Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
A very interesting question. I suppose the two logical orders are:
- R2, R3, R4 (in ascending order of station number Radio 2, Radio 3,
Radio 4)
- R2, R4, R3 (or R4, R2, R3) (in descending order of number of listeners
to channel)
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before
"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished.
I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music >content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as
distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
A very interesting question. I suppose the two logical orders are:
- R2, R3, R4 (in ascending order of station number Radio 2, Radio 3,
Radio 4)
- R2, R4, R3 (or R4, R2, R3) (in descending order of number of listeners
to channel)
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before
"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished.
I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as
distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
In article <2MucnT1JBqdS4oD4nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before
"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished.
I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music
content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as
distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" - or
is it?
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
What's odd is that the order, Light, Third, Home, was put in place in
1955, 12 years before the three stations were rebranded (more or less)
as R2, 3, 4 !
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:02 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
What's odd is that the order, Light, Third, Home, was put in place in
1955, 12 years before the three stations were rebranded (more or less)
as R2, 3, 4 !
The Home Service and Light Programme started immediately after WW2 and
Third Programme followed in 1946. The Third Programme was very much
seen as a minority station for the posh people. When the decision was
made in 1955, why put what was probably the most listened to programme
first, the least listened to second and the Home Service that I
thought was the flagship (and varied by region) third in the ordering?
Anyone commuting between Home and Light as many did using a mechanical
dial would need to navigate their way through the spectrum occupled by
the Third. I merely wondered if there is any logic in this order.
On 04/10/2023 17:37, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:02 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
What's odd is that the order, Light, Third, Home, was put in place in
1955, 12 years before the three stations were rebranded (more or less)
as R2, 3, 4 !
The Home Service and Light Programme started immediately after WW2 and
Third Programme followed in 1946. The Third Programme was very much
seen as a minority station for the posh people. When the decision was
made in 1955, why put what was probably the most listened to programme
first, the least listened to second and the Home Service that I
thought was the flagship (and varied by region) third in the ordering?
Anyone commuting between Home and Light as many did using a mechanical
dial would need to navigate their way through the spectrum occupled by
the Third. I merely wondered if there is any logic in this order.
Perhaps the idea was that they'd stumble across the Third Prog (and like
it), whereas normally they wouldn't ?
On 04/10/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" -
or is it?
But that and other sport came later, initially it was Light, Third and
Home with the Home being Welsh Home, Scottish Home and Northern Ireland
Home (I think).
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" -
or is it?
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
On 04/10/2023 18:10, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:04:32 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" - >>>> or is it?
But that and other sport came later, initially it was Light, Third and
Home with the Home being Welsh Home, Scottish Home and Northern Ireland
Home (I think).
Wikipedia is ambiguous on this point:
When it started in 1946, the Third Programme broadcast for six hours
each evening from 6.00 pm to midnight, although its output was cut to
just 24 hours a week from October 1957, with the early part of weekday
evenings being given over to educational programming (known as
"Network Three"). The frequencies were also used during daytime hours
to broadcast complete ball-by-ball commentary on test match cricket,
under the title Test Match Special".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Third_Programme
If TMS was not there from the start, where was it?
TMS as such was not broadcast until 1957. Before that it slept
alongside Arthur and Merlin.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:04:32 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" -
or is it?
But that and other sport came later, initially it was Light, Third and
Home with the Home being Welsh Home, Scottish Home and Northern Ireland
Home (I think).
Wikipedia is ambiguous on this point:
When it started in 1946, the Third Programme broadcast for six hours
each evening from 6.00 pm to midnight, although its output was cut to
just 24 hours a week from October 1957, with the early part of weekday evenings being given over to educational programming (known as
"Network Three"). The frequencies were also used during daytime hours
to broadcast complete ball-by-ball commentary on test match cricket,
under the title Test Match Special". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Third_Programme
If TMS was not there from the start, where was it?
TMS as such was not broadcast until 1957. Before that it slept
alongside Arthur and Merlin.
On 04/10/2023 20:18, Robin wrote:
TMS as such was not broadcast until 1957. Before that it slept
alongside Arthur and Merlin.
Before then there seems to have just been a summary on Radio 2
TMS appears to have just been a short programme, not the endless one
they do now.
Easy to check with the BBC Programme Index.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:40:53 +0100, Mark Carver[]
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 17:37, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:19:02 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
Perhaps the idea was that they'd stumble across the Third Prog (and like >>it), whereas normally they wouldn't ?
An early form of trails then?
I wondered that myself but after temptation had been resisted the
first 20 times, I think it would become increasingly unlikely anyone
would be tempted thereafter.
The Home Service and Light Programme started immediately after WW2 and
Third Programme followed in 1946. The Third Programme was very much
seen as a minority station for the posh people. When the decision was
made in 1955, why put what was probably the most listened to programme
first, the least listened to second and the Home Service that I
thought was the flagship (and varied by region) third in the ordering?
Anyone commuting between Home and Light as many did using a mechanical
dial would need to navigate their way through the spectrum occupled by
the Third. I merely wondered if there is any logic in this order.
