Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70556 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:58 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 20:30 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-27 09:39 +0100
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-09-28 08:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-26 19:10 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:20 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-28 15:45 +0000
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:30 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 17:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 22:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 16:40 +0100
OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 16:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 18:19 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:00 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) André Coutanche <acoutanche@gmx.co.uk> - 2026-09-29 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:33 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 22:48 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:07 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-30 15:51 -0700
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 10:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 08:10 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-30 00:46 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-30 12:25 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:34 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:31 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 14:47 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:36 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:12 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 16:14 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:53 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 19:03 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:25 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:51 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:55 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-30 14:15 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 19:58 +1000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 22:13 +1000
[OT] - audio distribution, Rediffusion-style (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:43 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 11:44 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-27 16:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 18:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-27 18:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 15:56 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 17:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-29 12:01 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 13:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Other John <nomail@here.org> - 2026-09-29 16:53 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 10:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:36 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:23 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:37 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:28 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:35 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:15 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:24 +0200
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-01 17:17 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:10 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:42 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-03 21:10 +1000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:39 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-04 21:26 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:19 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:36 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:18 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 12:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 15:59 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-03 15:56 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 17:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 18:41 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-03 22:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-03 21:24 -0400
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-04 08:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-04 09:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-30 15:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:27 +0200
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 13:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 13:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 18:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:37 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 10:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 09:41 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:37 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-30 13:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:50 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:12 +0000
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 03:29 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:53 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 03:32 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:49 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:27 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:19 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:34 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-02 06:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-04 07:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-04 03:15 -0400
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-04 15:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 19:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <ni7lkbFcanU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70680 |
On 01/10/2026 18:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-10-01, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> Which brings us back to Tom Lehrer: >> >> Plagiarise. >> Let no-one else's work evade you eyes. > > Oh, come on, let's have the whole thing: > > Plagiarize! > Let no one else's work evade your eyes. > Remember why the good Lord made your eyes > So don't shade your eyes > But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize > (But remember to always call it please "research") > Research - When you plagiarise from more than one source. -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 21:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119mh3j$1hqm7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70681 |
On 2026/10/1 19:3:55, John Williamson wrote: > On 01/10/2026 18:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-10-01, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> Which brings us back to Tom Lehrer: >>> >>> Plagiarise. >>> Let no-one else's work evade you eyes. >> >> Oh, come on, let's have the whole thing: >> >> Plagiarize! >> Let no one else's work evade your eyes. >> Remember why the good Lord made your eyes >> So don't shade your eyes >> But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize >> (But remember to always call it please "research") I'm afraid that, when hearing reports of what's going on in Putin's war, my mind keeps going back to that song; even Dneblpetrovsk (sp?) has been mentioned. As does my mind when hearing the Liszt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdH1hSWGFGU&t=350 or Kalinka. >> > Research - When you plagiarise from more than one source. > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. - Attributed to Peter Drucker (re management), by @Eric_Partaker 2023-7-14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-02 12:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119o4ar$21k2o$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70681 |
On 01/10/2026 19:03, John Williamson wrote: > On 01/10/2026 18:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-10-01, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> Which brings us back to Tom Lehrer: >>> >>> Plagiarise. >>> Let no-one else's work evade you eyes. >> >> Oh, come on, let's have the whole thing: >> >> Plagiarize! >> Let no one else's work evade your eyes. >> Remember why the good Lord made your eyes >> So don't shade your eyes >> But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize >> (But remember to always call it please "research") >> > Research - When you plagiarise from more than one source. > LOL! -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 11:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119lbno$11uku$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70637 |
On 30/09/2026 14:47, NY wrote: > On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> In some juridictions you have to be >>> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >>> other juridiction, >> >> So no copyright on classical music anymore > > > I've always wondered why copyright is deemed to expire some period (eg > 70 years) after the *death* of the author, rather than dating from the > creation/publication of the work when copyright (and now, author's > rights) is first asserted. It means that works created when the author > was young earn far more royalties and are protected for a lot longer > than those created near the end of his life. I think copyright does extend to heirs. -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 11:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <119ldum$13l39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70660 |
On 01/10/2026 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/09/2026 14:47, NY wrote: >> On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>> In some juridictions you have to be >>>> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >>>> other juridiction, >>> >>> So no copyright on classical music anymore >> >> >> I've always wondered why copyright is deemed to expire some period (eg >> 70 years) after the *death* of the author, rather than dating from the >> creation/publication of the work when copyright (and now, author's >> rights) is first asserted. It means that works created when the author >> was young earn far more royalties and are protected for a lot longer >> than those created near the end of his life. > > I think copyright does extend to heirs. Yes, the unexpired portion is inherited by heirs - spouse/children of an author.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 14:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <ni4imiFfvdfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> In some juridictions you have to be >> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >> other juridiction, > > So no copyright on classical music anymore > There may be no copyright on the music as originally written, but there is copyright on any arrangement and the performance. If you distribute a recording for any reason (Including as background for your video on social media), you must pay royalties to the arranger and the performers. The age at which a recording of a performance hits the public domain varies widely across the World. If you need background music for your production and don't want to pay, Youtube and others have libraries of royalty free music. -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-30 14:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT - Lehrer |
| Message-ID | <49hvom-oh4h.ln1@newsauth.orpheusnet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 30/09/2026 14:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/09/2026 13:25, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> In some juridictions you have to be >> dead for 70 years or so, for your work to become public domain and in >> other juridiction, > > So no copyright on classical music anymore > The music may be copyright free, but the recording of a performance will have its own copyright,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 19:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119apcr$17mol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70559 |
On 27/09/2026 5:10 am, Frank Slootweg wrote: > J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> uk.tech.broadcast added, as it seemed appropriate! I'll maybe remove the >> Windows and Linux ones next time. > > Please don't do that, unless it's really *only* UK *and* broadcast > related. > >> On 2026/9/26 11:47:1, Abandoned Trolley wrote: >>> On 26/09/2026 11:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: > [...] > >>>> I had not heard of cable radio. Interesting. >> >> I don't think it was called that.>> > > In The Netherlands, it was called 'draadomroep', which roughly > translates to wirebroadcast, so 'wire', not 'cable' and 'broadcast', not > 'radio' (because it wasn't). But isn't 'wire' a form of 'cable'?? > And it indeed worked like (your snipped) Google's AI Overview said. > > [...] > -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 12:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119b010$19l73$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70565 |
On 27/09/2026 10:58, Daniel70 wrote: > But isn't 'wire' a form of 'cable'?? In *this* context cable was coaxial RF, wire tended to me more twisted pair -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 22:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <119b191$1ab99$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70570 |
On 27/09/2026 9:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/09/2026 10:58, Daniel70 wrote: >> But isn't 'wire' a form of 'cable'?? > > In *this* context cable was coaxial RF, wire tended to me more twisted pair > Sorry, I didn't read that into it. ;-) -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 16:43 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] - audio distribution, Rediffusion-style (was: Re: OT - TV) |
| Message-ID | <119e1v7$2fjt3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70559 |
