Comments on: BIGGEST RADIO SET HAS FORTY TUBES (Jun, 1936) http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/ Yesterday's tomorrow, today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Tom http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-1044138 Tom Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:37:55 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-1044138 According to record, the Crosley "WLW Super Power Receiver" was the largest consumer radio receiver ever built, with 37 tubes, 6 speakers with 75 watts of power - all packed into a nearly 500 pound package. http://radiomagonline.com/features/radio_colossus_radio/ Crosley's company had it's hands into everything at one time or another. While they're most noted for making radios, they also sold (that I can think of) tractors, sewing machines and cars -- with sealed engines designed to be replaced when worn out. I think the original Crosley company wore out before the car engines did. There are several bios online that I was too lazy to google. lol According to record, the Crosley “WLW Super Power Receiver” was the largest consumer radio receiver ever built, with 37 tubes, 6 speakers with 75 watts of power – all packed into a nearly 500 pound package.

http://radiomagonline.com/feat.....sus_radio/

Crosley’s company had it’s hands into everything at one time or another. While they’re most noted for making radios, they also sold (that I can think of) tractors, sewing machines and cars — with sealed engines designed to be replaced when worn out. I think the original Crosley company wore out before the car engines did. There are several bios online that I was too lazy to google. lol

]]> By: Ed http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-653948 Ed Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:05:00 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-653948 $2500! A kings ransom back then. http://home.ca.inter.net/~hagelin/dubois.html $2500! A kings ransom back then.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~hagelin/dubois.html

]]> By: MaggieL http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-630967 MaggieL Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:46:16 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-630967 There was very little stereo in 1936. Very little as in "none". And as the text says, the measure of a radio in those days was how far it could hear (in other words it's sensitivity and selectivity). This translated directly into how many stations you could choose from to listen. That's why I doubt that most of the tubes were due to "powering the different speakers"; at most you'd need one amp (three tubes? four at an extreme maximum) for each speaker. The bulk of the tubes were more likely for intermediate stages to amplify the received RF. Probably a double- or even triple-conversion superheterodyne. -- Margaret Stephanie Leber CCP, SCJP, SCWCD http://voicenet.com/~maggie AOPA 925383 - Amateur Radio Station K3XS - ARRL 39280 - AMSAT 32844 There was very little stereo in 1936. Very little as in “none”.

And as the text says, the measure of a radio in those days was how far it could hear (in other words it’s sensitivity and selectivity). This translated directly into how many stations you could choose from to listen.

That’s why I doubt that most of the tubes were due to “powering the different speakers”; at most you’d need one amp (three tubes? four at an extreme maximum) for each speaker. The bulk of the tubes were more likely for intermediate stages to amplify the received RF. Probably a double- or even triple-conversion superheterodyne.

–
Margaret Stephanie Leber CCP, SCJP, SCWCD
http://voicenet.com/~maggie
AOPA 925383 – Amateur Radio Station K3XS – ARRL 39280 – AMSAT 32844

]]> By: Neil Russell http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-624195 Neil Russell Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:22:46 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-624195 What a system. I suppose it would be mono too. That's a lot of oomph for one channel! Just the thing for listening to the 500K power of WLW in those days. What a system. I suppose it would be mono too. That’s a lot of oomph for one channel!

Just the thing for listening to the 500K power of WLW in those days.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-619942 Tom Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:46:15 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-619942 I wonder if any attention was paid to crossovers, or if they just threw 5 speakers at the thing and let their size determine their frequency range... I wonder if any attention was paid to crossovers, or if they just threw 5 speakers at the thing and let their size determine their frequency range…

]]> By: Rick Auricchio http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-619738 Rick Auricchio Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:12:13 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-619738 A large portion of those tubes go to powering the different speakers. Effectively they'd be using multiple audio amplifiers for the different frequency bands, similar to today's bi-amping and tri-amping. I'm sure someone could have come up with a way to waste a few more tubes with a less-efficient design. A large portion of those tubes go to powering the different speakers. Effectively they’d be using multiple audio amplifiers for the different frequency bands, similar to today’s bi-amping and tri-amping.

I’m sure someone could have come up with a way to waste a few more tubes with a less-efficient design.

]]> By: Casandro http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-619458 Casandro Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:31:49 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/19/biggest-radio-set-has-forty-tubes/#comment-619458 Today having a radio with only 40 transistors would be considered minimalistic. Today having a radio with only 40 transistors would be considered minimalistic.

]]>