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
A very interesting question. I suppose the two logical orders are:
- R2, R3, R4 (in ascending order of station number Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio
4)
- R2, R4, R3 (or R4, R2, R3) (in descending order of number of listeners
to channel)
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before
"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished.
I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as
distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
I imagine that if the frequencies were being allocated for the first time nowadays, they would be allocated with R1 lowest, then R2, then R3, and R4 highest. Obviously those are blocks of frequencies, rather than one
specific country-wide frequency for each station.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:07:58 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:I am sure someone will jump in with a fuller history, but AIUI it did
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
A very interesting question. I suppose the two logical orders are:
- R2, R3, R4 (in ascending order of station number Radio 2, Radio 3,
Radio 4)
- R2, R4, R3 (or R4, R2, R3) (in descending order of number of listeners
to channel)
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before >>"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished. >>I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music >>content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as >>distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
not start as a classical music station. It carried music, plays and
talks in the evening (Third Programme), schools and educational, sport
on Saturday afternoons, music during the day (Music Programme) and was
also called 'Network Three' to reflect this mix.
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
On 04/10/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" - or
is it?
But that and other sport came later, initially it was Light, Third and
Home with the Home being Welsh Home, Scottish Home and Northern Ireland
Home (I think).
On 04/10/2023 17:30, charles wrote:
In article <2MucnT1JBqdS4oD4nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
It's interesting that Radio 3 was termed "The Third Programme" before
"Light Programme" (R2) and "Home Service" (R4) terms had been abolished. >>> I'm surprised it didn't have a name that alluded to its classical music
content - eg "The Classical Programme" or "The Heavy Programme" (as
distinct from "The Light Programme"!)
but it also broadcast Test March Special which is hardly "Classical" - or
is it?
Some Marches use classic music though ?
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Yes, when BBC were experimenting with Stereo, you only needed the sound from >the BBC tv and the 3rd program on an am medium wave radio. What it did not
do of course is to make the phase relationships very reproducible by the >listener. I used to get up in the early mornings to hear trains chugging >though the living room, and elephants trumpeting as the move back and
fourth.
I do not recall any music being tested.
Brian
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF radio tuners
with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
On 05/10/2023 08:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels
always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF
radio tuners with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
It was chosen deliberately, can't remember the details but I think it
was to reduce the effects of any intermods.
On Thu 05/10/2023 12:58, JMB99 wrote:
On 05/10/2023 08:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels
always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF
radio tuners with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
It was chosen deliberately, can't remember the details but I think it
was to reduce the effects of any intermods.
If the whole band was split as 2.2MHz spacing it would avoid any birdies
on the standard IF of 10.7MHz.
But it wasn't.......
Ha ha.Test Match Special was on 1215 MW until the BBC lost the frequency,
I was not aware that the third did test matches. Long wave seems to have been the preserve for that for many years, as well as the early Shipping forecast.
On 05/10/2023 11:11, Brian Gaff wrote:
Ha ha.Test Match Special was on 1215 MW until the BBC lost the frequency,
I was not aware that the third did test matches. Long wave seems to have >> been the preserve for that for many years, as well as the early Shipping
forecast.
roughly 1992?
Then a brief and unhappy period on R3 FM frequencies, until someone had
the bright idea of using 198LW, roughly 1994?
The last TMS on 198LW was the final Australia test in July 2023.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 18:23:40 +0100, James Heaton
<heatonandmoore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/10/2023 11:11, Brian Gaff wrote:
Ha ha.Test Match Special was on 1215 MW until the BBC lost the frequency,
I was not aware that the third did test matches. Long wave seems to have
been the preserve for that for many years, as well as the early Shipping >>> forecast.
roughly 1992?
AIUI this was after R3 medium wave (648 kHz and earlier 1548 kHz)
closed and R3 became an FM only service. Until then TMS was a R3
opt-out. (1548 kHz was lost earlier than 648 kHz to be handed over to independent local radio.)
Then a brief and unhappy period on R3 FM frequencies, until someone had
the bright idea of using 198LW, roughly 1994?
Are you sure it wasn't on R3 AM (1215 kHz)?
No more cricket before 31 March 2024?
The last TMS on 198LW was the final Australia test in July 2023.
On 05/10/2023 18:55, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 18:23:40 +0100, James Heaton
<heatonandmoore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/10/2023 11:11, Brian Gaff wrote:
Ha ha.Test Match Special was on 1215 MW until the BBC lost the frequency,
I was not aware that the third did test matches. Long wave seems to have
been the preserve for that for many years, as well as the early Shipping >>>> forecast.
roughly 1992?
AIUI this was after R3 medium wave (648 kHz and earlier 1548 kHz)
closed and R3 became an FM only service. Until then TMS was a R3
opt-out. (1548 kHz was lost earlier than 648 kHz to be handed over to
independent local radio.)
Then a brief and unhappy period on R3 FM frequencies, until someone had
the bright idea of using 198LW, roughly 1994?
Are you sure it wasn't on R3 AM (1215 kHz)?
