FM radio?

[beyondsociety]

Im working on a side project that deals with FM and was wondering what you guys think about satilite FM radio?

Also, do you like FM radio? Do you think theres any flaws to it? If you had the chance to make FM better from a car stereo standpoint, what would it be and why?

Thanks for the help in advance.

[DennisCGc]

Also, do you like FM radio?

Yes, I like it a lot ;D

Im working on a side project that deals with FM and was wondering what you guys think about satilite FM radio?

What FM radio do you mean ? (what FM station ? ::) )

[beyondsociety]

Also, do you like FM radio?

Yes, I like it a lot ;D

Im working on a side project that deals with FM and was wondering what you guys think about satilite FM radio?

What FM radio do you mean ? (what FM station ? ::) )

Im in the process of designing a new type of FM device for car stereos that will allow your FM radio to cooperate with other stations. With FM radio you have the problem of either two radio station signals interfering with each other or you tend to lose the signal because you are out of the range of the station.

A typical radio station can only transmitt a signal for 30-40 Miles. Once you go out of that range, you get a loss in signal which is referred to as noise. My project is aimed to fix that.

Now there are a couple of ways to do this. In a day of two I will be uploading a paper on this project. I'll let you know when its done and you can have a look.

Thanks for the help.

[DennisCGc]

Im in the process of designing a new type of FM device for car stereos that will allow your FM radio to cooperate with other stations. With FM radio you have the problem of either two radio station signals interfering with each other or you tend to lose the signal because you are out of the range of the station.

A typical radio station can only transmitt a signal for 30-40 Miles. Once you go out of that range, you get a loss in signal which is referred to as noise. My project is aimed to fix that.

Now there are a couple of ways to do this. In a day of two I will be uploading a paper on this project. I'll let you know when its done and you can have a look.

Thanks for the help.

Well, I'm going to say: Good luck.
As I can see, it's not going to be FM anymore, but more computer like.
Also, the range of 30-40 miles is fixed by placing satellites and other devices across the road.
And what ways ?

[beyondsociety]

Im in the process of designing a new type of FM device for car stereos that will allow your FM radio to cooperate with other stations. With FM radio you have the problem of either two radio station signals interfering with each other or you tend to lose the signal because you are out of the range of the station.

A typical radio station can only transmitt a signal for 30-40 Miles. Once you go out of that range, you get a loss in signal which is referred to as noise. My project is aimed to fix that.

Now there are a couple of ways to do this. In a day of two I will be uploading a paper on this project. I'll let you know when its done and you can have a look.

Thanks for the help.

Well, I'm going to say: Good luck.
As I can see, it's not going to be FM anymore, but more computer like.
Also, the range of 30-40 miles is fixed by placing satellites and other devices across the road.
And what ways ?

Yes, its becoming digitalized and satilite FM radio does fix the range problem. The first way is to actually move the FM radio frequency to a higher one. This does have a major downfall considering the fact that everybody uses FM radio. This solution has already been solved with satilite FM radio. Satilite radio operates at a higher freqency which allows the bandwidth of the signal to be much greater, thus resulting in 100 or more channels. With standard FM radio, you get about 30 stations or more.

Second way deals with tuning the signal more. In AM you have one monoaural signal consisting of L + R for the left and right speakers. Now with FM, you have two signals: L + R and L - R which are mixed together to produce a clean FM signal. Now the main problem is that the receiver tends to allow the full L + R and cutoff more than half of the L - R. This results in a poor signal-to-noise ratio, thus resulting with interferce from tall buildings and mountains blocking the signal, and other radio station signals interfering with each other.

Then theres the problem of the range of current radio stations. This is because of the bandwidth from the location of the FM freqency. Like I said before, theres no way around this. Digital FM might be the solution to this.

[DennisCGc]

And what about the receivers ? (radios)
This has to be reinvented anyway, or are you going to use computers ?

[Joey]

i hate the radio period. there is no good music on it. thats why i buy cds.

[Kon-Tiki]

Buy... cds... my ears ring
I don't listen to the radio for the same reason as Joey though.

