From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Starting a radio station 
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:08:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan15.084442.5869@gagme.chi.il.us> rerickso@cwis.unomaha.edu
(Ronald D. Erickson) writes:
>What I have in mind is to purchase a FCC type accepted
>transmitter and FM monitor.  As I understand it, I can
>make the antenna if I am using a translator.  Some engineers
>claim that FM and TV gain antennas can skip over the
>intended area of reception.  The best way is to use one
>or two radiators depending if the FCC will not allow a
>one radiator installation. 

Yes, but you can't do any local origination over a translator station.
The FCC will not allow it, and there is a NJ station which has been
in the courts over the issue recently.  You'll have to get a 100W or
greater license.

At 100W, you can pick up a surplus exciter and homebrew the
transmitter with a couple cheap power transistors as the finals.
The problem is that you're gonna pay to get the license paperwork
through and to get the contours required for the license.

>I assume that a Radio Shack mixer would do for a console.
>The frequency bandwidth is 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.  I do not know
>what the THD would be, but I have heard of engineers building
>their own consoles from scratch with no problems.

Yes, I have built an 8-channel stereo console from scratch.  It cost
me about $2,000 or so, but it sounds amazingly good.  It's usually
more expensive to homebrew than to buy commercial equipment, and if
you figure in the cost of your labor it gets even worse.  (I even did
the sheet metal work on the case myself).  The Radio Shack mixer
is probably okay for temporary work, but it will break down in a couple
of weeks.  Trust me; I used one on the air while my board was being
constructed and it was a big incentive to get the real board finished.

>I do not see how it would cost even $5,000 for a decent and
>legal installation unless you know something I do not know.
>I would consider a reconditioned transmitter instead of a new
>one which might not be debugged.  An AM station I used to work
>for went to a new state-of-the-art transmitter and had more
>problems than it ever had with the old reliable 1966 transmitter.
>Not all new ideas are better ideas.

No problem.... the cost of refurbishing that old gear is pretty high,
though.  I used to maintain a 1956 RCA transmitter up until about a 
year ago, and the cost for replacement finals was amazingly high.  One
of our local AM stations is running a 1938 Crosley transmitter, which
sounds amazingly good, but they've put about $30,000 into refurbishing
it over the last few years (though admittedly that includes re-nickel
plating the cabinet).  I strongly recommend the older gear but I wouldn't
expect much of a cost saving.

>As I understand it, commercial FM translators can broadcast 30
>second commercials every hour or similar type of messages from my
>1980 FCC Rules and Regulations.  I know, I should purchase the 
>latest copy so I am more up to date.

Yes, but that's not much local origination.  30 seconds every hour
isn't too terribly useful, although admittedly it reduces the demand
for translator licenses.

>The station I used to work for bought second-hand test equipment
>they often had recalibrated from "TUCKERS ELECTRONICS".

Tucker is horribly overpriced and don't do all that good a job of
calibration.
You can get better prices in the classifieds in Radio world, and frankly the
condition probably won't be any worse.  Check the local government surplus
scene as well.
--scott