I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with
some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather
than 198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to
the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz
in region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather than
198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz in region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they listened
to) change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies? My parents
had a Grundig (ie German) radio dating from the mid to late 1960s which
used kHz on the MF/LF tuning scales (and obviously MHz on the VHF
scale). Was that unusual at the time? Did other manufacturers carry on
using wavelengths for MF/LF tuning for longer than this?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:34:34, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths >>exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with
some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather
than 198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to
the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz
in region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
I got the above slightly wrong - region 2 is the Americas; however, I
was right that they use 10 kHz and the rest of the world 9. And it's
been that way since around 1929-1932 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Frequency_Plan_of_1975#Predecessors_t o_the_GE75_Plan - assorted tweaks to what the actual allocations were, but they were always frequency-based, not wavelength. (I guess that's easier
to do, with crystals.)
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called kiloHertz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy. There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW 200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC stations moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF to LF. Did any BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as for LF, or was that already spaced at 9 kHz?
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHertz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC stations >> moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF to LF. Did any >> BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as for LF, or was >> that already spaced at 9 kHz?
I'm afraid I don't remember; I was much more interested in the pirate
pop radio stations like Caroline, London and Atlanta than the BBC in
those days. Radio 1 hadn't yet been invented - it came about because
the pirates were sunk and their DJs needed employment. R1 was a fig
leaf for the Corporation; almost all R1's DJs came from pirate radio.
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations
happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
NY wrote:
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they listened to) >> change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies?
I have the feeling it was around the late 1970s
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 23:10:07, g8dgc <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote[...]
(my responses usually follow points raised):
The change from (Pirates,), Light, Third, and Home to R1/2/3/4 happened
in the '60s - I don't know if there was any dance of the frequencies at
the same time, I don't _think_ so. The big rearrangement of the
frequencies (where the LW station changed from 2 to 4) occurred later -
1978.
Enjoy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ5bNA6amQ> which explains
it in a most pleasing manner (IMO).
In article <akaqqg188jakprvsmklmebdqga5468to5a@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
Approx. Interestingly a 1930s Radio Times gave the frequency of the
stations with the wavelength, to one decimal place, in brackets.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:34:34, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with
some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather
than 198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to
the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz
in region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
I got the above slightly wrong - region 2 is the Americas; however, I
was right that they use 10 kHz and the rest of the world 9. And it's
been that way since around 1929-1932 - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Frequency_Plan_of_1975#Predecessors_t >> o_the_GE75_Plan - assorted tweaks to what the actual allocations were, but >> they were always frequency-based, not wavelength. (I guess that's easier
to do, with crystals.)
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHertz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC stations >> moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF to LF. Did any >> BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as for LF, or was >> that already spaced at 9 kHz?
I'm afraid I don't remember; I was much more interested in the pirate
pop radio stations like Caroline, London and Atlanta than the BBC in
those days. Radio 1 hadn't yet been invented - it came about because
the pirates were sunk and their DJs needed employment. R1 was a fig
leaf for the Corporation; almost all R1's DJs came from pirate radio.
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations
happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
I can assure you NOT just radio amateurs. Many mobile radio 'simulcast'
or 'quasi-sync' systems used 200KHz and later 198KHz for frequency
accuracy, albeit as the off-air frequency reference to drive the
engineer's frequency counter!
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC
stations moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF
to LF.
Did any BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as
for LF, or was that already spaced at 9 kHz?
On 06/12/2021 08:34, Mark Carver wrote:
No, almost 10 years later than that. 200 kHz moved to 198 on Feb 1st
1988.
On the 3rd February, newspapers were still listing Radio 4 as being
1500m 200KHz!
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:46:13, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
[]
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they listened
to) change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies? My parents
had a Grundig (ie German) radio dating from the mid to late 1960s which >used kHz on the MF/LF tuning scales (and obviously MHz on the VHF
scale). Was that unusual at the time? Did other manufacturers carry on >using wavelengths for MF/LF tuning for longer than this?
I have the feeling it was around the late 1970s - combination of an
increase in product from Japan and Hong Kong, which I think always used frequency, and the rise of FM (Band II), which I don't remember ever
being quoted as a wavelength, which perhaps made use of frequency more
common on dual-"band" sets.
No, almost 10 years later than that. 200 kHz moved to 198 on Feb 1st 1988.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHertz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC stations >> moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF to LF. Did any >> BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as for LF, or was >> that already spaced at 9 kHz?
I'm afraid I don't remember; I was much more interested in the pirate
pop radio stations like Caroline, London and Atlanta than the BBC in
those days. Radio 1 hadn't yet been invented - it came about because
the pirates were sunk and their DJs needed employment. R1 was a fig
leaf for the Corporation; almost all R1's DJs came from pirate radio.
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations
happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 21:49:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <akaqqg188jakprvsmklmebdqga5468to5a@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
Approx. Interestingly a 1930s Radio Times gave the frequency of the >>stations with the wavelength, to one decimal place, in brackets.
When the London ILR stations got their proper transmitters and stopped
using the temporary ones, they changed frequency, so there was a
series of radio and TV adverts to alert the public to this, announcing
that the station was moving to "a new frequency of 194 metres" (or
whatever the value was).
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather than
198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz in region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I don't have an agree that our language torture is a quality add
- soldiersailor on Gransnet, 2018-3-8
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
NY wrote:
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they listened
to) change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies?
I have the feeling it was around the late 1970s
I remember getting my set of dial stickers in 1978
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=139697&d=1490297907>
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:9iaPf0YqBTrhFwzB@255soft.uk...
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 21:13:04, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths >>>exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
I'm pretty sure they were on the 9 kHz spacing in this region 2 (with
some variation on LW, e. g. Radio 2 used to be exactly 200 kHz, rather
than 198). As such, I'm guessing the quoted wavelengths were rounded to
the nearest metre.
I'm not sure when the 9 kHz grid was introduced. (I think it's 10 kHz in
region 1, and it might be 5 kHz on SW.)
So I think "208" would have been on 1440 kHz, so about 208.2m.
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they listened to) change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies? My parents had a Grundig (ie German) radio dating from the mid to late 1960s which used kHz
on the MF/LF tuning scales (and obviously MHz on the VHF scale). Was that unusual at the time? Did other manufacturers carry on using wavelengths
for MF/LF tuning for longer than this?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 23:10:07, g8dgc <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing >>> > in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHertz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
No, it was in the '70s or '80s.
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency
accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
As did I.
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Well, to _comply_ with the ITU bandplan; it had been 9 kHz for a long
time, we (and some other countries) just didn't adhere to it, especially I think on LW. (See the Wikipedia link I posted earlier, which gives
one-line details of various standards from 1928 on - I think only the
first was 10 kHz in Europe.)
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC
stations
moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF to LF. Did >>> any
BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as for LF, or
was
that already spaced at 9 kHz?
I think so.
The change from (Pirates,), Light, Third, and Home to R1/2/3/4 happened in the '60s - I don't know if there was any dance of the frequencies at the
I'm afraid I don't remember; I was much more interested in the pirate
pop radio stations like Caroline, London and Atlanta than the BBC in
those days. Radio 1 hadn't yet been invented - it came about because
the pirates were sunk and their DJs needed employment. R1 was a fig
leaf for the Corporation; almost all R1's DJs came from pirate radio.
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations >>happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
same time, I don't _think_ so. The big rearrangement of the frequencies (where the LW station changed from 2 to 4) occurred later - 1978.
Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ5bNA6amQ which explains it in a
most pleasing manner (IMO).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
A good pun is its own reword.
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations
happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1pjql1o.8b01rdx3by4pN%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
ISTR that it was R1's creation that brought about the renaming of the
Light Programme to R2; Network Three / the Third Programme to R3;
and the Home Service to R4. I'll guess that the station relocations
happened at the same time but I couldn't be sure.
I've never heard the term "Network Three" used for "the Third Programme" or >"Radio 3", but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_3, bullet point about >"sports coverage ... and adult educational programming" confirms it.
And, as you say, it was on 30 September 1967 that the descriptive names >"Light Programme", "Third Programme" and "Home Service" were changed to >numerical names Radio 2, 3, 4. I'd always thought that this change happened
a lot longer ago.
I remember the juggling of the BBC's MF and LF frequencies, and the little >sticker that the BBC sent to every house informing people of the new >frequencies. I was going to say "late 1970s" and I see that I was right: >1978. Evidently the adjustment of 200 kHz to 198 kHz happened at the same >time as R2 and R4 swapped places.
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:06:18 +0000, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Yep.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 21:49:25 +0000 (GMT), charlesYes, it was 'Capital 194'. Did LBC move as well?
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <akaqqg188jakprvsmklmebdqga5468to5a@4ax.com>,When the London ILR stations got their proper transmitters and stopped
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations wereApprox. Interestingly a 1930s Radio Times gave the frequency of the
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the wavelengths
exact or were they approximations of a frequency in kc/s?
stations with the wavelength, to one decimal place, in brackets.
using the temporary ones, they changed frequency, so there was a
series of radio and TV adverts to alert the public to this, announcing
that the station was moving to "a new frequency of 194 metres" (or
whatever the value was).
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:40:22 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Evidently the adjustment of 200 kHz to 198 kHz happened at the same
time as R2 and R4 swapped places.
No it didn't. See Mark's posting.
Capital and LBC started life at Lots Road Power Station in Chelsea, on a
bit of wire strung between the chimneys.
I've never heard the term "Network Three" used for "the Third Programme" or "Radio 3", buthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_3, bullet point about "sports coverage ... and adult educational programming" confirms it.
Yes, it was 'Capital 194'. Did LBC move as well?
On 06/12/2021 09:27, Scott wrote:
Yes, it was 'Capital 194'. Did LBC move as well?I though Capital started as "Capital 194"? Then became "Capital 1548"
Approximations.
I remember when I found the calculation being surprised just how far out
some were in fact. Sad to say my lazy brain has forgotten the formula as so >many calculators exist for it now.
Brian
Brian Gaff wrote:
Approximations.
I remember when I found the calculation being surprised just how far out
some were in fact. Sad to say my lazy brain has forgotten the formula as so >> many calculators exist for it now.
Don't you just divide 300,000 by either the frequency or the
wavelength?
I remember the juggling of the BBC's MF and LF frequencies, and the[]
little sticker that the BBC sent to every house informing people of the
new frequencies. I was going to say "late 1970s" and I see that I was
was moved to 162KHz in 1986. Allouis, unlike Droitwich (etc), ceased >broadcast radio transmission about 40 years ago and is now just a[]
frequency standard transmission.
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:rvmrqg9u8jjb8nqrgolr1lg89agp0fqupf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:40:22 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: >>>Evidently the adjustment of 200 kHz to 198 kHz happened at the same
time as R2 and R4 swapped places.
No it didn't. See Mark's posting.
Just seen Mark's posting. I stand corrected... My LF/MF/VHF tuner
(bought in 1987) can only tune in increments of 9 kHz on MF, but can
tune in increments of 1 kHz on LF - evidently it was designed before
the 9 kHz spacing on LF became standard.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:98XvI3pcRhrhFwSF@255soft.uk...
Then there was the change in the RT (which I've never liked) that
moved all the radio listings to a separate section after the TV ones, >>rather than interleaved (Saturday TV, Saturday radio, Sunday TV,
Sunday radio, etc.); I cant' remember if that was about the same date
as the monopoly end or not.
Did they do that? Looking at BBC Genome (Radio Times listings) for 1958
(the last year that Genome has scans of the actual pages) shows that TV >listings (Sunday to Saturday) eg >https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/page/ea8309f3c12f46c28fdcd8d38483522d?page=19
are followed by radio listings (Sunday to Saturday) eg >https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/page/ea8309f3c12f46c28fdcd8d38483522d?page=20.
Maybe there was a time between the late 1950s and now when they did >interleave them.
I wonder when RT changed from Sunday to Saturday as being the first day
of the "RT week"? I'm sure it's been Saturday from the earliest that I
can remember (early 1970s).
As regards Radio 3's former name(s)...[]
different stations with the same frequencies: Network Three" until
closedown at 7:50 PM and then "Third Programme" from 8 PM onwards.
Rather like the modern situation of CBeebies and BBC Four sharing the
same space on the multiplex. ;-)
I still think they should do the colour edging they do on the TV pages
(and black edging on the radio pages) only one-seventh the page
height on Saturday, two-sevenths on Sunday, and so on, which would
make it easier to find the page (day) you want; however, I've given
up suggesting it to them. (Anyone here work for, or at least got a
link into, the RT?)
The one thing that I find annoying about RT (and maybe TV Times) is
that the "special days" such as "Easter Sunday" are still only listed
as such, with no reference to the actual date. When I was setting my
VCR using channel/date/start-time/end-time (remember those days?) there
was the perpetual problem of "what date is Easter Sunday" (or "Bank
Holiday Monday" of which there were several through the year) so you
could type a number into the VCR. It was a case of looking forwards and >backwards for a "non-special day" where the page had "Tuesday 2 April"
etc as the header, rather than "Easter Monday" which you had to infer
was Monday 1 April. I will confess I've even wondered "what date is
Christmas Eve / Christmas Day / Boxing Day?" before it dawns on me that >*those* dates are fixed ;-)
Then there was the change in the RT (which I've never liked) that moved
all the radio listings to a separate section after the TV ones, rather
than interleaved (Saturday TV, Saturday radio, Sunday TV, Sunday radio, etc.); I cant' remember if that was about the same date as the monopoly
end or not.
I still think they should do the colour edging they do on the TV pages
(and black edging on the radio pages) only one-seventh the page height on Saturday, two-sevenths on Sunday, and so on, which would make it easier to find the page (day) you want; however, I've given up suggesting it to
them. (Anyone here work for, or at least got a link into, the RT?)
Then there was the information monopoly, meaning if you wanted to get a _weekly_ listing of programmes, you _had_ to but the RT (_and_ TV
Times). [There were obviously more lax restrictions in _daily_
information, as newspapers etc. carried them.]
I remember - definitely in the 1970s, as it was while I was at school -
when the monopoly was broken; it happened from a Friday. The magazines
ran Saturday to Friday as they still do, and - in what I thought was a
rather childish move - that week, the RT at least (I think TVT too) ran
space for all channels every day that week, but with blank columns for
the stations they couldn't show, except on the Friday.
(I continued to buy both for a week or two, but settled on the RT, which
I thought a significantly superior publication; certainly, TVT seemed to cater for a different _class_ of reader, much like commercial TV in
general. The ending of the monopoly - which, presumably, covered ITV
data too - also brought the plethora of other listings magazines,
including one that was only 10p or something like that - and then some
of the papers included one with their Saturday edition, which I think
killed off many of the standalones. I don't think _any_ of the offerings carried as much detail of _radio_ programmes as the RT.)
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:rvmrqg9u8jjb8nqrgolr1lg89agp0fqupf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:40:22 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Evidently the adjustment of 200 kHz to 198 kHz happened at the same
time as R2 and R4 swapped places.
No it didn't. See Mark's posting.
Just seen Mark's posting. I stand corrected... My LF/MF/VHF tuner
(bought in 1987) can only tune in increments of 9 kHz on MF, but can
tune in increments of 1 kHz on LF - evidently it was designed before the
9 kHz spacing on LF became standard.
Nowadays, for the record, the frequency standard used is GPS which is
even more accurate. Plus, against the size and several hundred pounds
cost of an OFS, you can buy a GPS module about the size of a packet of >Asprins for £100 and it will give you a selectable GPS-tied frequency >reference anything between 400Hz and something over 800MHz. I know, I
have one at the side of me as I type.
Yep.Yes, it was 'Capital 194'. Did LBC move as well?
Capital and LBC started life at Lots Road Power Station in Chelsea, on a
bit of wire strung between the chimneys.
Capital was 557 kHz (539m) and LBC 719 kHz (417m)
The IBA had had terrible trouble getting planning permission to build
the permanent MF station at various locations they'd selected north of
London
Because the two allocations (194 and 261m) were shared around the UK,
they were planning (like the other cities) a four mast directional site.
In the end they went to appeal and Saffron Green was built, and came on
air in 1975 (2 years late)
Capital on 539m was great, only a 1kW, but low frequency and
directional, you could receive it over a big chunk of England.
Saffron Green was worse here (40 miles west of London) though its 97kW
beam due south makes it receivable in Southern France (but not Stevenage !)
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:21:04 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" ><briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Approximations.
I remember when I found the calculation being surprised just how far out >>some were in fact. Sad to say my lazy brain has forgotten the formula as so >>many calculators exist for it now.
Brian
Don't you just divide 300,000 by either the frequency or the
wavelength?
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:[]
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
Your question didn't really get answered and I too would be interested
to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact values of
wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were implemented.
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
I always thought Luxy was on 208.4m
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was also Radio Normandy. More popular than the BBC at certain times.
Bill
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
I always thought Luxy was on 208.4m
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to
broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was also Radio Normandy. More popular than the BBC at certain times.
Bill
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to >broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations wereYour question didn't really get answered and I too would be interested
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact values of
wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were implemented.
I think a lot of the time they realised that to make money from a
transmitter in a very small country, the use of changing propagation conditions through the day was the only way forward. They used to have a short wave station as well on the 49m band, but it was very hit and miss.
Then there was the information monopoly, meaning if you wanted to get a >_weekly_ listing of programmes, you _had_ to but the RT (_and_ TV
Times). [There were obviously more lax restrictions in _daily_
information, as newspapers etc. carried them.]
I remember - definitely in the 1970s, as it was while I was at school -
when the monopoly was broken; it happened from a Friday. The magazines
ran Saturday to Friday as they still do, and - in what I thought was a
rather childish move - that week, the RT at least (I think TVT too) ran
space for all channels every day that week, but with blank columns for
the stations they couldn't show, except on the Friday.
On 06/12/2021 13:47, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Then there was the information monopoly, meaning if you wanted to get a
_weekly_ listing of programmes, you _had_ to but the RT (_and_ TV Times).
[There were obviously more lax restrictions in _daily_ information, as
newspapers etc. carried them.]
I remember - definitely in the 1970s, as it was while I was at school -
when the monopoly was broken; it happened from a Friday. The magazines
ran Saturday to Friday as they still do, and - in what I thought was a
rather childish move - that week, the RT at least (I think TVT too) ran
space for all channels every day that week, but with blank columns for
the stations they couldn't show, except on the Friday.
(I continued to buy both for a week or two, but settled on the RT, which
I thought a significantly superior publication; certainly, TVT seemed to
cater for a different _class_ of reader, much like commercial TV in
general. The ending of the monopoly - which, presumably, covered ITV data
too - also brought the plethora of other listings magazines, including
one that was only 10p or something like that - and then some of the
papers included one with their Saturday edition, which I think killed off
many of the standalones. I don't think _any_ of the offerings carried as
much detail of _radio_ programmes as the RT.)
I would have put it in the 80s, but apparently it was as late as 1991: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Times#History (Search "deregulation".)
I believe it was action by the London listings magazine Time Out that
brought the change about.
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
Your question didn't really get answered and I too would be interested
to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact values of
wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were implemented.
No, they would have been in interger kilohertz values. Everything
involving oscillators in electronics is based on c/s or Hertz.
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place
to broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its
time.
There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
Rod.
On 09:34 7 Dec 2021, Mark Carver said:It's was all driven, and still is, by frequency, not wavelength. The
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitter
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:No, they would have been in interger kilohertz values. Everything
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
Your question didn't really get answered and I too would be interested
to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact values of
wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were implemented.
involving oscillators in electronics is based on c/s or Hertz.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitter
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or international frequency planners would have defined.
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
On 09:34 7 Dec 2021, Mark Carver said:
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
Your question didn't really get answered and I too would be interested >>> to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact values of
wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were implemented.
No, they would have been in interger kilohertz values. Everything
involving oscillators in electronics is based on c/s or Hertz.
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitter
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
It's was all driven, and still is, by frequency, not wavelength. The bandwidth of the transmitter can't be defined in wavelengths, have you
ever seen a device that measures an oscillation in wavelengths ? Also,
there is no straight line relationship between frequency and
wavelength. For instance 1500 kHz is 200m. 1510 kHz is 198.67m so 10
kHz there is 1.33 metres. At the other end of the band 530 kHz is
566.04m, 540 kHz is 555.56m so 10 kHz there is 10.84metres. Everything
was therefore based on frequency
Wavelength was just a warm and cosy listener interface, nothing more.
It's like PC's, you don't use DOS Prompt to operate one, you use some
sort of user interface
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitterEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
I remember 'Sing Something Simple'
On 07/12/2021 12:21, Mark Carver wrote:
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or
international frequency planners would have defined.
Wasn't the wavelength / frequency of the first generations of
transmitter very dependent on antenna lengths?
In article <j17il2FcdigU1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
I always thought Luxy was on 208.4m
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was also Radio Normandy. More popular than the BBC at certain times.
Bill
The Radio Times used to list some programmes from the Continent - mostly concerts, ISTR.
... have you
ever seen a device that measures an oscillation in wavelengths ?
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
On 09:34 7 Dec 2021, Mark Carver said:
On 06/12/2021 22:26, Pamela wrote:Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitter
On 21:13 5 Dec 2021, Scott said:No, they would have been in interger kilohertz values. Everything
I was just wondering in bed: in the old days when stations were
described by their wavelength (eg Fabulous 208), were the
wavelengths exact or were they approximations of a frequency in
kc/s?
Your question didn't really get answered and I too would be
interested to know. My guess is stations did broadcast on exact
values of wavelength, at least until 9kHz intervals were
implemented.
involving oscillators in electronics is based on c/s or Hertz.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
It's was all driven, and still is, by frequency, not wavelength. The bandwidth of the transmitter can't be defined in wavelengths, have
you ever seen a device that measures an oscillation in wavelengths ?
Also, there is no straight line relationship between frequency and wavelength.
For instance 1500 kHz is 200m.
1510 kHz is 198.67m so
10 kHz there is 1.33 metres. At the other end of the band 530 kHz is 566.04m, 540 kHz is 555.56m so 10 kHz there is 10.84metres.
Everything was therefore based on frequency
Wavelength was just a warm and cosy listener interface, nothing
more. It's like PC's, you don't use DOS Prompt to operate one, you
use some sort of user interface
Also, there is no straight line relationship between frequency andI think you must mean "integer frequency and integer wavelength".
wavelength.
I think a lot of the time they realised that to make money from a
transmitter in a very small country, the use of changing propagation conditions through the day was the only way forward. They used to have a short wave station as well on the 49m band, but it was very hit and miss.
So when the nights arrived it went over to English. The fading was always the problem of course. I remember the diversity reception system used by Rediffusion did to a great extent fix this on their cable system though but hi fi it was not.
Did not the same company end up being one of the major satellite providers in the end? Not sure where the funding came from. I do wish though that they did play more of the records. Often you only got about half to make room for more and adverts for football pools system run by Horace Batchelor out of Bristol, Keynsham.
On 07/12/2021 14:04, Pamela wrote:
Also, there is no straight line relationship between frequency and
wavelength.
I think you must mean "integer frequency and integer wavelength".
Nope.
It's actually all to do with Octaves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-radiofrequency.htm
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to
broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
On 07/12/2021 13:13, MB wrote:
On 07/12/2021 12:21, Mark Carver wrote:
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or
international frequency planners would have defined.
Wasn't the wavelength / frequency of the first generations of
transmitter very dependent on antenna lengths?
Quite possibly yes, (but, I'm beginning to despair now), the
transmitter is still set to a defined FREQUENCY.
On 14:22 7 Dec 2021, Mark Carver said:TBH I'm lost as well Pamela ! Someone up thread made the point far
On 07/12/2021 14:04, Pamela wrote:I'm getting lost. Let's back up ...
Nope.Also, there is no straight line relationship between frequency andI think you must mean "integer frequency and integer wavelength".
wavelength.
It's actually all to do with Octaves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-radiofrequency.htm
You write "there is no straight line relationship between frequency
and wavelength".
However there is a straight line relationship between frequency and wavelength because they are inversely proportional to one another and
the equation linking them is that of a straight line.
I've suggested you might mean integer wavelengths do not represent
integer frequencies. However you say that is not what you mean and
explained it by providing me with information about octaves.
Octaves have a logarithmic ratio between one another (which is clearly
not linear) but what does that have to do with the relationship between frequency and wavelength, as intended by the original poster?
Transmitters worked in frequencies but, for obvious reasons, aerial
designs worked in wavelengths.
The speed of an electromagnetic wave in e.g. a radio antenna
depends upon the physical characteristics of the conductor
(see velocity factor). The concept of wavelength is useful
when sizing antenna elements but otherwise, not so much.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:27:42 +0000, Ashley Booth wrote:
I remember 'Sing Something Simple'
"Not just listening but joining in I hope" was their catch phrase.
On 07/12/2021 10:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to
broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
There was Saturday Club on Saturday mornings and "Fluff" Freeman's "Pick
of the Pops" on Sunday afternoon. Unless you could get the pirates.
On 07/12/2021 13:05, g8dgc wrote:
The speed of an electromagnetic wave in e.g. a radio antenna
depends upon the physical characteristics of the conductor
(see velocity factor). The concept of wavelength is useful
when sizing antenna elements but otherwise, not so much.
What about Å?
Bill
I think MB might have been referring to the _very_ early days, when the "transmitter" made a series of sparks. Then, the length of the aerial
did have _some_ tuning effect on the frequency/wavelength that actually _propagated_. Tuned circuits did come along soon after that, but I
suspect in the early days of those, it was tune for maximum smoke, as
the saying goes, without any calibration (in either wavelength or
frequency).
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
On 07/12/2021 13:37, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Transmitters worked in frequencies but, for obvious reasons, aerial
designs worked in wavelengths.
Not all aerial designs rely on the resonance of the elements.
Frequency for transmitters, Wavelength for aerial design
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:j19o39Fp291U2@mid.individual.net...
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and
wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
200 kHz / 1500 m implies that c (the speed of light) is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Which it is not. It is *approximately* that value but not *exactly*.
It's 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. So if one of those figures is accurate - for
example 200.000 recurring kHz, then the other must be approximate and
not a nice integer value of 1500 m.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:39:38 +0000, Mark Carver
Frequency for transmitters, Wavelength for aerial design
And astronomers.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:00 +0000, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
I always heard it as "sing something sinful"
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitterEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Converting from frequency to wavelength can be done accurately enough
for the purpose on a slide rule or even by looking at a table in a book,
but the quoted wavelengths were only ever approximate anyway. How much >attention would you have paid to the decimal part of you had been told
to tune to 208.3 metres? You would tune to somewhere near 208, see what
it sounded like, then tweak the knob until it sounded good.
At the listeners' end, it made little difference. They turned the dial
to the number they were given, then adjusted the tuning to get the best >quality. The wavelengths and frequencies were cheaply printed on a piece
of paper glued to the dial or strip, and after a set had been used for a >while, component drift and mechanical wear meant that what was on the
paper had only a rough resemblance to what was actually tuned in.
I suspect the conversion from wavelength to frequency names for station
grew with the increase in digital tuning displays, as it made the
receivers simpler, needing less computing power to display the channel.
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)For a while it preceded the Top 20 Chart on Sundays (if you were
listening to R2 VHF), then for another period it followed it I seem to
recall ?.
However yes, it was best avoided whatever
On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:02:30 +0000, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Isn't the BBC Pop Service Network still going ?
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, PamelaIs it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place toThere was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to >>broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:26:18 +0000, Mark CarverHa, ha ! I have one memory of Lee Marvin and 'I was born under a
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:I remember it following Pick of the Pops (Alan Freeman). The deal in
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)For a while it preceded the Top 20 Chart on Sundays (if you were
listening to R2 VHF), then for another period it followed it I seem to
recall ?.
However yes, it was best avoided whatever
our house was that we could listen to Pick of the Pops if my dad could
listen to Sing Something Simple afterwards. I think there was also
some requirement to wash the dishes as well!
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:26:18 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
For a while it preceded the Top 20 Chart on Sundays (if you were
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
listening to R2 VHF), then for another period it followed it I seem
to recall ?.
However yes, it was best avoided whatever
I remember it following Pick of the Pops (Alan Freeman). The deal
in our house was that we could listen to Pick of the Pops if my dad
could listen to Sing Something Simple afterwards. I think there was
also some requirement to wash the dishes as well!
On 08/12/2021 09:32, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:02:30 +0000, Roderick StewartIsn't the BBC Pop Service Network still going ?
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, PamelaIs it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to >>>> broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 13:05, g8dgc wrote:
The speed of an electromagnetic wave in e.g. a radio antenna
depends upon the physical characteristics of the conductor
(see velocity factor). The concept of wavelength is useful
when sizing antenna elements but otherwise, not so much.
What about Å?
Bill
Angstrom units are a bit small to be useful for radio wavelengths
but maybe fibre optics could find a use for them.
