Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-14 08:28 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-16 21:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 08:28 -0800
REPOST Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 08:33 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 11:54 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-14 17:07 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 23:25 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:38 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-14 17:11 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 20:07 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 23:29 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-15 00:15 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-14 11:08 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-14 17:57 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2015-12-15 15:54 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:12 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-15 19:41 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2015-12-15 23:07 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-16 14:32 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-16 22:59 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 07:30 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:07 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:06 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:56 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:12 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:43 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:43 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-20 10:16 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:13 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:17 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 19:24 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-12-21 18:03 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:29 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 14:03 +0100
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:39 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 14:37 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:45 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 10:53 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-23 23:42 +0100
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:41 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:22 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-21 17:29 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 13:58 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:07 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:40 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 17:09 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 17:29 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 17:03 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 19:28 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 15:46 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 19:13 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-23 23:25 +0100
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 17:04 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 13:56 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:42 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:25 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 16:48 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 17:37 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 18:25 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:46 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:24 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-22 11:28 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 15:20 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:51 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:33 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 09:47 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 15:17 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:31 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-22 16:48 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:43 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:50 -0500
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 18:56 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 02:38 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-23 13:55 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:12 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 11:06 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 15:58 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:24 -0600
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 11:09 -0800
Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-12-16 21:33 -0800
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 17:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ddrgqnF1opsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155437 |
"Lawrence Statton" wrote: > "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >> If it's like the U.S., and I think it is, the only "gap" in the TV >> channels is between channel 6 and channel 7 with analog TV. Of >> course, it's a whole different thing now in the U.S. since TV >> broadcasts have gone digital. > > Even in the digital era, the channel assignments have not changed. 2,3, > and 4 are edge-to-edge, then a small (4MHz) gap, then 5 and 6, then a > 94 MHz gap to 7 through 13. > > Then, several hundred MHz of "other services" to the bottom of the UHF > band at 470 MHz up to the top of channel 69 at 800MHz. > >>> So I think the "continuous tuning" tv sets from the early days, >>> actually did tune through it all, you were just supposed to ignore >>> what wasn't tv. I'm not sure, it would depend on whether there was >>> bandswitch or not. > > I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the > 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the > only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman > and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three > channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). > > As of 1975, in the US, televisions were required to have detent tuning > for UHF as well. You collection is sadly lacking. Crosley sets were mostly continuous tuning in the early days and they were a big player. I had a working RCA 630 TS that I traded to a collector for a largish Varaic like thing. He had filched it from work so he made out like a bandit, but I knew that going in. I couldn't even figure out how to get a camera in and out of that place .... I never did use the Variac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 18:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87egeftjlc.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #155445 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > "Lawrence Statton" wrote: > You collection is sadly lacking. Crosley sets were mostly continuous > tuning in the early days and they were a big player. I had a working I have two Crosley sets -- a 7-inch "Suitcase Portable" from 1948, and a (basket case) Swing-a-View (1947) and neither of them have continuous tuning for VHF. The S-a-V has only a eight-position selector, and there are four plug-in modules in the chassis, each handling one or two different channels (e.g. there was a 2/4 module, a 3/6 module and a few single-channel modules (channel 1 [sic - 44-50 MHz ], 12, and 13 IIRC) --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55b39c04-0ac1-409e-882b-5026190ac8e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155437 |
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: > I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the > 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the > only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman > and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three > channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. Despite the very limited offerings and high expense in the early 1940s, it appears early experimental TV was very popular in New York City in that era. The NYT was full of articles about TV. It's postwar future was eagerly anticipated. In 1944, lots of companies announced some postwar TV plans. IBM sought microwave channels for TV and data transmission.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1512221122520.18456@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #155467 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: > >> I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the >> 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the >> only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman >> and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three >> channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). > > Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people > who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears > the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. > ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added to it. Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixties and "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. Michael > Despite the very limited offerings and high expense in the early > 1940s, it appears early experimental TV was very popular in New > York City in that era. The NYT was full of articles about TV. > It's postwar future was eagerly anticipated. In 1944, lots of > companies announced some postwar TV plans. IBM sought microwave > channels for TV and data transmission. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1089532850.472494299.458096.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155475 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: >> >>> I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the >>> 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the >>> only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman >>> and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three >>> channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). >> >> Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people >> who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears >> the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. >> > ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was > doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after > the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from > something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making > any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added > to it. > > Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good > long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixtiesh and > "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. FM has much better sound quality, but it is a lot like digital TV - you either get the signal or you don't, there is no "almost". AM is like analog TV - you can tweak the tuning to get at least something, if not a great signal. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 15:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ddtt4lFk66qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155478 |
"Peter Flass" wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the >>>> 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the >>>> only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman >>>> and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three >>>> channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). >>> >>> Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people >>> who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears >>> the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. >>> >> ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was >> doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after >> the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from >> something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making >> any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added >> to it. >> >> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixtiesh and >> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. > > FM has much better sound quality, but it is a lot like digital TV - you > either get the signal or you don't, there is no "almost". AM is like > analog TV - you can tweak the tuning to get at least something, if not a > great signal. Some FM receivers have a switch so you can turn sterol off. It often has a nice side effect of reducing the hiss that results from a less than perfect signal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 19:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1512221950440.19211@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #155503 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Osmium wrote: > "Peter Flass" wrote: > > >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the >>>>> 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the >>>>> only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman >>>>> and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three >>>>> channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). >>>> >>>> Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people >>>> who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears >>>> the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. >>>> >>> ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was >>> doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after >>> the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from >>> something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making >>> any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added >>> to it. >>> >>> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >>> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixtiesh and >>> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. >> >> FM has much better sound quality, but it is a lot like digital TV - you >> either get the signal or you don't, there is no "almost". AM is like >> analog TV - you can tweak the tuning to get at least something, if not a >> great signal. > > Some FM receivers have a switch so you can turn sterol off. It often has a > nice side effect of reducing the hiss that results from a less than perfect > signal. > And car radios often have a variable effect, summing the channels together according to signal strength, so a noisy signal won't be noisier due to stereo, while a good signal has very good stereo separation.. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5el0g0212o@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #155521 |
On 2015-12-23, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Osmium wrote: > >> "Peter Flass" wrote: >> >>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >>>> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixtiesh and >>>> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. Still, some stations carried on. CHQM-FM went on the air in Vancouver in 1960, playing mostly elevator music (and sometimes classical). They're still going today - and, given that soft rock is the elevator music of the '90s, one could argue that they're still playing elevator music. "Elevator music brings me down." -- me >>> FM has much better sound quality, but it is a lot like digital TV - you >>> either get the signal or you don't, there is no "almost". AM is like >>> analog TV - you can tweak the tuning to get at least something, if not a >>> great signal. Not really. The signal doesn't cut out, it just gets very noisy (probably due to all the multipath reflections). I often try to listen to KING-FM in Seattle (over 100 miles away). It's considered unlistenable by some people, but is usually still recognizable - and it's the nearest FM station that offers 24/7 classical music (mixed with membership pledge drives). Aggravating the problem is the new station that just started up in Vancouver on 98.3 MHz, which pretty much wipes out KING-FM's signal on 98.1 when you're downtown. The local CBC station plays classical music, but only between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., and their transmitter has what sounds like some sort of buffer underrun problem that introduces a glitch about once a minute; it's harely noticeable on loud, fast-moving music (like their pop segments), but for slow classical pieces it's like Chinese water torture. It's been going on for over two years now, and nobody seems to give a damn. >> Some FM receivers have a switch so you can turn sterol off. It often has a >> nice side effect of reducing the hiss that results from a less than perfect >> signal. Another switch that you don't see much anymore is AFC (automatic frequency control). I guess the new tuners are stable enough to not need it. > And car radios often have a variable effect, summing the channels together > according to signal strength, so a noisy signal won't be noisier due to > stereo, while a good signal has very good stereo separation.. This isn't so much due to some special design of car radios but to the nature of the stereo FM signal itself. For backward compatibility, the main signal is mono (the sum of left and right channels), and a difference signal (left minus right) modulates a 38-kHz subcarrier. If the signal is strong enough (and you haven't flipped the "mono" switch if you have one), the receiver's stereo decoder kicks in. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 19:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1512221925250.19211@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #155478 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Peter Flass wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:48:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: >>> >>>> I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the >>>> 1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF. In fact, the >>>> only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman >>>> and the TV80. My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three >>>> channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector). >>> >>> Around 1947, TV transmission standards were changed. The people >>> who already owned TV sets had to get them converted, but it appears >>> the manufacturers were willing to pay for the conversion. >>> >> ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was >> doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after >> the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from >> something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making >> any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added >> to it. >> >> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixtiesh and >> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. > > FM has much better sound quality, but it is a lot like digital TV - you > either get the signal or you don't, there is no "almost". AM is like > analog TV - you can tweak the tuning to get at least something, if not a > great signal. > Armstrong was building an FM network before the war, and one component was that at frequencies below 50MHz, where the FM band was originally, he'd intended to use the broadcast transmitter to get the network feed to the next location. It apparently was working, though it was limited area. But much of that work was erased when the band was moved after the war. The old receivers were no longer good, the momentum gone, and I'm not sure Armstrong rebuilt his network for the new band. So while he was backing it before the war, it was haphazard afterwards. So it became the place of classical music (which is logical) but that wasn't mainstream enough. So a lot of FM stations after the war were marginal profit centres, if not losers, dependent on a successful AM station to pay the bills. TV got lots of rules to support it (like the requirement that tv sets after a certain point must include UHF reception), FM didn't, so there was no rule that said AM radios had to include the FM band. If people can't listen, then they won't tune in. FM became kind of a wasteland. So Tom Donahue got things rolling by buying time on an FM station in San Francisco, then getting advertisers and hiring announcers. It really took off, so either that station became a rock station all the time, or they moved to another station that became a rock station. And others followed. That gave a lot more reason to buy an FM radio, which of course probably meant more AM/FM radios available. Now, nobody wants AM, and at least here, there is no more space for local FM stations, and we've lost some not so local stations because the frequencies have been used up by local stations. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8956bc1-854c-483c-87f0-a5aaf5dea8a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155475 |
