
a much better way to do it.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"Chuck" wrote:


Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves. Trouble is, we live in a kind of
remote area (foothills in Central/Southern California, USA), and the
signal is often really poor. I would love to get her a real nice
"AM/FM/shortwave/weather band" radio, but I don't want to spend a large
hunk of cash only to find out the she can't pull in those signals on
the new radio any better than she can on the radios she currently uses.

What affects a radio's ability to pull in distant and faint
signals...some internal amplification system? A more discriminating
tuner? Any models, brands, features I should look for (or avoid)?
"Weather band" would be nice, but we already have a weather radio, so
that is not a necessity. I have no idea what kind of content is on
shortwave, so that is not a priority either. For her talk-radio, she
won't care about the size/volume of the radio, but we often do work
outside and try to listen to football on the radio as we work, and for
that application, I imagine we might want to be able to get at least a
medium amount of volume.

Thanks in advance for any guidance!


The usual suspects are Tivoli and similar table-top units from Boston
Acoustics, Cambridge Soundworks, etc. There's also the GE Superadio and
various Grundig models.

Of course, you may just need a better antenna, preferably an outdoor
model. There could be radio on your cable system, although this service
is growing rare.

Stephen

As one who has owned various samples...

1. Tivoli radio sucks for AM, though it sounds surprisingly good on FM
for its size.

2. AM reception is a function of a decent radio and a decent antenna.

3. For radios, there are two good choices. The C Crane (about $120)
radio is the best for your situation, as it includes FM and weather
bands and is probably the best overall performer for AM reception. A
close second for AM is the GE Superradio III(about $50). It is cheaper
than the C Crane, works forever on a set of D cells, but lacks weather
band. I had a Ccrane and eventually sold it because, with the digital
tuner, it ate batteries like crazy and I found I didn't miss the small
improvement over the GE. Note that the C Crane is supposed to be set up
to reproduce human speach more intelligebly than others.

4. For antennas, if you can't or won't intall a large seperate antenna,
one of the Select-A-tenna things from C Crane (or similar from Terk or
if they still carry it, Radio Shack) will help a lot. These work with
any radio, but they do require you to tune the antenna each time you
change stations.

Best Regards,

DAve

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:25:11 GMT, "Margaret von B."
2. Near SOTA alternative:

Radio
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...rxvr/0330.html

This radio has neither FM nor
weather band but I know of no receiver anywhere near its price that can
approach its AM performance while also including FM and weather bands.


What do you think of the ICOM IC-R75 in comparison AM performance?

"H. Brown" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:25:11 GMT, "Margaret von B."
2. Near SOTA alternative:

Radio
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...rxvr/0330.html

This radio has neither FM nor
weather band but I know of no receiver anywhere near its price that can
approach its AM performance while also including FM and weather bands.


What do you think of the ICOM IC-R75 in comparison AM performance?

R75 comes from factory with attenuated broadcast AM sensitivity in order to
make it a better SW receiver. There are a couple of mods out there to remove
this "feature" either partially or fully. I had one for 4 years with the
attenuation fully removed and all the other Kiwa mods. I liked its variety
of tuning aids and it is much nicer looking than the Palstar and more
pleasant to operate but for *strictly AM* I would go for the Palstar every
time. That is because:

1. No mods required to invalidate the factory warranty.

2. Superior RF performance even against a fully modded R75.

3. Superior sound quality and unmatched audio clarity especially with
external speaker.


Yes, I kow, the Palstar is ugly and feels cheap.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Margaret

Robert Morein wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greetings all!

I don't listen to much radio at all, but my wife has some talk-radio
folks she digs on the AM airwaves. Trouble is, we live in a kind of
remote area (foothills in Central/Southern California, USA), and the
signal is often really poor. I would love to get her a real nice
"AM/FM/shortwave/weather band" radio, but I don't want to spend a large
hunk of cash only to find out the she can't pull in those signals on
the new radio any better than she can on the radios she currently uses.

What affects a radio's ability to pull in distant and faint
signals...some internal amplification system? A more discriminating
tuner? Any models, brands, features I should look for (or avoid)?
"Weather band" would be nice, but we already have a weather radio, so
that is not a necessity. I have no idea what kind of content is on
shortwave, so that is not a priority either. For her talk-radio, she
won't care about the size/volume of the radio, but we often do work
outside and try to listen to football on the radio as we work, and for
that application, I imagine we might want to be able to get at least a
medium amount of volume.

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

Running a suitable longwire antenna with grounding for lightning
protection and a balun for input and a solid earth ground will do
wonders, but even simple homebrew ferrite antennas coupled with a good
communications receiver can do wonders.

The cheap way is to use a car radio. Fifties tube models with their
vibrator power supplies disconnected and external B+ and heater
supplies can be used, as is or with their power amp sections removed
and a line level output fitted. Solid state Seventies AM units have
crappy sounding power amp sections (mostly) but are quieter than tube
units and run nicely off a 12V supply, in fact with the PA and driver
transistors out most would probably run on a voltage doubler off the
heater winding of, say, a Stereo 70 or similar with one channel
disconnected. Just a hint.

Better fidelity is with a passive TRF set fed into a preamp and power
amp. See the Audio Anthology for the JW Millen kit tuner-a crystal
radioo basically-but it works best with local signal reception.

Ed Romney recommended using the Zenith plastic AM-FM table radios with
their power and audio transformers removed as tuners for both AM and,
surprisingly, FM. I recommend his book, "Fixing Up Nice old Radios",
highly.

With all the discussion of the old consoles being reworkable for hi-fi
purposes on r.a.t. it's ironic that the best part of many of these old
**** magnets is ironicaly the RF head. Particularly on immediate
postwar Zeniths and RCAs.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

The cheap way is to use a car radio.

Shut up, moron! You're completely clueless.

Nobody should ever listen to a loser like "bret".

Margaret von B. wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

The cheap way is to use a car radio.

Shut up, moron! You're completely clueless.

Blast of vaginal decay noted (and smelled....oh boy, and how!)

Nobody should ever listen to a loser like "bret".

No one not aware that car radios in the 50s, 60s and 70s were usually
very well designed and limited sonically by their output sections.
Converting to line level output after the detector and using them as a
tuner or in the case of tube models simply fitting a "better" OPT (I
mounted one intended for a Fender "Super Champ" outside the chassis on
one MM-era Delco put in a old green Altec utility cab with a 8" Peavey
guitar amp spealer and two Motorola piezos with simple crossover) and
changing component values can make for a table radio fully the RF peer
of today's Tivolis.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Margaret von B. wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

The cheap way is to use a car radio.

Shut up, moron! You're completely clueless.

Blast of vaginal decay noted (and smelled....oh boy, and how!)

Nobody should ever listen to a loser like "bret".

No one not aware that car radios in the 50s,


Read the original post, you stupid dildo.

Cheers,

Margaret

Margaret von B. wrote:
snip

Read the original post, you stupid dildo.

More appropriate material for you to read, Margaret:

http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm