FM reception
#1
FM reception
My impression is that for weak stations, reception is better with a whip type antenna. For example, I get a National Public Radio Station broadcast from buffalo up here in Ontario. I've noticed in all my TLs that that station sometimes barely comes in. When I have tried the Honda CRV and Toyota Camry, both with standard anennas, the station is much stronger.
Anyone know why Acura uses an antenna system built into the back window? Or how the reception can be improved (other than moving to Buffalo)?
Anyone know why Acura uses an antenna system built into the back window? Or how the reception can be improved (other than moving to Buffalo)?
#2
Don't know if it's better...
Did you ever see someone netting steel wire or thread and replacing the broken attenna by this? That's the easy way to catch the radio signals. If you wire inside your room or above your roof, you can catch the signals too for your radio or TV.
If we net the antenna over your rear window, we should be able to get rid of the exterior antenna and this will be the great benefit for maintenance saving and the style design.
Will better materials help? Maybe.
Did you ever see someone netting steel wire or thread and replacing the broken attenna by this? That's the easy way to catch the radio signals. If you wire inside your room or above your roof, you can catch the signals too for your radio or TV.
If we net the antenna over your rear window, we should be able to get rid of the exterior antenna and this will be the great benefit for maintenance saving and the style design.
Will better materials help? Maybe.
#5
Originally posted by dulnev
04 TL's FM reception is pretty poor, but is no worse than the 03's
04 TL's FM reception is pretty poor, but is no worse than the 03's
#6
I think the advantage is purely cosmetic.
Not only did they give us an antenna in the window, they did NOT do what other makers do when this type of antenna is used, which is to use a dual diversity antenna system (two window type antennas with different patterns are used and the radio selects which has the better signal, works well on other cars and is CHEAP!)
Unfortunately I am not comparing this car to 2nd gen (I guess my standards would not be as high if I was) but to OTHER similar or CHEAPER cars!
Ok, I will get off my soap box now.
Not only did they give us an antenna in the window, they did NOT do what other makers do when this type of antenna is used, which is to use a dual diversity antenna system (two window type antennas with different patterns are used and the radio selects which has the better signal, works well on other cars and is CHEAP!)
Unfortunately I am not comparing this car to 2nd gen (I guess my standards would not be as high if I was) but to OTHER similar or CHEAPER cars!
Ok, I will get off my soap box now.
Trending Topics
#8
Instructor
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: Hercules, CA
I have been listining to XM, CD or DVD. In terms of FM reception, systems with "diversivied" antenna are normally better. These systems usually employ 2 antennas. A regular telescopic and another glass foil similar to what we have. Pioneer radios have often been pretty good with their FM tuners. My old Accord stock radio was an Alpine OEM.
#12
XM sucks!
Personally, I don't like XM. I find that it:
1. Has poor selection of songs that I like. I have to jump channels a lot more than with FM stations. We have several great FM stations in DC area.
2. Related to 1: has good songs spread accross multiple channels. They simply don't have the staff (DJs) to put together good songs selection on a single channel. How hard would it be to have a good "oldies" station instead of one for 60s, one for 70s, one for 80s, etc.! I find myself CONSTANTLY changing channels. :banghead:
2. Has inconsistent tonal quality from one channel to the next (some stations have too much base and too little treble) AND inconsistent volume. I keep making very large adjustments to volume from channel to channel. Combined with having to switch channels frequently to hunt for a decent song, this is extremelly annoying! :banghead:
3. Takes too long to switch from channel to channel.
1. Has poor selection of songs that I like. I have to jump channels a lot more than with FM stations. We have several great FM stations in DC area.
2. Related to 1: has good songs spread accross multiple channels. They simply don't have the staff (DJs) to put together good songs selection on a single channel. How hard would it be to have a good "oldies" station instead of one for 60s, one for 70s, one for 80s, etc.! I find myself CONSTANTLY changing channels. :banghead:
2. Has inconsistent tonal quality from one channel to the next (some stations have too much base and too little treble) AND inconsistent volume. I keep making very large adjustments to volume from channel to channel. Combined with having to switch channels frequently to hunt for a decent song, this is extremelly annoying! :banghead:
3. Takes too long to switch from channel to channel.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CBR1100XX
Audio, Video, Electronics & Navigation
4
03-14-2004 01:33 PM