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 11:21:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was > doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after > the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from > something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making > any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added > to it. Yes. The old TV's would continue to get some sort of picture, but not any sound. As mentioned, the manufacturers came out to the homes to do the conversions. Given what people paid for their TV and expected future use, it was worth it to them to spend the money. But, as the conversion to digital, there was controversy in advance (lots of articles in the NYT about it.) > Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good > long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixties and > "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. It seemed that until the mid 1960s, most plain radios were sold with AM only; one had to buy an expensive radio to get FM along with it. Car radios had AM only, FM was an expensive option. In the 1970s FM became standard. I think it was still an option for car radios, but only a modest extra cost. People with good stereo systems had FM stereo. By the 1970s, serious music listeners would only listen to FM and poo-poo AM radio as something for kids (top 40) or old people (news radio). Geez, I remember audiophiles in the 1970s arguing about minor nuances in their expensive stereos and records. People spent a lot of money for those things. It was a big status thing-- what brand and options you had. It was funny seeing kids move into a college dorm with their big system, including huge speakers (strong enough to work in a football stadium). Then 'quad' cut, starting another revolution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 15:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ddtsv3Fk4d7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155483 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 11:21:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > >> ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was >> doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after >> the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from >> something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making >> any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added >> to it. > > Yes. The old TV's would continue to get some sort of picture, > but not any sound. > > As mentioned, the manufacturers came out to the homes to do the > conversions. Given what people paid for their TV and expected > future use, it was worth it to them to spend the money. But, > as the conversion to digital, there was controversy in advance > (lots of articles in the NYT about it.) > > >> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixties and >> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. > > It seemed that until the mid 1960s, most plain radios were sold > with AM only; one had to buy an expensive radio to get FM along > with it. Car radios had AM only, FM was an expensive option. > > In the 1970s FM became standard. I think it was still an option > for car radios, but only a modest extra cost. I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 13:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52421a5b-33f5-48e9-a497-4ab0e21df5e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155502 |
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:17:26 PM UTC-5, Osmium wrote: > > It seemed that until the mid 1960s, most plain radios were sold > > with AM only; one had to buy an expensive radio to get FM along > > with it. Car radios had AM only, FM was an expensive option. > > > > In the 1970s FM became standard. I think it was still an option > > for car radios, but only a modest extra cost. > > I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws > requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure > when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess. I think for a long time, car radios are now a standard feature. If the buyer wants a high end radio, they get a credit for it. Many years ago (50) car radios were an option and some people didn't get them. Actually, I don't think they were that cheap, IIRC, maybe $50 and that was in the 1970s--serious money back then. I don't know the technology, but I think car radios had to have some specialty circuitry to let them play without interference from the spark plug ignition. Indeed, I think Motorola developed that, and that's how the company got its name. I remember a big innovation was an embedded antenna in the windshhield instead of a stick aerial. In cars I had that had it, that made a big improvement in sound reception. However, not all cars had it, and even some cars that had it went back to the stick aerial. In the old days, vandals would often break off car aerials. Gangs would use them as a weapon. Ours was broken and it was a b***** to fix. (They told me it would cost a lot of money just to pull out my cassette player, let alone repairing or replacing it.) I also remember in the old days that high end car audio and CB was a target for thieves. They'd break in the car and rip out the radio, destroying the dashboard in the process, and leaving very expensive repairs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1396966494.472513640.560965.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155504 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:17:26 PM UTC-5, Osmium wrote: >>> It seemed that until the mid 1960s, most plain radios were sold >>> with AM only; one had to buy an expensive radio to get FM along >>> with it. Car radios had AM only, FM was an expensive option. >>> >>> In the 1970s FM became standard. I think it was still an option >>> for car radios, but only a modest extra cost. >> >> I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws >> requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure >> when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess. > > I think for a long time, car radios are now a standard feature. If > the buyer wants a high end radio, they get a credit for it. > > Many years ago (50) car radios were an option and some people didn't > get them. Actually, I don't think they were that cheap, IIRC, > maybe $50 and that was in the 1970s--serious money back then. I > don't know the technology, but I think car radios had to have some > specialty circuitry to let them play without interference from the > spark plug ignition. Indeed, I think Motorola developed that, and > that's how the company got its name. > > I remember a big innovation was an embedded antenna in the windshhield > instead of a stick aerial. In cars I had that had it, that made a big > improvement in sound reception. However, not all cars had it, and > even some cars that had it went back to the stick aerial. > > In the old days, vandals would often break off car aerials. Gangs > would use them as a weapon. Ours was broken and it was a b***** to > fix. > > (They told me it would cost a lot of money just to pull out my > cassette player, let alone repairing or replacing it.) > That's one thing I really like about my Nissan - the dashboard panel that covers the radio, etc. just snaps in and out. To remove the radio is a couple of screws. > > I also remember in the old days that high end car audio and CB was > a target for thieves. They'd break in the car and rip out the > radio, destroying the dashboard in the process, and leaving very > expensive repairs. > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 17:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <TrWdnQ-NZ8-vfeTLnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155504 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I remember a big innovation was an embedded antenna in the windshhield > instead of a stick aerial. In cars I had that had it, that made a big > improvement in sound reception. 1976 Chevy Vega? It was a dipole, two hair thin wires right up the center of the windshield, then they turned 90 degrees and headed outward. Worked quite well on FM, quite poorly on AM. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 19:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5ctm2$s7l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155515 |
