No, my only speculation is that their karma is optimized for voice because the fidelity in an absolute sense is non-existent. I used to listen to BBC and shortwave from AU for hours on end when I was young.
Last edited:
I have a 1960's built germanium Telefunken table radio that sounds extra good. I attribute it to a very highly efficient loudspeaker and low negative feedback, as well as use of germanium. I have never heard a silicon equivalent yet, except perhaps an old KLH table radio.
Really those stiff paper cones and no enclosure to speak of are efficient? 100Hz - 5kHz +- 10dB at 200mW as hi-fi what would your posse think?
Last edited:
A wooden enclosure with a relatively large alnico speaker magnet seems to be the right way to do a portable or small enclosure.
The WORST clock radio that I have ever heard was the Sony cube radio. It was cute, and reasonably low priced, but it sounded lousy, so lousy that I gave it away, and bought something else that is better but not really very good. I had a KLH radio in my office in the late 70's through the 80's and put many hours on it, usually NPR, and sometimes jazz. It was also an easy listener, and I spent many 100's of hours listening through it without any real complaint. Another 'winner' in my life was a Radio Shack clock radio that had an external speaker outlet. I put an audiophile speaker with it and I had good sound at low levels for many years. Even Enid Lumley thought it sounded pretty good, (for what it is composed of). Here again is a Class B, but discrete solid state design, compared to an all IC power amp based design. The speaker quality and the 'discrete' amp seems to have made the difference in all of my 'successful' small radio experiences.
As far as ceramic caps are concerned, we have always been plagued with them, BUT it is the Hi Q multilayer caps that seem to be positioned in the circuit to sound the worst possible. This is what you get with today's stuff. The Telefunken used two transformers, one driver and one output and no obvious negative feedback. I still enjoy the sound of this radio.
The WORST clock radio that I have ever heard was the Sony cube radio. It was cute, and reasonably low priced, but it sounded lousy, so lousy that I gave it away, and bought something else that is better but not really very good. I had a KLH radio in my office in the late 70's through the 80's and put many hours on it, usually NPR, and sometimes jazz. It was also an easy listener, and I spent many 100's of hours listening through it without any real complaint. Another 'winner' in my life was a Radio Shack clock radio that had an external speaker outlet. I put an audiophile speaker with it and I had good sound at low levels for many years. Even Enid Lumley thought it sounded pretty good, (for what it is composed of). Here again is a Class B, but discrete solid state design, compared to an all IC power amp based design. The speaker quality and the 'discrete' amp seems to have made the difference in all of my 'successful' small radio experiences.
As far as ceramic caps are concerned, we have always been plagued with them, BUT it is the Hi Q multilayer caps that seem to be positioned in the circuit to sound the worst possible. This is what you get with today's stuff. The Telefunken used two transformers, one driver and one output and no obvious negative feedback. I still enjoy the sound of this radio.
The Lodge plugs were pretty good, but were in a limited heat range, and that Spica injection was a nightmare.
I had a ‘69 Berlina, traded it for a ‘63 Mini Cooper, was one of my high school cars...
How would you know, Gimp? My Telefunken radio sounds essentially the same as when I bought it used in 1970, and it sounds great, for what it is.
So John, you are telling me that:
The sound of the radio has not changed despite changes in values of the resistors and capacitors over the years (change in component value with age is a well established fact).
Changes in the emission of the tubes has also changed. Have you changed any tubes? both changes in emission of the tubes and changing tubes can change the sound.
Your hearing has not changed over the passage of 50 years. No degradation in high frequency sensitivity?
Your perception of sound has not changed (I believe you have stated that your hearing has been trained over the years such that you have better acuity than others).
And so you hear exactly what you heard 50 years ago from the radio despite all of the variables which have shifted?
The sound of the radio has not changed despite changes in values of the resistors and capacitors over the years (change in component value with age is a well established fact).
Changes in the emission of the tubes has also changed. Have you changed any tubes? both changes in emission of the tubes and changing tubes can change the sound.
Your hearing has not changed over the passage of 50 years. No degradation in high frequency sensitivity?
Your perception of sound has not changed (I believe you have stated that your hearing has been trained over the years such that you have better acuity than others).
And so you hear exactly what you heard 50 years ago from the radio despite all of the variables which have shifted?
No, the Samsung is a system at a friends place, and my Yamaha amp/headphones is 'portable'.
Dan.
My mum had a B&O portable radio that ran Germanium transistors.
It sounded quite good, and had a sound fundamentally different to anything available today.
I wish I still had it.
Dan.
It does seem that germanium transistors, while having lousy engineering specs, actually did sound very good in many designs. Of course, over the years I tried other approaches for the same listening situation, including class D amps, and I just junked them, they sounded so terrible.
The really important aspect is WHY some old designs still sound really good, and yet other more modern, up-to-date designs can sound really lousy in the same listening situation. I learn from this difference, it is a shame when others can't.
The really important aspect is WHY some old designs still sound really good, and yet other more modern, up-to-date designs can sound really lousy in the same listening situation. I learn from this difference, it is a shame when others can't.
Any chance some of it is sentimental? I find that things I used to listen to long ago sound great even when fidelity isn't. I've wondered if there are audio biases that come into play when listening? (I just found a 45-based tube AM radio with speaker I hope to fire up soon to test some of this.)
If true, this plays havoc with ABX testing and any hope of statistics on it...just sayin'.
Not sentimentality, but instead no expectations of high-quality sound, and because of that can actually listen to the music instead of the gear.
Guys, accept it for what it appears to be: Grandmother's radio sounds better than a lot of modern stuff.
Yeah, yeah... My first Heathkit was a little '70s-green table radio. It sounded great too. Partly because it had a nice little alnico speaker that was bolted to a sturdy aluminum internal structure and not directly to the plastic housing.
No majic mojo, just robust design.
I'm sure another reason it sounded so good to me was because I made it from a box of loose parts, and it worked perfectly the first time I turned it on.
I've since heard some modern portable designs that would make my beloved Heathkit sound pretty corny by comparison.
No majic mojo, just robust design.
I'm sure another reason it sounded so good to me was because I made it from a box of loose parts, and it worked perfectly the first time I turned it on.
I've since heard some modern portable designs that would make my beloved Heathkit sound pretty corny by comparison.
Last edited:
Old table top or portable radio have their charm. A Ruark R1 is a much safer bet for good sound these days when space is scarce. Pretty impressive what they offer in a tight package.
Still, they disrupted the two-channels-assembly in favour to the single-point-source.
I mean, we don't want old cumbersome thinghs around the room.
Better focus onto the real thing.
Wasn't stereo introduced in the late Fifties ?
I mean, we don't want old cumbersome thinghs around the room.
Better focus onto the real thing.
Wasn't stereo introduced in the late Fifties ?
The best radio that I've ever had was an ECHO tube (valve) set from 1935.
10" electromagnet speaker and a large cabinet gave it a fantastic sound.
Sadly disposed of by SWMBO while I was abroad !!!!!!!
Andy
( Who'd have thought that I would be agreeing with JC on this thread !!)
Not just any chance but a pretty good chance a lot of it is sentimental.
Scott Wurcer gave RBC military radios as examples of machines doing that which I find quite interesting as I don't see a possibility of a sentimental connection like "grandma's kitchen" there.
I once built a ransmitting tube amp with kV anode supplies, dc coupled with stacked supplies and couldn't get that coupling right without the amp going off in wildest oscillations. When it finally worked it was a mess of cobbled together power supplies, one of them vibrating so much it was moving along the floor. Load of hum. BUT... immediate goosebumps listening to music. After the hum and vibration was gone goosebumps were gone as well. Maybe fear of death is an important ingredient. Since then I'm wondering what is responsible for that goosebump effect and how to reproduce it.
No. A lot of old radio speakers exist that wipe the floor with anything Scan Speak and the likes have to offer though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.