1944 proposals for future of television

[MB]

I came across by chance whilst looking up a report of charming Gestapo
Major-General responsible for the murder of most of the crew of the SS
BELGIAN PRINCE in 1917.


Belfast News-Letter - Friday 16 June 1944
RADIO PLANS
Nationwide Television Envisaged
The British Institution of Radio Engineers has been studying postwar
developments in wireless and television.
In a report, published to-day, it foresees nationwide television,
coloured stereoscopic television relayed to cinemas, a big increase in
broadcasting by the introduction of short-wave transmission, sound films
in the home, and increased popularity for home recording of gramophone
records, which, it Is suggested, may be used in conjunction with the
cine-camera, and wireless telephone calls to New York or Calcutta as
reliable a local call.
All these developments are, in the opinion of the Institution, dependent
on State control of the ether, though not a monopoly of radio
entertainment.

[Brian Gaff]

That sounds like a cop out to me.
How can you know about the effects of something not yet tried, or were they
looking across the pond. ahem.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tl4pup$2k2hr$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

Did you know that FM Stereo was not available in New Zealand till the 1970s?

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tl4pup$2k2hr$1...@dont-email.me...

[MB]

On 17/11/2022 17:19, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Did you know that FM Stereo was not available in New Zealand till the 1970s?
> Brian

Just after they got inside toilets. :-)

[Mark Carver]

On 17/11/2022 17:19, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Did you know that FM Stereo was not available in New Zealand till the 1970s?

Rather like large areas of the UK then ?

[NY]

"Brian Gaff" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tl5qej$2mgu9$1...@dont-email.me...

> Did you know that FM Stereo was not available in New Zealand till the
> 1970s?

When did stereo FM (as opposed to mono which started in 1955) begin
broadcasting in the UK? Surprisingly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting#Stereo_FM doesn't mention when
stereo and RDS each began in the UK.

The first stereo FM radio I heard was in the late 1970s. I worked in the
audio visual room at school as my prefect duty in the 6th form and there was
an FM tuner which was used for recording some educational radio programmes.
It was quite a revelation to hear the difference between stereo FM on a
high-quality tuner, amplifier and speakers with a roof-mounted aerial,
compared with mono FM on a normal radio and small speaker with a telescopic
aerial.


Ah, finally found something:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/august/experimental-stereo-broadcasting/ -
"Radios 1, 2 and 4 went stereo in 1973, with a celebratory Stereo Week." So
round about the same time as in New Zealand ;-)

[Mark Carver]

Third Programme (aka R3) from Wrotham went stereo July 1966

Extended to R3 Sutton C, and Holme Moss  Summer 68.

In 1972 the BBC rolled out PCM distribution that allowed R1/2 and 4 to
go stereo, and expand around the rest of the UK. It was a slow process.

ILR Radio Clyde in Glasgow launched in stereo in 1973, way before BBC
stereo reached Kirk'O'Shots.

Funnitly enough BBC stereo reached Aberdeen the exact same week ILR
NorthSound launched in 1981

[NY]

"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jtp1f9...@mid.individual.net...

> Third Programme (aka R3) from Wrotham went stereo July 1966
>
> Extended to R3 Sutton C, and Holme Moss Summer 68.

Ah, as early as mid/late 60s for R3. I hadn't realised.

[Mark Carver]

The BBC were running on air tests of competing systems from the early 60s.

They settled on the US Zenith system in 1963

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1963-09.pdf

[MB]

On 18/11/2022 09:14, NY wrote:

> When did stereo FM (as opposed to mono which started in 1955) begin
> broadcasting in the UK?

Didn't some VHF FM broadcasting begin experimentally before WWII in the
US? But the first commercial licence was issued in 1940. By the end of
1941 almost 400,000 VHF FM receivers had been sold.


It was put at the top end of the then VHF band because no one else
wanted those frequencies and TV was using the lower VHF frequencies.


Armstrong's book is quite a good read.

[Max Demian]

On 18/11/2022 09:57, NY wrote:

The Third Programme (as it was called then) had a programme called
Stereo Rock, for people who wanted to listen to "modern" music in stereo.

--
Max Demian

[MB]

On 18/11/2022 14:37, Max Demian wrote:
> The Third Programme (as it was called then) had a programme called
> Stereo Rock, for people who wanted to listen to "modern" music in stereo.

Wishaw Press - Friday 29 October 1971
Image © Reach PLC. Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD.
STEREO ROCK
Manfred Mann has begun a new weekly Radio 3 record programme, titled "
Stereo Rock."
It is the only pop programme in stereo, and the emphasis is on
'progressive' music—not just the latest albums, but the whole
progressive scene of the last four or five years. The programme also
includes review and record requests.
Manfred Mann came over from South Africa as a jazz pianist, then became
widely known as a pop singer. A few years ago he decided to go
progressive, forming the 'Manfred Mann Chapter 3' group, strongly
influenced by jazz.

[Mark Carver]

Going to the top of Mt Washington (in New Hampshire) is a good
pilgrimage. It was one of the sites used by Armstrong in the 1940s for
FM test transmissions.

https://www.fybush.com/site-020206.html

We went up there a few years ago, on a day with sparkling blue skies,
and about -20C

There's an FM station that uses the sit,e WHOM 94.9, you can receive it
over a hundred miles away, in any direction !

[charles]

In article <jtp4ei...@mid.individual.net>,

I can remember somme experimental broadcasts when I was it school in the
1950s

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Max Demian]

On 19/11/2022 09:27, charles wrote:
> In article <jtp4ei...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/11/2022 09:57, NY wrote:
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:jtp1f9...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Third Programme (aka R3) from Wrotham went stereo July 1966
>>>>
>>>> Extended to R3 Sutton C, and Holme Moss Summer 68.
>>>
>>> Ah, as early as mid/late 60s for R3. I hadn't realised.
>
>> The BBC were running on air tests of competing systems from the early 60s.
>
>> They settled on the US Zenith system in 1963
>
>> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1963-09.pdf
>
> I can remember somme experimental broadcasts when I was it school in the
> 1950s

What, "real" stereo on FM? Or using the TV sound as one channel and
radio as the other?

--
Max Demian

[charles]

In article <tlaghh$37e0c$3...@dont-email.me>,

The second

[NY]

"charles" <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a49d0d6...@candehope.me.uk...

> In article <tlaghh$37e0c$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 19/11/2022 09:27, charles wrote:
>> > I can remember somme experimental broadcasts when I was it school in
>> > the
>> > 1950s
>
>> What, "real" stereo on FM? Or using the TV sound as one channel and
>> radio as the other?
>
> The second

I'd not thought about it until now, but the results of them attempting a
Radio 3 / BBC 2 simulcast these days would be "amusing", given the
inevitable time offset between the two channels. At the time of the Queen's
funeral, when BBC1 and ITV were both showing identical feeds, there was a
time offset of a second or so between the two.

Even worse would be the delay between R3 FM (analogue, so no delay) and R3
on Freeview or Freesat (digital so an arbitrary buffering/coding/decoding
delay).

I presume TV sound is thought to be "good enough" (*) that there is no
longer a need to simulcast on radio to get a higher quality of sound.

Was simulcasting done after NICAM TV sound had been introduced, or was NICAM
thought to be a significant improvement over mono FM sound so simulcasting
was no longer necessary. What was the typical delay between FM and NICAM
sound on the same channel - how "nearly instantaneous" was it? When I tried
with a TV on FM sound and another using NICAM sound, I wasn't aware of any
delay of one wrt the other, so it was pretty damn good.


(*) If 192 kbps MPEG is good enough for purists ;-) Is the sound quality of
AAC sound on an HD channel significantly better than the MPEG sound on an SD
channel? Is it worth watching on HD rather than SD for better *sound*?

[John Williamson]

On 19/11/2022 1

> (*) If 192 kbps MPEG is good enough for purists ;-) Is the sound
> quality of AAC sound on an HD channel significantly better than the MPEG
> sound on an SD channel? Is it worth watching on HD rather than SD for
> better *sound*?

128kbps MP3 is better than most modern TV speakers..

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Max Demian]

I think that simulcasting continued for several years after NICAM,
presumably for people with non-NICAM equipment.

In 1988 I bought a non-NICAM VCR with simulcast recording capability.
Then in 1990 or 1991 I bought a NICAM VCR which also allowed simulcast
recording. Perhaps NICAM wasn't available from all transmitters.

Both VCRs allowed recording of sound from an external source, with or
without the picture.

--
Max Demian

[NY]

On 19/11/2022 18:09, Max Demian wrote:
> In 1988 I bought a non-NICAM VCR with simulcast recording capability.
> Then in 1990 or 1991 I bought a NICAM VCR which also allowed simulcast
> recording. Perhaps NICAM wasn't available from all transmitters.
>
> Both VCRs allowed recording of sound from an external source, with or
> without the picture.

I'm surprised more VHS VCRs didn't offer the ability to record video
from the built-in tuner and sound from an external source such as a
radio, for simulcasts. When did VHS machines start recording sound to a
hifi track embedded in the video tracks in addition to recording it to
the linear track? I assumed that hifi sound was introduced at the same
time as a NICAM decoder, but with the ability to record from a baseband
source (external sound and video tuner) hifi didn't need to wait until
NICAM.

I've still got my NICAM VHS recorder - now used only for playing old
tapes and copying them to MPEG files via an analogue capture card. I
remember the "fun" I had when a tape got mangled up inside and shed some
oxide onto the video heads. Dabbing IPA (not the beer!) with a lint-free
spectacles cleaning cloth onto the head got video playback restored
fairly quickly, but it took a lot of cleaning to get hifi sound to play
without dropouts.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 16:32:14 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>I presume TV sound is thought to be "good enough" (*) that there is no
>longer a need to simulcast on radio to get a higher quality of sound.

As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
be very good, but it was only in mono.

>Was simulcasting done after NICAM TV sound had been introduced, or was NICAM
>thought to be a significant improvement over mono FM sound so simulcasting
>was no longer necessary. What was the typical delay between FM and NICAM
>sound on the same channel - how "nearly instantaneous" was it? When I tried
>with a TV on FM sound and another using NICAM sound, I wasn't aware of any
>delay of one wrt the other, so it was pretty damn good.

I had a receiver that could be switched between FM and NICAM, and I
could never hear any delay between them. With a mono broadcast, or
with the NICAM decoder switched to mono, the only difference I could
hear was a slight increase in background hiss on FM. I thought NICAM
was pretty damn good too.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 22:25:16 +0000, NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I'm surprised more VHS VCRs didn't offer the ability to record video
>from the built-in tuner and sound from an external source such as a
>radio, for simulcasts.

When I bought my first VHS machine, I chose one with this facility for
exactly that purpose. It also offered manual setting of the audio
recording level. They didn't all have these things, which inevitably
made the few that did have them more expensive.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 20/11/2022 11:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 16:32:14 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I presume TV sound is thought to be "good enough" (*) that there is no
>> longer a need to simulcast on radio to get a higher quality of sound.
>
> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
> be very good, but it was only in mono.

Actually there used to be simulcasts between Capital Radio and, I think,
Channel 4, for "pop" concerts.

--
Max Demian

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
> be very good, but it was only in mono.

So if you just listened to the TV sound, you would get either left or
right. And vice-versa for the radio sound.
Must have been weird for those who didn't have the capability to rig
up the appropriate stereo setup, which would've been mostly everybody.
I wonder how this got past the common-sense filter of the time.

I remember this happening a few times when I was a kid, but can't
remember now whether we ever tried it.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 16:32:14 -0000, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> Even worse would be the delay between R3 FM (analogue, so no delay)

But distributed digitally, so some delay.

[Max Demian]

On 20/11/2022 12:53, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
>> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
>> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
>> be very good, but it was only in mono.
>
> So if you just listened to the TV sound, you would get either left or
> right. And vice-versa for the radio sound.
> Must have been weird for those who didn't have the capability to rig
> up the appropriate stereo setup, which would've been mostly everybody.
> I wonder how this got past the common-sense filter of the time.

That's not how it worked at all. TV sound was FM mono. Radio sound was
FM stereo. For a simulcast the radio FM stereo was recorded onto the
"Hi-Fi audio" track (sub carriers on the video). It was also put onto
the VHS linear tracks - in mono - I don't think there was any attempt to
split them for stereo, but I do have some pre-recorded tapes which claim
to have Dolby B on the linear tracks.

--
Max Demian

[MB]

On 20/11/2022 17:08, Max Demian wrote:
> That's not how it worked at all. TV sound was FM mono. Radio sound was
> FM stereo. For a simulcast the radio FM stereo was recorded onto the
> "Hi-Fi audio" track (sub carriers on the video). It was also put onto
> the VHS linear tracks - in mono - I don't think there was any attempt to
> split them for stereo, but I do have some pre-recorded tapes which claim
> to have Dolby B on the linear tracks.

The Saturday morning stereo transmissions using radio and TV started on
18th October 1958, TV sound was AM at that time.

[charles]

In article <tldu3v$3ispc$1...@dont-email.me>,

my last trm at school!

[NY]

"Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrntnk8q1...@news.pr.network...

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
>> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
>> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
>> be very good, but it was only in mono.
>
> So if you just listened to the TV sound, you would get either left or
> right. And vice-versa for the radio sound.
> Must have been weird for those who didn't have the capability to rig
> up the appropriate stereo setup, which would've been mostly everybody.
> I wonder how this got past the common-sense filter of the time.

When did the policy for simulcasts change from L channel on TV and R channel
on FM radio (or vice versa), to L+R on TV and L/R channels on stereo FM
radio? Did the change happen at the same time that FM radio began
broadcasting in stereo?

Was the main advantage of simulcasting deemed to be stereo, or to be the
greater sound quality of the amplifier and speakers on a good FM radio
compared with the mediocre ones in a TV?

[NY]

"NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:tlfg1d$3pbie$1...@dont-email.me...

Another couple of questions...

Before NICAM was developed, had there been any development work done on
pilot-tone stereo, as for FM radio? Or was there insufficient bandwidth
between one UHF channel and the next to allow room for the additional L-R
signal modulated on sound_carrier+38 kHz?

Did VHS recorders always use the NICAM signal (in L+R form) for the linear
(mono) soundtrack on the tape, or did they record NICAM to the hifi track
and FM sound to the linear track?

[Roderick Stewart]

And FM radio was mono.

The BBC Third Programme transmitted its channel of the stereo pair on
both FM Band 2 and AM medium wave, and BBC Televison transmitted the
other stereo channel on its AM sound channel. I can't remember which
was left and which was right, or what was on the TV screen at the
time, though probably an explanatory caption.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:22:57 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>When did the policy for simulcasts change from L channel on TV and R channel
>on FM radio (or vice versa), to L+R on TV and L/R channels on stereo FM
>radio? Did the change happen at the same time that FM radio began
>broadcasting in stereo?

The two stereo channels being broadcast on radio and television was an
experimental system, only used out of normal broadcasting hours,
Saturday mornings as I recall. It was never intended to be the way a
"proper" stereo service would work, but just to assess how stereo
programme material might work in a domestic setting.

The policy for stereo broadcasting was much the same as for colour
television, that a proper service would have to use the existing
transmission system and would not require the viewers or listeners to
invest in new equipment if they didn't want it.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

There was a god awful analogue stereo TV sound system used  by Germany,
Zweikanalton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweikanalton

>
> Did VHS recorders always use the NICAM signal (in L+R form) for the
> linear (mono) soundtrack on the tape, or did they record NICAM to the
> hifi track and FM sound to the linear track?

It varied. Some were fixed, if a NICAM carrier was present then both
linear and HiFi tracks were fed from it.

It caught out the IBA when they started NICAM tests, using different
material (notably 440 Hz tone !) on the NICAM carrier

[Mark Carver]

On 21/11/2022 09:22, NY wrote:
> "Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
> news:slrntnk8q1...@news.pr.network...
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart
>> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
>>> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
>>> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
>>> be very good, but it was only in mono.
>>
>> So if you just listened to the TV sound, you would get either left or
>> right. And vice-versa for the radio sound.
>> Must have been weird for those who didn't have the capability to rig
>> up the appropriate stereo setup, which would've been mostly everybody.
>> I wonder how this got past the common-sense filter of the time.
>
> When did the policy for simulcasts change from L channel on TV and R
> channel on FM radio (or vice versa), to L+R on TV and L/R channels on
> stereo FM radio? Did the change happen at the same time that FM radio
> began broadcasting in stereo?

Using the TV sound/ FM mono radio for stereo was an appalling bodge.
It must have sounded crap, the two tx paths were totally unmatched in
terms of eq and phase.

>
> Was the main advantage of simulcasting deemed to be stereo, or to be
> the greater sound quality of the amplifier and speakers on a good FM
> radio compared with the mediocre ones in a TV?

Yes.

[NY]

"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:ju126o...@mid.individual.net...

> Using the TV sound/ FM mono radio for stereo was an appalling bodge.
> It must have sounded crap, the two tx paths were totally unmatched in
> terms of eq and phase.

Maybe TV sound and radio sound for simulcasts were deliberately fed through
a common audio chain as far as possible between mixing desk and
transmitters, to avoid obvious mismatches. Can't do anything about different
bandwidths and therefore different frequency responses (for AM TV sound on
405-line TV). Presumably the matching between FM TV sound (625-line) and FM
radio would have been much better.

>> Was the main advantage of simulcasting deemed to be stereo, or to be the
>> greater sound quality of the amplifier and speakers on a good FM radio
>> compared with the mediocre ones in a TV?
>
> Yes.

I was asking which of the two benefits of simulcasting (stereo or better
sound quality) was seen as being the more important. Maybe your answer of
"yes" implies that both benefits were regarded as equally important.



Was the sound mix for TV sound and Radio 3 sound the same (apart from TV
sound being an equal mix of L and R) or did radio use a different mix of the
available microphones at the concert being broadcast?

I remember someone suggesting that the TV sound mix tended to favour
whichever instrument was being shown at the time, which sounds implausible
because it means the sound mix was constantly changing depending on which
camera's shot was being used at the instant.

[John Williamson]

On 21/11/2022 11:16, NY wrote:

> I remember someone suggesting that the TV sound mix tended to favour
> whichever instrument was being shown at the time, which sounds implausible
> because it means the sound mix was constantly changing depending on which
> camera's shot was being used at the instant.

From what I remember, if it was a solo, then that was, and still is,
tweaked slightly, but not in a way directly connected to the camera in
use, though the soloist would also normally be shown on screen while
they were being featured. This would not necessarily sound strange on
the radio.

I have seen it done at modern classical concerts, where the soloist
steps up to a spot mic, or with a larger instrument, there is a spot mic
near or on the instrument.

[Mark Carver]

On 21/11/2022 11:16, NY wrote:

> "Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ju126o...@mid.individual.net...
>> Using the TV sound/ FM mono radio for stereo was an appalling bodge.
>> It must have sounded crap, the two tx paths were totally unmatched in
>> terms of eq and phase.
>
> Maybe TV sound and radio sound for simulcasts were deliberately fed
> through
> a common audio chain as far as possible between mixing desk and
> transmitters, to avoid obvious mismatches. Can't do anything about
> different
> bandwidths and therefore different frequency responses (for AM TV
> sound on
> 405-line TV). Presumably the matching between FM TV sound (625-line)
> and FM
> radio would have been much better.

How on earth would you phase match left and right channels ?  That's why
stereo matched pair landlines were so hideously expensive, and often
prohibitavly expensive for OBs

And anyway, the TV amp and loudspeaker and radio amp and loudspeaker
were totally different !

>
> Was the sound mix for TV sound and Radio 3 sound the same (apart from TV
> sound being an equal mix of L and R) or did radio use a different mix
> of the
> available microphones at the concert being broadcast?
>
> I remember someone suggesting that the TV sound mix tended to favour
> whichever instrument was being shown at the time, which sounds
> implausible
> because it means the sound mix was constantly changing depending on which
> camera's shot was being used at the instant.

Yes, I think TV and radio sound mixes where different. I recall the
audio operators for both mentioned in the credits

[MB]

On 21/11/2022 10:28, Mark Carver wrote:
> Using the TV sound/ FM mono radio for stereo was an appalling bodge.
> It must have sounded crap, the two tx paths were totally unmatched in
> terms of eq and phase.

Just think what it must have been like using 2LO and 5XX!

I think the TV Sound + VHF FM was just a cheap way to demonstrate
stereo, get some studio experience and comments from listeners. I don't
think the Third Programme and TV were broadcsting on a Saturday morning
then.

I don't think it was ever considered a long term solution.

[charles]

In article <qrimnh1ho98nh97h5...@4ax.com>,

These were demonstrations of Stereo sound. Nothingb to do with Simulacasts.
The ones I heard took place on Saturday mornings. Outsside tv broadcast
hours. I had a tuner which would pick up tv sound, so no idea about what
picture was presented. Probably just a caption

[MB]

On 21/11/2022 12:26, charles wrote:
> These were demonstrations of Stereo sound. Nothingb to do with Simulacasts.
> The ones I heard took place on Saturday mornings. Outsside tv broadcast
> hours. I had a tuner which would pick up tv sound, so no idea about what
> picture was presented. Probably just a caption

I suspect that at that time, many would not have a stereo record player
so might never have heard stereo sound.

[charles]

In article <ju172c...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2022 11:16, NY wrote:

> > I remember someone suggesting that the TV sound mix tended to favour
> > whichever instrument was being shown at the time, which sounds
> > implausible because it means the sound mix was constantly changing
> > depending on which camera's shot was being used at the instant.

> From what I remember, if it was a solo, then that was, and still is,
> tweaked slightly, but not in a way directly connected to the camera in
> use, though the soloist would also normally be shown on screen while
> they were being featured. This would not necessarily sound strange on
> the radio.

as far I know, BBC R3 and TV each make their own sound mixes. so,
emphasising a soloist on tv would not affect a radio audience.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

...

> And anyway, the TV amp and loudspeaker and radio amp and loudspeaker
> were totally different !

With some television sets you were lucky if you got a proper sound
output pentode; some used a low power RF pentode, such as an EF80, as
the sound output valve. At least most radio sets didn't sink that low.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Roderick Stewart]

My first experience of stereo was visiting a school friend whose older
brother had built a system, and I was so impressed that I decided I
had to build one too. But a whole system would be very expensive, so
my first experiment was to spend my pocket money on a stereo pickup
cartridge and make a pickup arm out of Meccano which I could attach
temporarily to my sister's BSR autochange record player. For listening
I rewired some aircraft headphones that I had for radio listening so
that each headphone was connected separately, and I then built a pair
of small amplifiers to drive them. I doubt that many people would have
gone to this amount of trouble, so you're probably correct that most
would never have heard stereo. But once you've heard it you never want
to go back, and the rest is history...

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:16:48 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>I remember someone suggesting that the TV sound mix tended to favour
>whichever instrument was being shown at the time, which sounds implausible
>because it means the sound mix was constantly changing depending on which
>camera's shot was being used at the instant.

I think they fairly quickly learned not to, because it sounds awful.
TV and radio made their own mixes of concerts, but my own
recollections of comparing the two was that the TV mix would bring the
soloists a bit more forward, but that they wouldn't attempt to mess
with the stereo positioning. It certainly didn't change with the
shots. For drama, it's usual to put all the dialogue in the centre,
unless it's actually off screen, which is rare, and only give spot
effects a definite position if they match something seen, otherwise
using the stereo effect simply to give the background 'atmos' effect a
more spread out feel. Some widescreen movies will pan the dialogue if
somebody moves across the screen while speaking, but it sounds very
distracting, particularly if you're watching on a TV set, even one
with a big screen. Dialogue is normally recorded on a single track
anyway, as close-miked as possible, because this is what gives the
most flexibility in the mix. Most of what you hear on a 'stereo' movie
or TV drama isn't actually stereo at all, and much better for it.

Rod.

[jon]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 09:14:42 +0000, NY wrote:

> "Brian Gaff" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tl5qej$2mgu9$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Did you know that FM Stereo was not available in New Zealand till the
>> 1970s?
>
> When did stereo FM (as opposed to mono which started in 1955) begin
> broadcasting in the UK? Surprisingly
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting#Stereo_FM doesn't mention
> when stereo and RDS each began in the UK.
>
> The first stereo FM radio I heard was in the late 1970s. I worked in the
> audio visual room at school as my prefect duty in the 6th form and there
> was an FM tuner which was used for recording some educational radio
> programmes.
> It was quite a revelation to hear the difference between stereo FM on a
> high-quality tuner, amplifier and speakers with a roof-mounted aerial,
> compared with mono FM on a normal radio and small speaker with a
> telescopic aerial.
>
>
> Ah, finally found something:
> https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/august/experimental-
stereo-broadcasting/
> -
> "Radios 1, 2 and 4 went stereo in 1973, with a celebratory Stereo Week."
> So round about the same time as in New Zealand ;-)

I still have a Tandberg TR1010 stereo receiver I used in the early '70s to
listen to music in stereo.

[Chris Youlden]

On 21/11/2022 10:28, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 21/11/2022 09:22, NY wrote:
>> "Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
>> news:slrntnk8q1...@news.pr.network...
>>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as I can recall, simulcasting was only done with TV broadcasts
>>>> that were thought to benefit from stereo sound, typically the Proms.
>>>> The quality of the FM sound channel for a normal TV transmission could
>>>> be very good, but it was only in mono.
>>>
>>> So if you just listened to the TV sound, you would get either left or
>>> right. And vice-versa for the radio sound.
>>> Must have been weird for those who didn't have the capability to rig
>>> up the appropriate stereo setup, which would've been mostly everybody.
>>> I wonder how this got past the common-sense filter of the time.
>>
>> When did the policy for simulcasts change from L channel on TV and R
>> channel on FM radio (or vice versa), to L+R on TV and L/R channels on
>> stereo FM radio? Did the change happen at the same time that FM radio
>> began broadcasting in stereo?
>
> Using the TV sound/ FM mono radio for stereo was an appalling bodge.
> It must have sounded crap, the two tx paths were totally unmatched in
> terms of eq and phase.
>

I remember having a listen at the time, only once as it wasn't
impressive. And my Mum wasn't amused as I had to wheel the radiogram
from the lounge to the sitting room where the telly was.

I suppose you would hear a sort of mono signal maybe slightly out of
phase and some sources might be displaced. You would get a stereo image
though not the right one!

--

Chris

[Dave W]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 19:10:55 +0000, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:

It must have been just before that I listened to an experimental
broadcast from the Home Service and the Third Programme via two
crystal sets in series - best stereo I've ever heard!
--
Dave W

[tony sayer]

In article <tlfmne$3pra5$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus

The bandwidth of 405 line AM TV sound was up to 15 kHz IIRC or more like
what the GPO could manage!..

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[tony sayer]

In article <1q1s8ps.c45ds61gsx7qgN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>...
>> And anyway, the TV amp and loudspeaker and radio amp and loudspeaker
>> were totally different !
>
>With some television sets you were lucky if you got a proper sound
>output pentode; some used a low power RF pentode, such as an EF80, as
>the sound output valve. At least most radio sets didn't sink that low.
>

EF80 Liz?, that must have been sometime ago!

Remember a Baird TV monochrome back around 1972 ish that had very good
sound on it, decent speaker and neg feedback! The Philips K7 chassis was
very good for sound had bass and treble controls but it was from Sweden
tho!..

[tony sayer]

In article <m5hnnh5c82gacpsje...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

It happened to me i was taken to a Pantomime in Peterborough first time
ever in a Theatre amazed by the sound of the band there especially
things like Cymbals hitherto all we had at home was a Radiogram with sod
all more that phone bandwidth available.

Then went to stay with an aunt in London she was housekeeper to this
baroness who was away a lot of the time in Scotland, she had a decent
radio with that oft heard about FM band on!, was amazed at what you
could hear the rest being a lot of history and money!!