In article ,
UnsteadyKen
wrote:
Jim Lesurf said...

If the 'burble' you reported is reduced by using narrow IF then a
better antenna may well improve the situation so you can use a wider
IF with no burbling and get lower distortion.

Afraid the aerial choice is out of my hands as I'm in sheltered
accommodation, though I might try and persuade the Council that what we
need here is a rotator and one of these...
http://ronsmithaerials.com/catalog/G23.html that would definitely sort
it out.

I'd regard something like that as being likely to be a waste of cash. I'd
suggest a simple 3 or 4 element. Chances are that will work about as well,
and be more durable. The key is the pointing since you want to sit any
interfering TX giving you 'burbles' on a dip in the antenna pattern if you
can as well having the preferred TX near on-axis.

FWIW You might even find that two dipoles in the room with a combiner will
do a decent job if the main problem is interference. The snag is that
experimenting with where to place and align them will be a nightmare! 8-]


This just has to be the best 20 audio pounds I've ever spent, unlike a
Yamaha CT-700 or 800 in 1978 which cost a relative fortune and only
lasted a few months before being traded in as part payment on a motor
bike. A Suzuki X7, if you're reading Keith.

If you mean a CT7000 not 700 then I am surprised you parted with it so
quickly! They are very good. (I still have one.) Their main practical
problem is all the expletive internal connectors which start to go
intermittent after a decade or more. Apart from that, as Angus McK found,
their only real design flaw was that the balance of RF/IF noise
contributions isn't ideal.

But then I've never understood the fondness many people have for sets of
wheels. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html