On 12/22/2015 5:43 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >> I remember a big innovation was an embedded antenna in the windshhield >> instead of a stick aerial. In cars I had that had it, that made a big >> improvement in sound reception. > 1976 Chevy Vega? It was a dipole, two hair thin wires right up the center > of the windshield, then they turned 90 degrees and headed outward. > Worked quite well on FM, quite poorly on AM. I'd expect that with a dipole, it would work (on FM) quite well when you were driving toward/away from the station, but poorly if you were driving at a tangent. The stick antennas were omnidirectional. That might explain why the embedded antenna didn't really catch on big.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tracymnelson@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9db6b158-8ae5-4118-a463-9ff9a795eda5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155515 |
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:43:47 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > I remember a big innovation was an embedded antenna in the windshhield > > instead of a stick aerial. In cars I had that had it, that made a big > > improvement in sound reception. > 1976 Chevy Vega? It was a dipole, two hair thin wires right up the center > of the windshield, then they turned 90 degrees and headed outward. > Worked quite well on FM, quite poorly on AM. My 1987 Porsche 944 has this, as well as an RF amplifier in-line. Reception is poor, unless the RF amplifier is switched off, in which case it becomes nonexistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1512221948220.19211@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #155502 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Osmium wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 11:21:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: >> >>> ANd so did the FM band. I have the impression the FM broadcast band was >>> doing better than tv as WWII started up, a lot more receivers. And after >>> the war, things got rearranged, so the FM broadcast band was shifted from >>> something like 44 to 50MHz up to 88 to 108MHz (where it is now), making >>> any existing receiver useless unless it was modified or a converter added >>> to it. >> >> Yes. The old TV's would continue to get some sort of picture, >> but not any sound. >> >> As mentioned, the manufacturers came out to the homes to do the >> conversions. Given what people paid for their TV and expected >> future use, it was worth it to them to spend the money. But, >> as the conversion to digital, there was controversy in advance >> (lots of articles in the NYT about it.) >> >> >>> Some argue that that was fatal for the FM broadcast band, it took a good >>> long time to recover, and it seems like it was the late sixties and >>> "underground radio" that caused FM to boom. >> >> It seemed that until the mid 1960s, most plain radios were sold >> with AM only; one had to buy an expensive radio to get FM along >> with it. Car radios had AM only, FM was an expensive option. >> >> In the 1970s FM became standard. I think it was still an option >> for car radios, but only a modest extra cost. > > I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws requiring > that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure when this was > effective, the Carter era is my best guess. > I'm not sure about that. After a certain point, people didn't want AM only, and somewhat later, didnt' want AM. I remember ads in ROlling Stone circa 1976, Arlo Guthrie and other musicians in ads for third party car radios, and FM was seen as a good thing, which I think preempted any need for a ruling about including FM. But I'm not certain. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 18:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87mvt2rni9.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #155502 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws > requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not > sure when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess. I am reasonably certain if it is true, it is far after Carter, since he left office in 1980, and my father bought a Dodge in 1984 that came with an AM-Only radio. So - second term of Bonzo at the earliest. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 02:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0c4cc7c-941a-4a0d-8382-9b52298d0181@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155502 |
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:17:26 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote: > I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws > requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure > when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess. I'm astonished to hear that. I know that for safety, there were laws that required that car radios have the ability to go to pre-set channels with push-button tuning; those laws were around for a long time. Ah: the first radio with this kind of tuning was developed by Delco in 1938, so that law must have been introduced afterwards. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 13:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <de0chfF8kbeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155530 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:17:26 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote: > >> I'm quite sure it is no longer an option in the USA. There are laws >> requiring that, if a car radio exists, it must receive FM. I am not sure >> when this was effective, the Carter era is my best guess. > > I'm astonished to hear that. This has been like looking for a white crow! I have spent a huge amount of time looking for this and pretty much failed. I let it rest for a while and then go back to it. I finally found a single reference, here is the crucial part, retyped by me: It was very vivid in my mind so I just kept persisting until I found it. A truly awful law and a violation of our mythical freedoms. "The government mandated the auto manufacturers make car radios FM compatible, the rest, as they say, is history" http://www.cengagebrain.com.mx/content/9781133966364.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web