• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

"Digital reception blues"

Re: hipporadio's 10/24 post, " '700' - here's my high quality AM receiver roundup...":

The McIntosh MR-78 was NOT an AM-FM tuner. It was FM only , had three(!) IF bandwidths, and is probably, to this day, the best FM tuner ever designed.

As for high-end AM tuners, does anybody out there remember the McKay-Dymek AM tuner of the late 1970's?

I never read an independent review of it, but their brochure certainly made it sound interesting. I may still have that brochure somewhere in my files. I'll have to look for it!
 
radioskeptic said:
Re: hipporadio's 10/24 post, " '700' - here's my high quality AM receiver roundup...":

The McIntosh MR-78 was NOT an AM-FM tuner. It was FM only , had three(!) IF bandwidths, and is probably, to this day, the best FM tuner ever designed.

As for high-end AM tuners, does anybody out there remember the McKay-Dymek AM tuner of the late 1970's?

I never read an independent review of it, but their brochure certainly made it sound interesting. I may still have that brochure somewhere in my files. I'll have to look for it!

Radio-S

You ARE CORRECT! My mistake - actually a "typo"/memory loss - after 25 years. :) The Mac "tuner" I mentioned was actually a "hybrid" TUNER/PREAMP - the Model MR-75. It DID feature an excellent AM section IN ADDITION to what was generally understood to be an identical FM section to that offered in the TUNER-ONLY MR-78 (which followed the MR-75 into the marketplace about 60-days later). I never understood why Mac left the AM out of the MR-78 - but specifically remember choosing the alternative BECAUSE it had a good AM as part of the package! The dealer at that time surmised that the "AM feature" didn't "mesh" with the typical expectations of a Mac buyer willing to lay out nearly $6000 on a rack of Mac "separates". so Mac left it off the component MR-78 to minimize cost.

We used the McKay-Dymek tuner for off-air monitoring at one of my AM stations in the mid-late 80s. Although expensive, and difficult for a home-user to justify - its AM audio quality was exceptional. There simply was NO competitive product. The unit was made in New Zealand (where FM development lagged for many years); but it was discontinued around 1990 because of the growing popularity of FM there (the tuner was AM-only, and required a fairly expensive separate active antenna). Furthermore, Carver's MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE wideband TX11B became a more popular broadcast monitor choice, and featured Q-Quam AM stereo and NRSC de-emphasis the M/D did not. Harris/Allied sold out the last of their M/D stock by about 1992, but continued to carry their line of AM antenna systems. I still have the "indoor" tunable active antenna. Although well made with quality components and HUGE tuning control - the current C Crane active AM antenna is more flexible and affordable.
 
1973 McIntosh line

Hipporadio, I think you meant the MX 113 tuner-preamp-control center. I dug out an old McIntosh brochure, ca. 1973. Here are the tuners:

1. MR 78. FM-only tuner. Three position IF Selectivity: Adjacent channel: 7 dB, Alternate (2nd Adj): 55 dB in the "normal" position. Corresponding figures: 22 and >90 ("narrow"), or 55 and >>90 ("supper narrow"). The price was $799.00 (wood cabinet $29.00; fits all the "McIntosh" tuners and tuner/preamps.).

2. MR 77. FM-only tuner. IF: 6db adj., 50 dB alterate (2nd adj). $649.00.

3. MR 74. FM-AM tuner. FM "Normal" IF: Adj.: 6 dB, alt.: 58 dB; "Narrow" IF: 15 and 88 dB. AM adjcent channel rejection: 35 dB (normal), 45 dB (narrow). $599.00.

4. MX 113. FM-AM tuner/preamp ("control center"). Same AM and FM IF specs as MR 74. $649.00.

5. MX 115 FM-only tuner/preamp ("control center"). Same FM IF specs as MR 74. $599.00.

There were also two receivers, the MAC 1700 (FM only) and the 1900 (FM-AM), but these had no selectivity switches. BTW, McIntosh (with no a) used the MAC designatiion ONLY on receivers, not on separates.

I haven't yet found the McKay-Dymek literature.
 
