Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote:
*With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. *That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). *It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. *I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. *I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. *The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote: *With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. *That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). *It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. *I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. *I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. *The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is "No Alignment". You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's a feature, not a bug. Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the dumpster often as not. In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM will work. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 21, 10:07*am, "Steve" wrote:
Hate to say this but you are doomed to fail from the start. Why? There are PILES of tube type SW receivers available now FAR cheaper than you could build one. Hey, I get it. It'd be a fun project. I've thought about doing something like this myself but seriously consider the cost. Not just of the parts but the time involved in the design, marketing, and *liability insurance*. Bet you didn't think about that one! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Steve Liability insurance is tattooing "SUE ME" on your butt cheeks. The general aviation industry nearly put ITSELF out of business by answering every lawsuit with....you guessed it...more liability insurance. The scuba diving industry instituted a certification program and convinced all the attorneys that if a noncertified diver killed himself by the traditional methods (embolisms or drowning) juries would just laugh at them. Sport diving equipment companies do not carry PL coverage except for tank explosions out of the water. No one sues them for diving accidents. If they did they'd get the keys to an empty warehouse. The sport diving companies are all turnips, judgementproof. The COMMERCIAL diving companies are very funny as to whom they will sell. The few eccentric hobby hard hat guys will attest to this. You can buy scuba equipment for a lot less today than thirty years ago, in adjusted dollars. Airplanes have gone up by a factor of three or four or five. Buy legal insurance, and incorporate yourself so that you can not be construed to have a personal holding corporation. But never buy PL insurance or if you do have it strictly limited to a circumstance which is incidental. As to the piles of existing sets, yeah, there are-most are in bad need of restoration. And most of them weren't worth a **** new. The few good ones are carefully husbanded. The surplus Collinses and Hammarlunds are about gone. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 25, 6:28*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:23*pm, Michael Black wrote: On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, dave wrote: On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:01:11 -0600, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 11/15/11 19:05 , flipper wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:09 -0600, "D. Peter Maus" *wrote: On 11/11/11 08:42 , Lord Valve wrote: If the **** hits the fan, most hi-mu triodes will work well enough to build a regen set. Where to get the B+ is the problem. That simple, since there's only a few tubes. 9v "transistor" batteries in series. *It doesn't take that many to get reasonable B+ and since tubes are low current, it's reasonable. Of course, towards the end of the life of tubes, one could get some that ran off 12v, intended for use in car radios. *Not so useful now since they were produced in a limited time span as transistors were taking over, so quantity is relatively limited. The R392 ran off 24 or 28 volts, using those low plate voltage tubes. *Of course, it had a lot of tubes so the filament drain was large. Of course, some people experimented with low voltage on regular tubes. *A loss of gain, but sometimes that was a good thing. * * Michael In the 19-teens it was common to run triodes with no negative bias, and very low V_anode, like 20-30v. It worked, and cuts HT battery cost, but of course distorts the grid signal. NT Sounded like ****, IOW. Common tubes usually start working okay at 45 to 90 volts. The R-392 used selected tubes at 24-28 volts, and works okay, but not as well as if they had had more. Collins S/Line used 150 volt B+ for what that is worth. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 26, 5:54*am, wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote: On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote: *With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. *That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). *It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. *I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. *I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. *The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT *One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is "No Alignment". *You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's a feature, not a bug. *Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the dumpster often as not. *In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM will work. If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. NT |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 27, 4:08*pm, NT wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54*am, wrote: On Nov 25, 6:44*pm, NT wrote: On Nov 11, 5:52*am, wrote: *With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. *That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). *It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. *I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. *I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. *The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT *One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is "No Alignment". *You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's a feature, not a bug. *Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the dumpster often as not. *In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM will work. If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. NT Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors. NT |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 11/27/11 10:18 , NT wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, wrote: On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote: On Nov 25, 6:44 pm, wrote: On Nov 11, 5:52 am, wrote: With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is "No Alignment". You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's a feature, not a bug. Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the dumpster often as not. In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM will work. If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. NT Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors. NT Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then, audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of use. Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve construction, and significantly different valve types for given applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to 100000X audio frequencies. What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested, and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers, self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and technical support is nonexistent. I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice thought. But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage, power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be just as short as SS components. All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit, costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant performance across the spectrum from LF through HF. In a package that's available now. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote:
If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. And Heathkit is the model for that. They'd prealign tuned circuits, they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. The oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end. Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment). Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to put some time into it. But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory. As for ceramic resonators, I think that is a key point. Design is the overall results. When companies put in ceramic resonators in everyday radios, they did away with a large part of the alignment, so even if the resonators were more expensive than IF transformers (I don't know) the reduction in alignment time was still significant. As I pointed out, move to a higher IF, you may pay more for an IF filter, but you can do away with the need to gang the front end tuning with the local oscillator, which simplifies things mechanically but also gets rid fo a lot of troublesome alignment. It's relatively easy to get two stages of front end tuning to align together, just go for a peak, but ganging it with a local oscillator is more complicated. The superhet alone is a concept that complicates something to make other things easier. Make things more complicated, the mixer and oscillator, and you dont' have to fuss with multiple stages on the RF frequency. Sometimes the "simplest" solution ends up with more work than the more complicated one. Michael |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
NT View profile More options Nov 27, 10:08 am On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote: - Show quoted text - If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. NT Reply Reply to author Forward Report spam NT View profile More options Nov 27, 10:18 am On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, NT wrote: - Show quoted text - Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors. I intend to set the expectation that you must have a bench with a certain amount of basic test equipment and a proper soldering station to do this. If you will or can not do this a different hobby is for you. Large numbers of Heathkits were built by people with NO skills, but larger numbers got half finished and thrown in the dumpster or taken to a shop and a large sum was paid to have them pro built to save face. I knew a TV shop owner who had a policy: He'd fix ANY Heathkit but he charged a one time fee equal to the kit price. Otherwise he would not even look at them. Heathkits did a poor job of teaching technicianship precisely because they were secretaryworthy. Bauer built radio broadcasting gear the same way. A secretary could build them and at NAB one year one did. I am not looking at a BIG market. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
* Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then, audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of use. *Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve construction, and significantly different valve types for given applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to 100000X audio frequencies. * What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested, and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers, self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and technical support is nonexistent. * I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice thought. * But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage, power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be just as short as SS components. * All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit, costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant performance across the spectrum from LF through HF. * In a package that's available now. No regen offers simplicity of use and selectivity, nor is the demod audio very good in most cases. A real SW-3 with a transformer in place of the watchcase headset was tested by a friend in a screen room with HP test gear for SINAD and audio quality. The rig consisted of HP, 8640B and 339A as I recall and minimum AM distortion was six or seven percent, but that was only at something like -20 dBm input and 60% modulation. I can't remember what SINAD was.....it was dismal. Passive TRF sets, i.e., "crystal radios" were capable of very good fidelity OTOH. The old Millen was capable of equaling the test set's own performance. Again you had to drive the hell out of it though. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 27, 11:16*am, Michael Black wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote: If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. And Heathkit is the model for that. *They'd prealign tuned circuits, they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. *The oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end. Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment). Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to put some time into it. *But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory. Heathkit offered factory wired as well as kit equipment in many cases. But even the kits were more expensive than good used competitive equipment and sometimes more than respectable factory built. The Japanese were part of the problem because they made it their business to acquire market share at the expense of profit. The Japanese in their salad days were content to take losses no American competitor would for market share, because they thought long term. American companies quit thinking long term in the mid-70s because MBA thinking and stock market valuation was everything to the CEO. The Japanese were racially conscious, nationalistic, and group future driven and have always had a "co-opetitive" rather than dog-eat-dog mentality. What has sidelined Japan is the acceptance of American business theory. In Amateur Radio products, Japanese companies sold equipment at cost or lower until there was no more American competition. In fact, they still sell them at prices amazingly low for their feature sets and costs of development. That is because they figure the American ham who is appliance operating instead of building is not learning and being the competitive future. Conspiracy theory? No, experience. My father worked for a Motorola plant in the Midwest for decades. When a certain board member died, Mother M sold the plant and product line to Matsu****a _for less than the real estate was worth_. I don't blame Matsu****a for buying it and shutting it down, even though they swore they would not do so. It was a competitor they didn't need. But the people of the town, although many are very stupid, still needed those jobs. I don't blame them: they were acting rationally. It is we who acted irrationally in allowing such a deal to go through. Ford or GM would have been happy to buy up Japanese car plants in the 70s and do likewise, but the Japanese would not allow it. No sane nation would. Sorry to get into politics. Another fault with Heathkit equipment was often that mechanically they weren't very good. Their audio amps in the tube era were fine, because no mechanicals are needed there. In ham equipment they needed that and didn't have it. Collins and Drake were much much better. Yes, they cost more, but by the time I was in high school there were good buys in older Collins and Drake equipment because the first S/Line and 4 line buyers were going /SK already. Another reason American companies abandoned ham and shortwave radio was that government defense contracts spoiled most companies that got them. Once spoiled they were like fat lazy schoolkids, and discipline was not forthcoming. Collins was always an avionics company, and into commercial broadcast as well. Art Collins kept them in the ham business but when he died they ditched it as fast as possible. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
My next receiver will be an SDR. Eliminating all but one conversion stage (since the SDR goes straight from RF to I/Q baseband) and doing all the filtering and demodulation with perfect mathematical accuracy in software not only gives you tremendous dynamic range and filtering capability, but it makes the recovered audio almost supernaturally clean-sounding. Listening to a good SDR into a high-fidelity sound system for the first time is like discovering that pillows had been strapped to your speakers, and gravel had been stuck to your voice coil, for all these years -- and finally removing them. The SDRs I have seen have been mickey mouse affairs that used sound cards for demod. But when a good standalone unit is offered at a reasonable price I will give it a try. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 27, 10:39*pm, wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:16*am, Michael Black wrote: On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, NT wrote: If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. And Heathkit is the model for that. *They'd prealign tuned circuits, they'd have certain stages as preassembled modules, they'd build some relevant test equipment into the equipment (like those tv sets with some sort of metering in the back). One I always liked was a scanner, they included some parts to make up a 10.7MHz oscillator and mixer. *The oscillator would provide the signal to align the IF strip, and then you'd mix the local oscillator with this outboard oscillator/mixer to get a signal on the signal frequency, to align the front end. Heathkit of course did design for the beginner, I gather once they had the instructions together they found people who had never put a kit together to follow the instructions so they could make sure they made sense (and if followed properly, would result in a working piece of equipment). Despite the fuss about Heathkit being for the hobbyist, they always had taht color tv set, that musical organ, that boonie bike, that were aimed at people who just wanted something cheaper, and were willing to put some time into it. *But that's why Heathkit shut down the kits, with time the sorts of things their was interest in got so complicated (and parts so small) that it was no longer cheap to come up with the instructions, pack the kit compared to just building it at the factory. *Heathkit offered factory wired as well as kit equipment in many cases. But even the kits were more expensive than good used competitive equipment and sometimes more than respectable factory built. *The Japanese were part of the problem because they made it their business to acquire market share at the expense of profit. The Japanese in their salad days were content to take losses no American competitor would for market share, because they thought long term. American companies quit thinking long term in the mid-70s because MBA thinking and stock market valuation was everything to the CEO. The Japanese were racially conscious, nationalistic, and group future driven and have always had a "co-opetitive" rather than dog-eat-dog mentality. What has sidelined Japan is the acceptance of American business theory. *In Amateur Radio products, Japanese companies sold equipment at cost or lower until there was no more American competition. In fact, they still sell them at prices amazingly low for their feature sets and costs of development. That is because they figure the American ham who is appliance operating instead of building is not learning and being the competitive future. *Conspiracy theory? No, experience. My father worked for a Motorola plant in the Midwest for decades. When a certain board member died, Mother M sold the plant and product line to Matsu****a _for less than the real estate was worth_. I don't blame Matsu****a for buying it and shutting it down, even though they swore they would not do so. It was a competitor they didn't need. But the people of the town, although many are very stupid, still needed those jobs. I don't blame them: they were acting rationally. It is we who acted irrationally in allowing such a deal to go through. Ford or GM would have been happy to buy up Japanese car plants in the 70s and do likewise, but the Japanese would not allow it. No sane nation would. *Sorry to get into politics. *Another fault with Heathkit equipment was often that mechanically they weren't very good. Their audio amps in the tube era were fine, because no mechanicals are needed there. In ham equipment they needed that and didn't have it. Collins and Drake were much much better. Yes, they cost more, but by the time I was in high school there were good buys in older Collins and Drake equipment because the first S/Line and 4 line buyers were going /SK already. *Another reason American companies abandoned ham and shortwave radio was that government defense contracts spoiled most companies that got them. Once spoiled they were like fat lazy schoolkids, and discipline was not forthcoming. Collins was always an avionics company, and into commercial broadcast as well. Art Collins kept them in the ham business but when he died they ditched it as fast as possible.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Japan barely manufactures any electronics today . ROK seems to be the new leader lately. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 11/27/11 10:45 , D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:18 , NT wrote: On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, wrote: On Nov 26, 5:54 am, wrote: On Nov 25, 6:44 pm, wrote: On Nov 11, 5:52 am, wrote: With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. That means no regens, no DC bull****, and no plug in coils. It must have production grade RF and IF coils, a bandswitch, and require alignment. If sold as a kit the builder will need a RF generator and a scope (or a spec an or CSM with a track gen). It should use off the shelf parts even if those shelves are bare, as it is better to copy an existing item than design from scratch. I would clone the Eddystone dial mechanism and the bandswitch and coils from some Hallicrafters or Hammarlund set, they could be sold as desperately needed replacement spares for the old sets too. I would use a seeing eye tube mounted in a hole in the dial as opposed to a meter movement, again, getting a run of new tubes made is possible if you are buying several thousand. There are some surplus that could be used if really needed too. I would use a separate power supply and speaker for several reasons. I would have the radio take in B+ and heater voltage and put out 600 ohm +4 audio. A regular supply could be used at home or car battery and a switchmode brick for B+. A headphone jack would be supplied off this tube. The set should cover 500 kHz to 30 MHz, AM, SSB and CW, with a product detector of course. A 455 kHz IF is needed so as to use common mechanical or crystal filters, which are optional. There should also be a 455 kHz IF out for an external synchronous detector. Any other comments? The need for testgear to align the IF will wipe out 99.9% of any potential market. As pointed out, its going to be far too expensive. If you took that to heart and tried to make something far cheaper, regeneration, although a definite compromise, is a dead sure way to cut costs a lot, and has angelic AGC performance. I recall a simple 3 valve 1930s regen set giving rock steady audio on a signal even an exceptionally complex modern dx set couldnt stabilise. NT One of the very reasons I DON"T like regens and direct conversions is "No Alignment". You need to have some kind of sig gen and preferably a scope. That's a feature, not a bug. Any hamfest in the US will net a working scope for a twenty dollar bill and probably a usable RF generator for a similar sum. The guitar amp ****s will part them out for the tubes and throw them in the dumpster often as not. In a pinch a grid dipper and a solid state RF probe attached to a DMM will work. If I were designing such a product, I'd do everything in my power to avoid end user alignment with testgear, for one very simple reason: it wipes out 99.9% of your potential customers, its business suicide. Perhaps one could use resonators instead of LCs, if you dont like the interstation garbage of agced reaction. NT Of course a valve radio is business suicide to begin with, performance per dollar has come a long way since the valve era. Number of valve radios currently on the market is zero, so no-one has managed to make them compete with 30cent ICs and 2cent transistors. NT Valves have a place in audio, for the truly faithful. But then, audio only requires a few valve types, frequencies are easily managed, and circuitry remains stable for much longer periods of use. Whereas radio applications require more sophisticated valve construction, and significantly different valve types for given applications, to accomodate frequencies that stretch from 10X to 100000X audio frequencies. What's comforting in radio with valve technology, is the general sense that the technology itself is accessible. And widely understood to be more forgiving. That valves may be removed, tested, and replaced by the techologically limited, and operated under conditions that would destroy solid state. Whereas, SS receivers, self service requires a much higher level of skill, with a much lower threshold of abuse. For those with limited technological experience, this can be daunting. Especially, as in the case of this receiver, during an emergency, where supply lines are uncertain, and technical support is nonexistent. I can see where the OP is coming from. Build an accessible receiver that's fairly forgiving to extremes in noise, signal levels, voltage, and hostile events, and you'd have a generally useful rig for the general population in an emergency. It's a nice thought. But as has been pointed out here multiple times, SS technology in a proper design has proven more resistant to EMP than generally believed, operating voltages are easier to generate, and manage, power requirements are lower, and performace of the technology is dramatically improved since the days of valve receivers. All at a fraction of the cost. And in an emergency, valve supplies will be just as short as SS components. All of which points to the fact that a well designed kit radio for use in emergencies would be more like the Ten-Tec 1254, than it would be like a Hallicrafters S-40. And the Ten-Tec 1254 is a kit, costs $200, and requires no user alignment, but offers significant performance across the spectrum from LF through HF. In a package that's available now. From Ten-Tec: "Model 1254 combines the satisfaction of the kit building experience with the performance features expected in a modern HF receiver. Building one’s own receiver from a kit has launched countless thousands of people into communications careers or the hobbies of amateur radio and shortwave listening (“SWLing”). You will build a true dual-conversion superhet with a microprocessor-controlled frequency synthesizer. Digital LED readout. Alignment is easy and does not require complicated equipment. You only need a volt-ohm meter and your ear; the kit provides its own 45 MHz test signal." So there is some user alignment. But nothing that can't be accomplished with what's in the kit, and by following instructions. It doesn't get any simpler than this. Ten-Tec has a video channel on YouTube, where you can see the kit, watch it being constructed, adjusted and operated. I've thought about putting one up at the cabin. But I've already got an HF-150, there, sitting next to an S-53, and an RF-3100. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote: * With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. ... Any other comments? As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done. First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in the looks of the rig. Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a "mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.. could be done this way. You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade as you would have -- or as becomes available. It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as PCs -- well, almost. Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case, rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose. I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am, am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf, or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production! Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the appropriate transmitting section(s.) We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ... Regards, JS But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want, and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us that wish to. Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still changing fast. End users didn't vote for it. A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for later repairability. Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in modular radio now? NT |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote: On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote: On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote: * With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. ... Any other comments? As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done. First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in the looks of the rig. Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a "mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc. could be done this way. You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade as you would have -- or as becomes available. It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as PCs -- well, almost. Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case, rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose. I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am, am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf, or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production! Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the appropriate transmitting section(s.) We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ... Regards, JS But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want, and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us that wish to. Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still changing fast. End users didn't vote for it. A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for later repairability. I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good deal on 'repairability'. It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor. I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't work. Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in modular radio now? I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card. It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the 'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two 'expansion slot(s)', if any. A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface break. Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, NT wrote:
Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in modular radio now? Not as portrayed, and certainly not as a general radio. There have been articles about building in modular form and even some kits that were modular, and of course it's a great form for experimenting, why remake the whole radio if you want to try a new IF strip or add a new detector? Or buy the modules you want to build up something, rather than be stuck with what the complete radio the company sells. But there can't be a general bus, one module takes its input from the antenna or a previous module, and its output goes to the next module, those have to be well isolated. The power supply is standard to each module, the whole point of three terminal regulators was to make regulation specific to boards rather than one big power supply feeding everything. But control lines will be different depending on the function of the module, some requiring lots of lines, others requiring few or none at all. And there's no way it would be for everyone. The average radio user doesn't care, they just want AM/FM radio, nowadays not even AM and a radio is a radio, once you have one for average use there's no need for improvement. A modular radio might be interesting to the hobbyist, which of course is where the concept has travelled. It's there in all the VHF converters described in the hobby magazines, getting extra coverage with a shortwave radio at the cost of a "module", ie converter, rather than having to build a whole new radio. It's the hobbyist that wants to try things, it's the hobbyist that is interested in the radio in itself. They are the ones who might want to do better on longwave, or listen to the police band (even then, or a lot of that type of hobbyist, existing scanners are more than enough). For a small company aimed at the hobbyist, modules make sense. They dont' ahve to offer multiple receivers, just enough modules for someone to put together what they want. I long ago argued with a friend that if he was going to go into a small electronic business, just selling boards made sense, since then he's not involved in dealing with cabinetry. The hobbyist can buy the modules and then take care of putting it in a case. It's a fairly limited market, yet at one point was one that might do okay. You can have a successful business without making loads of profit, and indeed doing away with things like UL approval by using an existing AC adapter or having the buyer come up with one keeps overhead down, as does the lack of cabinetry. Find a market that really exists, and cater to it, you may not be rich but the business may keep going. I have no idea if the market is there anymore. I've been going through old magazines lately, and it reminds me how much time and even money I spent on magazines, the hobby electronic ones and the ham magazines, and I feel detached to it as the magazines disappeared, virtually no hobby electronic magazines in North America, and the ham magazines dwindling but more important less available on newsstands than in the old days. The magazines were pretty important, and I'm not sure they really have been replaced with other things. If nothing else, they were way to keep track of the companies that sold kits and parts. A different way to look at it is to think about commercial shortwave receivers. They have become really cheap, and fairly good. I paid somewhere around $80 for a Hallicrafters S-120A (the transistorized one) in the summer of 1971, the most I could afford, the cheapest receiver I could find locally. It was junk, the only good thing about it was I had no experience so I didn't know how bad it was for a bit. You can get a Grundig Yacht Boy 400 (or whatever the same model in a different cabinet is) for a hundred dollars, some of the other Etons for the same complete with synchronous detector. For that matter, I am finding sw receivers at rummage and garage sales now for pretty low amounts. That Grundig Satellite 700 for 2.00 at the Rotary Club sale, that Sony ICF-SW1 at a garage sale in September for 10.00 (and then about half an hour later an Eton Mini 300 for 2.00 at another garage sale, though that is junk). They are infinitely better than the old low end analog receivers. People talk about buying all kinds of models, but nobody seems to think that if a hundred dollars is seen as "disposable" then why not buy a radio to modify extensively? Buy one and put it into a bigger cabinet. Make it a desktop physically, complete with a good tuning knob on the front panel. Even receivers with up/down buttons can be tuned with a tuning knob. All those people who judge a radio by "sound", they can put a nice big speaker in the cabinet, though better to use an external speaker. Add better lighting to the LCD display. Add that Q-multiplier. Add some filters if you can get some at the proper IF frequency. The radio becomes the foundation to customize. Add an FM IF strip and then feed the radio with converters to hear those higher bands. Put some more front end selectivity in the box, yes suddenly you'd have to tune it in addition to the tuning knob, but that's the way it used to be on the good receivers anyway. It doesn't have fine enough tuning? Then add a variable capacitor across the second conversion oscillator (either directory or via a varicap), and you can get a fine tuning knob that isn't linked to the BFO. For that matter, one could splurge and add crystal controlled BFO, getting the frequencies to be in the right place in relation to the IF filter. What's wrong with current receivers that can be improved with a little bit of work? Some things can't be fixed, but a lot of these new receivers offer a pretty good foundation compared to what there was in the old days. YOu start with a reasonably good receiver, you see the low cost so you aren't afraid to hurt it, and you make it the receiver you want, just like someone would want those modules for. Michael |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT wrote: On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote: On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote: * With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. ... Any other comments? As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done. First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in the looks of the rig. Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a "mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc. could be done this way. You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade as you would have -- or as becomes available. It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as PCs -- well, almost. Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case, rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose. I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am, am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf, or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production! Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the appropriate transmitting section(s.) We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy .... Regards, JS But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want, and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us that wish to. Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still changing fast. End users didn't vote for it. A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for later repairability. I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good deal on 'repairability'. Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap. The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering produce a useful percentage of ok boards. It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor. I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't work. I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it. Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course. Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in modular radio now? I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card. It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the 'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two 'expansion slot(s)', if any. A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface break. Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af. Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios. And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for radios are mostly low. NT |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:
... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Every year I build another, from components ... however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ... But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. Regards, JS |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Dec 14, 8:21*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. *Every year I build another, from components ... however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ... But, *a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. Regards, JS Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can only buy from what's available. NT |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/14/2011 1:38 PM, NT wrote:
... Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can only buy from what's available. NT Exactly, right up to and including the death of radio ... people still buy a seperate TV, then a stereo, etc. I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo ... a few years ago I had an am/fm radio on a pci card in a computer, it was never "great" but lead for me to await the development of better ... none has come. Everyone I had shown it to wanted one, and many ordered and some are still using them, in my family ... So, I use my Flex for listening (www.flex-radio.com), and wait, and wait .... I now think radio is going to have to die and "be rediscovered" ... but we will see ... But, the one device for every purpose is as dead as I can make it in my house ... Regards, JS |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any consumer radio. The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket 'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs, no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts. By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7 MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has eight to twelve layers. The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another. Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John Smith
wrote: I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go back there again. d |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/14/2011 11:47 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John wrote: I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go back there again. d Too high a pixel definition is just wasted with even HD TV, however, it makes such a TV perfect for use as a computer monitor ... you are correct, I'd never go back from there, again ... Regards, JS |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:49 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote: On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote: On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT wrote: On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote: On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote: * With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave receiver as a usable, practical set. ... Any other comments? As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done. First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in the looks of the rig. Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a "mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc. could be done this way. You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade as you would have -- or as becomes available. It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as PCs -- well, almost. Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case, rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose. I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am, am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf, or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production! Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the appropriate transmitting section(s.) We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ... Regards, JS But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want, and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us that wish to. Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still changing fast. End users didn't vote for it. A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for later repairability. I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good deal on 'repairability'. Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap. Not back then and even if there was one there wasn't an Internet, Craigslist, and Ebay to find it. And even if you get past all that a hurricane was on the way and even in this day and age things don't instantaneously appear on your doorstep. The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering produce a useful percentage of ok boards. I was being a bit flippant but I think you've hit the target. It's a lot more likely the reason for modularity was for in house test and manufacture than a noble notion of home repairability. Someone might have thrown it in as an additional 'feature' but I doubt it was the primary factor. It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor. I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't work. I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it. Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course. No company I've been in has been that 'disjointed' and departments don't get to charge whatever they think a good idea. It's usually a well planned, from all angles, cost/profit margin analysis including expected warranty and after sales service revenues. That doesn't mean they necessarily get it 'right' but if that were 'the plan' they sure wouldn't let some yahoo in the parts department arbitrarily screw it up. Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in modular radio now? I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card. It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the 'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two 'expansion slot(s)', if any. A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface break. Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af. Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios. And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for radios are mostly low. Yeah, I just don't see it but, hey, if someone has the guts and capital then that's what free enterprise is all about. NT |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John Smith
wrote: On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'. Every year I build another, from components ... however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ... But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc. So do I. But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a 'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio. Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which is a whole blooming radio. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... "Like a computer," eh? they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap. But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. I can see you're not going to be in the sales department. Regards, JS |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/16/2011 12:23 AM, flipper wrote:
Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios. And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for radios are mostly low. Yeah, I just don't see it but, hey, if someone has the guts and capital then that's what free enterprise is all about. NT Actually, I see a distinct possibility that, that may just happen. If you examine ebay closely, you will notice the chinese and HK are direct marketing to the USA, using NO middle man here. Like any developing industrial nation, the life blood is innovation and "going where no man has gone before." Once China realize it has no need to let corps profit, here, from their sweat there, they will have the equip. and cheap labor in place to bring communication receivers and xmitters up to the current age, and damn cheaply ... plus, they wont have the overhead of the "politics" and proprietary thinking which plagues our present lazy and monopolistic companies here ... anyway, just a possibility. Regards, JS |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John wrote: On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'. ... You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a card on the motherboard of computer ... But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a 'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive. Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ... Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio. No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB dongle --albeit might be a large one. Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which is a whole blooming radio. I was talking HD screens on TVs ... No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... "Like a computer," eh? they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap. But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. I can see you're not going to be in the sales department. Regards, JS Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... what I am pointing out needs changed ... Regards, JS |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John Smith
wrote: On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John wrote: On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'. ... You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a card on the motherboard of computer ... No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the 'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar. But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a 'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive. Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ... Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs, manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand. A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component' because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics, interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'. On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even integrates these into their APU processors. Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less. Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio. No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB dongle --albeit might be a large one. Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time backpacking a PC. Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it? Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which is a whole blooming radio. I was talking HD screens on TVs ... You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards... right up to HD" Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and whether people would buy it. It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following features would you like? check box check box check box check box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those. Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite different. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... "Like a computer," eh? they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap. But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. I can see you're not going to be in the sales department. Regards, JS Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics. what I am pointing out needs changed ... Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what? And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell, yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio. "Would you pay $??? for it?" Well, that's another question. Regards, JS |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/16/2011 5:17 PM, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John wrote: On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John wrote: On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'. ... You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM& harddrive), etc., or are simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a card on the motherboard of computer ... No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the 'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar. But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a 'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive. Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ... Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs, manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand. A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component' because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics, interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'. On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even integrates these into their APU processors. Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less. Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio. No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB dongle --albeit might be a large one. Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time backpacking a PC. Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it? Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which is a whole blooming radio. I was talking HD screens on TVs ... You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards... right up to HD" Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and whether people would buy it. It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following features would you like?check box check box check box check box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those. Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite different. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... "Like a computer," eh? they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap. But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. I can see you're not going to be in the sales department. Regards, JS Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics. what I am pointing out needs changed ... Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what? And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell, yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio. "Would you pay $??? for it?" Well, that's another question. Regards, JS Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things" shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ... Regards, JS |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:27:56 -0800, John Smith
wrote: On 12/16/2011 5:17 PM, flipper wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John wrote: On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John wrote: On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote: ... Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at warp speed. NT Yeah, like computers. Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'. ... You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM& harddrive), etc., or are simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a card on the motherboard of computer ... No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the 'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar. But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a 'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive. Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ... Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs, manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand. A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component' because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics, interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'. On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even integrates these into their APU processors. Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less. Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard. Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB interface to a computer, etc. If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio. No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB dongle --albeit might be a large one. Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time backpacking a PC. Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it? Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which is a whole blooming radio. I was talking HD screens on TVs ... You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards... right up to HD" Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and whether people would buy it. It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following features would you like?check box check box check box check box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those. Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite different. No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... "Like a computer," eh? they would scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ... Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap. But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the benefits and ask for them ... end of story. I can see you're not going to be in the sales department. Regards, JS Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics. what I am pointing out needs changed ... Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what? And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell, yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio. "Would you pay $??? for it?" Well, that's another question. Regards, JS Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things" shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ... No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is. Regards, JS |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/16/2011 7:34 PM, flipper wrote:
... Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things" shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ... No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is. Regards, JS As the old saying, "The longest journey begins with the first step" -- paraphrased. So is the "journey into it can't be done", one step at a time, the first step beginning it, the journey ends with what we have now ... Regards, JS |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:48:50 -0800, John Smith
wrote: On 12/16/2011 7:34 PM, flipper wrote: ... Yeah, everything was once impossible, that number of "impossible things" shrinks daily ... only one thing is certain in this world, if you say impossible and live long enough, you will be proven wrong ... No one said "impossible" and that's not the question. The question is would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is. Regards, JS As the old saying, "The longest journey begins with the first step" -- paraphrased. So is the "journey into it can't be done", one step at a time, the first step beginning it, the journey ends with what we have now ... Regards, JS As the old saying goes, "truth hurts" and the question remains, would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is, no matter how much the arm waving and platitudes. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new shortwave tube radio
On 12/17/2011 3:44 PM, flipper wrote:
... As the old saying goes, "truth hurts" and the question remains, would enough people want to pay the price for whatever it is, no matter how much the arm waving and platitudes. Actually, I have purchased my last SW radio ... unless new life comes in, somewhere, some time ... others mileage may vary ... most worthwhile content can now be found on the net -- without static and fading ... So, actually, you are quite correct, it looks to be a moot point, until something changes ... Regards, JS |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA:Realistic DX390 Shortwave Portable Radio | Marketplace | |||
FA:Radio Shack DX390 Shortwave portable (No Reserve) | Marketplace | |||
Zenith Trans-Oceanic Royal 3000-1 Shortwave Radio | Marketplace | |||
FA: Zenith Trans-Oceanic Royal 3000-1 Shortwave Radio | Marketplace | |||
Tube Shortwave radio? | Vacuum Tubes |