Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

Thanks.

ric wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

A big antenna in your attic or on the roof is best. Anything
other than a good antenna with a rotator on it might as well be
a big rod/collapsable antenna.(mind you, they make these up
to 3-4 ft in length)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

A big antenna in your attic or on the roof is best.

No attic, and the roof is not an option.

Anything
other than a good antenna with a rotator on it might as well be
a big rod/collapsable antenna.(mind you, they make these up
to 3-4 ft in length)

Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

ric wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

Their marketing is rubbish, btw. Any standard "whip" type
antenna will work like that - just shorten it to the exact
frequency that you desire and aim it around until you get a
good signal.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


ric wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?
http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

Their marketing is rubbish, btw.


How many vacuum tubes did you find in it?


Any standard "whip" type
antenna will work like that - just shorten it to the exact
frequency that you desire and aim it around until you get a
good signal.



To call you an idiot would be an insult to idiots.


Margaret

Margaret von B. wrote:

How many vacuum tubes did you find in it?

A little math. Simple, really. Each frequency has
a specific length of antenna that it is received best at,
so match your antenna to your station and presto.

Or didn't you ever think of shortening the antenna?
It does telescope for a reason, you know.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

Their marketing is rubbish, btw. Any standard "whip" type
antenna will work like that - just shorten it to the exact
frequency that you desire and aim it around until you get a
good signal.

A lower frequency requires a *shorter* antenna?? I thought it would
have to be *longer*. Please explain.

"ric" wrote in message ...
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

Their marketing is rubbish, btw. Any standard "whip" type
antenna will work like that - just shorten it to the exact
frequency that you desire and aim it around until you get a
good signal.

A lower frequency requires a *shorter* antenna?? I thought it would
have to be *longer*. Please explain.

I think what Margaret is referring to is that when making an antenna, one
may cut it a little longer, and trim it.
You are correct, in that length of the antenna is inversely proportional to
frequency.

ric wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Thanks. Are you familiar with the FM-2G-C?

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

I am leaning toward trying it, indoors (next to a window) first.

Their marketing is rubbish, btw. Any standard "whip" type
antenna will work like that - just shorten it to the exact
frequency that you desire and aim it around until you get a
good signal.


A lower frequency requires a *shorter* antenna?? I thought it would
have to be *longer*. Please explain.

Sorry - I got it reversed. but the theory is the same - find
the right length and make it so. Then aim.

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.
The usual problem is a combination of:
1. multipath, meaning that the signal reaches the antenna via multiple
reflections. This causes complete cancellation at specific frequencies as
the modulated FM signal changes frequency. No antenna can restore a signal
from a null.

2. Adjacent channel interference. A station on a slightly different
frequency in a different reception area has enough presence to compete with
the local signal.

The solution to both of these problems is in a directive antenna, and
location. Depending upon where a nondirectional antenna is placed, it is
possible to get some directionality. A simple folded dipole, taped in the
right window at the right orientation, can easily outperform a
bells-and-whistles active antenna placed away from the window.

Commercial indoor antennas are packaged as room art. For the most part, they
all perform as well, or as badly, as each other. My personal favorite is the
no-longer-available Radio Shack "flying saucer". It had a tuning circuit
that gave it a real advantage over other antennas, but users didn't like to
work the knob. They preferred magic.


"ric" wrote in message ...
Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

Thanks.

Robert Morein wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

This appears to be the case here, though. This is a college station,
low in frequency (88.3 MHz), and only broadcasting at 2K watts about
40 miles to my south. The signal is very steady, but weak. Static
can be 99% eliminated by going into mono mode.

Are you familiar with the FM2G-C? It is being strongly considered.

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

"ric" wrote in message ...
Robert Morein wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

This appears to be the case here, though. This is a college station,
low in frequency (88.3 MHz), and only broadcasting at 2K watts about
40 miles to my south. The signal is very steady, but weak. Static
can be 99% eliminated by going into mono mode.

Are you familiar with the FM2G-C? It is being strongly considered.

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

This is an omnidirectional antenna, which means it will be very susceptible
to multipath. The fact that it is cut for the educational band gives it a
little more gain, but, as I said, gain is seldom the problem. The problem is
phase cancellation caused by reception of a signal that is reflected by two
or more different paths. This causes the signal to actually cancel 100% at
certain frequencies. More gain on nothing does not result in something. The
solution is a directional antenna, which attenuates all but one of the
reception paths, eliminating the phase cancellation.