A Regular Guy discovers IBOC in Indy

The following is a cut-and-paste from the Indiana forum posted by "jimbo700" on 10/29/06 in its entirety. He's a frequent, knowledgeable, and "non-alligned poster"... Also the proud owner of a brand-spankin-new HD car radio...

>>>

I have an HD radio in my car and there are a few things I can say about IBOC, based on my personal experience.
The coverage seems to be only slightly more than HALF the coverage of the analog signal. Here in Columbus, the only Indy HD signal I can receive with any reliability is HANK-FM. If I'm stationary, I can receive the HD signals from the other Indy stations, but as soon as I start moving, most stations' HD2 and HD3 signals drop off, and the HD1 signal reverts back to analog. This can actually be annoying since the analog/digital signals never seem to be in sync. Hank-FM does not delay their analog signal, so when my radio blends from analog to digital, it's pretty annoying. With all due respect, I understand their lack of desire to delay the analog broadcast, because it puts and end to monitoring the air signal in the control room. Even the stations that are now delaying their analog signals are not in perfect sync with the analog, and when they blend back to analog they, too are somewhat annoying.
The biggest thing is, if anything is going to sell HD radio, it's going to be the HD2 and HD3 channels, because the difference between the digital and analog-stereo signal isn't that great. It's not like when multiplex stereo came along and suddenly you have 2 channel stereo. HD Radio's impact isn't even as pronounced as HD-TV. HD-TV has a noticeable increase in fidelity (720p is at least double the screen resolution of standard broadcast's 480i). In the case of Hank FM, their analog signal sounds so good that the HD signal isn't noticeably better. The S/N radio is improved, but I don't think it is enough to compel people to run out and spend $300 for an HD receiver. If HD Radio really is the future of terrestrial broadcasting, then CC, Emmis, Cumulus and the rest should be ready to sacrifice the audience in surrounding counties as a result of the decreased coverage area, and I honestly don't think the Class A's can put a stable HD signal in the fringe metro.
As for AM-IBOC, their coverage seems to be even worse than FM. There are 4 station that I know of broadcasting AM-HD streams in this area (there are probably more but I can only find these four). WIBC, WNDE, WLW and WHAS.
In order to broadcast in HD, they had to scale back their analog signal to 5 or 6 KHz, and now there is no high end on any of the AM's running HD. Even the formerly great sounding WIBC now sounds muddy on the analog signal. In addition, the very things that cause interference on analog AM radios now disrupt the IBOC signal, causing the radio to belnd back to analog, so where's the advantage?
In Columbus, the only way I can get enough signal to decode AM-IBOC is to park my car, away from buildings and power lines. If I'm lucky the IBOC signal will kick-in, but I won't exactly call it 'lucky', because the audio quality of all 4 AM-HD's is horrible. The increase in fidelity is evident, but the codec they are using is worse than the codec in Real Audio. In other words, listening to WIBC, WLW and WHAS in HD doesn't sound as good as streaming audio with a decent Internet connection. The artifacting is horrible and as far as I can tell, none of them are broadcasting IBOC content in stereo. I know they're all talk stations but if you shell out the big bucks for an HD transmitter, you'd think they would take advantage of the bandwidth to broadcast commercials, liners etc in stereo. Plus IBOC remains un-approved for nighttime use, and due to night-time interference issues, many AM IBOC stations would be in serious violation of our treaties with Canada and Mexico (example: WLUP in Chicago would clobber CFRB in Toronto in their fringe primary and most of their secondary coverage area at night).
WNDE's IBOC signal barely covers Marion County. I was on the SW side (on 465 near KY Ave) and WNDE blended back to analog a couple of times. And the 8-10 second delay in the IBOC encoding/decoding process would eliminate audiences listening to broadcasts at sporting events. If you listen to WNDE-HD while you were in the Dome watching the Colts, the broadcast is about 10 seconds behind the action. But that isn't really a problem yet because there are no portable HD radios (Walkman size) available and won't be for a few years.
On top of everything else, when WLW has the IBOC bandsaw turned on, it kills WGN and I can't listen to the Cubbies (please, no flames).
I guess if we come up with compelling content on HD2 and HD3 channels, it might result in people buying HD radios, but I must admit that right now I am really disappointed with HD Radio.
Just my ever-so-humble opinion....Sorry for the lengthy post.
-Jim-

GREAT POST JIM!... Can't find ANYTHING in his post to argue with.
 
