Super Radio Set Will Tune In Any Of World’s Programs (Aug, 1936)

Super Radio Set Will Tune In Any Of World’s Programs

JUST about the largest radio receiving set to be made so far is the latest creation of E. H. Scott. Night or day it will tune in any broadcasting station in the entire world

The receiver has forty tubes, and there are five loud speakers in combination to give the best reproduction possible on all tone frequencies. There is a big speaker to catch the bass notes, two ordinary speakers, then two little speakers to reproduce notes in the highest range. One of these is the Tweedy Speaker.

The receiving set pictured was built up from a series of experiments which cost $12,000, but custom built models of this super radio job may be had for $2,500.

  1. KD5ZS says: January 8, 20102:56 pm

    Only 40 tubes?

    Ten years later ENIAC would be built with 17,000+ tubes.

    Today’s modern computer devices have a transistor count in the millions..

  2. Firebrand38 says: January 8, 20103:04 pm

    Did you just compare a radio set to a freaking computer?

    Radio receivers of the time had on the order of 7 tubes, so yeah…I wouldn’t call it “only 40 tubes”.


  3. Toronto says: January 8, 20105:53 pm

    Five tube sets were standard, for the most part. Multi-band radios had more.

    “Tweedy speaker”? Does it have elbow patches and a briar pipe, or was this the first attempt at forming the word “tweeter”?

  4. rick says: January 8, 20106:26 pm

    Aside from being larger and with more tubes, it somewhat resembles the first “Hi-Fi” component set I had back in the mid 50s. There was a good sized pre-amp, an even larger amplifier module with a huge transformer inside it (a McIntosh), a crossover network, three speakers (woofer, midrange and a tweeter) and a turntable . . . and all this for a MONO set with no receiver.


  5. Firebrand38 says: January 8, 20107:02 pm

    Toronto: Follow the link I provided and look under various models for 1936. There are a lot of 7 tube models.

  6. Charlene says: January 8, 20107:03 pm

    My dad was always building something like that in the garage.

  7. mike says: January 8, 20109:53 pm

    Most radios will tune into any station in the world… you just have to be within receiving distance to hear a specific broadcast.

  8. mike says: January 9, 201010:48 am

    The estimated cost as of 2008 “today’s dollar”

    $ 186,409.52 using the Consumer Price Index
    $2,067,980.91 using the relative share of GDP


  9. Firebrand38 says: January 9, 201011:35 am

    mike: That’s a pretty neat website. Thanks for posting your source.

  10. KD5ZS says: January 9, 20105:00 pm

    Yes the 5 tube superhet was the most common AM receiver and it could be modified to receive short wave. It may seem odd to compare a radio set to a computer, but if you look at today’s radio sets, they are all microprocessor controlled now.

    P.S., I have an old single sideband transceiver that has 20 tubes, 19 solid state diodes and two transistors, so I’m getting there. Still that radio is all analog.

  11. John Savard says: January 10, 20101:53 am

    Tunes in any radio station in the world? It’s a wonder it managed that even with forty tubes, although forty tubes is more than is needed even for a sensitive short-wave radio: some “boatanchors” had 11 or 12 tubes, for example.

    Could it have connected to multiple antennas, so as to cancel out a strong signal from a nearer broadcast band AM radio station on the exact same frequency as a distant AM radio station? Even if it would be hard to get *any* radio station in the world that way, it is true that signals in that band are not line-of-sight despite not bouncing off the ionosphere like short-wave, so a sufficiently sensitive receiver could receive the signal of an AM radio station in, say, Australia despite being in Los Angeles.

  12. John Savard says: January 10, 20104:54 pm

    I found out more information about this set. It eventually was marketed as a product – with 48 tubes rather than 40 – as the E. H. Scott Quaranta.…

  13. John M. Hanna says: January 11, 20103:15 am

    You would have to knock out a wall and add an extra room to fit that in your average house.

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.