crystal radio?

satkinsn

low end audio
Subscriber
Returning to a favorite topic of mine, what to do with a.m. radio, I found some writing on the web that intrigued me.

It was a set of notes on crystal radio, and it argued that crystal sets - while not nearly as selective as modern radios - are much more able to take advantage of the full range of an a.m. station.

Since I know nothing about the theory involved, can any of the smart folks here tell me if that's true?

tks,

s.
 
Register to hide this ad
Felix -

I'm about to dive in and do some serious reading, but let me cheat a bit - can you integrate a good crystal tuner into a decent system and get good results?

tks,

s.
 
The reason why crystal radios are better at audio fidelity is because they are the most simple form of a radio detector w/o any intermediate frequency circuits that usually cut off the audio bandwidth a bit.
More selectivity in an AM radio is a double edge sword because while allowing powerful local stations not to splatter on to others near them there is reduced reception bandwidth in the audio product.
The first time you hear AM radio through such a basic detector as a crystal set from a quality broadcast it's nothing short of amazing in the respect that the audio sounds just as good as the source at the station before it's broadcasted (besides the fact it's in mono).
I noticed this early on with AM radio as I run a local pirate station on AM. On almost all newer AM radios the audio sounds squashed like someone ran it through a telephone first. When listening to my RF modulation through a simple diode detector into an amplifier (same as a crystal set) I was blown away at how the audio didn't sound like it was going through a radio broadcast at all. It sounded just like its source.
The problem with most modern AM radio receivers is that they purposely restrict the audio bandwidth to suit the more modern talk radio format instead of music.
Not only that but the many stages of circuitry causes the tuner to produce limited audio range.
However older radios I find usually don't have this issue. I have had a few old tube sets in the past that reproduced audio really well usually with limited selectivity in tuning.
FM radios don't suffer this problem usually because of the modulation method and usually companies produce the FM radio with music reproduction in mind.
There is technically NO reason that AM can't sound just as good as FM. In fact AM can sound BETTER than FM in theory because of lack of frequency deviation distortion.
The problem is in the radio stations over compression, the radios multiple stages of detection, the high frequency roll off used at the station to improve talk (edit: I mean high frequency roll of at the radios end, and high frequency increase at the station) and to suit the NRSC specifications, and so many other things.
It is really interesting to listen to AM stations through a very basic crystal set that is amplified into a hifi system. Really shows the listener the stations true colors or lack thereof :)
 
Last edited:
G'day mate, yes! That's basically been my intention all along, for general tuner audio source applications.

The FET buffer circuit I've developed that are a part of most of my wideband, high fidelity tuner circuits were/ are specifically designed for feeding into a following audio preamp/ power amp system. Regards, Felix (vk4fuq) aka catman.
 
Last edited:
You might want to look up 'direct conversion' technology. It basically eliminates the IF section of a superhet design, and relies strictly on the following audio stages to control selectivity. That makes it much easier to design for and select the bandwidth you want, for various reception quality needs.
 
Yep. For all my ranting & raving about R-390As, they DO Sound like Zhit. Part of its on purpose, the Army Signal Corps had Collins design them w/ high & low frequency cut-offs, so all you're left w/ is a "telephone" sounding signal...
 
All the above is fascinating.

Thought experiment: what would you get if you provided the best transmission you could and somehow made sure all the receivers were good? Would it be 'f.m. quality' or something less because of bandwidth limitations?

tks,

s.
 
All the above is fascinating.

Thought experiment: what would you get if you provided the best transmission you could and somehow made sure all the receivers were good? Would it be 'f.m. quality' or something less because of bandwidth limitations?

tks,

s.
It would easily match the quality of an FM transmission.

There are a few limitations though. Public radio stations are required by the FCC to roll off their audio at 10kHz so not to splatter over onto stations next to them. That effectively cuts off the high frequency audio range.
Audio compression causes it's own issues with dynamics of audio.
Far away signals on AM also don't have the "capture" effect that FM has so they will have static or other stations on the same channel interfere.

However if one were to broadcast with uncompressed audio and not limit the top audio range above 10kHz and even use AM stereo C-quam transmitting method, were near the transmitter so that there is a solid carrier signal then it would sound excellent. Just as good as FM or possibly even better.
Using your own legal part 15 AM transmitter can give you this result for around the block broadcasting. There are even a few stereo AM transmitter kits you can build and put on the air. Problem is finding radios made today that reproduce good music quality audio, even harder finding radios that have AM stereo capability but they do exist.
 
G'day all, yes subjectively it sounds as good as FM (in mono of course).

To my ears, wideband AM sounds 'different' to FM, but when combined with a high quality transmission (not always the case, sadly), wideband, high fidelity and low distortion AM sounds stunningly good. :thmbsp:

In terms of the upper treble frequency response FM probably has the slight edge (15 KHz) but wideband AM is practically as good , at least with the AM stations in Australia. Regards, Felix aka catman.
 
Some of the older big multi-tube consoles I've seen have had a "Wide/Narrow" switch on them, & they can deliver outstanding audio...Plus, you have to understand, there wasn't anywhere near as much "Hash" noise 60-70 years ago as there is now.
 
Some of the older big multi-tube consoles I've seen have had a "Wide/Narrow" switch on them, & they can deliver outstanding audio...Plus, you have to understand, there wasn't anywhere near as much "Hash" noise 60-70 years ago as there is now.

I remember reading in one of the old audio or electronic magazines that Atwater-Kent (I think it was) used to test their radio's reception in a room containing a huge Dynamo. I suppose that if it worked under those conditions, they were on the right track.
:music:

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
Thank you, guys. This is really interesting to me.

Ok: what's the best way to integrate crystal set a.m. into my system?

s.
 
G'day mate, in general terms as a general audio program source anyway, one of the line level inputs, if that's what you mean. Regards, Felix (vk4fuq) aka catman.
 
Back
Top Bottom