Re: 1973 McIntosh line

radioskeptic said:
Hipporadio, I think you meant the MX 113 tuner-preamp-control center. I dug out an old McIntosh brochure, ca. 1973. Here are the tuners:

1. MR 78. FM-only tuner. Three position IF Selectivity: Adjacent channel: 7 dB, Alternate (2nd Adj): 55 dB in the "normal" position. Corresponding figures: 22 and >90 ("narrow"), or 55 and >>90 ("supper narrow"). The price was $799.00 (wood cabinet $29.00; fits all the "McIntosh" tuners and tuner/preamps.).

2. MR 77. FM-only tuner. IF: 6db adj., 50 dB alterate (2nd adj). $649.00.

3. MR 74. FM-AM tuner. FM "Normal" IF: Adj.: 6 dB, alt.: 58 dB; "Narrow" IF: 15 and 88 dB. AM adjcent channel rejection: 35 dB (normal), 45 dB (narrow). $599.00.

4. MX 113. FM-AM tuner/preamp ("control center"). Same AM and FM IF specs as MR 74. $649.00.

5. MX 115 FM-only tuner/preamp ("control center"). Same FM IF specs as MR 74. $599.00.

There were also two receivers, the MAC 1700 (FM only) and the 1900 (FM-AM), but these had no selectivity switches. BTW, McIntosh (with no a) used the MAC designatiion ONLY on receivers, not on separates.

I haven't yet found the McKay-Dymek literature.

Radio-S

I believe your Mac (YES - we always called them "Mac") brochure was about seven years shy of the era I made Mac purchases from in 1980. But WOW--what a list! I think I have that literature from 1973... It has a white cover with an FM station guide?

The only product you listed in your Mac lineup available then was the MR-78 (which had replaced the MR-77 by that time). The MR-78 was produced in THREE VERSIONS differentiated by serial number only - it's final released in late 1980. It was considered their "crown jewel of tuners" until release of the MR-80 in 1981, which (while analog) featured a freq-gen digital readout, an elaborate "lock" circuit, and a very high "super-narrow" bandwidth that was nearly unusable due to the modulation practices of most FM stations at that time. I always considered the '78 to be its "superior" - although older in design, it had actually "evolved" twice under the same model number.

In 1980, AM was still very viable just outside Chicago where I lived, so I chose their newly-released "hybrid" which featured a redesigned AM tuner with dual-bandwidth and "equal sensitivity AND frequency response across the AM band"; along with electronic source switching and Mac's new high-performance calibrated phono pre-amp. Since the radio was analog tuned, it's range extended beyond 1600--but not the entire X-band. I don't seem to recall an "MX-113". [scratching head on this one] The dealer described it as a less-flexible C-33/MR-78 FM/plus the AM from Mac's newest receiver. I sold it in the mid 90s to a guy who was into refurbed early-60s Mac mono tube amps and wanted it for the exceptional phono pre-amp--so the MR/MX/Mac intricacies of interest to you are evading me. In 1980, Mac had but one receiver (again, I don't recall the model #) but it did away with Mac's traditional "black glass face" and very expensive "autoformer" power amp-to-speaker interface--it also had their new "improved" AM section and an MR-77 era FM tuner. Their line was completed with two pre-amps, three power amps (all which retained the "autoformer" coupling), and the AM-FM tuner/preamp. I owned their smallest 120 watt/ch power amp. That amp is now 25+ years old and still works well. It was an era very different from the "throw away" mentality of today. I know that Mac is still around at this time, but after their purchase by Jenson back in the 90s--much of their "luster" has faded.
 