On 2026/9/27 16:56:0, Paul wrote: > On Sat, 9/26/2026 3:10 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >>> uk.tech.broadcast added, as it seemed appropriate! I'll maybe remove the >>> Windows and Linux ones next time. >> >> Please don't do that, unless it's really *only* UK *and* broadcast >> related. UTB added, as I had no idea so many systems were (still?) in use in NL. I haven't removed the Windows and Linux 'groups though I think we should ... >> >>> On 2026/9/26 11:47:1, Abandoned Trolley wrote: >>>> On 26/09/2026 11:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> [...] >> >>>>> I had not heard of cable radio. Interesting. >>> >>> I don't think it was called that.>> >> >> In The Netherlands, it was called 'draadomroep', which roughly >> translates to wirebroadcast, so 'wire', not 'cable' and 'broadcast', not >> 'radio' (because it wasn't). >> >> And it indeed worked like (your snipped) Google's AI Overview said. >> >> [...] >> > > Van der Heem N.V. and related companies - The Hague, Utrecht and Sneek > > https://www.vanderheem.info/radiocentrale3.html > > Various systems were abandoned after testing or not implemented at all because the costs > of operation were too high. The most well-known methods will be briefly mentioned here. > > High frequency wire broadcasting; > > the intention was to transmit a high frequency over existing conductors (eg high-current conductors), > which were modulated with a low-frequency signal (music, etc.). The filters and further equipment > required at the central point made this system impractical. > > High frequency wire broadcasting using 1 double wire. > With this system, which is used in England, > a special double wire system is stretched along the houses, on which branches can be made. Some > carrier waves are conducted on this double wire, which in turn are modulated with the low-frequency > signal; these voltages must be detected at the connected parties, for which a simple receiver is used. > > This system can be very excellent in terms of network construction, but the costs that must be incurred > by the affiliated parties will have to determine whether this system can be applied in the Netherlands. > > Low frequency wire broadcasting over 1 double-wire telephone. > > A wire broadcasting system is in use in the municipality of The Hague, which to date can be used without > additional cable costs. The basic idea of this system is to give greater efficiency to the telephone > double wires of private telephone connections, which are unused for 95% of the day. In the telephone > exchange, the radio program is set at telephone level, which is brought up to loudspeaker strength by > the telephone subscriber via an amplifier. The affiliates have a device that ensures that if a telephone > conversation is called up, the radio program is interrupted, so that the telephone conversation can be > made normally, while there is also a push button with which a step switch in the telephone exchange > can be operated, to which the 4 radio programs are placed. This system will be difficult to fit with > advancing telephone technology, so that after a few years this method will be abandoned in The Hague. > > Wire broadcasting over 4 telephone double wires. > > A method is in use in the municipality of Rotterdam that uses 4 telephone double wires, from which the > connections for radio subscribers are tapped in parallel. In the telephone exchange, as in the system > discussed under 3, the radio programs are again set at telephone level (max 4 Volts), which are brought > to loudspeaker strength for the connected parties via a program selector (switch) and a small amplifier. > This system has the disadvantage that 4 double wires must be reserved for radio purposes in all branch > telephone cables, while making a connection (underground) is often more expensive than a branch to a > lead cable network (block network). The aforementioned systems are generally called voltage systems, > because only voltages are applied to the connected parties, which then supply the energy that the > loudspeaker needs to function properly via amplifiers, etc. > > The system of wire broadcasting at loudspeaker level used in > the Netherlands will be described in somewhat more detail here. > > This system provides energy to connected parties, so that it is possible > to use the speaker immediately; However, this means that this energy must be the same everywhere. For > example, it should not be the case that one subscriber hears nothing, while the loudspeaker of the > other subscribers produces too much sound. This can easily be achieved with a good combination of > amplifiers and networks. If the cable conductors are thick enough so that no greater voltage losses > than 3 dB occur, the differences in strength are inaudible. > > A second property that the wire broadcasting network must meet is a frequency characteristic that is as > straight [flat] as possible. As is known, the cable broadcasting stations transmit radio programs; these > consist of music and speech. The idea now is that when a tone of 6000 periods is produced for a microphone, > it will again be audible as a tone of 6000 periods. > > In the beginning of wire broadcasting it often happened that a network was so large that it started to > prefer special frequencies; For example, if tone 6000 was sent from the exchange with 20 Volts in the > cables, it sometimes happened that 40 Volts or more were measured at certain places in the network; > this is an unacceptable change in the frequency characteristic; This unintentional increase in voltages > at certain frequencies is called resonances, which arise at distances of more than 2 km power cable > length. When designing a wire broadcasting network, care must therefore be taken not to use power cables > longer than 2 km. > > ******* > > And a picture of the installation outside a building. A conduit appears to > come from the ground, and two connections leave the top of the distribution box. > The screws on the box fashioned like a "security screw" for which the > consumer does not have a tool to get it open. Implying that something > about the connections is "energetic". > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_radio#/media/File:GRD-Utrecht.JPG > > Paul > As I've said, I had no idea NL had (has?) so many such systems! I think the original Rediffusion system in UK died out because it became uneconomic, when the costs of radios (wirelesses) fell combined with the improvements in transmitter power and receiver sensitivity meaning large aerials were no longer needed. The company carried on for a while distributing TV signals (I think their sets used 625-on-VHF [I'm guessing band III as there was more room in it]), but even that disappeared eventually. I think the original - loudspeaker-level audio distribution - system also suffered from piracy: if there was a cable passing your house, tapping into it was fairly trivial if you didn't need anything more than a speaker! (No, I'm not old enough to remember it. Can't swear I wouldn't have though ...) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 11:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119as35$18kn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70556 |
On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > uk.tech.broadcast added, as it seemed appropriate! I'll maybe remove the > Windows and Linux ones next time. > On 2026/9/26 11:47:1, Abandoned Trolley wrote: >> On 26/09/2026 11:11, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-09-25 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>> (Cable _radio_ did have some reach, I think in the 1950s; I'm not sure >>>> about this, but I _think_ that was basically a big radio (wireless) set >>>> at the hub, with just direct audio distributed. Not sure how channel >>>> selection was implemented! "Rediffusion" was I think the main company.) >>> >>> I had not heard of cable radio. Interesting. > > I don't think it was called that.>> >>> However, radio over a phone line, yes. Still exists here, usually hired >>> by commercial sites. I assume that now it uses internet. >>> >>> I asked ChatGPT: it was called "Hilo musical" (musical wire or thread), >>> a Telefónica service. Currently it is named "Spotmusic". Different >>> technology. >>> >>> The old one transmitted 6 channels on the same copper pair used for the >>> phone, at a higher frequency. Somewhat similar to ADSL. >>> > I asked GoogleAI: > > Yes, Rediffusion originally started in the UK by relaying radio > broadcasts directly to subscribers' homes over wired networks. > > How the Radio Relay Worked > • Wired Distribution: Founded as Broadcast Relay Service Limited (later > named Rediffusion) in 1928, the company used physical cables to pipe > radio programs straight into houses. > • No Radio Set Needed: Subscribers did not need an expensive or > complicated wireless radio receiver; they only needed a simple > loudspeaker and a selector switch wired to the Rediffusion network. > • Clear Reception: The wired "pipe radio" system eliminated static, > fading, and interference common with early aerial radio transmissions. > • BBC and Local Feeds: The service provided crisp audio relays of BBC > radio programmes and other stations from the early 1930s onwards, long > before the company expanded into television rental and commercial > broadcasting. > > The standard Rediffusion selector box was a purely mechanical, > multi-position rotary switch that didn't require any mains electricity > or batteries to function. > ⚙️ How the Box Operated > • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification > stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) signals > over the air via high-quality aerials. > • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the street > using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). > Each core carried a different station or channel. > • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was connected > to this incoming multi-core cable. When you turned the dial, it > physically moved a brass contact inside the box to connect your speaker > to a specific pair of wires inside the cable. > • Volume Control: The box also housed a simple variable resistor > (potentiometer). Turning the volume knob restricted or allowed more > electrical current to flow to the speaker, making the audio quieter or > louder.Because the central station did all the heavy lifting of > capturing and amplifying the signal, the box in the home was effectively > just a remote switch and volume knob for a giant, town-wide audio system.>> > So there you have it! It was as I thought - just audio distribution; not > even carrier.> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 16:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119bbo8$1e3hu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70568 |
On 2026/9/27 11:44:52, Max Demian wrote: > On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: [] >> ⚙️ How the Box Operated >> • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification >> stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) signals >> over the air via high-quality aerials. >> • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the street >> using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). >> Each core carried a different station or channel. >> • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was connected []> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets > were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the > TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). > So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm not a great fan of new technology. I don't change my phone every time the bell rings - Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/1/23-29
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119biqk$1imfn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70573 |
On 27/09/2026 16:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/9/27 11:44:52, Max Demian wrote: >> On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > [] >>> ⚙️ How the Box Operated >>> • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification >>> stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) signals >>> over the air via high-quality aerials. >>> • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the street >>> using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). >>> Each core carried a different station or channel. >>> • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was connected > []> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets >> were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the >> TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). > So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the > incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? That's right. -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 18:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nht1o3F9jenU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70576 |
Max Demian wrote: > J. P. Gilliver wrote: > >> Max Demian wrote: >> >>> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets >>> were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the >>> TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). > >> So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the >> incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? > > That's right. Student housing where I lived in the 80s still had the chunky Rediffusion cables strung along the backs of terraced houses, some houses still had the rotary selector screwed to the window sill, I looked for any sniff of a signal on the cable, but there was nothing there by that time ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 18:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119bk3r$1glpo$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70576 |
On 27/09/2026 18:12, Max Demian wrote: > On 27/09/2026 16:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2026/9/27 11:44:52, Max Demian wrote: >>> On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> [] >>>> ⚙️ How the Box Operated >>>> • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification >>>> stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) >>>> signals >>>> over the air via high-quality aerials. >>>> • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the >>>> street >>>> using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). >>>> Each core carried a different station or channel. >>>> • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was connected > >> []> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets >>> were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the >>> TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). > >> So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the >> incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? > > That's right. > Probably not directly: Normally the audio would be 100V line and need an impedance matching transformer (or maybe the TV sets output transformer via a different tap) -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 14:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119doj1$2bpuv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70578 |