It was on R3MW 1215 until around 1992, when the frequency was lost and
R3 became FM only.
I think there was one year it was R3FM with disgruntlement from both
cricket and music fans.
No more cricket before 31 March 2024?
The last TMS on 198LW was the final Australia test in July 2023.
Plenty - we got hammered by NZ in the opening game of the world cup
today. At least 8 more world cup games to go (on today's performance, >probably only 8...) Plus West Indies series around Christmas.
I think they decided to go out with a bang at the end of the Ashes. It
was announced at every drinks break through the summer.
This makes sense now. R4 moved to long wave in 1978. I agree with
your surprise that TMS did not immediately go to 198 when 1515 went to
Virgin but maybe they thought the mainland Europe audience for R4
might not appreciate it. The audio quality must have come as a
surprise for cricket fans. Was it in stereo?
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels
always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF
radio tuners with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
with my car radio if I set it to (for example) 89.05 or 89.15
instead of 89.1, I get no signal. The tuner in my hifi system seems to
be a bit more forgiving and will give *some* output (albeit distorted)
for +/- 0.5 MHz either side of the nominal frequency.
On 05/10/2023 08:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels
always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF
radio tuners with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
I'd never examined the exact frequencies used by any given transmitter,
so I'd never noticed that R2, R3 and R4 are always 2.2 MHz apart.
529.75Â Â Â COM6 (rather than 530)
I presume it is to avoid co-channel with a different transmitter, but is
the 0.25 MHz going to make all that much difference?
Interesting that Belmont and Crystal Palace use the same frequencies but
not for the same multiplexes. Was that done to avoid creating a single-frequency network if the data happened to be identical for the
same mux from two transmitters - is the interference less if the signal
is different?
Yes, when BBC were experimenting with Stereo, you only needed the
sound from the BBC tv and the 3rd program on an am medium wave radio.
What it did not do of course is to make the phase relationships very reproducible by the listener. I used to get up in the early mornings
to hear trains chugging though the living room, and elephants
trumpeting as the move back and fourth. I do not recall any music
being tested.
Brian
On 05/10/2023 22:03, NY wrote:
529.75Â Â Â COM6 (rather than 530)
I presume it is to avoid co-channel with a different transmitter, but
is the 0.25 MHz going to make all that much difference?
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?)
+/-167 kHz offsets, and I'm not sure, but I think they were only used to 'steer' a DTT mux away from an adjacent analogue transmission ?
Obviously that requirement ceased in 2012.
Interesting that Belmont and Crystal Palace use the same frequencies
but not for the same multiplexes. Was that done to avoid creating a
single-frequency network if the data happened to be identical for the
same mux from two transmitters - is the interference less if the
signal is different?
No. The choice of mux allocation is down to predicted audience coverage
for that given frequency, with PSB 1 getting 'first dibs'
In fact they discovered in 2020 that PSB 3 from Bilsdale, had slightly
better coverage than PSB 1, so the frequencies (21/27) were swapped
It's got nothing to do with creating SFNs during a lift, apart from the
SI not matching, anything beyond 20 miles or so is essentially seen as interference, even if it's the same mux (because you're outside the
Guard Interval)
But it looks as if the offsets are still being used, long after the[]
demise of analogue TV.
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
On 04/10/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
Looking at an old radio dial (now my screensaver) I see on the VHF
Band 'Home' [R4] has the highest frequency then 'Third' [R3] then
'Light' [R2]. I wonder why they did it this way round. If the Home
Service and Light Programmes were the most popular, why create a
voyage through the Third Programme for retuning?
So that people wouldn't completely forget about the Third Program and it might actually acquire a few listeners?
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
In my view the biggest sin the BBC have done in ages is the stripping of
funding from their local radio stations. Replacing regional programming
after 10pm will leave a lot of elderly lonely listeners with yet another >banal national programme. Obviously they could make it a phone in on light >hearted matters or older music like the old programmes had, but since I've >not heard any trails for the new nation wide show, it does make me wonder.
Brian
I recall one that included a pipe band marching about in an open field,
where I could hear the sound of the drums reverberating off buildings or perhaps trees some distance away. It gave a real impression of the shape
of the place.
Rod.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:00:18 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, when BBC were experimenting with Stereo, you only needed the sound >>from the BBC tv and the 3rd program on an am medium wave radio. What it
did not do of course is to make the phase relationships very
reproducible by the listener. I used to get up in the early mornings to >>hear trains chugging though the living room, and elephants trumpeting as >>the move back and fourth.
I do not recall any music being tested.
Brian
For me, FM tuning is a matter of tuning for *any* output - there is a
very narrow band as you go from hiss to station to hiss. With modern synthesiser tuning, you are adjusting in discrete steps (0.5 MHz for
VHF) and with my car radio if I set it to (for example) 89.05 or 89.15 instead of 89.1, I get no signal. The tuner in my hifi system seems to
be a bit more forgiving and will give *some* output (albeit distorted)
for +/- 0.5 MHz either side of the nominal frequency.
On 06/10/2023 08:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 05/10/2023 22:03, NY wrote:
529.75Â Â Â COM6 (rather than 530)
I presume it is to avoid co-channel with a different transmitter, but
is the 0.25 MHz going to make all that much difference?
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?)
+/-167 kHz offsets, and I'm not sure, but I think they were only used
to 'steer' a DTT mux away from an adjacent analogue transmission ?
Obviously that requirement ceased in 2012.
I got them from https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Belmont and https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Crystal_Palace
In my view the biggest sin the BBC have done in ages is the stripping of
funding from their local radio stations. Replacing regional programming
after 10pm will [snip]
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 09:40:56 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
In my view the biggest sin the BBC have done in ages is the stripping of >>funding from their local radio stations. Replacing regional programming >>after 10pm will [snip]
Unfortunately, it starts on Monday: https://radiotoday.co.uk/2023/10/late-night-local-radio-presenters-across-the-bbc-say-goodbye-to-listeners/
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 09:40:56 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
In my view the biggest sin the BBC have done in ages is the stripping of >>funding from their local radio stations. Replacing regional programming >>after 10pm will leave a lot of elderly lonely listeners with yet another >>banal national programme. Obviously they could make it a phone in on light >>hearted matters or older music like the old programmes had, but since I've >>not heard any trails for the new nation wide show, it does make me wonder.
Brian
I think it is a low worse than that, sadly. AIUI most of the weekend programming will either the regional or national.
If that is the case, what would be the point in doing it?
You might as well just turn off the whole network and save the money.
As I say, rather than having 1xtra they should flog it to a commercial
entity,maybe Radio X, and use the saved dosh to run a proper local radio >system which at the moment no commercial entity has been able to do >profitably. Is this not what the BBC is for? It should not be a glitzy maker >of programs that other companies do better these days.
I know, a lott just went same months ago and the bigger ones just filled in >the stations which hade no presenter. Some of the presenters were older and >decided to retire and maybe do odd shows on Boom Radio or other outlets,
just for pin money.
I heard the last Paul Miller Show on Thursday, and bits of Greg Dyke as
well. As I said, a very stupid decision when a lot of their niche stations >would have been salable to the commercial companies, and the money freed up >put back into local radio which is sadly lacking in the UK.
I guess in the end, it will be the online folk with nil costs other than
maybe prs to do it a bit like Hospital Radio does.
You certainly don't need to persuade me (although living in Scotland I
am not directly affected). I think the definition of 'public service'
needs to be reviewed.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 12:53:19 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
I know, a lott just went same months ago and the bigger ones just filled
in
the stations which hade no presenter. Some of the presenters were older
and
decided to retire and maybe do odd shows on Boom Radio or other outlets, >>just for pin money.
I heard the last Paul Miller Show on Thursday, and bits of Greg Dyke as >>well. As I said, a very stupid decision when a lot of their niche stations >>would have been salable to the commercial companies, and the money freed
up
put back into local radio which is sadly lacking in the UK.
I guess in the end, it will be the online folk with nil costs other than >>maybe prs to do it a bit like Hospital Radio does.
Having a mother (now deceased) who worked in BBC radio, I find it all
quite sad.
On 06/10/2023 20:24, NY wrote:
On 06/10/2023 08:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 05/10/2023 22:03, NY wrote:
529.75Â Â Â COM6 (rather than 530)
I presume it is to avoid co-channel with a different transmitter,
but is the 0.25 MHz going to make all that much difference?
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses
?) +/-167 kHz offsets, and I'm not sure, but I think they were only
used to 'steer' a DTT mux away from an adjacent analogue transmission
? Obviously that requirement ceased in 2012.
I got them from https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Belmont and
https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Crystal_Palace
Oh, FFS UK Free is a pile of out of date, and inaccurate cack
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 22:03:51 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
For me, FM tuning is a matter of tuning for *any* output - there is a
very narrow band as you go from hiss to station to hiss. With modern
synthesiser tuning, you are adjusting in discrete steps (0.5 MHz for
VHF) and with my car radio if I set it to (for example) 89.05 or 89.15
instead of 89.1, I get no signal. The tuner in my hifi system seems to
be a bit more forgiving and will give *some* output (albeit distorted)
for +/- 0.5 MHz either side of the nominal frequency.
You mean 0.05 MHz or 50 kHZ, not 0.5 MHz (multiple times).
On 07/10/2023 12:35, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 22:03:51 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
For me, FM tuning is a matter of tuning for *any* output - there is a
very narrow band as you go from hiss to station to hiss. With modern
synthesiser tuning, you are adjusting in discrete steps (0.5 MHz for
VHF) and with my car radio if I set it to (for example) 89.05 or 89.15
instead of 89.1, I get no signal. The tuner in my hifi system seems to
be a bit more forgiving and will give *some* output (albeit distorted)
for +/- 0.5 MHz either side of the nominal frequency.
You mean 0.05 MHz or 50 kHZ, not 0.5 MHz (multiple times).
I do indeed! My example was correct (89.05 or 89.15 being either side of >89.1) but all my references to 0.5 MHz should have been 0.05 MHz.