Re: "Digital reception blues" and Tuner ratings

I have more old than new radios, but for FM I absolutely love my Sansui TU-77, with selectable signal or multi-path meter, 20 db input pad,
multiplex filter, and switchable mute (always off). I have this fed by Winegard's biggest FM-only fringe yagi antenna made about 20 years ago, mounted on a rotor in the 3rd floor attic, and a switchable pre-amp. In Chicago, I can get michigan stations often.
I occaisonally hear michigan FM stations on two old car radios, one a Bendix, the other a Motorola ( no surprise there).
The AM on the Sansui is deaf as a post, but I haven't ever even opened it up to check alignment.
For AM wideband monitoring of my pt 15, I use a Sony tabletop radio from the early 80's realigned to get the whole 530-1700.
I have many old tube radios that are really HOT on AM. One of the best, without dragging out a list, is the Zenith Transoceanic portable
from the 1950's. Not much audio power, but sharp as a razor, hot a griddle AND sounds like FM on AM when the signal's solid.
I have a Sherwood, from about 1960 with switchable bandwidth on AM, which might be good if I went through it.
The wideband mode IF center is not matched to the narrow-IF center tuning, so that's annoying.
And the sensitivity drops off in wide mode.
My only PLL is a Sangean 803 which I consider to be a piece of test equipment, useful only to set zero beat for my AM pt 15.
There is so much detector/audio amp shot noise that it's not useful as a radio, and the wideband setting on it is only about 6 kc RF for
3 khz audio. But it is very good for checking overmod splatter 5kc off the side.
 
Re: "Digital reception blues" and Tuner ratings

Tom Wells said:
I have more old than new radios, but for FM I absolutely love my Sansui TU-77

For AM wideband monitoring of my pt 15, I use a Sony tabletop radio from the early 80's realigned to get the whole 530-1700.

I have many old tube radios that are really HOT on AM. One of the best is the Zenith Transoceanic portable
from the 1950's.

I nearly purchased the TU-77... Great FM, but I never cared for the AM section... Went for the Pioneer TX-9100 instead. Very steep FM quieting slope, and despite single bandwidth--very selective yet good on capure ratio at the same time. The AM was fairly "hot" and the IF bandwidth could be increased with some very minor internal tweaking. The matching amp (SA-9100) died long ago but the tuner lives!

Would that "Sony tabletop" be the one in a dark veneered cabinet (about a foot wide) with a fairly large 4-5" speaker on the left, bass & treble, and a vertcal tuning scale on the right? If so--I have one--which I packed away after my purchase of the BA Receptor MONO radio back in '94... The AM on that thing was SWEET--and sounded awesome (not many Sonys did).

I keep my eye open for an "in shape" Transoceanic... What a classic! These "oldies" are so much fun... They worked well then--and many still do now!
 
Yes, that's the Sony! I stand to inherit another one someday. The AM has NO high-filtering whatsover.
When using it, it is quite obvious as to how different AMs are processing audio.
A great radio with only one flaw.
The wiper in the volume control seems to have DC on it, and it makes noisy spots in the pot, sooner or later, particularly when listening to strong signals, like the AVC voltage is not isolated from the audio at that point in the circuit.
I added some big non-polarized caps in series with the wiper, and it seems to be better.
Otherwise it needed the pot sprayed with De-Oxit D5 once a year.
 
Tom Wells said:
Yes, that's the Sony! I stand to inherit another one someday. The AM has NO high-filtering whatsover.
When using it, it is quite obvious as to how different AMs are processing audio.
A great radio with only one flaw.
The wiper in the volume control seems to have DC on it, and it makes noisy spots in the pot, sooner or later, particularly when listening to strong signals, like the AVC voltage is not isolated from the audio at that point in the circuit.
I added some big non-polarized caps in series with the wiper, and it seems to be better.
Otherwise it needed the pot sprayed with De-Oxit D5 once a year.

BINGO! Yes we have "identical twins"... The problem with the volume pot is the reason I retired it... I couldn't bring myself to toss it... The AM was just to memorable! So was that near-total lack of H.F. filtering--superhet was never so sexy!

You've given me the info I need to bring it back to life... THANKS TOM!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom