Valve Radio Vs Solid State Radio

[Kate Fights, I Cry]

Just wonder what your personal opinions are
on which sounds better.

I have a Kriesler valve based table radio and also
a table radio that is solid state. But when I listen
to each I have to admit the old radio gives a far
richer sound. Sure it's got valves and is bulky but
it sounds a damn sight better then the smaller all
transistor cousin.

I find the other radio gives a slightly harsher tone
to both music and voice, and even when it is tuned
in properly too.

Of course this is just my opinion, and opinion can
be subjective. Just wondering what others think, but
for what it's worth I'm still using the older radio
to listen with.








--
John

Remember the good old 1980s
When things were so uncomplicated
I wish I could go back there again
And everything would be the same

I've got a ticket to the Moon
I'll be leaving here any day soon
Yeah I've got a ticket to the Moon
But I'd rather see the sunrise in your eyes

(c)1981 E.L.O.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Kate Fights, I Cry" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4271C2EC.80EA912F@internode.on.net...

Just wonder what your personal opinions are
on which sounds better.

I have a Kriesler valve based table radio and also
a table radio that is solid state. But when I listen
to each I have to admit the old radio gives a far
richer sound. Sure it's got valves and is bulky but
it sounds a damn sight better then the smaller all
transistor cousin.

I find the other radio gives a slightly harsher tone
to both music and voice, and even when it is tuned
in properly too.

Of course this is just my opinion, and opinion can
be subjective. Just wondering what others think, but
for what it's worth I'm still using the older radio
to listen with.


John

The valve radio has a decent sized speaker and is almost certain to be wider
bandwidth than a crappy cheap transistor radio, so it will certainly sound
better. But I wouldn't bother going out and buying one; a decently designed
and built transistor radio is equally as good.

Ken

 

[Kate Fights, I Cry]

Mark Harriss wrote:

Most domestic valve radio was build as a lowest
common denominator product where every component
inclusion was argued over. I have an AM Kriesler
stereo unit with Garrard turntable and electrostatic
tweeters I rebuilt in 1990: it was full of out of
tolerance resistors and leaky wax capacitors.

Possible a larger speaker, a larger case and
class A audio contributes to the sound. It would
typically be a single ended class A output stage
too, likely a pentode stage.

It's possible to have good sounding valve radio
Patrick Turner has build a modified one and I
think has the schematics on his website.

Not quite what I was talking about. But interesting all the same.

Thanks for writing

 

[Kate Fights, I Cry]

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Kate Fights, I Cry" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4271C2EC.80EA912F@internode.on.net...
Just wonder what your personal opinions are
on which sounds better.

I have a Kriesler valve based table radio and also
a table radio that is solid state. But when I listen
to each I have to admit the old radio gives a far
richer sound. Sure it's got valves and is bulky but
it sounds a damn sight better then the smaller all
transistor cousin.

I find the other radio gives a slightly harsher tone
to both music and voice, and even when it is tuned
in properly too.

Of course this is just my opinion, and opinion can
be subjective. Just wondering what others think, but
for what it's worth I'm still using the older radio
to listen with.


John

The valve radio has a decent sized speaker and is almost certain to be wider
bandwidth than a crappy cheap transistor radio, so it will certainly sound
better. But I wouldn't bother going out and buying one; a decently designed
and built transistor radio is equally as good.

Ken

Well in this case they are both table radios just one is
about half the size of the other and uses solid state
parts... Though until it dies I'll use the valve one.

Hell I got it at an auction so may as well get use out of it.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Most domestic valve radio was build as a lowest
common denominator product where every component
inclusion was argued over. I have an AM Kriesler
stereo unit with Garrard turntable and electrostatic
tweeters I rebuilt in 1990: it was full of out of
tolerance resistors and leaky wax capacitors.

Possible a larger speaker, a larger case and
class A audio contributes to the sound. It would
typically be a single ended class A output stage
too, likely a pentode stage.