I deserve Wally of the Year award ;-)
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?)
+/-167 kHz offsets,
On 05/10/2023 22:03, NY wrote:Early Rogers tuners were designed so you only had to tune the Light Prog and the others were done automatically.
On 05/10/2023 08:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There definitely seems to have been logic to the spacing between them,
which for any particular transmitter is 2.2MHz, with the channels
always being in the same order. This facilitated the design of VHF
radio tuners with the channels being selected with a three way switch.
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?)
+/-167 kHz offsets,
Because that offset minimised the effect of CCI on analogue TV.
On 07/10/2023 13:02, Mark Carver wrote:
On 06/10/2023 20:24, NY wrote:
On 06/10/2023 08:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 05/10/2023 22:03, NY wrote:
529.75Â Â Â COM6 (rather than 530)
I presume it is to avoid co-channel with a different transmitter,
but is the 0.25 MHz going to make all that much difference?
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses
?) +/-167 kHz offsets, and I'm not sure, but I think they were only
used to 'steer' a DTT mux away from an adjacent analogue
transmission ? Obviously that requirement ceased in 2012.
I got them from https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Belmont and
https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Crystal_Palace
Oh, FFS UK Free is a pile of out of date, and inaccurate cack
What is the best accurate and up-to-date reference site that specifies
the contents of each multiplex, and the mux frequencies for a given transmitter?
On 10/10/2023 13:11, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?)
+/-167 kHz offsets,
Because that offset minimised the effect of CCI on analogue TV.
Yes, I don't think any offsets are used now
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:35:42 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 13:11, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?) >>>> +/-167 kHz offsets,
Because that offset minimised the effect of CCI on analogue TV.
Yes, I don't think any offsets are used now
Is that (simplistically) because in digital the two signals reinforce
each other rather than causing destructive interference - or possibly
because the power outputs are lower?
On 09/10/2023 17:16, NY wrote:
What is the best accurate and up-to-date reference site that specifies
the contents of each multiplex, and the mux frequencies for a given
transmitter?
Start here:-
https://www.freeview.co.uk/corporate/platform-management/channel-listings-industry-professionals
I can tell you with authority that the mux frequency data for each Tx is
kept bang up to date on mb21
On 10/10/2023 17:35, Mark Carver wrote:
On 10/10/2023 13:11, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
Where did you get those offset values from ? UK Spec DTT used/(uses ?) >>>> +/-167 kHz offsets,
Because that offset minimised the effect of CCI on analogue TV.
Yes, I don't think any offsets are used now.
<pantomime mode>
Oh yes they are!
</pantomime mode>
When I got my PVR software to scan the spectrum, looking for muxes, it
found Belmont's COM4 on 545.833 MHz rather than 546.0 MHz, which seems
to suggest that offsets are still used even though they are no longer necessary, no doubt on the basis that it is risky to tinker with
something that works.
How did a shift of 167 kHz in carrier frequency correspond with 5/3 of
line frequency ie 26 kHz?
On 09/10/2023 17:16, NY wrote:[]
On 07/10/2023 13:02, Mark Carver wrote:
Oh, FFS UK Free is a pile of out of date, and inaccurate cackWhat is the best accurate and up-to-date reference site that
specifies the contents of each multiplex, and the mux frequencies for
a given transmitter?
Start here:-
https://www.freeview.co.uk/corporate/platform-management/channel-listing >s-industry-professionals
I can tell you with authority that the mux frequency data for each Tx
is kept bang up to date on mb21
Mark Carver writes:
<https://www.freeview.co.uk/corporate/platform-management/channel-listings-industry-professionals>
Thanks. That tells me (AFAICT) I should receive all channels, from the Heathfield transmitter, but not what (real) channels they're on.
On 11/10/2023 02:29, NY wrote:
When I got my PVR software to scan the spectrum, looking for muxes, it
found Belmont's COM4 on 545.833 MHz rather than 546.0 MHz, which seems
to suggest that offsets are still used even though they are no longer
necessary, no doubt on the basis that it is risky to tinker with
something that works.
Is it actually measuring that, and if so how ? It would require some
form of precision (ish) frequency reference to do so. I suspect your
software is preloaded with values which it compares with the SID of the transmitter, and it's an out of date database
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Mark Carver writes:
<https://www.freeview.co.uk/corporate/platform-management/channel-listings-industry-professionals>
Thanks. That tells me (AFAICT) I should receive all channels, from the
Heathfield transmitter, but not what (real) channels they're on.
Click on the "detailed view" link.
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Mark Carver writes:
Thanks. That tells me (AFAICT) I should receive all channels, from
<https://www.freeview.co.uk/corporate/platform-management/channel-list >>>ings-industry-professionals>
the Heathfield transmitter, but not what (real) channels they're on.
Click on the "detailed view" link.
ISTR that when FM radio was included on a 405 line TV turret tuner, the
order was usually H-L-T.
