|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
J. Hill
|
Post subject: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Jan Sun 29, 2017 1:27 am |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1737
Location: Pasadena CA USA
|
|
I am not sure if this should be here or in the clubhouse. Feel free to move it. Sometime between 1954 and 1969, the FCC either allowed or required television stations to reduce aural carrier power. I THINK this was sometime in the late 1950's, but it was before my time. RCA had a method for the TT-50 television transmitter which involved disconnecting one of the parallel final power amplifier tubes. Does anyone know when this was done? Thanks, Jim
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
WeekendHacker
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Jan Tue 31, 2017 2:30 am |
|
Joined: Jul Tue 07, 2009 11:17 pm Posts: 965
Location: Wyoming, Michigan
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
J. Hill
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Jan Tue 31, 2017 4:46 pm |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1737
Location: Pasadena CA USA
|
|
That is the discussion that started me thinking about the transmitter modification to reduce aural power. All my friends who were around back then and involved in such things are deceased. I was the kid.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
WeekendHacker
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Jan Tue 31, 2017 9:52 pm |
|
Joined: Jul Tue 07, 2009 11:17 pm Posts: 965
Location: Wyoming, Michigan
|
|
Likewise. My dad would have known. It was before my time too. It surely must be in books somewhere. Issues of Radio & TV news seem like a good place to start.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
J. Hill
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Feb Wed 01, 2017 4:44 pm |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1737
Location: Pasadena CA USA
|
|
I have been checking old magazines with no luck. I did get a clue from one magazine that it may have been after 1961.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Jthorusen
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Feb Fri 03, 2017 8:49 am |
|
| Member |
 |
Joined: Nov Mon 02, 2009 6:01 am Posts: 5992
Location: Lincoln City, OR. 97367
|
Greetings, All! I went to a friend (Burt W.) who has spent virtually his entire adult life as a broadcast engineer, and he went to an old-timer he knows. His name is Donald Wilson, K6DSW. Here is his reply to Burt in full: Quote: This is from my memory, mainly based on references, and some experience.
There were several, separate aural power reductions.
Before NTSC color TV was adopted, the rules allowed aural power between 50% and 100% of the peak visual power. The FCC color rules were effective in December 1953, in those rules or soon thereafter, the aural power was reduced to between 50% and 70%.
By about 1956, as part of rule changes to make UHF TV more viable, UHF stations could use aural powers between 10% and 70%, VHF stations still had a 50% minimum.
The change you were thinking of occurred about 1965. The maximum allowable aural power for all TV stations was reduced to 20% of peak visual. Both VHF and UHF stations were required to hold their aural powers between 10% and 20%. The 20% aural power maximum made proper fine tuning of a color set easier and simplified the design of color receivers. On many sets, color or black and white, adjacent channel interference was reduced, but that was not the reason for the change.
There was one more change. In 1985 as part of a relaxation of technical rules, the minimum 10% power limit was eliminated.
In the mid 1960's, RCA supplied kits to reduce the aural power of many of their transmitters.
Many stations running the TT-50AH high band transmitters bypassed the aural final amplifiers. The aural output from the 10kW driver could produce 7 kW.
The RCA 25 kW amplifiers (7 parallel 5762 tubes), used in the TT-25BL, and several other models from the 1950's, were capable of 100% aural power. Since this was not usually needed, a station could remove filament power from two of the aural final tubes and still be able to operate at 70% aural power. The two tubes had to stay in the amplifier so that it would tune properly.
Donald Wilson K6DSW
That's probably as close as you are going to get. Regards,
_________________ Jim T. KB6GM Palus delenda est.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
WeekendHacker
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Feb Fri 03, 2017 3:45 pm |
|
Joined: Jul Tue 07, 2009 11:17 pm Posts: 965
Location: Wyoming, Michigan
|
|
Better than we expected. Thanks for your help.
Makes sense that color would have had an impact. People kept their TVs maintained back then, and in 1953 probably 95%+ of first generation sets were still in action, and subject to the semi-annual house call. Repairmen undoubtedly evolved methods to counter the effect of the changes in aural power over the decades. The bridged tube in Lee's 8TS30 being one such example.
Good research. Relay our thanks back to the "old timer" for his recollections, if possible.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
J. Hill
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Feb Fri 03, 2017 7:30 pm |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1737
Location: Pasadena CA USA
|
|
Thanks Jim and thanks to Burt and Don. You are completely correct, the mid 1960s kit is what I was really courious about. I recall reading the instructions for installation of that kit many years ago with only slight interest. Jim
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
wa2ise
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Feb Fri 03, 2017 10:56 pm |
|
Joined: Aug Mon 16, 2010 6:01 pm Posts: 284 Location: USA
|
|
I imagine that sets built with two separate IFs (one video, the other sound) would have some difficulty with reduced aural carrier strength. Intercarrier sets less so. More often than not, the sound would come in better on weak stations than the video did.
UHF stations transmitting around a million watts would see a lower electric bill with reduced aural power. Which is not insignificant at that power level.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jimmc
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Apr Wed 05, 2017 9:55 pm |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1901 Location: Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
I worked in TV broadcast in the late 50's and still do today
I don't recall the exact year but TV stations were allowed to reduce Aural power to 10% of visual where it remained until 2009 when we shut it off.
Before that it was 20%.
I believe this caused problems in the late 40's TV's especially if they weren't inter-carrier sound.
Now it doesn't matter because they are all gone.
Jim
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tom Schulz
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Apr Wed 05, 2017 11:17 pm |
|
| Member |
 |
Joined: Mar Sun 01, 2009 9:27 pm Posts: 6501 Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
|
Well, in a way it does matter. If the digital converter boxes and other modulators adhere to the 10% sound carrier level, then the old split sound set will still have problems because of that change.
_________________ Tom
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jimmc
|
Post subject: Re: NTSC Aural transmitter power reduced Posted: Apr Thu 06, 2017 12:39 am |
|
Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 12:00 am Posts: 1901 Location: Phoenix, Arizona
|
Actually it doesn't matter  I have not looked a various set-top converters with a spectrum analyzer so I don't know what the ratio actually is. When the FCC set up specs for set-top converters there was a lot of attention paid to receiver compliance but very little for the analog side. In a word they didn't give a RAT because it was all expected to hit the landfill soon. The converter I use to watch Meet the Press on Sunday morning drives my RCA 621TS which is a separate sound design and it seems to work OK. I have a VHF transmitter modulator (exciter) I use to drive my house cable and it works good but I have the Aural up toward 20% The bigger problem is Macrovision which I take out with an old grass valley 640 proc amp. The new all-exciting digital, audio is of course in the stream and you can't adjust until you get your hand on the knob. Analog audio is/was FM, Visual was/is AM, so the power ratio doesn't really matter now. Jim
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
|
|