It's possible to have good sounding valve radio
Patrick Turner has build a modified one and I
think has the schematics on his website.

 

[Steve Batt]

"Kate Fights, I Cry" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4271C2EC.80EA912F@internode.on.net...

Just wonder what your personal opinions are
on which sounds better.

I have a Kriesler valve based table radio and also
a table radio that is solid state. But when I listen
to each I have to admit the old radio gives a far
richer sound. Sure it's got valves and is bulky but
it sounds a damn sight better then the smaller all
transistor cousin.

I find the other radio gives a slightly harsher tone
to both music and voice, and even when it is tuned
in properly too.

Of course this is just my opinion, and opinion can
be subjective. Just wondering what others think, but
for what it's worth I'm still using the older radio
to listen with.








--
John

Remember the good old 1980s
When things were so uncomplicated
I wish I could go back there again
And everything would be the same

I've got a ticket to the Moon
I'll be leaving here any day soon
Yeah I've got a ticket to the Moon
But I'd rather see the sunrise in your eyes

(c)1981 E.L.O.

Have you had a listen to the Tivoli Audio model 1 ?
not cheap at $300 for a mono am/fm table radio, but it does have a beautiful
sound. I have this 1.

http://www.tivoliaudio.com/product.php?productid=164&cat=&page=1

Steve

 

[Joerg]

Hello Ken,

The valve radio has a decent sized speaker and is almost certain to be wider
bandwidth than a crappy cheap transistor radio, so it will certainly sound
better. ...

Mostly, yes. But I have an Australian example that even a cheesy
enclosure can contain an excellent radio: An Astor BPJ from 1959. It's
in a rather flimsy plastic case but the radio itself is a superb design.
It offers by far the best AM performance (it's AM only) of any radio I
have except when compared to professional receivers. So whenever I
listen to AM it is usually with that old Astor.

... But I wouldn't bother going out and buying one; a decently designed
and built transistor radio is equally as good.

Sometimes I wonder if there is any modern radio with a decently designed
RF section. Excluding professional gear that people wouldn't place in
their living quarters I haven't seen one in two decades.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EPde.1713$5o2.305@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Hello Ken,

The valve radio has a decent sized speaker and is almost certain to be
wider
bandwidth than a crappy cheap transistor radio, so it will certainly
sound
better. ...

Mostly, yes. But I have an Australian example that even a cheesy
enclosure can contain an excellent radio: An Astor BPJ from 1959. It's
in a rather flimsy plastic case but the radio itself is a superb design.
It offers by far the best AM performance (it's AM only) of any radio I
have except when compared to professional receivers. So whenever I
listen to AM it is usually with that old Astor.

... But I wouldn't bother going out and buying one; a decently designed
and built transistor radio is equally as good.

Sometimes I wonder if there is any modern radio with a decently designed
RF section. Excluding professional gear that people wouldn't place in
their living quarters I haven't seen one in two decades.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Yer durn tootin'. People obviously just won't pay for a decent AM radio so
they're no longer built.

Ken

 

[Joerg]

Hello Ken,

Yer durn tootin'. People obviously just won't pay for a decent AM radio so
they're no longer built.

Or, people have forgotten or never heard how good AM reception could be
so they don't even ask for good AM performance anymore. Surprisingly,
some car radios are pretty good on AM. Some.

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF
filter" wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On
our latest "FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong
station's frequency and still hear it. It's the pits. I guess everybody
listens to CDs or some MP3 tunes these days.

Thing is, you can go to a large store and find not one good receiver. Oh
well, I just keep some old tubes sets. And a few spare tubes.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[roughplanet]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_I9ee.1079$X21.978@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

Yer durn tootin'. People obviously just won't pay for a decent AM radio
so
they're no longer built.

Hello Ken,
Or, people have forgotten or never heard how good AM reception could be so
they don't even ask for good AM performance anymore. Surprisingly, some
car radios are pretty good on AM. Some.

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF filter"
wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On our latest
"FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong station's
frequency and still hear it. It's the pits. I guess everybody listens to
CDs or some MP3 tunes these days.

Thing is, you can go to a large store and find not one good receiver. Oh
well, I just keep some old tubes sets. And a few spare tubes.

Denon have (or had) a couple of tuners in their range; the TU-255 & the
TU-1500RD, both of which are fine tuners in either AM & FM mode.
When I bought the TU-255, I had two other tuners; an Audiolab 8000T and a
McIntosh MR75. The TU-255 was not quite as good as either, so when the
opportunity arose to trade it in on a TU-1500RD, I did, not really expecting
it to match either of the other two. I was wrong; it not only matched them,
but exceeded their performance in terms of sensitivity, selectivity & audio
quality.
And best of all, it cost less than half what I subsequently sold the 8000T
for, and a quarter of the price the MR75 brought on eBay.
So have a look around for a TU-1500RD. It might be a lightweight, both
literally and in audiophile terms, but it's performance is quite surprising.

ruff

 

[Phil Allison]

"Joerg"...

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF filter"
wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On our latest
"FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong station's
frequency and still hear it. It's the pits.

** Ever heard of AFC ( automatic frequency control) ??




................ Phil

 

[Kate Fights, I Cry]

Ken Taylor wrote:


< snip >

Yer durn tootin'. People obviously just won't pay for a decent AM radio so
they're no longer built.

Ken

Speaking of AM whatever happened to AM Stereo?

 

[Lord Garth]

"Kate Fights, I Cry" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4279C3E7.2F93ADF5@internode.on.net...

Speaking of AM whatever happened to AM Stereo?

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kevtronics/history.htm

 

[Joerg]

Hello Phil,

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF filter"
wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On our latest
"FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong station's
frequency and still hear it. It's the pits.

** Ever heard of AFC ( automatic frequency control) ??

ROFL.

Actually when you turn AFC on it gets even worse. Then the tuner hangs
on to a strong station for more than 400kHz. In my opinion AFC was a
kludge, probably invented because some folks couldn't figure out how to
design a stable oscillator.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello Kate,

Speaking of AM whatever happened to AM Stereo?

Living in the US where AM stereo was very popular on car radios all I
can say is that the typical new rig from the store doesn't have AM
stereo. Seems like it's fizzling.

Most AM stations are talk radio or programming to small ethnic groups.
Neither would care much for stereo.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello Ruff,

Denon have (or had) a couple of tuners in their range; the TU-255 & the
TU-1500RD, both of which are fine tuners in either AM & FM mode.

Thanks for the hint. The price is reasonable as well, I believe around
$250-300. But my wife doesn't like the old tower stacks where every
module of a stereo system had to have their own enclosure.

Then again, why not just connect the old tube set to the stereo? That
gives superb AM performance at next to nothing in cost.

The real topper is a 2nd hand communications receiver with crystal
filters. With some luck it won't cost more than the Denon but then you
have a setup that's almost as good as the station monitors. Also, I
somtimes use that to listen in single sideband mode when fading gets
bad. That way I can enjoy programming that is almost unintelligible on
even a good AM radio.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Phil Allison]

"Joerg"

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF filter"
wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On our latest
"FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong station's
frequency and still hear it. It's the pits.

** Ever heard of AFC ( automatic frequency control) ??

ROFL.

** The point is that AFC creates an effect like that of a very broad IF when
this is not the case.

Actually when you turn AFC on it gets even worse.

** No - the AFC is counteracting your attempts to re-tune the radio - it
needs to be disabled when tuning.

In any case - a broad IF is *required* for low distortion on the FM band -
plus you will not hear adjacent channel signals along with the wanted one
since the FM "capture effect" prevents that.

Then the tuner hangs on to a strong station for more than 400kHz.

** So the dial says - but the local oscillator frequency has been pulled
in the opposite direction to the tuning dial.

In my opinion AFC was a kludge, probably invented because some folks
couldn't figure out how to design a stable oscillator.

** Variable VHF oscillators stable to within +/- 20 kHz over the room temp
plus internal gear temp range are indeed a design challenge, especially in
the case of varicap ( non tuning gang) tuners. However, AFC compensates for
oscillator drift and mistuning for very little cost.

Modern FM tuners ( since the 1980s) have their tuning frequencies derived
from a crystal time base so drift is eliminated.



........... Phil

 

[Patrick Turner]

Joerg wrote:

Hello Phil,

BTW, FM is going the same route. What some manufacturers call "IF filter"
wouldn't even qualify as a paper coffee filter these days. On our latest
"FM stereo" I can set the tuning 300-400kHz away from a stong station's
frequency and still hear it. It's the pits.

** Ever heard of AFC ( automatic frequency control) ??

ROFL.

Actually when you turn AFC on it gets even worse. Then the tuner hangs
on to a strong station for more than 400kHz. In my opinion AFC was a
kludge, probably invented because some folks couldn't figure out how to
design a stable oscillator.

Regards, Joerg

I have a 1986 Ford Laser with the standard radio.
It is a rotten performer, and no doubt the
radio and audio sections are minimalist chips, the
worst that chip technology can offer, and just
what the fucking bean counters at Ford are delighted with.

But nearly all the domestic FM tuners made after 1970 with chips are
fairly good, although I far prefer my all tube
home made fully tubed FM tuner which includes a tubes stereo decoder.

The FM medium is inherently suited for good separation of stations
since they are 300 kHz apart and the maximum deviation is +/- 75 kHz.

But with AM, the stations are at 9 kHz apart, and the RF sections of AM
sets are receivers are almost all limited to about 6 kHz of RF bw.
This results in 3 kHz of audio bw, and this was standard in all the old tubed
AM sets.
The modulation applied to some station transmitters is -3 db at 9 kHz,
maybe not all though, but the RF bw of the receiver cuts the possible response.

If you try to listen to to distant stations only 9 kHz apart,
then the set with reduced RF bw will give good separation.

But two distant stations both modulated with 9 kHz of bw would interfere
badly with each other if you have a wide bw receiver.

To avoid the interference, the station count would have to be halved,
so stations were 18 kHz apart.

Anyway AM radios are a compromise on selectivity needed for
long distance listening, and fidelity need for locals.
A wide bw RF section in an AM radio is harder to build,
but they only suits local station reception with stations at 45kHz minimum
apart.

Ppl here have cited other fancy tuners, but nearly all the
AM sections of AM/FM tuners are also quite hopeless with
3 kHz or less of measured AF bw due to their
small RF bw within.
Why anyone would ever bother with the crackly hissy
interference ridden sound of distant AM station listening is beyond me.
They should all be made with a wider band width RF section.
In fact the RF section should consist of a double tuned bandpass circuit and
the
IF section should have a ceramic filter with 18 khz of BW,
and then we get the best from AM with modern devices.

The radios I have made for myself use double tuned two section
LC inputs before the frequency converter tube,
then have R strapped across the IFT coils to lower
the Q of the IF transformers, and one has variable IF coil spacing, and then I
get the
18 kHz of IF bw needed before one can get 9 kHz of audio bw.
Then I have a +/- 6 dB tine control, mandatory with AM radio
since HF audio content is variable.
Radio National here in the ACT on 846 kHz sounds magnificent.
Music programs are fine.

With old standard sets, boosting the treble with a tone control might possibly
stretch the response to 4 kHz. But old tube sets usually had only a treble cut
adjust knob.
The speakers were current driven from a
beam tetrode, a 6V6, and the response of the 6" speakers of 1960
gave increasing output as F rose, so some slight further extension
of the HF due to speaker rise compensated the response, so
maybe 5 khz on a good day, wind permitting was obtained from
a tube AM set.
I have measured dozens of them and repaired and tweaked many.

