• 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

NAB Labs on Receiver Performance

Frustrating that it took that long to acknowledge a problem here. The FCC has been taking this issue in the wrong direction for way too many years.

- TV6/NCE-FM rules. (we lived without them for decades; TV manufacturers knew darned well there would be 100,000-watt FM stations on 88.1...)
- 2nd-adjacent (and 3rd-adjacent) separation requirements on FM. (do we preclude LPFM service in dozens of cities in order to protect radios with virtually no selectivity?)
- Aircraft/FM disputes. (Why, pray tell, is it not possible to build an aircraft receiver that's at least as selective as a decent car radio? Certainly the aircraft owner is paying real $$ for his avionics...)
- Deletion of TV channel 51. (and, potentially, whatever ends up being the highest TV channel after repacking)

In the end, I doubt we'll see any activity here. It would (as the article mentions) require receiver manufacturers to spend more $$ on selectivity. It's cheaper to blame the transmitter operator.
 
I've been flying for almost 40 years and can tell you that the aircraft radio receivers are really crap. You would think that a simple two-way FM radio that you pay $5000 for (because it says "airplane" on it) could at least have some sensitivity and rejection built into it. Hell, I've purchased radios from Radio Shack that had more receiver selectivity that most avionic radios.

It's about time the FCC got real about requiring manufacturer's to tighten up the specs on their equipment instead of always beating on the poor broadcaster. I guarantee you if Clear Channel (the EVIL EMPIRE) got on their ass they'd probably change the receiver specs tomorrow.
 
{"I've been flying for almost 40 years and can tell you that the aircraft radio receivers are really crap. You would think that a simple two-way FM radio that you pay $5000 for.."}

Um, All aircraft radios are AM!
 
Recently, I bought an FM Radio (RF) Proc for our MATV system. Since it had to be built to order and imported from Canada, I added a real nice FM Band-Stop Filter (down 50 dB from 88-108 MHz) to the overall order. I did it just so I have a way to check for out-of-band spurs and harmonics with my Potomac-Instruments Field-Strength Meter, if the need arises.

Somehow, I just don't trust the FAA Guy with (nothing but) a Radio Shack scanner.
 
HAS99 said:
{"I've been flying for almost 40 years and can tell you that the aircraft radio receivers are really crap. You would think that a simple two-way FM radio that you pay $5000 for.."}

Um, All aircraft radios are AM!
Click to expand...
Hey! AM radio can sound bigger and better than FM!

Here are wideband AM detector airchecks for reference: http://thomasjwells.podomatic.com/
The detector is a germanium diode at the output of a part 15 AM station, no iron or transistors in vacuum tube modulator.
Go ahead, record a file and SEE the pefectly controlled 150% AM positive modulaton of Breakaway Broadcast.
I have intentionally limited some of the high-end +14 khz audio in the latest two episodes.
I apologize for the 128k audio but have worked a long time to get audio that can sound this good downgraded to 128k mp3.
 
for AM you need a 30inch antenna on the hood , not a little stump you find on the roof. The stump may work for FM and SirusXM ,but does not for AM.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom