|
Vintage Radio (domestic) Domestic vintage radio (wireless) receivers only. |
|
Thread Tools |
20th May 2022, 10:25 pm | #1 |
Hexode
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ellesmere, Shropshire, UK & Co. Cork, Ireland.
Posts: 499
|
Reception on Shortwave
I've noticed that performance on SW always seems to be so much better on a lot of valve sets that I have worked on. Tuning indicators close up on many stations indicating a strong received signal affecting AGC more. Is there a reason why MW and LW seems inferior? the noise on MW and LW is a lot worse so perhaps the quieter noise floor and less interference is the reason.
Reception where I live in Shropshire appears fairly normal with plenty of 'mush' from digital devices and SMPS. LW is more or less unusable on sets without a ferrite rod aerial to null out some of the noise. The few SW stations broadcasting always seem to sound quite good and not so compressed compared to those on LW or SW. Massively powerful transmitters? My question is therefore is there something inherently better with SW overall?
__________________
Dom Less snakes...more ladders! Last edited by sexton_mallard; 20th May 2022 at 10:30 pm. Reason: Improve readability |
21st May 2022, 12:16 am | #2 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,924
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
My own solution here has been to go with Internet Radios; I've just bought my 4th one. The number of stations streaming is given at anything between 25,000 and 40,000, and in among them are things as basic as Radio4 to stations specialising in very narrow and obscure topics.
I listen a lot in the middle of the night to stations in Canada and the USA, crisp and clear as R4. My original Internet Radio now feeds my Pantry Tx so I can listen to the station of my choice all over the house. My new radio has 99 station pre-sets and operates by remote control. As far as I am concerned, this pretty much takes me back to where I started; listening to SW radio a very long time ago. B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch. |
21st May 2022, 7:46 am | #3 |
Heptode
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Accrington, Lancashire, UK.
Posts: 977
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
the only short wave round here is cheating really, wide band web is ok, noise from smps is rife, i listened to sw a lot in the 60s but its nothing like it was.
|
21st May 2022, 8:17 am | #4 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Thetford, Norfolk, UK.
Posts: 1,731
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
I think the issue here is noise. I live in fairly remote location and avoid having too many SMPS etc. Both MW and LW are excellent; better than SW. True enough that the signal level is not massive, but enough to get AGC operating and the audio is very clear. I much prefer Radio 5 Live on MW to DAB.
What is interesting, is that AM bands always sound better on a vintage set compared with a modern, usually DSP one. |
21st May 2022, 8:20 am | #5 |
Nonode
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 2,364
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
SW reception is linked to sunspot activity that influences the ionised layers of the upper atmosphere. The current cycle peaks in 2025 so things should continue to improve for a few years. However, some cycles are weaker than others and, of course, the number of stations out there worth listening to has vastly diminished compared to the 1960s. Jerry
|
21st May 2022, 8:28 am | #6 |
Octode
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oban, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 1,118
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
As far as SW listening is concerned I still consider it a challenge rather than entertainment and eschew modern methods of reception.
No doubt my opinion will change as I get ever more frustrated by poor reception but that's offset by the sheer nostalgia value of 'doing it the old way'. |
21st May 2022, 1:43 pm | #7 | |
Triode
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Buckley, Clwyd, Wales, UK.
Posts: 32
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Quote:
The point everyone usually misses(including me), is that solid state bjt's produce enormous amount of transconductance(gm), when compared to a valve or jfets and, infact, I would argue that bjt's produce too much gain where radio design is concerned. A 6d6 pentode valve gm is 1.6mA/V whereas a 2n3904 bjt produces 80mA/V.Quite simply, bjt's produce too much gain, but there are design methods to quell bjt gain and make them usable in radio design.The HRO 500 did this quite effectively. Cheers Darren |
|
21st May 2022, 1:58 pm | #8 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,924
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Putting aside the technical problems of listening on SW now, what would you listen to? I think the modern term would be "content"; what can be found that's of interest?
I don't deny the technical challenge of RF, it's the poor rewards that diminish my interest. I still have my HRO with its 6D6's, and various other receivers, but over 50 years after my 2-valve TRF, the allure of a universe of diverse content, at the push of a button, wins out for casual listening (i.e. listening to the radio, to interesting and informative programmes, while doing other tasks). B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch. |
21st May 2022, 2:16 pm | #9 | |
Octode
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Reading/Fakenham, UK.
Posts: 1,320
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Quote:
It also depends what you are comparing. Are you working on domestic quality 1940s/50s sets or good amateur or professional communications valve radios? A modern solid-state communications receiver will (at last!) knock spots off even a good valve communications set - which of course have not evolved now for about 50 years. Perhaps one thing to bear in mind these days is that valve radios are usually connected to the mains and this is a significant source of noise. The type of antenna is important too. Portable transistor sets (is it these you are comparing?) have a telescopic whip which limits signal pick-up, and adding too much extra wire causes them to overload. Up until the 1990s even reasonable quality solid-state receivers were not as good in some respects as valve sets. Poor dynamic range, reciprocal mixing being the main problems. The radio guru Pat Hawker wrote in Radio Communication at about this time that solid-state communications receivers had only just reached the performance valve radios had reached in 1950! Not quite true if you've ever used the fantastic synthesised Racal 1772 compared to a valve Racal RA17, but generally he had a point. |
|
22nd May 2022, 9:34 pm | #10 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coulsdon, London, UK.
Posts: 2,152
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
The switch mode power supply and broadband noise does seem to affect long wave and medium wave more than the shortwave bands.
The demodulated noise could affect the AGC and reduce the gain on LW and MW and give the impression that the radio has better gain on shortwave. |
23rd May 2022, 10:14 am | #11 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 1966-1976 Coverack in Cornwall and Helston Cornwall. 1976-present Bristol/Bath area.
Posts: 2,965
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
During the 1980's and 1990's working for BT we noticed that in some of the exchanges old domestic valved radios worked far better than their more modern transistorised counterparts. They seemed to cope with the weak Radio 1 or Radio 2 AM signals despite being surrounded by all the exhange equipment and its associated wiring. And they did not have to be located near a window to work.
As for all the SMPS and other electronic noise we have to put up with today I have noticed that its not just LW and MW that's badly affected but also the lower HF bands which are swamped out by high levels of noise all the way up to the 7MHz or 41m band. The noise levels tend to gradually drop off from 9MHz upwards.
__________________
Simon BVWS member |
23rd May 2022, 1:00 pm | #12 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,801
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Quote:
Unwanted feedback tends to limit the gain of many devices. The tetrode then pentode were invented to screen capacitive feedback. So was the dual-gate MOSFET and the cascode amplifier topology. But it's power which does the real work, not voltage alone, not current alone. So you have to look at power in to power out gain. You can handle a device wih a rather large input impedance like a valve or FET by having a step-up transformation in a tuned circuit... not much problem in a radio which needs tuned circuits anyway. You can handle a device with a rather low input impedance like a bipolar by having a step-down transformation in a tuned circuit. This means that the base voltage signal is low and that large Gm is reasonable. Most valve RF amplifiers run a maodest amount of quiescent power, several mA at high voltage. Use a decent RF transistor at the same quiescent power and you'll get decent linearity. Go a step further and try one of the 'lossless feedback' types of RF amplifier (Look for patents by David Norton, and look in Pat Hawker's "Technical Topics" column of RADCOM) and now you can really have significant dynamic range that valves would have difficulty competing with. So valves and FETs and Bipolars can all be used to give good performance. Circuit design techniques have evolved to suit each of them. Don't try comparing different devices in essentially the same circuit. This will make some look good and some lousy. Use the right techniques and they can all shine. Ulrich Rohde (owns 50% of Rohde&Schwarz) has written a few books on receiver design and there are circuits in these which can show what can be done. The first transistor HF radios were one mighty step backwards for mankind. When Racal brought out the RA217/RA1217 to replace the RA117. I own a 1217 and used to have a 117. Also the valved RA117 may have a stable LO and better filters, but its dynamic range was disappointing compared to HROs and AR88s. It's taken decades, but now higher performance receivers can be done with transistors than with valves. Transistor development and circuit development have continued long after valve development ended. David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
|
23rd May 2022, 7:05 pm | #13 |
Octode
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Thetford, Norfolk, UK.
Posts: 1,731
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Wow, what a comprehensive explanation David. I have learnt something. Thanks!
|
23rd May 2022, 9:12 pm | #14 | ||||||
Triode
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Buckley, Clwyd, Wales, UK.
Posts: 32
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That depends on the design team at hand, if I look over the 1965 HRO 500, I can see from their schematics that the design team were well aware of the high power gain of bjt's, I regard the HRO 500 to be a good solid state bjt communications receiver. Last edited by commie1; 23rd May 2022 at 9:40 pm. |
||||||
23rd May 2022, 11:08 pm | #15 |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,801
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
All I can plead in my defence is 40+ years designing various high performance receiver systems. They can be found in the hands of the US military, national standards labs, NASA, JPL, AT&T (Bell) labs, etc. I assume that if there was anything much wrong with my approach, they'd have let the firm know.
I stand by what I've written. David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
24th May 2022, 7:12 am | #16 |
Heptode
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Croxley Green, Hertfordshire, UK.
Posts: 979
|
Re: Reception on Shortwave
I totally agree, I can get very good reception on SW on most of my 1930's sets but struggle to find anything I can be bothered to listen to!
__________________
Clive |