I don't treasure any old AM sets as they were presented as standard.
All were crap.

All need serious mods before one removes the horrendous thd levels
and bw limitations.

Most of the SS AM tuners which followed the tube sets were far worse
than tube sets because their RF/IF pass bands were
even narrower than the tube sets since they used single coil auto
IF transformers, with one tuned LC, rather than two,
critically coupled to give a flatter pass band.
Only 3 tuned circuits were involved, and this gave very poor
"skirt" selectivity, which means that attenuation of powerful local stations
45 kHz apart is inadequate.
The SS tuners using discrete transistors had a limited dynamic range compared
to valves,
and the distortions were worse in the amplifier stages and the
use of a single transistor as an oscillator and frequency converter wasn't
as good as the heptode or or triode hexode like the 6BE6 or 12AN7
used so effectively when tubes were king.


The effect of the invasion of Australia by cheap Japanese transistor
radios made people even more used to the worst possible sound.
I never ever purchased such crap.

If you want really good A reception, you have to search carefully
for tuners which guarantee at least 9 kHz of audio bw
for local station reception.
Unless a tuner specifies the AM audio bw id 9 kHz, assume is the usual
2 kHz so often found.

While some kits were offered in the past, I know of no standard sets available
right now
which do the business properly on AM.

To easily get 25 kHz bw from each of IFTs in an old tube set, one would really
need to have 2.5 MHz IF frequency rather than 455 kHz, the standard F for
over 60 years. And you'd want 3 IFTs, but this was something that
no accountant would ever allow a 1950's radio maker provide.

The history of AM is one about how to keep most people fooled most of the time.

Patrick Turner.

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Patrick Turner]

Joerg wrote:

Hello Ruff,

Denon have (or had) a couple of tuners in their range; the TU-255 & the
TU-1500RD, both of which are fine tuners in either AM & FM mode.

Thanks for the hint. The price is reasonable as well, I believe around
$250-300. But my wife doesn't like the old tower stacks where every
module of a stereo system had to have their own enclosure.

Then again, why not just connect the old tube set to the stereo? That
gives superb AM performance at next to nothing in cost.

The real topper is a 2nd hand communications receiver with crystal
filters. With some luck it won't cost more than the Denon but then you
have a setup that's almost as good as the station monitors. Also, I
somtimes use that to listen in single sideband mode when fading gets
bad. That way I can enjoy programming that is almost unintelligible on
even a good AM radio.

Communications radios are terrible performers if you
want decent local station performance; they are deliberately
selective, and most without more than a maximum of 3 khz of AF bw.

Sure, OK for DX.

What is the measured and guaranteed AF response from the Denon
using AM and local stations, if the station modulation
or test signal has 20 kHz of flat level AF modulation?

Patrick Turner.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[roughplanet]

"Patrick Turner" <info@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:427AD95F.1C7B5680@turneraudio.com.au...

Joerg wrote:

Denon have (or had) a couple of tuners in their range; the TU-255 & the
TU-1500RD, both of which are fine tuners in either AM & FM mode.

Thanks for the hint. The price is reasonable as well, I believe around
$250-300. But my wife doesn't like the old tower stacks where every
module of a stereo system had to have their own enclosure.
Then again, why not just connect the old tube set to the stereo? That
gives superb AM performance at next to nothing in cost.
The real topper is a 2nd hand communications receiver with crystal
filters. With some luck it won't cost more than the Denon but then you
have a setup that's almost as good as the station monitors. Also, I
somtimes use that to listen in single sideband mode when fading gets
bad. That way I can enjoy programming that is almost unintelligible on
even a good AM radio.

Communications radios are terrible performers if you want decent local
station performance; they are deliberately selective, and most without
more
than a maximum of 3 khz of AF bw.
Sure, OK for DX.
What is the measured and guaranteed AF response from the Denon
using AM and local stations, if the station modulation
or test signal has 20 kHz of flat level AF modulation?

Ask Denon.

ruff