In message <ugac9k$2v529$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:07:29, >Graham. <graham-usenet@mail.com> writes
ISTR that when FM radio was included on a 405 line TV turret tuner, the >>order was usually H-L-T.I'll take your word that it was, but that seems quite a complicated
thing to have done: presumably it was positions which turned the video >circuitry off, and obviously also involved decoder switching from AM to
FM. Half way to a dual-standard set!
Bit before my time, but I remember (1970s) stereo decoder modules being available (basically just a decoder chip on a little board with the
necessary support components), and fitting such to a (transistor, but cabinet) set. I remember I had to remove de-emphasis components. Why
wasn't yours suitable - too narrow a bandwidth? (Was it valve kit? I
normally think of that as having much broader bandwidth than needed for audio, compared to early solid-state stuff.)
On 13/10/2023 09:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Bit before my time, but I remember (1970s) stereo decoder modules being available (basically just a decoder chip on a little board with the necessary support components), and fitting such to a (transistor, but cabinet) set. I remember I had to remove de-emphasis components. Why
wasn't yours suitable - too narrow a bandwidth? (Was it valve kit? I normally think of that as having much broader bandwidth than needed for audio, compared to early solid-state stuff.)
I attempted to fit a stereo decoder to my FM portable radio. I removed
the de-emphasis components, but unfortunately the IF strip alignment
didn't open the window 'wide enough' to let the difference components
through unmolested, so results were poor.
It was a Maplins kit, based around the MC1310P chip
https://www.circuitstoday.com/stereo-decoder-circuit
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Bit before my time, but I remember (1970s) stereo decoder modules being
available (basically just a decoder chip on a little board with the
necessary support components), and fitting such to a (transistor, but
cabinet) set. I remember I had to remove de-emphasis components. Why
wasn't yours suitable - too narrow a bandwidth? (Was it valve kit? I
normally think of that as having much broader bandwidth than needed for
audio, compared to early solid-state stuff.)
I attempted to fit a stereo decoder to my FM portable radio. I removed
the de-emphasis components, but unfortunately the IF strip alignment
didn't open the window 'wide enough' to let the difference components
through unmolested, so results were poor.
It was a Maplins kit, based around the MC1310P chip
https://www.circuitstoday.com/stereo-decoder-circuit
I had an Amstrad stereo tuner which was noisy on cold damp days but
quiet on warm dry ones. You would think it would be something to do
with propagation conditions but it turned out that the decoder chip was moisture-sensitive.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:27:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <ugac9k$2v529$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:07:29, >>Graham. <graham-usenet@mail.com> writes
ISTR that when FM radio was included on a 405 line TV turret tuner, the >>>order was usually H-L-T.I'll take your word that it was, but that seems quite a complicated
thing to have done: presumably it was positions which turned the video >>circuitry off, and obviously also involved decoder switching from AM to
FM. Half way to a dual-standard set!
If the order was H-L-T this would not have been the same as the order
of the broadcast frequencies, so the tuner would have had to use some >mechanism of its own to determine the order of the station presets.
If FM radio was included in a TV set, it was usually a separate module
with its own IF strip and detector, sometimes omitted for cheapness
but available as a retrofit for customers who were prepared to pay
more. These add-on modules often turned up on the surplus market and
my first FM tuner was based on one purchased from Manor Supplies. All
I had to do was make a suitable case and power supply. It wasn't any
good for stereo though; I had to build a new one for that.
Rod.
On 13/10/2023 10:09, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2023 09:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Bit before my time, but I remember (1970s) stereo decoder modules being >>> available (basically just a decoder chip on a little board with the
necessary support components), and fitting such to a (transistor, but
cabinet) set. I remember I had to remove de-emphasis components. Why
wasn't yours suitable - too narrow a bandwidth? (Was it valve kit? I
normally think of that as having much broader bandwidth than needed for >>> audio, compared to early solid-state stuff.)
I attempted to fit a stereo decoder to my FM portable radio. I removed
the de-emphasis components, but unfortunately the IF strip alignment
didn't open the window 'wide enough' to let the difference components
through unmolested, so results were poor.
It was a Maplins kit, based around the MC1310P chip
https://www.circuitstoday.com/stereo-decoder-circuit
I had an Amstrad stereo tuner which was noisy on cold damp days but
quiet on warm dry ones. You would think it would be something to do
with propagation conditions but it turned out that the decoder chip was moisture-sensitive.
Ha. I suspect that was the MC1310P too, it was ubiquitous in the 70 and
early 80s.
Presumably if it took advantage of the 2.2 MHz spacing (which I hadn't
known about until this discussion), then presumably what order the 3
came in was a fairly trivial matter for the designer: I envisage a
turret, or buttons, with an overall fine tune control?
If FM radio was included in a TV set, it was usually a separate module
with its own IF strip and detector, sometimes omitted for cheapness
but available as a retrofit for customers who were prepared to pay
more. These add-on modules often turned up on the surplus market and
my first FM tuner was based on one purchased from Manor Supplies. All
I had to do was make a suitable case and power supply. It wasn't any
good for stereo though; I had to build a new one for that.
Rod.
