[BC] tube sound (tube transmitters)

[Robert Meuser]

The place where the car analogy falls apart is that old a new cars more 
or less burn the same gasoline which is the current stuff available.   
Tube TXs 'burn' tubes which are becoming more and more difficult to 
obtain and when they can be, cost much more than they did. Often 
available tubes are of lower quality and reliability.

Of course, generalizing and  putting ALL tube transmitters in one 
category is not really accurate either.There are the old plate mod rigs 
with LOTS of tubes and then there are the MW series transmitters, the 
317C and 315/316 F series transmitters that perform at or near the 
levels of SS transmitters.  These transmitters are much more modern 
designs, have lots of solid state technology and are still found as 
standbys in a number of places. Tube life in 24/7 operation can be 5 
years or more so as a standby, tubes could last a considerable time. The 
end is nearing for these units as well but due to the use of more 
current tubes and in limited numbers, it would certainly make sense to 
hang on to them, if in good shape and there was no budget for a second 
solid state unit. Now, with some SS rigs nearing 20 years of service, I 
certainly would be pushing that MW or 317 out the door as a newer SS rig 
goes in.

The older plate mod rigs - forget it.



R



DANA PUOPOLO wrote:

>I agree.
>
>At this point, solid state technology runs rings over tubes.
>When someone asks me whether they should refurbish an old (console,
>transmitter, etc.) vs buying new, I reply: "One way or another, eventually
>you're going to spend the $$." An old TX is like an old car, one that you've
>changed the oil every 3000 miles so the engine is still good. Problem is that
>things just plain wear out, and the old car is going to require more repairs
>then a new one would. That's a fact with cars, transmitters, consoles, etc.
>Eventually, you're going to have to bite the bullet and replace, probably in
>an unplanned situation. If you wait, you'll lose the advantage that the new
>unit provides today.
>
>I'm not making the decision, just  advising.
>
>-D
>
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:23:30 PM PDT
>From: "Bailey, Scott" <SBailey at nespower.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: RE: [BC] tube sound (tube transmitters)
>
>
>Well Willie,
>   Some folks are just stuck in the past. We, as the masses, do not
>listen to tube type radios any more and haven't for a many number of
>years. So why bother transmitting with a tube rig? Oh don't get me
>wrong, I love the glow of a 4-400A, but it's days in commercial radio
>are gone, with the exception of a few small station owners that flat
>refuse to let it go, scared of newer technology. 
>
>Scott 
>
>
>
>Willie responded -
> >I can't see how an old transmitter can actually sound better than a
>modern
> >one. That's interesting!
>
>I think it is a subjective thing, sort of like folks who still prefer 
>records or carts to CD's. There is a warmth
>and coloring to the audio that modern digital equipment doesn't have, 
>because it generally is flat and clean.
>
>We use to prefer the sound of our old 1942 RCA 1K over the 1950 BTA5F.
>When 
>we really wanted to enjoy
>the sound of the station we would switch to the 1K for "testing" during
>the 
>evening hours. That was the
>transmitters undoing as it was on the air when we took a direct
>lightning 
>hit. Replaced with an MW-5A.
>Just not the same at all.
>
>Randy Shaffer
>Harrisburg, PA
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
>FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>  
>