On 27/09/2026 18:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/09/2026 18:12, Max Demian wrote: >> On 27/09/2026 16:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2026/9/27 11:44:52, Max Demian wrote: >>>> On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> [] >>>>> ⚙️ How the Box Operated >>>>> • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification >>>>> stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) >>>>> signals >>>>> over the air via high-quality aerials. >>>>> • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the >>>>> street >>>>> using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). >>>>> Each core carried a different station or channel. >>>>> • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was >>>>> connected >> >>> []> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets >>>> were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the >>>> TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). >> >>> So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the >>> incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? >> >> That's right. >> > Probably not directly: Normally the audio would be 100V line and need an > impedance matching transformer (or maybe the TV sets output transformer > via a different tap) Yes, I suppose there could be a matching transformer, in the same way that there were boxes you connected to the "extension speaker" socket of the main (valve) radio so you could listen in the kitchen. I had one which had a transformer and a wander plug arrangement so you could match it. Some valve radios had a high impedance output, so presumably both connections would be at (more or less) HT voltage above the radio chassis (which would be earth if the earth socket was connected). I think there were high impedance horn extension speakers at one time. -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1s25l3w.u4ojnn1esxe4gN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70582 |
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: > On 27/09/2026 18:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 27/09/2026 18:12, Max Demian wrote: > >> On 27/09/2026 16:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > >>> On 2026/9/27 11:44:52, Max Demian wrote: > >>>> On 26/09/2026 19:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > >>> [] > >>>>> âš™ï¸ How the Box Operated > >>>>> • Central Distribution: Rediffusion set up central amplification > >>>>> stations in towns. These stations received radio (and later, TV) > >>>>> signals > >>>>> over the air via high-quality aerials. > >>>>> • Multi-Core Cables: The amplified signals were sent out down the > >>>>> street > >>>>> using overhead cables that contained multiple separate wires (cores). > >>>>> Each core carried a different station or channel. > >>>>> • The Rotary Switch: The selector box in your living room was > >>>>> connected > >> > >>> []> At some point, Rediffusion added TV: BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. The TV sets > >>>> were simplified, as there was no tuner (or carrier I suppose). And the > >>>> TVs could also receive radio (without the TV being powered up). > >> > >>> So when the switch was in the radio position (one of several), the > >>> incoming signal was routed directly to the TV speaker? > >> > >> That's right. > >> > > Probably not directly: Normally the audio would be 100V line and need an > > impedance matching transformer (or maybe the TV sets output transformer > > via a different tap) > > Yes, I suppose there could be a matching transformer, in the same way > that there were boxes you connected to the "extension speaker" socket of > the main (valve) radio so you could listen in the kitchen. I had one > which had a transformer and a wander plug arrangement so you could match > it. Some valve radios had a high impedance output, so presumably both > connections would be at (more or less) HT voltage above the radio > chassis (which would be earth if the earth socket was connected). I > think there were high impedance horn extension speakers at one time. Connecting low impedance loudspeakers to a line which was more than a few feet long would be a disaster, as the line would absorb more power than the loudspeaker. 100v line was common in the UK, 70v was an alternative (mainly in the US?) and 30v on board ships. I remember reading that Rediffusion had large audio amplifiers in boxes on street corners in districts where their service was heavily used. One technician was killed whe he accidentally kneeled down onto the several-kV HT terminal. Every radio and television set had a transformer to match the audio output valve to the loudspeaker, so using the existing one to match the 100v line would be trivial. Somewhere (Wireless World?) I came across the circuit diagram of a televison set made for wired vision by HMV/EMI; it had very few valves, just those associated with scanning. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119e25d$2ffig$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70582 |
On 28/09/2026 14:03, Max Demian wrote: > Yes, I suppose there could be a matching transformer, in the same way > that there were boxes you connected to the "extension speaker" socket of > the main (valve) radio so you could listen in the kitchen. I had one > which had a transformer and a wander plug arrangement so you could match > it. Some valve radios had a high impedance output, so presumably both > connections would be at (more or less) HT voltage above the radio > chassis (which would be earth if the earth socket was connected). I > think there were high impedance horn extension speakers at one time. Normally you always had a transformer for 100V. If for no other reason than stringing long cables outside attracts voltage surges from lightning storms. Valve amps ALWAYS have an output transformer. Not least because there are no 'P channel ' valves. And winding loudspeaker coils with ultra fine wire to make them compatible with valve impedances leads to an expensive and fragile loudspeaker -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1s25p42.1vb0bkb7lh9vqN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70587 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: [...] > Valve amps ALWAYS have an output transformer. Be carful when making absolute statements like that, Philips designed a valve amplifier that used a totem-pole valve output stage and no output transformer. It was their top-of-the-range hi-fi amplifier and had a clever display in the front that showed the frequency response curve as a strip of bendy white plastic that changed shape as the tone controls were manipulated. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast
csiph-web