It was essential for those with a tape recorder (sometimes with aAs a five year old, I made myself a tape recorder out of a shoe box, two pencils, two 8mm Cine reels, and a length of string, and would 'record'
microphone near the speaker) and who couldn't afford the price of
singles.
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:j19o39Fp291U2@mid.individual.net...
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and
wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
200 kHz / 1500 m implies that c (the speed of light) is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Which it is not. It is *approximately* that value but not *exactly*.
It's 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. So if one of those figures is accurate - for
example 200.000 recurring kHz, then the other must be approximate and
not a nice integer value of 1500 m.
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:jsu0rg1q4qo7fcmdbknoaa5o3abttv1rou@4ax.com...
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
[old fogey] Has there been any pop *music* since then? I don't count
(c)rap or anything that is heavily auto-tuned as music. [/old fogey]
BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:00 +0000, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
I always heard it as "sing something sinful"
Ditto.
Dave (ex Gleadless S12)
In those bygone days, it was interesting to see the slight difference
in the chart positions between the BBC and Radio Luxemburg.
It was essential for those with a tape recorder (sometimes with a
microphone near the speaker) and who couldn't afford the price of
singles.
BrightsideS9 wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:39:38 +0000, Mark Carver
Frequency for transmitters, Wavelength for aerial designAnd astronomers.
And radio amateurs naming bands.
--
Even the youngsters of today look back to the 1960s and 1970s as a
golden age of music.
Back then it wasn't unusual for singers to perform dozens of studio
takes to get the song right. Now an artist's weak moments are
digitally corrected in post-production.
On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:02:30 +0000, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 22:26:46 GMT, PamelaIs it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how they came up with the business idea in the first place to >>>broadcast commercial radio to the UK. It seems bold for its time.
There was a gap in the market because nobody else was doing it. The
only official broadcaster we had in the UK was the BBC, and as far as
pop music was concerned, they still thought it was the 1940s. Even as
late as the 1960s, most of the "light music" they broadcast would have
been quite familiar to listeners during the war.
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
On 08/12/2021 09:32, Scott wrote:
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast todayIsn't the BBC Pop Service Network still going ?
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
On 07/12/2021 15:17, Pamela wrote:
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
On 07/12/2021 21:07, NY wrote:
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in messageYou are possibly overthinking this a touch. The error is 0.0666666...%,
news:j19o39Fp291U2@mid.individual.net...
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and
wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
200 kHz / 1500 m implies that c (the speed of light) is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Which it is not. It is *approximately* that value but not *exactly*.
It's 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. So if one of those figures is accurate - for
example 200.000 recurring kHz, then the other must be approximate and
not a nice integer value of 1500 m.
which is much less than the thickness of even the skinniest mechanical pointer on a dial. The wavelength at 200 kHz is as close to 1499 metres
as makes no difference. Try telling the difference on a 2 inch diameter
dial covering the whole waveband in less than 180 degrees of space or
which is about four inches long.
It is also much smaller than the bandwidth of the modulated signal and
the acceptable reception bandwidth of any normal domestic receiver.
The most important thing with a re-take of a short section is to get the musicians to take a run at it. If they have to start from 'cold' they
will always play it differently and you may find the reverberation from
the preceding notes is glaringly obviously missing.
On 09:35 8 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:26:18 +0000, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
For a while it preceded the Top 20 Chart on Sundays (if you were >>listening to R2 VHF), then for another period it followed it I seem
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
to recall ?.
However yes, it was best avoided whatever
I remember it following Pick of the Pops (Alan Freeman). The deal
in our house was that we could listen to Pick of the Pops if my dad
could listen to Sing Something Simple afterwards. I think there was
also some requirement to wash the dishes as well!
In those bygone days, it was interesting to see the slight difference
in the chart positions between the BBC and Radio Luxemburg.
It was essential for those with a tape recorder (sometimes with a
microphone near the speaker) and who couldn't afford the price of
singles.
On 08/12/2021 10:30, Pamela wrote:
Even the youngsters of today look back to the 1960s and 1970s as a
golden age of music.
Back then it wasn't unusual for singers to perform dozens of studio
takes to get the song right. Now an artist's weak moments are
digitally corrected in post-production.
Decent bands do and did it in one or two takes, and don't use autotune...
A friend of mine does 60s stuff, and he and the band get it right first
time every time. The second take is just in case there is an equipment
fault.
it's a tad thicker whisker because the speed of light in air is less
than in a vacuum. Usually given as 2.997 but varies with e.g. air
pressure - and so with altitude.  Russ Andrews seems to have missed an opportunity to sell aerials "tuned" for altitude :)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:00:40 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:35, John Williamson wrote:
It's quite possible that some people who were listening on 200kHz
didn't bother to retune when it changed to 198kHz and either didn't
notice any difference or didn't attribute it to anything they could do anything about.
On 08/12/2021 10:35, John Williamson wrote:
On 07/12/2021 21:07, NY wrote:
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in messageYou are possibly overthinking this a touch. The error is 0.0666666...%,
news:j19o39Fp291U2@mid.individual.net...
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and
wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
200 kHz / 1500 m implies that c (the speed of light) is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Which it is not. It is *approximately* that value but not *exactly*.
It's 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. So if one of those figures is accurate - for
example 200.000 recurring kHz, then the other must be approximate and
not a nice integer value of 1500 m.
which is much less than the thickness of even the skinniest mechanical
pointer on a dial. The wavelength at 200 kHz is as close to 1499 metres
as makes no difference. Try telling the difference on a 2 inch diameter
dial covering the whole waveband in less than 180 degrees of space or
which is about four inches long.
It is also much smaller than the bandwidth of the modulated signal and
the acceptable reception bandwidth of any normal domestic receiver.
it's a tad thicker whisker because the speed of light in air is less
than in a vacuum. Usually given as 2.997 but varies with e.g. air
pressure - and so with altitude. Russ Andrews seems to have missed an >opportunity to sell aerials "tuned" for altitude :)
As has been the tradition since it started, Radio 1 (AKA Radio None,
which is apparently the IQ of its presenters.) plays the modern chart
stuff, and Radio 2 plays what used to be on Radio 1 when it's target
audience listened to that. Most of the presenters follow the same route
aas the music, and I recognise quite a few from my younger days.
Decent bands do and did it in one or two takes, and don't use autotune...
On 8 Dec 2021 08:40:29 GMT, Dave Hill
<nospam@hillcroft.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:00 +0000, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
I always heard it as "sing something sinful"
Ditto.
Dave (ex Gleadless S12)
First heard on ISIRTA.
On 09:51 8 Dec 2021, NY said:
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jsu0rg1q4qo7fcmdbknoaa5o3abttv1rou@4ax.com...
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
[old fogey] Has there been any pop *music* since then? I don't count
(c)rap or anything that is heavily auto-tuned as music. [/old fogey]
Even the youngsters of today look back to the 1960s and 1970s as a
golden age of music.
Back then it wasn't unusual for singers to perform dozens of studio
takes to get the song right. Now an artist's weak moments are
digitally corrected in post-production.
Another feature nowadays is the kids don't listen as intently as they
used to. Back then there was far less pop music and it was very
expensive to buy a recording. You made what you could of it when the
music was playing and listened carefully to the point of knowing every
shift and change.
If someone in the neighbourhood bought an LP, you would arrange a time
to go and hear it. Borrowing it was out of the question! Perhaps this
raised the standard of what record companies released in those days.
On 08/12/2021 11:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:00:40 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:35, John Williamson wrote:
It's quite possible that some people who were listening on 200kHz
didn't bother to retune when it changed to 198kHz and either didn't
notice any difference or didn't attribute it to anything they could do
anything about.
Given that the big Droitwich units went from Radio 2 to Radio 4 with the change (November 23 1978), they might just have noticed that the content
was different (although with the geat unwashed, who can be certain?).
That said - given the selectivity of the average tranny, you wouldn't
need to retune
On 07/12/2021 16:40, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I think MB might have been referring to the _very_ early days, when
the "transmitter" made a series of sparks. Then, the length of the
aerial did have _some_ tuning effect on the frequency/wavelength that
actually _propagated_. Tuned circuits did come along soon after that,
but I suspect in the early days of those, it was tune for maximum
smoke, as the saying goes, without any calibration (in either
wavelength or frequency).
But spark transmitters were very broadly tuned weren't they? When I used
to make them* to interfere with the local TV reception I used to tune
them with a couple of turns on a bog roll holder and variable 'condenser'.
*Two carbon rods made out of batteries, mounted on a Meccano device that
slid one forward and backwards, power from an electric train transformer.
On 08/12/2021 11:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:00:40 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:35, John Williamson wrote:
It's quite possible that some people who were listening on 200kHz
didn't bother to retune when it changed to 198kHz and either didn't
notice any difference or didn't attribute it to anything they could do
anything about.
Given that the big Droitwich units went from Radio 2 to Radio 4 with the >change (November 23 1978), they might just have noticed that the content
was different (although with the geat unwashed, who can be certain?).
That said - given the selectivity of the average tranny, you wouldn't
need to retune
Ah, memories................
Alongside the much later ISIHAC and the Burkiss Way, three of the
funniest programmes ever to appear on British radio.
On 08/12/2021 12:51, Woody wrote:
Ah, memories................
Alongside the much later ISIHAC and the Burkiss Way, three of the
funniest programmes ever to appear on British radio.
I always used to listen to ISIRTA (and still do on 4 Extra).
I noticed for years after it finished, how often gags from ISIRTA
reappeared on other programmes (without being credited of course).
On 08/12/2021 10:49, John Williamson wrote:
Decent bands do and did it in one or two takes, and don't use autotune...
Though accusations of autotune, miming etc do tend to get thrown around.
 I used to sometimes listen to Graham Norton on a Saturday morning, one week he had had Cheryl on his TV programme the night before so there
were all the usual accusations. He said he asked the sound engineer if
could isolate the different microphones, he played him her microphone alone. Her singing was fine and did not need any autotune.
It always annoys me how any reasonably attractive young female singer
will be accused of not being able to sing but how many male pop singers
can sing in tune? Probably count them on one hand (without having to
your mittens off!). But they escape criticism.
Also musicians in the past were more prepared to perform things apart
from their latest recording or past hits. Remember Stéphane Grappelli
and Yehudi Menuhin doing an impromptu performance together on Parkinson?
 Would that happen now?
On 08/12/2021 10:53, John Williamson wrote:<Grin>
As has been the tradition since it started, Radio 1 (AKA Radio None,
which is apparently the IQ of its presenters.) plays the modern chart
stuff, and Radio 2 plays what used to be on Radio 1 when it's target
audience listened to that. Most of the presenters follow the same route
aas the music, and I recognise quite a few from my younger days.
Presumable the ones on Radio 1 Extra have negative IQs!
Yes, good point, another part of my childhood cruelly destroyed then.
'This is BBC Radio 2, on 1500 metres Longwave...........'
It's quite possible that some people who were listening on 200kHz
didn't bother to retune when it changed to 198kHz and either didn't
notice any difference or didn't attribute it to anything they could do anything about.
But spark transmitters were very broadly tuned weren't they? When I
used to make them* to interfere with the local TV reception I used to
tune them with a couple of turns on a bog roll holder and variable
'condenser'.
*Two carbon rods made out of batteries, mounted on a Meccano device
that slid one forward and backwards, power from an electric train
transformer.
Was that to facilitate the sale of new aerials to the unwary?
What about my childhood?
Here is the news
1500m is actually 199.86164 kHz
On Wed 08/12/2021 13:00, MB wrote:
Also musicians in the past were more prepared to perform things apart
from their latest recording or past hits. Remember Stéphane Grappelli
and Yehudi Menuhin doing an impromptu performance together on
Parkinson? Â Â Would that happen now?
...and the other one with Larry Adler and Itzhak playing Summertime on Parkinson in 1980.
When they finished Parkinson turned to the camera and said
"Ladies and Gentlemen, they say television is made up of moments. I
think this has been one of them. Goodnight."
Bar the last bit you can watch it on YouTube at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xa3cf
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
On 08/12/2021 08:23, Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, good point, another part of my childhood cruelly destroyed then. >>'This is BBC Radio 2, on 1500 metres Longwave...........'
What about my childhood?
This is the BBC Light Programme. Here is the news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAUWz8tAHDA
Announcement about colour television!
Bill
On 8 Dec 2021 08:54:59 GMT, "Ashley Booth" <removetab@snglinks.com>Broadcasters too, on short wave anyway.
wrote:
BrightsideS9 wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:39:38 +0000, Mark Carver
Frequency for transmitters, Wavelength for aerial designAnd astronomers.
And radio amateurs naming bands.
----
And organ builders?
Rod.
On 08/12/2021 10:51, Derek Smalls wrote:
1500m is actually 199.86164 kHz
But there are no transmissions on 199.86164 kHz, so there are no waves
1,500m in length. If a tree falls in the forest and it lands on a bear
that's having a shit...
Bill
...and the other one with Larry Adler and Itzhak playing Summertime on >Parkinson in 1980.
When they finished Parkinson turned to the camera and said
"Ladies and Gentlemen, they say television is made up of moments. I
think this has been one of them. Goodnight."
Bar the last bit you can watch it on YouTube at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xa3cf
Plus most youngsters have never heard proper MUSIC played on a decent
stereo system - the penalty of whoever invented Mpeg - specifically MP3!
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:jsu0rg1q4qo7fcmdbknoaa5o3abttv1rou@4ax.com...
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
[old fogey]
Has there been any pop *music* since then? I don't count (c)rap or
anything that is heavily auto-tuned as music.
[/old fogey]
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I would cite two examples - one from 1936, and one that is the theme
tune of a 1970s (I think) TV comedy series.
Liver Birds?
On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:32:54 +0000, Scott[]
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[]Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
Pop music was never my preference, but the biggest upheaval in its
history - the rock'nroll decade of the 50s followed by the Beatles
from the beginning of the 60s - was hard for anyone to ignore. Except
At the beginning of the 50s, young people were either children, or
miniature versions of their parents, the concept of "teenagers" as an >independent section of society with their own culture, spending their
own time and money in their own ways amongst themselves only came into >existence during those two decades.
To my ears, although there has been the occasional notable individual,
I can't think of any musical genre since then that has profoundly
changed society in the same kind of way. They mostly seem to be a
bunch of noisy narcissists trying to outdo each other with the
outrageousness of their performances and their general behaviour.
Rod.
I would cite two examples - one from 1936, and one that is the theme tune of a
1970s (I think) TV comedy series.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:00 +0000, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Ashley Booth wrote:
I think that programme caused the start of my clinical depression.
I remember 'Sing Something Simple' :)
You need some relaxing music...
# (der-der der-der der-der)
# Sing something simple
# As cares go by
# Sing something simple
# Just you and I
# (der-der der-der der-der)
# We'll sing the old songs
# Like you used to do
# We'll sing something simple
# For you; Something for you.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 21:50:54, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I would cite two examples - one from 1936, and one that is the theme >>>tune of a 1970s (I think) TV comedy series.
Liver Birds?
No, "Are you being served?". Just been to find Liver Birds, and I see
what you mean - but it has more tune; AYBS is pretty pure rap!
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 12:55:16, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised): []
Plus most youngsters have never heard proper MUSIC played on aThat old chestnut again. Usually justified if someone's tried to
decent stereo system - the penalty of whoever invented Mpeg -
specifically MP3!
squeeze wonder out of a low bitrate. _Given enough bits_, mp3 (and
even mp2, as used for non-+ DAB - it's just even less efficient, so
needs even more bits) is _capable_ of pretty good sound - certainly indistinguishable to _my_ ears (even on headphones), though not on a spectrogram.
(It doesn't help of course when even mono material of limited
bandwidth [e. g. from 78s, or even some 50s/60s material] is encoded
as stereo at full CD sampling rate, but that's the opposite problem
- produces files many times the size they need to be.)
Quite what bitrate _is_ acceptable is of course endlessly arguable.
For _most_ (not all) stereo material from YouTube, with the
brickwall cutoff at 15 kHz most of it has, I find 96 kbps more than sufficient; YMMV. For DAB (mp2), I've heard you need 300 kbps for a
good sound.
On 21:41 8 Dec 2021, J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 12:55:16, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised): []
Plus most youngsters have never heard proper MUSIC played on aThat old chestnut again. Usually justified if someone's tried to
decent stereo system - the penalty of whoever invented Mpeg - >>>specifically MP3!
squeeze wonder out of a low bitrate. _Given enough bits_, mp3 (and
even mp2, as used for non-+ DAB - it's just even less efficient, so
needs even more bits) is _capable_ of pretty good sound - certainly
indistinguishable to _my_ ears (even on headphones), though not on a
spectrogram.
(It doesn't help of course when even mono material of limited
bandwidth [e. g. from 78s, or even some 50s/60s material] is encoded
as stereo at full CD sampling rate, but that's the opposite problem
- produces files many times the size they need to be.)
Quite what bitrate _is_ acceptable is of course endlessly arguable.
For _most_ (not all) stereo material from YouTube, with the
brickwall cutoff at 15 kHz most of it has, I find 96 kbps more than
sufficient; YMMV. For DAB (mp2), I've heard you need 300 kbps for a
good sound.
I too find MP3s are generally okay. MP3 does have artifacts and
sometimes they are slightly distracting but I find 160 kbps is
generally acceptable.
(It doesn't help of course when even mono material of limited bandwidth
[e. g. from 78s, or even some 50s/60s material] is encoded as stereo at
full CD sampling rate,...
On 07/12/2021 15:17, Pamela wrote:
On 14:22 7 Dec 2021, Mark Carver said:TBH I'm lost as well Pamela ! Someone up thread made the point far
On 07/12/2021 14:04, Pamela wrote:I'm getting lost. Let's back up ...
Nope.Also, there is no straight line relationship between frequency andI think you must mean "integer frequency and integer wavelength".
wavelength.
It's actually all to do with Octaves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-radiofrequency.htm
You write "there is no straight line relationship between frequency
and wavelength".
However there is a straight line relationship between frequency and
wavelength because they are inversely proportional to one another and
the equation linking them is that of a straight line.
I've suggested you might mean integer wavelengths do not represent
integer frequencies. However you say that is not what you mean and
explained it by providing me with information about octaves.
Octaves have a logarithmic ratio between one another (which is clearly
not linear) but what does that have to do with the relationship between
frequency and wavelength, as intended by the original poster?
better than me.
Frequency for transmitters, Wavelength for aerial design
Don't forget though Droitwich had integer values for frequency and >wavelength, 200 kHz/ 1500m (then they messed that up in 1988)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 21:50:54, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I would cite two examples - one from 1936, and one that is the theme
tune of a 1970s (I think) TV comedy series.
Liver Birds?
No, "Are you being served?". Just been to find Liver Birds, and I see
what you mean - but it has more tune; AYBS is pretty pure rap!
On Thu, 09 Dec 2021 09:44:34 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I too find MP3s are generally okay. MP3 does have artifacts andGood I used 192 kbps at the time (rather than default 128 kbps).
sometimes they are slightly distracting but I find 160 kbps is
generally acceptable.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 09:51:54, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in messageIf rap is defined as something like "rhythmic speech (ideally rhyming)
news:jsu0rg1q4qo7fcmdbknoaa5o3abttv1rou@4ax.com...
Is it not equally true today? Much of the music broadcast today
emanates from the 1990s or earlier.
[old fogey]
Has there been any pop *music* since then? I don't count (c)rap or
anything that is heavily auto-tuned as music.