[Eero Ränik]

I'm listening to net radios. Or buying CDs. (How many times I've dreamed about them costing $ (or EUR) 9.99... But no, good music always tends to cost $19.99 or even $29.99, and 74 minutes of music isn't worth that much. )

[Candy]

as for the off-topic topic, I only buy cd's when they're worth it. If the CD wasn't worth buying, I wouldn't buy it even if it were at a decent price, and I only listen to the free streams, and then only when forced. When a cd or song is good, I'm willing to pay up to $5 per song.

Example: Nelly Furtado - powerless, would give about a dime or perhaps 20 cent for it, not worth any more
Gary Jules - Mad World, paid the full $5 for the single, and gave it to my GF (who likes it even more than I do). Good song, worth my money.

The topic itself, I listen to radio when at internship (like work), when at my GF's place during breakfast, dinner etc. and at home whenever I feel like hooking up the stereo to the cable radio (like, once a year).

[beyondsociety]

And what about the receivers ? (radios)
This has to be reinvented anyway, or are you going to use computers ?

Im debating if I should design a reciever and add this device to it or just made it compatible with existing stereo recivers. Im not going to be using a computer.

Im also have a idea on how to extend the freqency. As I said before, FM has one L + R and L - R for the signal. My idea is two get rid of the L - R and add a L + R, thus resulting in two L + R's for the signal. In theory this will work and will not only get rid of the noise but will also extend the signal of the FM station. Im not so sure if it will actually work when I build it and test it.

The second idea I have if this doesnt work is to add an extra L - R to the equation. Considering the fact that the L - R part gets cutoff half-way, if I add an extra one I should get a working L - R that doesnt produce noise. Im just not sure if this will actually work, as it might add more noise to the already signal. Then again, it might make it better, I was never that good when it came to figuring out math equations. ;D

[DennisCGc]

Im also have a idea on how to extend the freqency. As I said before, FM has one L + R and L - R for the signal. My idea is two get rid of the L - R and add a L + R, thus resulting in two L + R's for the signal. In theory this will work and will not only get rid of the noise but will also extend the signal of the FM station. Im not so sure if it will actually work when I build it and test it.

I hope you'll give them both other frequencies, or else (I think) are going to interfere with each other.

The second idea I have if this doesnt work is to add an extra L - R to the equation. Considering the fact that the L - R part gets cutoff half-way, if I add an extra one I should get a working L - R that doesnt produce noise. Im just not sure if this will actually work, as it might add more noise to the already signal.

L - R + L - R = L+R ? ???
I think I'll agree with the first idea, it sounds better than the second one

[beyondsociety]

I hope you'll give them both other frequencies, or else (I think) are going to interfere with each other.

Im not sure if they will interere or not until I test it. With reference to giving them seperate freqencies, I'll have too look into that.

L - R + L - R = L+R ?
I think I'll agree with the first idea, it sounds better than the second one

I guess I wasnt clear enough.

FM: L + R + L - R = balances out

1st idea: L + R + L + R = L + R * 2 (Good idea)

2nd idea: L + R + L - R + L - R = L - R (Bad idea)

or L - R + L + R + L - R = L - R (Bad iea)

[DennisCGc]

I guess I wasnt clear enough.

Sorry, it's just me :-[

2nd idea: L + R + L - R + L - R = L - R (Bad idea)

or L - R + L + R + L - R = L - R (Bad iea)

The second idea I have if this doesnt work is to add an extra L - R to the equation. Considering the fact that the L - R part gets cutoff half-way, if I add an extra one I should get a working L - R that doesnt produce noise. Im just not sure if this will actually work, as it might add more noise to the already signal.

But what are you proposing then ? ???

[beyondsociety]

2nd idea: L + R + L - R + L - R = L - R (Bad idea)

or L - R + L + R + L - R = L - R (Bad iea)

I forgot to add this, which is what I would be trying to do:
(L + R) + (L - R + L - R) = (L + R) + (L + R) (Good idea)

But what are you proposing then ?

Do you mean, what am I trying to do?

I trying to find a way to not only eliminate all noise, but to also get the mixed signals to amplifiy themselves. When it then goes through an amplifier, it will be amplifiied even more allowing the signal to extend much farther than before. Instead of having two or more amplifiers at the output stage to amplifiy the signal, you would only need one.