Bit before my time, but I remember (1970s) stereo decoder modules being >available (basically just a decoder chip on a little board with the
necessary support components), and fitting such to a (transistor, but >cabinet) set. I remember I had to remove de-emphasis components. Why
wasn't yours suitable - too narrow a bandwidth? (Was it valve kit? I
normally think of that as having much broader bandwidth than needed for >audio, compared to early solid-state stuff.)
It was a valve tuner with an ECC85 front end and I think it must have
been lack of bandwidth that prevented stereo from working. BBC
standard practice then was for the pilot tone to be switched on only
for actual stereo programmes, and the little stereo light on my tuner
would recognise that, but alas the sound wasn't any different (except
a little noisier).
I later purchased a Hacker portable radio, choosing the FM only
version because without the AM circuitry there was lots of space for >modifications, and I was able to fit a Mullard decoder module and a
pair of audio amplifiers for headphones, and that worked very well.
Another appealing feature of the Hacker radios was the quality of
manufacture and the fact that they used fairly standard components and
that service manuals with circuit schematics could be purchased from
the company, which helped a lot. I thoink I still have a few of their
service manuals, and also a letter from their head of marketing in
response to my enquiry, telling me that their radios were not suitable
for conversion to stereo. He was quite wrong.
Rod.--
In message <ck8iiil5fnjbfhm3m3n2mm232a5rtc1qbp@4ax.com> at Fri, 13 Oct
I wish they'd never stopped doing that! (I believe some stations - not
sure about BBC - also turned off the colour burst for non-colour
material on TV too,
Just dug out an old copy of WRTH, it does not list all the lower power
sites so will have another look later.
Initially in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Home Service was
the Scottish Home Service etc. and on the Home Service frequency.
Then (I think) when Radio 4 etc started, these became Radio Scotland
etc. and we had no Radio 4 coverage on VHF FM in much of the country.
They then added regional services - Radio nan Gaidheal etc which were on
what became later the Radio 1 frequency - usually Home Service + 5.2.
I think there were some exceptions but will need the full list.
Later it got much more complicated with Radio 1 and 4 everywhere as well
as the regional services. There was talk (a plan?) to keep Radio 4 on
the old Home Service frequency or move it there but it did not happen
(except for a couple of weeks at one site where there was a cock-up!)
On 13/10/2023 14:54, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <ck8iiil5fnjbfhm3m3n2mm232a5rtc1qbp@4ax.com> at Fri, 13
Oct
I wish they'd never stopped doing that! (I believe some stations -
not sure about BBC - also turned off the colour burst for non-colour >>material on TV too,
The Beeb certainly did do that, in fact they were still doing so in
some instances into the late 80s.
The ITV companies did the same, until the mid 80s (It may well have
been an IBA requirement)
However, from the 1980s there was increasing amounts of kit in the Tx
chain that would reinsert it anyway (frame store synchronisers, and
other processing kit) so it ceased. C4 for instance never did it from
the outset.
Today, I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference signal
isn't quite 'Zero'.
Mark Carver writes
I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference
signal isn't quite 'Zero'.
Strange, as I'd not have thought there _was_ the equivalent of a colour difference signal these days.
In message <kot1hqF8uukU1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023
15:12:10, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 13/10/2023 14:54, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Strange, as I'd not have thought there _was_ the equivalent of a colour difference signal these days. Maybe it's material that was digitised
In message <ck8iiil5fnjbfhm3m3n2mm232a5rtc1qbp@4ax.com> at Fri, 13 Oct
 I wish they'd never stopped doing that! (I believe some stations -
not sure about BBC - also turned off the colour burst for non-colour
material on TV too,
The Beeb certainly did do that, in fact they were still doing so in
some instances into the late 80s.
The ITV companies did the same, until the mid 80s (It may well have
been an IBA requirement)
However, from the 1980s there was increasing amounts of kit in the Tx
chain that would reinsert it anyway (frame store synchronisers, and
other processing kit) so it ceased. C4 for instance never did it from
the outset.
Today, I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference
signal isn't quite 'Zero'.
when there was (and it was as you say)?
In message <ck8iiil5fnjbfhm3m3n2mm232a5rtc1qbp@4ax.com> at Fri, 13 Oct
2023 12:17:41, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
It was a valve tuner with an ECC85 front end and I think it must have
been lack of bandwidth that prevented stereo from working. BBC
standard practice then was for the pilot tone to be switched on only
for actual stereo programmes, and the little stereo light on my tuner
would recognise that, but alas the sound wasn't any different (except
a little noisier).
I wish they'd never stopped doing that! (I believe some stations - not
sure about BBC - also turned off the colour burst for non-colour
material on TV too, though that became rarer.) [These days they can't
even be relied on to use the shortscreen/4:3 flag properly.]
In message <ugac9k$2v529$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:07:29, Graham. <graham-usenet@mail.com> writes
ISTR that when FM radio was included on a 405 line TV turret tuner,I'll take your word that it was, but that seems quite a complicated
the order was usually H-L-T.
thing to have done: presumably it was positions which turned the video circuitry off, and obviously also involved decoder switching from AM to
FM. Half way to a dual-standard set!