[/old fogey]
spoken over a rhythmical more or less musical background", then I would
cite two examples - one from 1936, and one that is the theme tune of a
1970s (I think) TV comedy series. The second one I would definitely
consider rap; the first not really, but I'd defy any rap enthusiast to
say why it isn't without invoking stereotypes.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 13:50:10, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
...and the other one with Larry Adler and Itzhak playing Summertime onAnd the bit of him playing with (restored) Gershwin that someone
Parkinson in 1980.
When they finished Parkinson turned to the camera and said
"Ladies and Gentlemen, they say television is made up of moments. I
think this has been one of them. Goodnight."
Bar the last bit you can watch it on YouTube at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xa3cf
mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7pCeJfDK6o
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and theAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches and
best of all millimetres!
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where
the precision did not warrant it.)
On Thu 09/12/2021 19:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>> software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part
best of all millimetres!
of the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything - >>rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came
across plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in
mm, where the precision did not warrant it.)
I suggest largely because the 'moderns' don't understand that the units
used also de facto specify the tolerances.
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches and
best of all millimetres!
In article <1pjv8mh.owwg0pqq0pj4N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:30, Pamela wrote:
Even the youngsters of today look back to the 1960s and 1970s as aDecent bands do and did it in one or two takes, and don't use autotune... >>
golden age of music.
Back then it wasn't unusual for singers to perform dozens of studio
takes to get the song right. Now an artist's weak moments are
digitally corrected in post-production.
A friend of mine does 60s stuff, and he and the band get it right first
time every time. The second take is just in case there is an equipment
fault.
I recorded a jazz band for a commercial CD, made up of mostly old-timers >who could get it 99% right first time. We always did at least two takes
in case of an unnoticed error and I surreptitiously recorded the
rehearsal as well. On one occasion this came in handy when the same >mistake was discovered in every take, but they had got it right at the >rehearsal.
On another occasion the band leader decided that several of the tracks >weren't up to standard, so we had to do them again - but it took a whole >year to get the band back together. I hired the same hall and set up >exactly the same acoustic arrangement, using photographs I had taken at
the first session. The logbook told me the settings I had used
(valuable in the case of 'steerable' multi-purpose mics) and the result
was a set of 'takes' that could be inter-cut with the originals on a >bar-by-bar basis.
The most important thing with a re-take of a short section is to get the >musicians to take a run at it. If they have to start from 'cold' they
will always play it differently and you may find the reverberation from
the preceding notes is glaringly obviously missing.
No doubt this was done on and EMI BTR2 then;)...
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:30, Pamela wrote:
Even the youngsters of today look back to the 1960s and 1970s as aDecent bands do and did it in one or two takes, and don't use autotune...
golden age of music.
Back then it wasn't unusual for singers to perform dozens of studio
takes to get the song right. Now an artist's weak moments are
digitally corrected in post-production.
A friend of mine does 60s stuff, and he and the band get it right first
time every time. The second take is just in case there is an equipment
fault.
I recorded a jazz band for a commercial CD, made up of mostly old-timers
who could get it 99% right first time. We always did at least two takes
in case of an unnoticed error and I surreptitiously recorded the
rehearsal as well. On one occasion this came in handy when the same
mistake was discovered in every take, but they had got it right at the >rehearsal.
On another occasion the band leader decided that several of the tracks >weren't up to standard, so we had to do them again - but it took a whole
year to get the band back together. I hired the same hall and set up
exactly the same acoustic arrangement, using photographs I had taken at
the first session. The logbook told me the settings I had used
(valuable in the case of 'steerable' multi-purpose mics) and the result
was a set of 'takes' that could be inter-cut with the originals on a >bar-by-bar basis.
The most important thing with a re-take of a short section is to get the >musicians to take a run at it. If they have to start from 'cold' they
will always play it differently and you may find the reverberation from
the preceding notes is glaringly obviously missing.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my >responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
best of all millimetres!
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across >plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where
the precision did not warrant it.)
In article <RyXELzAAslshFwPs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> scribeth thus
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my >responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
best of all millimetres!
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across >plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where >the precision did not warrant it.)
Well you'd only say, for say 150 mm 0.150 Metres which is rather cumbersome?...
In article <k456QxFuHnshFwIt@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <RyXELzAAslshFwPs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> scribeth thus
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >> >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
best of all millimetres!
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across
plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where
the precision did not warrant it.)
Well you'd only say, for say 150 mm 0.150 Metres which is rather
cumbersome?...
six inches is even easier.
six inches is even easier.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
best of all millimetres!
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything - rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across plans
for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where the precision did not warrant it.)
Ah yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where
the precision did not warrant it.)
In article <599851296dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles ><charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
In article <k456QxFuHnshFwIt@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <RyXELzAAslshFwPs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> scribeth thus
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my >>> >responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>> >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches andAh yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of >>> >the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
best of all millimetres!
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across >>> >plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where >>> >the precision did not warrant it.)
Well you'd only say, for say 150 mm 0.150 Metres which is rather
cumbersome?...
six inches is even easier.
Nah Charles its not quite accurate enough ...
In article <RyXELzAAslshFwPs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> scribeth thus[]
Ah yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of
the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across >>plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where >>the precision did not warrant it.)
Well you'd only say, for say 150 mm 0.150 Metres which is rather >cumbersome?...
six inches is even easier.
the gauge of UK rail tracks is usually specified as 1435 mm rather than
1.435 m.
On 09/12/2021 21:50, charles wrote:
six inches is even easier.
Always funny when a reporter on floods or snow asks someone and they say "about six inches" and the reporter decides to be Politically Correct
and correct to Imperial but gets the conversion wrong, often very wrong.
 Imperial gets blamed but it is Metric that is the cause.
On 09/12/2021 21:50, charles wrote:
six inches is even easier.
Always funny when a reporter on floods or snow asks someone and they say >"about six inches" and the reporter decides to be Politically Correct
and correct to Imperial but gets the conversion wrong, often very wrong.
Imperial gets blamed but it is Metric that is the cause.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 22:04:48 +0000, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <599851296dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles >><charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus6 inches is never enough.
In article <k456QxFuHnshFwIt@bancom.co.uk>,Nah Charles its not quite accurate enough ...
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <RyXELzAAslshFwPs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> scribeth thus
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 10:57:03, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote (my >>>> >responses usually follow points raised):Well you'd only say, for say 150 mm 0.150 Metres which is rather
[]
Well we have to design the odd VHF aerial here from time to time and the >>>> >>software to do that can be set to wavelength, metres, and inches and >>>> >>best of all millimetres!Ah yes, the British metric unit. I'm pretty sure we're the only part of >>>> >the metric engineering world that use millimetres for everything -
rather than metres where they'd make more sense. (I recently came across >>>> >plans for what is basically a large garden shed. Everything in mm, where >>>> >the precision did not warrant it.)
cumbersome?...
six inches is even easier.
On 09/12/2021 22:25, NY wrote:
the gauge of UK rail tracks is usually specified as 1435 mm rather than
1.435 m.
What a pity we didn't settle on seven feet.
Also don't forget F1 when they stupidly IMO talk of tenths and
hundredths of a second when the time is being shown on screen in milliseconds. What is more they always seem to use the convenient
decimal 'fraction' and say one tenth of a second when it is actually
189mS for example. Rounding is clearly not a validated art!
On 09/12/2021 21:50, charles wrote:
six inches is even easier.
Always funny when a reporter on floods or snow asks someone and they
say "about six inches" and the reporter decides to be Politically
Correct and correct to Imperial but gets the conversion wrong, often
very wrong. Imperial gets blamed but it is Metric that is the cause.
On 09/12/2021 21:50, charles wrote:
six inches is even easier.
Always funny when a reporter on floods or snow asks someone and they say "about six inches" and the reporter decides to be Politically Correct and correct to Imperial but gets the conversion wrong, often very wrong.
Imperial gets blamed but it is Metric that is the cause.
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sou0fq$237$1@dont-email.me...
On 09/12/2021 21:50, charles wrote:
six inches is even easier.
Always funny when a reporter on floods or snow asks someone and they
say "about six inches" and the reporter decides to be Politically
Correct and correct to Imperial but gets the conversion wrong, often
very wrong. Imperial gets blamed but it is Metric that is the cause.
Or you get spurious precision. "About six inches or 15.24 cm". The person
has estimated the depth in inches to a very approximate level - eg 6"
+/- 1/2". So the metric equivalent should be quoted to a comparable
level of (im)precision: "15 cm" with an implied "+/- 1 cm".
"About 15 cm or 5.91 inches" is equally absurd: there's nothing special
about metric measurements that does not also apply to imperial
measurements - or measurements in any old arbitrary units such as "my
foot length" ;-)
On 05/12/2021 22:20, NY wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC
stations moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF
to LF.
No, almost 10 years later than that. 200 kHz moved to 198 on Feb 1st 1988.
Did any BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as
for LF, or was that already spaced at 9 kHz?
All MF stations had to adopt the 'divisible by 9 kHz' spacing on
November 23rd 1978 (which the BBC chose as the day to shuffle their allocations). In most cases in the UK, the transmissions just had a 1
kHz increase. I suspect low power stations were allowed to move before
that. I can remember ILR stations that were on 1169 kHz (257m) moving to
1170 kHz in late October 78. That would have produced a 1 kHz hetrodyne whistle somewhere though.
Stations right at the top of the band (notably 1546 kHz (194m on old
money) had a 2 kHz increase
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitterEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their wavelength.
By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote a 'snappy'
wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on 953
kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitterEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or
international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their wavelength.
By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote a 'snappy'
wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on 953
kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
They only were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that
the 962 was a better frequency for the UK.
(not for Europe at night because of the Finnish station)
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 10:05:15, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote ...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:40, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Evidently the adjustment of 200 kHz to 198 kHz happened at the
same time as R2 and R4 swapped places.
