|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 41 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 25 of 41:
| 
Apr 13 17:23 UTC 2000 |
NPR seems to me to have become more interested in stocks than people or
the environment or progressive causes in the past couple years. It has
come to the point where I listen only to our local NPRs
special speakers series where they will sometimes have on speakers such
as Noam Chomsky. Perhaps they have swung to the right to keep the
GOP from pulling the plud on them?
|
diznave
|
|
response 26 of 41:
|
Apr 13 20:11 UTC 2000 |
Oops...I missed that in #0 as well. I don't have access to NPR like I did with
community radio WMNF 88.5 down in Tampa. The public radio station in
Gainesville has a bit of NPR in the morning and a bit in the evening, but is
mainly 'classical' music all day long. I miss Alan Watts.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 41:
|
Apr 13 23:55 UTC 2000 |
Scott, who says receivers have to be bought new to be any good. I have a nice
Pioneer SX-580. SOme of the Kiwanis receivers were close to $1000 new.
Toledo is completely drowned out on poorer quality receivers.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 41:
|
Apr 14 03:25 UTC 2000 |
That NPR page explained why their stations are "below the salt", as a friend's
T-shirt put it. I knew they were all at the low end of the band, but I
never knew why. Now I do. :)
Driving north on US-23, WKQL starts to get interference from a Flint station.
When the interference clears, the Flint station is on the air. Going south,
the process is (of course) reversed. I don't think there is really much
space left for even low-power stations.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 41:
|
Apr 14 04:22 UTC 2000 |
Even my car radio hears 91.3 without any interference from 91.7. It does
have PLL tuning (digital). Your receiver IF is out-of-whack, Sindi.
|
eprom
|
|
response 30 of 41:
|
Apr 14 11:46 UTC 2000 |
IF bandpass filter?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 41:
|
Apr 14 16:31 UTC 2000 |
Yes, the IF filter. That is where the receiver selectivety is obtained.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 41:
|
Apr 14 20:39 UTC 2000 |
I don't think it's necessarily true that new FM receivers are better than
old ones. An *expensive* new receiver will probably be better -- it'll have
more sophisticated tuning, and carefully aligned filters. An expensive
*old* receiver probably started out good, but its alignment may have
drifted, causing it to perform more poorly. A cheap new receiver probably
is not aligned well to begin with. (Before you get any ideas, you shouldn't
attempt to re-align a radio without the proper procedure and test gear.
You're almost certain to make things worse, not better.)
My Fisher 400, which is a very old (1960's) FM receiver, does a credible
job, but it's not up to the newer digital receivers. It's not as sensitive,
for one thing -- you need a reasonably long antenna -- four or five feet is
good -- connected to the antenna terminals for good reception. Also,
there's no automatic frequency tracking, so if you tune a station before
it's had a chance to warm up, it'll eventually drift away from it. Once
it's been on for an hour or so, it stays put pretty well, though.
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 41:
|
Apr 15 03:39 UTC 2000 |
Rusty realigned my other receiver using only a screwdriver. He kept setting
it to different spots on the dial and changing the pots or whatever until I
could again get more than three stations. It suddenly lost most of its
stations. There were lots of things to adjust. One receiver just needed
cleaning of the variable capacitor.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 41:
|
Apr 15 04:48 UTC 2000 |
It won't be optimally adjusted that way. But, if you're happy, that's all
that matters...
|
keesan
|
|
response 35 of 41:
|
Apr 15 12:28 UTC 2000 |
It gets all the stations that I wanted - that is my definition of optimal.
I told him not to bother with the rightmost 3/4 of the dial.
He explained that things drift with age.
|
krj
|
|
response 36 of 41:
|
Jun 7 16:15 UTC 2000 |
The National Association of Broadcasters went straight to Congress to get
the low-power FM proposal killed. I have not heard anything recently,
but massive numbers of congresspeople signed up to sponsor legislation
to overturn the FCC low-power proposal. It's not clear if Clinton would
stand by the FCC and veto such legislation.
I've come to the conclusion that, at least in terms of music, and possibly
in terms of community groups, that the growth in Internet radio is going
to make the low-power FM proposal somewhat irrelevant.
|
brighn
|
|
response 37 of 41:
|
Jun 7 17:03 UTC 2000 |
I dunno. On the one hand, I agree, on the other hand, the only time I
personally listen to the radio is in the car, so Net radio won't be an issue
for me until cars come equipped with laptops with net access as a reasonably
priced option, which should be, oh, five years or so.
|
scg
|
|
response 38 of 41:
|
Jun 7 17:48 UTC 2000 |
Low power FM is of somewhat limited utility in the car as well, due to its
short range (at least assuming you use your car for going places, rather than
just as a place to sit in the driveway and listen to music).
|
brighn
|
|
response 39 of 41:
|
Jun 7 20:00 UTC 2000 |
My commute is five miles. There's a low power FM station that I get in for
about 95% of that drive (at least, I think it's low power).
|
orinoco
|
|
response 40 of 41:
|
Jun 8 02:19 UTC 2000 |
One aspect of low-power radio that won't be made totally irrelevant by
internet radio is the fact that it's local -- which is a disadvantage in a
lot of ways, but it's also one of the appealing things about it. I suspect
however big internet radio gets, there will still be people who enjoy the idea
of broadcasting to their neighbors.
|
krj
|
|
response 41 of 41:
|
Dec 27 05:39 UTC 2000 |
The FCC's low-power radio proposal was killed by Congress in the
final mammoth budget bill of the session, which was essentially un-vetoable.
It was front page news in the New York Times on the 20th, I think.
This was reported as the first time that Congress yanked spectrum
management authority from the FCC. This issue is dead for the
forseeable future.
Best government money can buy.
|
