[Randy Yates]

I'd like to get feedback on the following product idea: a very
high-end FM radio.

Here are some things that would set this radio miles apart from
the usual:

1. Included and an integral part of the design, an adaptive antenna
array and associated multidimensional equalizer that would greatly
improve performance.

2. All digital implementation, from front-end to output. A zero-IF
architecture would be used.

3. High-def as well as standard FM broadcast.

Price: not cheap ($5k?). Whaddya' think?
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[---MIKE---]

Why not get a Sangean HTD-1 digital FM tuner for $200. The standard FM
reception is excellent and so is the digital. I doubt if a 5K tuner
would sound any better on standard FM.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Serge Auckland]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
I'd like to get feedback on the following product idea: a very
high-end FM radio.

Here are some things that would set this radio miles apart from
the usual:

1. Included and an integral part of the design, an adaptive antenna
array and associated multidimensional equalizer that would greatly
improve performance.

2. All digital implementation, from front-end to output. A zero-IF
architecture would be used.

3. High-def as well as standard FM broadcast.

Price: not cheap ($5k?). Whaddya' think?
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the
brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

I see the main limitation for a high-end FM tuner is today's seeming
impossibility of high-end transmissions. As far as I know, *all*
transmissions today are processed to provide easier listening in cars,
offices and kitchens, where a wide dynamic range is undesirable, and a wide
frequency response unlikely, so the transmission boosts both ends of the
spectrum for maximum impact, not accuracy.

This means that however good your receiver, the result will be limited by
what's being transmitted.

The prices being obtained for good FM tuners these days on Ebay indicates to
me that there is now little interest in FM as a quality music source.
Technically, you may be able to produce the world's best FM tuner, but the
audible results will be as poor as an ordinary tuner.

As for HD radio, the USA is in a similar position to the UK. Here, we have
DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) on Band III, and digital radio broadcast
along with television on DTT (Digital Terrestrial Television and Digital
Satellite. All platforms, but especially DAB, are hampered by broadcasters
choosing to fit as many channels into the bandwidth as possible, rather than
a few channels at high quality. The most often used is 128kbps MP2 joint
stereo, with a couple of the better stations at 160kps MP2. Considering that
MP2 was considered good quality only over 256kbps, you can see why over
here, digital radio is not a high quality medium. Oh, and the audio is still
processed to within an inch of its life, because they can! From what I know
of the US IBOC system, data rates are also inadequate, and stations process
heavily.

If you had asked your question in 1968, I would have given you a much more
enthusiastic answer as FM then was as transparent a medium as the engineers
could manage. Sadly, no longer.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[---MIKE---]

Serge Auckland wrote:

This means that however good your
receiver, the result will be limited by
what's being transmitted.

This may be true in many areas however in my locale there are good FM
transmissions. CBC-2 does an excellent job and so does Vermont Public
Radio. VPR does reduce the dynamic range but frequency response is very
good.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[sd]

In article ,
Randy Yates wrote:

I'd like to get feedback on the following product idea: a very
high-end FM radio.

Here are some things that would set this radio miles apart from
the usual:

[list of technical advances snipped]

Price: not cheap ($5k?). Whaddya' think?

A non-starter. Frankly, the only FM I listen to anymore are two
local low-powered (but not LP) stations; the content there is
sufficiently different from the boring cr@p that everyone else plays
that I'd probably listen to them in mono if I had to (I sometimes
have to). Granted, my tastes in music are different from most
people. But listenership to terrestrial FM has been declining for
some time now; I don't think the quality of the sound is a critical
element in that decline.

Leaving aside the issues of repetitive, dumbed-down,
centrally-planned content, though, most stations here compand the
living daylights out of what goes to the stick. You can't add back
in what was taken out before the signal even is received. Spending
5K for the privilege ... I don't see it happening.

sd

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 25, 10:53 am, Randy Yates wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on the following product idea: a very
high-end FM radio.

Here are some things that would set this radio miles apart from
the usual:

1. Included and an integral part of the design, an adaptive antenna
array and associated multidimensional equalizer that would greatly
improve performance.

2. All digital implementation, from front-end to output. A zero-IF
architecture would be used.

3. High-def as well as standard FM broadcast.


Randy:

I puzzled a bit before I posted to this. But my thoughts are at the
purely practical level and as follows:

Assume that analog FM will last for the foreseeable future, that some
stations will continue to broadcast a decent signal, and that HD will
gradually catch on such that it too will be supported, grow and retain
some level of fidelity. Therefore there *might* be a demand for such a
tuner as you suggest. All of the above is unlikely, but possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

a) For a tiny fraction of your suggested price, one might install an
antenna that is capable of capturing every FM signal broadcast within
the limits of the technology... "near" line-of-sight and (arbitrary
for this discussion) within a 150 mile radius. For say.... $1000,
including a 50-foot mast (where permitted by code), grounding systems
and so forth, this antenna would be highly directional, tunable and
and amplify without adding (much) noise.

b) Circuits within the tuner that would process the signal without
noise or added artifacts would be able to use such an antenna
effectively. Adding good filters for those artifacts that were added
or received would be more important than any internal antenna array.

It is my belief based on long experience that a moderate antenna and
an adequate tuner will do far better than an excellent tuner with a
crappy antenna. And an excellent antenna with a barely-adequate tuner
will do better than an excellent tuner with even a moderate antenna.
Put an excellent tuner together with an excellent antenna... you get
the picture.

At this moment, I keep seven tuners, of which only one could be
considered "excellent", being a Revox A720 tuner-pre-amp. That it
lacks HD is one thing, but short of that I would suggest that it is as
good as any analog FM tuner out there, past or present. I also have a
Citation 15 that is OK, an HK500 that is slightly better than OK, and
the range of Dynaco stuff that is absolutely fine for local stuff but
no more. We have a summer house that is at the bottom of a fairly
narrow valley. We get FM _only_ via an antenna, and even then only a
few stations. I am not so sure $5000 worth of tuner-hardware will
overcome that situation more effectively than $180 worth of antenna
and associated hardware coupled to a decent tuner has done. And unless
you can legitimately claim that your proposed unit will do that, there
is really no need for it other than the HD aspect. And that may be had
for much less than $5000.

Now, there is an aspect of the market that invests in all kinds of
stuff including little cable towers for speaker cables, magic rocks,
$1500 line cords and so forth. Without further comment, this segment
of the market might be very willing to invest in such a Super Tuner.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...


a) For a tiny fraction of your suggested price, one might install an
antenna that is capable of capturing every FM signal broadcast within
the limits of the technology... "near" line-of-sight and (arbitrary
for this discussion) within a 150 mile radius. For say.... $1000,
including a 50-foot mast (where permitted by code), grounding systems
and so forth, this antenna would be highly directional, tunable and
and amplify without adding (much) noise.

An inherent problem here is that a stiff wind is likely to bring down $1000
worth of antenna and should you live in a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you can kiss good-bye to your antenna in
short order.

[---MIKE---]

Norman Schwartz wrote:

An inherent problem here is that a stiff
wind is likely to bring down $1000
worth of antenna and should you live in
a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you
can kiss good-bye to your antenna in short order.

Not necessarily. I have had a roof antenna for 17 years. One time a
load of heavy snow caused part of the UHF to "unclick" but it was easy
to put back (but not easy to get to). I had the balun replaced once and
the coax was replaced at the same time. Other than that I have had no
problems.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[[email protected]]

---MIKE--- wrote:

Norman Schwartz wrote:

An inherent problem here is that a stiff
wind is likely to bring down $1000
worth of antenna and should you live in
a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you
can kiss good-bye to your antenna in short order.

Not necessarily. I have had a roof antenna for 17 years. One time a
load of heavy snow caused part of the UHF to "unclick" but it was easy
to put back (but not easy to get to). I had the balun replaced once and
the coax was replaced at the same time. Other than that I have had no
problems.

Just make sure your mast is composed of equilateral triangle structures, the
base is sunk well in concrete, and the ties are adequate. The antenna may
get mangled, but the mast will be OK. It is the Buckminster Fuller way of
doing things! You will have more problems with your home owner's
association, actually. Fuller was always thinking. In an old issue of Nat
Lamp (granted, not the JAES) "he" wrote about a geodesic penis that
probably never needed Viagra. But that is another story, and would
probably not get past the moderators. :-)

The sad fact is that modern day FM, for most people, is simply an
anachronism. It's too bad, really. But such is the way of our modern
life.

mp

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 2, 11:13 am, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

An inherent problem here is that a stiff wind is likely to bring down $1000
worth of antenna and should you live in a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you can kiss good-bye to your antenna in
short order.

What to hams do? Most serious hams I have seen use antenna arrays far
more elaborate than what I am suggesting merely for FM? And in the
days before cable, how were TV antenna with rotators handled?

And, on that line, how would even the best FM tuner solve for distant
stations without at least a reasonably decent (and directional)
antenna?

We once were camping in southern Delaware, right on the cusp between
90.9FM DC and 90.9FM Philadelphia. With the antenna one way, we got
Philly OK. The other, DC (Zenith RD7000Y). I would expect that the
correct antenna array would be able to handle that and get both in
noise-free stereo. That is about the best illustration of my point
that the antenna makes the tuner, not the other way around.