No it didn't. See Mark's posting.
Just seen Mark's posting. I stand corrected... My LF/MF/VHF tuner
(bought in 1987) can only tune in increments of 9 kHz on MF, but
can tune in increments of 1 kHz on LF - evidently it was designed
before the 9 kHz spacing on LF became standard.
Or took account of the fact that some countries didn't abide by that
spacing - and/or, that LW signals travel a long way, so you might
pick up stations from another region.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:38:41 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2021 09:27, Scott wrote:
Yes, it was 'Capital 194'. Did LBC move as well?I though Capital started as "Capital 194"? Then became "Capital 1548"
No - Capital started as 539m (557 kHz) from London Transport's Lots
Road Power Station, Chelsea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_London
It moved when Saffron Green was completed by the IBA.
On 05/12/2021 22:20, NY wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency changing
in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although we called
kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency accuracy.
There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that used the LW
200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC
stations moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF
to LF.
No, almost 10 years later than that. 200 kHz moved to 198 on Feb 1st 1988.
Did any BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as
for LF, or was that already spaced at 9 kHz?
All MF stations had to adopt the 'divisible by 9 kHz' spacing on
November 23rd 1978 (which the BBC chose as the day to shuffle their allocations). In most cases in the UK, the transmissions just had a 1
kHz increase. I suspect low power stations were allowed to move before
that. I can remember ILR stations that were on 1169 kHz (257m) moving to
1170 kHz in late October 78. That would have produced a 1 kHz hetrodyne whistle somewhere though.
Stations right at the top of the band (notably 1546 kHz (194m on old
money) had a 2 kHz increase
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another station
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed a transmitterEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national or
international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their wavelength.
By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote a 'snappy'
wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on 953
kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
They only were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that
the 962 was a better frequency for the UK.
(not for Europe at night because of the Finnish station)
than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
Until 22 nov 1978 BBC Radio 1 was transmitting on 1214 all
over the country. (and no VHF !)
Op 6-12-2021 om 9:34 schreef Mark Carver:
On 05/12/2021 22:20, NY wrote:
"g8dgc" <g8dgc.2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pjqifj.ycsqtz10u7tp9N%g8dgc.2@gmail.com...
I remember the BBC Home Service (Radio 4) long wave frequency
changing in (I think) the late '60s from 200kHz to 198kHz (although
we called kiloHerz "kaycees" (kc/s - kilocycles per second in those
days).
That 200kHz signal was maintained to high degree of frequency
accuracy. There were some amateur radio constructors' circuits that
used the LW 200kHz signal as the basis for a frequency standard.
I recall thinking what a shame it was that those standards would now
be useless. Anyway, the change was to reduce channel spacing from
10kHz to 9kHz, as mandated by the ITU, in order to fit more stations
into the band.
Did 200 kHz change to 198 kHz at the same time as the various BBC
stations moved around - eg R2 moved from LF to MF and R4 moved from MF
to LF.
No, almost 10 years later than that. 200 kHz moved to 198 on Feb 1st
1988.
Did any BBC/commercial stations on MF change frequency slightly, as
for LF, or was that already spaced at 9 kHz?
All MF stations had to adopt the 'divisible by 9 kHz' spacing on
November 23rd 1978 (which the BBC chose as the day to shuffle their allocations). In most cases in the UK, the transmissions just had a 1
kHz increase. I suspect low power stations were allowed to move before that. I can remember ILR stations that were on 1169 kHz (257m) moving
to 1170 kHz in late October 78. That would have produced a 1 kHz
hetrodyne whistle somewhere though. Stations right at the top of the
band (notably 1546 kHz (194m on old money) had a 2 kHz increase
The BBC took the change to re-arrange all programs on LW + MW. Until 22
nov 1978 BBC Radio 1 was transmitting on 1214 all over the country. (and
no VHF !) BBC Radio 2 had 200 kHz LW. BBC Radio 3 had 647 kHz (Daventry)
and a few other frequencies. BBC Radio 4 got a few high-power MW's.
At 23 nov 1978 BBC Radio 1 got 1053 and 1089 kHz. BBC Radio 2 got 693 and
909 kHz BBC Radio 3 got 1215 kHz (probably everybody preferred VHF?) BBC Radio 4 got 200 (later 198) kHz and a few smal MW frequencies. Radio
Wales, Radio Scotland and Radio Ulster got their own high-power MW
frequency (882, 810, 1341 kHz).
Just as the European Service (on 648 and 1296) The 227 kHz for Westerglen
was never used because of the strong signal from Poland on 227.
All frequencies are perfecly sung by The King's Singers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92osmtV9bM&t=49s
See also: https://www.transdiffusion.org/2021/11/22/radio-on-the-move
And a lot of audio is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zY7cBO5u0
Rink
On 12/12/2021 18:04, Rink wrote:
Until 22 nov 1978 BBC Radio 1 was transmitting on 1214 all
over the country. (and no VHF !)
Well, it was on VHF sometimes, either it borrowed 88-91 from Radio 2 >(normally when R2 had sports programming), or it ended up on VHF by
virtue of the many programmes in the 60s/70s that were simulcast on
Radio 1 and 2.
However, yes, the lions share of 88-91 went to Radio 2
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another station
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national
or international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their
wavelength. By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote
a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on
953 kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
They only were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that
the 962 was a better frequency for the UK.
(not for Europe at night because of the Finnish station)
than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
On 16:59 12 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another station
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national
or international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their
wavelength. By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote
a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on
953 kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
They only were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that
the 962 was a better frequency for the UK.
(not for Europe at night because of the Finnish station)
than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
That first line looks like it has a typo: "963".
Yes. There was lots of Radio 2 on FM and MF, all coming from BBC Local Radio Stations which were largely closed by 1900.2 went silent, and the bongs of Big Ben introduced Radio 4's Midnight News. After about 5 minutes it changed back to Brian Matthew.
When the changes happened, and Radio 4 took Droitwich LF, I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?). What I'd expected was for Radio 2 to just continue after midnight, but that's not what happened. Radio
I'd always assumed that the landline feed to local radio stations was taken from the longwave feed to Droitwich, but that this was corrected five minutes in. It may just have been that Radio Humberside had a time switch that replaced the landlinefeed with Radio 2 VHF/FM off-air from Holme Moss.
Yes. There was lots of Radio 2 on FM and MF, all coming from BBC Local Radio Stations which were largely closed by 1900.2 went silent, and the bongs of Big Ben introduced Radio 4's Midnight News. After about 5 minutes it changed back to Brian Matthew.
When the changes happened, and Radio 4 took Droitwich LF, I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?). What I'd expected was for Radio 2 to just continue after midnight, but that's not what happened. Radio
I'd always assumed that the landline feed to local radio stations was taken from the longwave feed to Droitwich,The BBC local radio stations had an assignable landline feed from
At 23 nov 1978 BBC Radio 1 got 1053 and 1089 kHz. BBC Radio 2 got 693 andprior to that the Scottish Home Service had been on 809. I ssupect
909 kHz BBC Radio 3 got 1215 kHz (probably everybody preferred VHF?) BBC
Radio 4 got 200 (later 198) kHz and a few smal MW frequencies. Radio
Wales, Radio Scotland and Radio Ulster got their own high-power MW
frequency (882, 810, 1341 kHz).
tehWelsh & NI ones had a similar situation.
On Mon 13/12/2021 19:03, Mark Carver wrote:
 though that allowed Night Night Extra to be available on FM via
local radio,
Wasn't that 'Late Night Extra?'
On 13/12/2021 11:29, Edward Richardson wrote:
Yes.  There was lots of Radio 2 on FM and MF, all coming from BBCThe BBC local radio stations had an assignable landline feed from
Local Radio Stations which were largely closed by 1900.
When the changes happened, and Radio 4 took Droitwich LF, I was
listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High
Hunsley (96.9?).  What I'd expected was for Radio 2 to just continue
after midnight, but that's not what happened.  Radio 2 went silent,
and the bongs of Big Ben introduced Radio 4's Midnight News.  After
about 5 minutes it changed back to Brian Matthew.
I'd always assumed that the landline feed to local radio stations was
taken from the longwave feed to Droitwich,
London. This was used primarily to send national news clips and reports,
but in the early days of BBC LR they could have Radio 1 sent up the
line. I can remember Radio Oxford carrying part of Jimmy Young's (then)
R1 show in the morning, and Terry Wogan's afternoon show after R2 opted
away at 4:15 for Waggoners Walk and Sports news. Later, it just became
R2 that was the default feed to the LR stations, though that allowed
Night Night Extra to be available on FM via local radio, while 88-91
carried John Peel's show on Radio 1.
R3 and 4 were sourced from a local FM tuner.
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:29:50 -0800 (PST), Edward Richardson <tedjrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).
My memory says 94.9 (but it might be wrong).
IIRC, Radio Nottingham was on 95.5 at the time and Humberside came just before
it when tuning along the band.
In article <slrnssbhh9.3dp0.abuse@news.pr.network>,
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:29:50 -0800 (PST), Edward Richardson <tedjrr@gmail.com>I've still got my BBC booklet "Radio Transmitting Stations":
wrote:
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).My memory says 94.9 (but it might be wrong).
IIRC, Radio Nottingham was on 95.5 at the time and Humberside came just before
it when tuning along the band.
Humberside 95.9
Nottingham 95.5
GLR (aka London) 94.9
On 24/12/2021 14:21, charles wrote:
In article <slrnssbhh9.3dp0.abuse@news.pr.network>,Humberside started life in 1971 on 95.3, but moved to 96.9 in 1973
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:29:50 -0800 (PST), Edward Richardson <tedjrr@gmail.com>I've still got my BBC booklet "Radio Transmitting Stations":
wrote:
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).My memory says 94.9 (but it might be wrong).