Robert Morein wrote:

Are you familiar with the FM2G-C? It is being strongly considered.

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

This is an omnidirectional antenna, which means it will be very susceptible
to multipath. The fact that it is cut for the educational band gives it a
little more gain, but, as I said, gain is seldom the problem. The problem is
phase cancellation caused by reception of a signal that is reflected by two
or more different paths. This causes the signal to actually cancel 100% at
certain frequencies. More gain on nothing does not result in something. The
solution is a directional antenna, which attenuates all but one of the
reception paths, eliminating the phase cancellation.

Hmmm...I'm getting a slew of opinions on this, and few of them reach
the same conclusion. Such as:

http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/recep.htm

I've tried various dipole antennas, all with similar results. Best
results so far was an RCA powered indoor TV "rabbit ear" type antenna.

I'm tempted to have an antenna cut specifically for 88.3 MHz, as that is
the only FM I listen to. Oh well...

"ric" wrote in message ...
Robert Morein wrote:

Are you familiar with the FM2G-C? It is being strongly considered.

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html

This is an omnidirectional antenna, which means it will be very
susceptible
to multipath. The fact that it is cut for the educational band gives it
a
little more gain, but, as I said, gain is seldom the problem. The
problem is
phase cancellation caused by reception of a signal that is reflected by
two
or more different paths. This causes the signal to actually cancel 100%
at
certain frequencies. More gain on nothing does not result in something.
The
solution is a directional antenna, which attenuates all but one of the
reception paths, eliminating the phase cancellation.

Hmmm...I'm getting a slew of opinions on this, and few of them reach
the same conclusion. Such as:

http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/recep.htm

I've tried various dipole antennas, all with similar results. Best
results so far was an RCA powered indoor TV "rabbit ear" type antenna.

I'm tempted to have an antenna cut specifically for 88.3 MHz, as that is
the only FM I listen to. Oh well...

You can do it yourself. Take a look at
http://www.ycars.org/EFRA/Module%20C/AntDip.htm

The wavelength of 88.3 mHz is 66.88 inches. Your dipole should be 1/2 that
length: 33.5. All you need is a piece of twinlead, which is just junky
antenna lead-in wire. Cut it to 33.5 inches. At each end, twist the
conductors together. At the center, break one conductor. Connect the loose
ends to your feed wire. It is not essential, but nice, if you can have t the
connections soldered. Protect the wires from bending and breaking by
encasing the joints in some RTV (GE silicone goo).

I do not understand why the station engineer recommended the Fanfare. This
antenna has 0 dB gain. 0 is a very small number. The only advantage to the
Fanfare is for external use, since it is self-supporting. An indoor dipole,
which can be taped or tacked to any convenient surface, does not need
mechanical rigidity.

A properly cut dipole has twice the signal strength: 3 dB.

Robert Morein wrote:

"ric" wrote in message ...

Robert Morein wrote:


There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

This appears to be the case here, though. This is a college station,
low in frequency (88.3 MHz), and only broadcasting at 2K watts about
40 miles to my south. The signal is very steady, but weak. Static
can be 99% eliminated by going into mono mode.

Are you familiar with the FM2G-C? It is being strongly considered.

http://www.fanfare.com/fm-2g-c.html


This is an omnidirectional antenna, which means it will be very susceptible
to multipath. The fact that it is cut for the educational band gives it a
little more gain, but, as I said, gain is seldom the problem. The problem is
phase cancellation caused by reception of a signal that is reflected by two
or more different paths. This causes the signal to actually cancel 100% at
certain frequencies. More gain on nothing does not result in something. The
solution is a directional antenna, which attenuates all but one of the
reception paths, eliminating the phase cancellation.

A cheap way is also to use a pair of "rabbit ears". The two antennas
give a lot of interference to be sure, but they can be aimed to make it
pretty directional(note - it works best if the weaker one is a lot
shorter than the main one). It's not great, but it's effective
enough considering the nearly zero cost.

Robert Morein wrote:
There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.
The usual problem is a combination of:
1. multipath, meaning that the signal reaches the antenna via multiple
reflections. This causes complete cancellation at specific frequencies as
the modulated FM signal changes frequency. No antenna can restore a signal
from a null.