Curious.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 11:38 am, "
wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:
Norman Schwartz wrote:

An inherent problem here is that a stiff
wind is likely to bring down $1000
worth of antenna and should you live in
a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you
can kiss good-bye to your antenna in short order.

Not necessarily. I have had a roof antenna for 17 years. One time a
load of heavy snow caused part of the UHF to "unclick" but it was easy
to put back (but not easy to get to). I had the balun replaced once and
the coax was replaced at the same time. Other than that I have had no
problems.

Just make sure your mast is composed of equilateral triangle structures, the
base is sunk well in concrete, and the ties are adequate. The antenna may
get mangled, but the mast will be OK. It is the Buckminster Fuller way of
doing things! You will have more problems with your home owner's
association, actually. Fuller was always thinking. In an old issue of Nat
Lamp (granted, not the JAES) "he" wrote about a geodesic penis that
probably never needed Viagra. But that is another story, and would
probably not get past the moderators. :-)

The sad fact is that modern day FM, for most people, is simply an
anachronism. It's too bad, really. But such is the way of our modern
life.

Last winter just before Christmas, I was tunning around and started to
listen to a college station which put my mind sometime back in the
60's. The sound was not highly compressed, nor was it loudly
modulated, no commercials, virtually free of DJ's, and most of the
music was 60's and 70's rock, a fantastic selection. The whole thing
was a wonderful experience, but that was only for 2-3 weeks, because
the DJ's were out for break.
Ah, the sound of FM !!

greg

[jack]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 11:13 am, "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

An inherent problem here is that a stiff wind is likely to bring down
$1000
worth of antenna and should you live in a climate having rough winters
(wind, ice and snow combined), you can kiss good-bye to your antenna in
short order.

What to hams do? Most serious hams I have seen use antenna arrays far
more elaborate than what I am suggesting merely for FM? And in the
days before cable, how were TV antenna with rotators handled?

SNIP

I had a 6 meter (50 to 54MHz), 5-element yagi which lasted through many
years of Northeast Ohio winters. That antenna had a lot higher wind
resistance than a 90-108MHz antenna of similar gain. The answer is in the
type of materials used, and the type of rotator.

I am very surprised that this question doesn't come up more frequently.

You can purchase very low noise front ends these days, the FET's are
remarkable inexpensive.

[---MIKE---]

On the digital feed from Vermont Public Radio I have a continuous stream
of classical music 25 hours a day. The fidelity is excellent but there
is some compression. Every evening at 6 there is a two hour "live"
(recorded) concert from orchestras around the world.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Eeyore]

sd wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:

I'd like to get feedback on the following product idea: a very
high-end FM radio.

Here are some things that would set this radio miles apart from
the usual:

[list of technical advances snipped]

Price: not cheap ($5k?). Whaddya' think?

A non-starter. Frankly, the only FM I listen to anymore are two
local low-powered (but not LP) stations; the content there is
sufficiently different from the boring cr@p that everyone else plays
that I'd probably listen to them in mono if I had to (I sometimes
have to). Granted, my tastes in music are different from most
people. But listenership to terrestrial FM has been declining for
some time now; I don't think the quality of the sound is a critical
element in that decline.

The quality of most of the programming these days has made me only ever an
occasional radio listener now and most of that in the car. Hence high quality is
not something of interest. Also I think the powers that be plan to turn off
analogue FM radio in due course.

Unlike the USA, the number of stations here in the UK is very limited too.

Graham

[Doug McDonald]

Peter Wieck wrote:

And, on that line, how would even the best FM tuner solve for distant
stations without at least a reasonably decent (and directional)
antenna?


Overload by local stations. I live 1/4 mile from a 50 kW station
on 97.5. I want to listen to 90.9, 100 kW 22 miles away or
101.1, 300 watts 2.5 miles away. A directional antenna
won't help if the tuner picks up enough internally on 97.5 to
overload it when tuned to the other frequency.

I have a 70's Sony expensive dedicated tuner and the tuner
in a JVC surround receiver. The Sony is marginally capable
of good reception if the case is on perfectly tightly
and a dipole/reflector antenna set for a null on 97.5.
But its not listenable. The surround set is hopeless, alone.
What DOES work is an antenna fed into
a triple-tuned preselector and thence to a 25 dB gain amplifier,
then into the receivers, with good shielded coax between preselector
and shielded amp. This produces
enough signal to get around the 97.5 on either receiver.

Doug McDonald