IIRC, Radio Nottingham was on 95.5 at the time and Humberside came just before
it when tuning along the band.
Humberside 95.9
Nottingham 95.5
GLR (aka London) 94.9
In 1986 it moved again to 95.9. (The same day ILR Viking Radio also from
High Hunsley moved from 102.7 to occupy 96.9)
Before Reading's Radio 210 opened in 1976 on 97.0, I used to regularly
get Humberside on 96.9 here in Hampshire during lifts.
It was a bit of a culture shock to hear for a softy southerner !
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:57:37 +0000, Mark CarverYes !! He used to post on Digital Spy too !
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2021 14:21, charles wrote:Talking about culture shock, did you ever hear Scottie McClue?
In article <slrnssbhh9.3dp0.abuse@news.pr.network>,Humberside started life in 1971 on 95.3, but moved to 96.9 in 1973
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:29:50 -0800 (PST), Edward Richardson <tedjrr@gmail.com>I've still got my BBC booklet "Radio Transmitting Stations":
wrote:
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).My memory says 94.9 (but it might be wrong).
IIRC, Radio Nottingham was on 95.5 at the time and Humberside came just before
it when tuning along the band.
Humberside 95.9
Nottingham 95.5
GLR (aka London) 94.9
In 1986 it moved again to 95.9. (The same day ILR Viking Radio also from
High Hunsley moved from 102.7 to occupy 96.9)
Before Reading's Radio 210 opened in 1976 on 97.0, I used to regularly
get Humberside on 96.9 here in Hampshire during lifts.
It was a bit of a culture shock to hear for a softy southerner !
On 24/12/2021 17:36, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:57:37 +0000, Mark CarverYes !! He used to post on Digital Spy too !
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2021 14:21, charles wrote:Talking about culture shock, did you ever hear Scottie McClue?
In article <slrnssbhh9.3dp0.abuse@news.pr.network>,Humberside started life in 1971 on 95.3, but moved to 96.9 in 1973
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:29:50 -0800 (PST), Edward Richardson <tedjrr@gmail.com>I've still got my BBC booklet "Radio Transmitting Stations":
wrote:
I was listening to Brian Matther on BBC Radio Humberside VHF from High Hunsley (96.9?).My memory says 94.9 (but it might be wrong).
IIRC, Radio Nottingham was on 95.5 at the time and Humberside came just before
it when tuning along the band.
Humberside 95.9
Nottingham 95.5
GLR (aka London) 94.9
In 1986 it moved again to 95.9. (The same day ILR Viking Radio also from >>> High Hunsley moved from 102.7 to occupy 96.9)
Before Reading's Radio 210 opened in 1976 on 97.0, I used to regularly
get Humberside on 96.9 here in Hampshire during lifts.
It was a bit of a culture shock to hear for a softy southerner !
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 07:40:02 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16:59 12 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another station
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners wanted.
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the national
or international frequency planners would have defined.
Then the station would have done the maths and quoted their
wavelength. By the way, some stations notably pirates would quote
a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the actual value.
'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were actually on
953 kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
They only were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that
the 962 was a better frequency for the UK.
(not for Europe at night because of the Finnish station)
than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
That first line looks like it has a typo: "963".
I didn't notice that. Makes sense - separation of 9.
Op 13-12-2021 om 10:29 schreef Scott:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 07:40:02 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16:59 12 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz They only were
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
wanted.
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the
national or international frequency planners would have
defined. Then the station would have done the maths and quoted
their wavelength. By the way, some stations notably pirates
would quote a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the actual
value. 'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were
actually on 953 kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
a few days on 953 kHz to discover that the 962 was a better
frequency for the UK. (not for Europe at night because of the
Finnish station)
station than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
That first line looks like it has a typo: "963".
I didn't notice that. Makes sense - separation of 9.
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
On 22:24 31 Dec 2021, Rink said:
Op 13-12-2021 om 10:29 schreef Scott:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 07:40:02 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16:59 12 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz They only were
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
wanted.
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the
national or international frequency planners would have
defined. Then the station would have done the maths and quoted
their wavelength. By the way, some stations notably pirates
would quote a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the actual
value. 'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s. They were
actually on 953 kHz which was really (rounding up) 315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later integer
frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
a few days on 953 kHz to discover that the 962 was a better
frequency for the UK. (not for Europe at night because of the
Finnish station)
station than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
That first line looks like it has a typo: "963".
I didn't notice that. Makes sense - separation of 9.
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
Can you cite a source for that please.
It was a requirement of the ITU 1975 LF/MF Geneva planning conferenceI do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?Can you cite a source for that please.
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
On 01/01/2022 10:42, Pamela wrote:
It was a requirement of the ITU 1975 LF/MF Geneva planning conference
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?Can you cite a source for that please.
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
The MF band in Europe and Africa had to adopt frequency allocations
that were divisible by 9kHz on 23/11/78
From the LF band, there were three dates. The one that affected 200 kHz Droitwich etc came into effect on 1/2/88
It'll be in one of these documents somewhere
https://www.itu.int/pub/R-ACT-RRC.3-1975/en
Op 1-1-2022 om 11:42 schreef Pamela:
On 22:24 31 Dec 2021, Rink said:
Op 13-12-2021 om 10:29 schreef Scott:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 07:40:02 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16:59 12 Dec 2021, Scott said:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:43:59 +0100, Rink
<rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:
Op 7-12-2021 om 13:21 schreef Mark Carver:Are you saying it it is better to be 1 kHz away from another
On 07/12/2021 11:36, John Williamson wrote:Caroline transmitted on 962 kHz and later 963 kHz They only
On 07/12/2021 11:05, Pamela wrote:
Huh? Are you saying engineers couldn't have designed aEngineers could have designed whatever the station owners
transmitter circuit that was an exact wavelength?
wanted.
Engineers would have set the transmitter to whatever the
national or international frequency planners would have
defined. Then the station would have done the maths and
quoted their wavelength. By the way, some stations notably
pirates would quote a 'snappy' wavelength, that wasn't the
actual value. 'Caroline on 319' comes to mind in the 70s.
They were actually on 953 kHz which was really (rounding up)
315m
The band plan was based upon integer frequencies (later
integer frequencies divisible by 9). Simple as that.
were a few days on 953 kHz to discover that the 962 was a
better frequency for the UK. (not for Europe at night because
of the Finnish station)
station than to clash? I thought the opposite was true.
That first line looks like it has a typo: "963".
I didn't notice that. Makes sense - separation of 9.
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov
1978 the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
Can you cite a source for that please.
Well, a nice site is this:
https://worldradiohistory.com/#DX
If you scroll down (far down) to "Amateur / DXing / Shortwave"
you can download a lot of "Station Lists & Logs".
I like the "Guide to Broadcast Stations". https://worldradiohistory.com/Guide_to_Broadcasting_Key.htm
Download the 1973 and the 1980 ones and you can see the frequency
changes.
Caroline is not mentioned, because they were off air,
but the 1973 one do mention Radio Veronica (557 kHz) and Radio
Northsea (1367, 6205 and 9933 kHz). Also on page 48 and 196.
Caroline is mentioned in the 1987 issue on 963 kHz.
And in the 1989 issue also on 963, but I'm pretty shure that was old information, because they were already on 558.
The 1966 issue mentions a lot of offshore stations:
774 845 980 1034 1115 1137 1187 1250 1282 1295 1322 1353 1493 1520
1562, many of them also on page 24 and 27.
This 1966 issue shows the stations according to the 1948 plan
(normal print) and the station not according to the 1948 plan (in
italics). A lot of "legal" stations were pirates !
Also the FBIS lists (from the CIA) lists a lot of European stations.
Rink
I found it strange a radio station (R. Caroline) would be on one
frequency and then later be on another frequency just 1 kHz different:
962 kHz and later 963 kHz.
Op 1-1-2022 om 15:41 schreef Mark Carver:
On 01/01/2022 10:42, Pamela wrote:
It was a requirement of the ITU 1975 LF/MF Geneva planning conference
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?Can you cite a source for that please.
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
The MF band in Europe and Africa had to adopt frequency allocations
that were divisible by 9kHz on 23/11/78
 From the LF band, there were three dates. The one that affected 200
kHz Droitwich etc came into effect on 1/2/88
It'll be in one of these documents somewhere
https://www.itu.int/pub/R-ACT-RRC.3-1975/en
Thank you Mark.
I could not find that source so quickly.
But I can't find the frequency list.
Is it behind the account/password?
And my date above was 5 days wrong....
Op 1-1-2022 om 15:41 schreef Mark Carver:
On 01/01/2022 10:42, Pamela wrote:
It was a requirement of the ITU 1975 LF/MF Geneva planning conference
I do not understand what you both mean with "typo"?Can you cite a source for that please.
Before 28 Nov 1978 the freq's were 953 - 962 - etc After 28 Nov 1978
the freq's were 954 - 963 - etc
Rink
The MF band in Europe and Africa had to adopt frequency allocations
that were divisible by 9kHz on 23/11/78
 From the LF band, there were three dates. The one that affected 200
kHz Droitwich etc came into effect on 1/2/88
It'll be in one of these documents somewhere
https://www.itu.int/pub/R-ACT-RRC.3-1975/en
Thank you Mark.
I could not find that source so quickly.
But I can't find the frequency list.
Is it behind the account/password?
And my date above was 5 days wrong....
I do like this one from the King's Singers ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92osmtV9bM
alternative video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ5bNA6amQ
I guess they made different versions, this one is 1 minute shorter...
Rink
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
NY wrote:
When did the general public (and the radio stations that they
listened to) change from quoting wavelengths to quoting frequencies?
I have the feeling it was around the late 1970s
I remember getting my set of dial stickers in 1978
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=139697&d=1490297907>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 295 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:36:38 |
| Calls: | 6,644 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,326,334 |