Funny that cell phones can but expensive FM receivers can't.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rake-receiver

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...


Robert Morein wrote:
There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.
The usual problem is a combination of:
1. multipath, meaning that the signal reaches the antenna via multiple
reflections. This causes complete cancellation at specific frequencies
as
the modulated FM signal changes frequency. No antenna can restore a
signal
from a null.

Funny that cell phones can but expensive FM receivers can't.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rake-receiver

ScottW

That is because cell is spread-spectrum:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm...te_number/1890
A broadband signal cannot experience complete phase cancellation. Only parts
of the signal will vanish. There are two newer methods that specifically aim
at reduction of multipath effects: OFDM, and time-space diversity reception.

Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...


Robert Morein wrote:
There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.
The usual problem is a combination of:
1. multipath, meaning that the signal reaches the antenna via multiple
reflections. This causes complete cancellation at specific frequencies
as
the modulated FM signal changes frequency. No antenna can restore a
signal
from a null.

Funny that cell phones can but expensive FM receivers can't.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rake-receiver

ScottW

That is because cell is spread-spectrum:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm...te_number/1890
A broadband signal cannot experience complete phase cancellation. Only parts
of the signal will vanish. There are two newer methods that specifically aim
at reduction of multipath effects: OFDM, and time-space diversity reception.

I know... just kind of pointing out in a convoluted way how obsolete
FM is. We get trapped in these legacy technologies and until something
like the gov dicates a change (like digital television for example)
people will continue struggling with problems that have long been
solved.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...


Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...


Robert Morein wrote:
There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.
The usual problem is a combination of:
1. multipath, meaning that the signal reaches the antenna via
multiple
reflections. This causes complete cancellation at specific
frequencies
as
the modulated FM signal changes frequency. No antenna can restore a
signal
from a null.

Funny that cell phones can but expensive FM receivers can't.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rake-receiver

ScottW

That is because cell is spread-spectrum:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm...te_number/1890
A broadband signal cannot experience complete phase cancellation. Only
parts
of the signal will vanish. There are two newer methods that specifically
aim
at reduction of multipath effects: OFDM, and time-space diversity
reception.

I know... just kind of pointing out in a convoluted way how obsolete
FM is. We get trapped in these legacy technologies and until something
like the gov dicates a change (like digital television for example)
people will continue struggling with problems that have long been
solved.

ScottW

But the programming is worse
Anyway, the codecs used by satellite and IBOC FM have been challenged as
having barely hifi fidelity. The claims of "CD quality" are the worst kind
of ad-speak. Although IBOC extends range and eliminates multipath
distortion, there are some people who feel the quality of the codec is not
up to analog FM at its best.
Another victory for analog?

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:38:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

******** (run out of fingers)

It is the rule that the vast majority of VHF stations are out of
range.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:38:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

******** (run out of fingers)

It is the rule that the vast majority of VHF stations are out of
range.

The range is usually not determined by signal strength. It is loss of phase
coherency, due to the increasing number of multiple paths as distance from
the station increases.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:00:32 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:38:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite rare.

******** (run out of fingers)

It is the rule that the vast majority of VHF stations are out of
range.

The range is usually not determined by signal strength. It is loss of phase
coherency, due to the increasing number of multiple paths as distance from
the station increases.


There is no doubt that multiple paths can mess up your TV or FM stereo
but there is also no doubt that signal decreases with range, rapidly
for VHF over ground and more rapidly when the path passes close to or
over the horizon. 40miles is a long way unless the antennae are high
up. High antenna gain is good whatever but at 88.3 MHz indoors that is
not really much of an option. Get the antenna out and UP if one can.

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:00:32 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:38:10 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

There really isn't.
It is a common misconception that a station is not
received due to
inadequate signal strength. This is actually quite
rare.

******** (run out of fingers)

It is the rule that the vast majority of VHF stations
are out of
range.

The range is usually not determined by signal strength.
It is loss
of phase coherency, due to the increasing number of
multiple paths
as distance from the station increases.

There is no doubt that multiple paths can mess up your TV
or FM stereo
but there is also no doubt that signal decreases with
range, rapidly
for VHF over ground and more rapidly when the path passes
close to or
over the horizon. 40miles is a long way unless the
antennae are high
up. High antenna gain is good whatever but at 88.3 MHz
indoors that is
not really much of an option. Get the antenna out and UP
if one can.