Today, I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference signal
isn't quite 'Zero'.
[BBC] can't even be relied on to use the
shortscreen/4:3 flag properly.
On 13/10/2023 15:12, Mark Carver wrote:
Today, I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference
signal isn't quite 'Zero'.
Talking Pictures TV are terrible for this. You can go from one B&W film
to another and get a great shift from magenta to cyan to green tint.
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[BBC] can't even be relied on to use the shortscreen/4:3 flag
properly.
I'm assuming you still use one, there may be dozens like you remaining!
On 13/10/2023 18:07, NY wrote:
On 13/10/2023 15:12, Mark Carver wrote:Maybe some of their B&W output was printed onto tinted stock and they
Today, I've noticed on monochrome material you often get a very faint
traces of magenta, or green patches, where the colour difference
signal isn't quite 'Zero'.
Talking Pictures TV are terrible for this. You can go from one B&W film
to another and get a great shift from magenta to cyan to green tint.
want to preserve the full experience? Or at some point, someone wasn't
paying attention and used colour material for a transfer?
It was certainly common on silent movies.
In message <kotbarF9sq5U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023
17:59:08, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[BBC] can't even be relied on to use the shortscreen/4:3 flag >>>properly.
I'm assuming you still use one, there may be dozens like you remaining!
I didn't mean I'm using a 4:3 TV,
On 13/10/2023 04:27, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <ugac9k$2v529$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 13 Oct 2023 04:07:29,
Graham. <graham-usenet@mail.com> writes
ISTR that when FM radio was included on a 405 line TV turret tuner,I'll take your word that it was, but that seems quite a complicated
the order was usually H-L-T.
thing to have done: presumably it was positions which turned the video
circuitry off, and obviously also involved decoder switching from AM to
FM. Half way to a dual-standard set!
I remember my grandparents had a 405-line TV with turret tuner which had >positions for VHF radio stations. I think it had just three positions
for H, L and T,
so I presume there was a preset somewhere which tuned
the three presets to whatever frequencies were used at your transmitter
(and which I now know were always spaced 2.2 MHz apart, so if you adjust
one, you've adjusted all three).
They kept it until they moved house in 1978 when, for the first time in
their lives, they got a colour TV.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:46:19 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:[]
I remember my grandparents had a 405-line TV with turret tuner which had >>positions for VHF radio stations. I think it had just three positions
for H, L and T,
My granny had one of these too.
so I presume there was a preset somewhere which tuned
the three presets to whatever frequencies were used at your transmitter >>(and which I now know were always spaced 2.2 MHz apart, so if you adjust >>one, you've adjusted all three).
I cannot remember whether the turret had all the channels on it (we
were BBC=3 and STV=10) or if it just had settings for BBC and ITA (as
my granny always called it). Why would the handle TV and radio
differently?
So it would seem that the tables included with the muxes still list the offset frequency - if it's not broken, don't fix it!
I couldn't find anywhere on freeview.co.uk that led me to mb21.
When I got my PVR software to scan the spectrum, looking for muxes, it
found Belmont's COM4 on 545.833 MHz rather than 546.0 MHz,
On 13/10/2023 04:27, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember my grandparents had a 405-line TV with turret tuner which had positions for VHF radio stations. I think it had just three positions
for H, L and T, so I presume there was a preset somewhere which tuned
the three presets to whatever frequencies were used at your transmitter
(and which I now know were always spaced 2.2 MHz apart, so if you adjust one, you've adjusted all three).
The TV was the usual belling; the FM was a little two pin thing; onepin fatter than the other.
wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:Yes. I've never seen such a connector elewhere.
[...]
The TV was the usual belling; the FM was a little two pin thing; onepin fatter than the other.
I remember it looked like the standard L.T. battery plug from a
dry-battery valve radio ...and probably was one.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 09:35:38 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
[...]
The TV was the usual belling; the FM was a little two pin thing; onepin fatter than the other.
I remember it looked like the standard L.T. battery plug from a
dry-battery valve radio ...and probably was one.
Yes. I've never seen such a connector elewhere.
On 25/10/2023 20:14, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 09:35:38 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
[...]
The TV was the usual belling; the FM was a little two pin thing; onepin fatter than the other.
I remember it looked like the standard L.T. battery plug from a
dry-battery valve radio ...and probably was one.
Yes. I've never seen such a connector elewhere.
I think I've seen them for an extension loudspeaker connection for a
radio, like the old Hacker valve FM radios.
I think I've seen them for an extension loudspeaker connection for a
radio, like the old Hacker valve FM radios.
I have seen them used in various places but no idea what they are called.
If you do a search for B126 battery, some pages show a plug with the
batter but too small to see much detail so not sure if that is the one.
JMB99 wrote:
If you do a search for B126 battery, some pages show a plug with the
batter but too small to see much detail so not sure if that is the one.
They weren't anything more than a disc of paxolin, with holes drilled
and a couple of metal tubes crimped in with wires soldered onto ..
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 112:14:14 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,032 |