Agreed. Which is more important - strength of the signal or
purity of the signal is dependent on the specfic sitaution.

When I was a teen-ager I DXed the midwest from my a roof
antenna on my parent's house on the northeast side of
Detroit. There were multipath issues with some stations
downtown, but signal strength and propigation situations
limited my ability to pull stations out of mid-Ohio, etc.

My all-time DX record involved picking up stations in Miami
Florida from El Paso Tx, but this was one-time thing. Quite
clearly over the horizon.

I also picked up some stations in New Mexico, possibly by
means of a known means of popagation of VHF signal through
solid mountains.

I was generally able to distinguish audibly between stations
that were trashed by multipath, versus stations that were
trashed by low signal strength, versus stations that were
trashed by interferring signals.

"ric" wrote in message ...
Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas?

The most effective solution I've ever come across is the Dennesen Polaris.
It is cheap, simple and effective. OTOH it is somewhat unsightly and
extremely difficult to find these days. And you really need to learn to use
it to get the desired results but it is easy if you get the manual with it.

Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative.

You can use it indoors as well.

Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

I'd use the whip indoors.


Cheers,

Margaret

"Margaret von B." wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas?

The most effective solution I've ever come across is the Dennesen Polaris.
It is cheap, simple and effective. OTOH it is somewhat unsightly and
extremely difficult to find these days. And you really need to learn to use
it to get the desired results but it is easy if you get the manual with it.

I will look for this. Thanks.

Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative.

You can use it indoors as well.

This is presently my leading candidate. Indoors next to a window at
first, and later outdoors if the opportunity presents itself.

Thanks.

"ric" wrote in message ...
Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

Thanks.

Electrically, it's just a standard folded dipole. You can get them for
around four bucks.

Robert Morein wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

Thanks.

Electrically, it's just a standard folded dipole. You can get them for
around four bucks.

That's what I'm using now (a cheap dipole.) But I've read that the
FM Reflect is better than the standard dipole. Hogwash?

"ric" wrote in message ...
Robert Morein wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3
MHz)
station.

Any ideas? Yes, I'm aware of the FM-2G-C. But that's an outdoor
alternative. Is the "FM Reflect" any good?

http://www.ccrane.com/fm-reflect-antenna.aspx

Thanks.

Electrically, it's just a standard folded dipole. You can get them for
around four bucks.

That's what I'm using now (a cheap dipole.) But I've read that the
FM Reflect is better than the standard dipole. Hogwash?

Yes, hogwash. Do you remember the TV rabbit ears that looks like a Martian
communicator? A whole generation of stylists has gulled the American public
with respect to antennas.

There can be an advantage to an active antenna, in that it can compensate
for feedline loss. You can use that to put the antenna where you normally
would not, like in a particularly good window, or other room spot away from
your hifi. The chances that the best spot in the room is on top of your
tuner is virtually nil. If you are desperate, you might consider wasting $50
on an active antenna and a feedline extender cable of about 25 feet. Walk
the antenna around the room. Try every possible orientation. If you find a
"sweet spot", it is unlikely that it will with the antenna positioned as the
"interior designer" intended, ie., as some kind of purposeful super-powerful
device. It will probably be lying sadly on its side.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:06:08 -0700, ric wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

I use $4.00 Radio Shack dipole antennas. They work great. They may
not be beautiful, but using one will put you above 99% of the crowd in
terms of reception performance.

http://www.radioshack.com/product.as...uct_id=42-2385

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:06:08 -0700, ric wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

I use $4.00 Radio Shack dipole antennas. They work great. They may
not be beautiful, but using one will put you above 99% of the crowd in
terms of reception performance.


http://www.radioshack.com/product.as...uct_id=42-2385

A sensible choice.

dizzy wrote:

Looking for recommendations for a *good* indoor FM antenna. Does
such a beast exist? Trying to improve reception of a college (88.3 MHz)
station.

I use $4.00 Radio Shack dipole antennas. They work great. They may
not be beautiful, but using one will put you above 99% of the crowd in
terms of reception performance.

http://www.radioshack.com/product.as...uct_id=42-2385

Similar to some dipoles that I have tried. Even optimum position
leaves too much noise when in stereo mode. But thanks.