Radio Broadcast (May 1929-Apr 1930)

PROFESSIONALLY i ' ! j ji 1 ■ ! ^ : 6 •j ! I !'(| : , , 5 . 1 ' l5 ' llhhhil 4 1 S I iiilll ' V 1,1 8 r. [$ j 6 7 « S ' 4 5 6 ? 1 K ? S| 8, 1 7, . 6: 5 ,.,,!.,, ,6, • ■ ■ MORE TUBE RESEARCH NEEDED A pparently there must always be some weak link in the J\ broadcast chain. Flushed with pride at what radio enjL A_ gineers had done — as evidenced by the Trade Show — we asked a well-known design engineer what he considered the protem major technical problem facing the radio industry. He came back with no hesitation, "Tubes!" According to this engineer, tubes are lamentably short on life, and long on gas. Tube manufacturers are long on self confidence and short on money for research. A tube manufacturer will willingly pay a super salesman ten per cent, to sell the tubes, but will not pay a research department or consulting engineer five per cent, to make better tubes. It is true that tubes have changed, but these changes are toward new kinds of tubes, or the same tubes at lower prices. What is desired is a better tube at the same price, or one that costs more but lasts longer. The Western Electric company has developed tubes that last 20,000 hours. It is true that they cost plenty of good money, and that a set that stays in a consumer's house for 20,000 hours is an exception. But it does seem reasonable that tubes could be made for radio reception that would last longer without going gassy or losing emission. It is true that few tube manufacturers have installed laboratories or research staff, or have been willing to do anything but copy what someone else has developed. This is a rather serious arraignment against the tube industry, and is probably due to the uncertainty of its patent structure, or to the fact that it was easy to make tubes of a sort, or to the fact that tubes of practically any life and characteristics could be sold. It seems to us that tube manufacturers will have to do some fundamental research into filaments, metals or elements, the glass wall, methods of exhaust, and bombardment — with the thought in mind that, while the electrical characteristics or present tubes are probably as good as necessary, their life is poor. It reminds us of the story of an automobile manufacturer who made such a cheap car that it failed prematurely — or whatever it is cars do. Sales began to fall off, public enthusiasm began to wane. SPEAKING The solution was to put the profits from the car back into the car itself — not to decrease the price, but to make the car better. Sales began to climb, public confidence came back, proving again that you cannot sell a poor product, no matter how little it costs. S' Y CM DDI n<?S Y A. Atwater Kent: "I like a game which puts me on my mettle, which makes me keep my wits about me, which forces me to meet and beat new problems. . . . You can't go stale in radio without going bankrupt, because the other fellow will pass you." X D. H. Kelley, president, TJ. S. L. Battery Corporation: "If a concern is making a net profit of 10 per cent, it is better for them to lose ten sales than to be stuck with one finished article on hand. This is a case of simple mathematics, but it is overlooked so frequently." X R. H. Woodford, radio sales manager, Stewart-Warner: "Radio sales for 1929 will increase 20 to 25 per cent. Our radio production this year will be quadrupled." X George M. Studehaker, Colin B. Kennedy: "The point of saturation in the radio field is not in sight, radio, to my mind, being in the same position as the automotive industry was fifteen years ago. . . . Radio reaches the popular fancy to an even greater extent than the automobile." X Printers' Ink: "There will be a place for the good specialty jobber for some years to come. He still performs economically a service which the usual manufacturer can't perform for himself except at a high cost." REGARDING HIGH QUALITY tatements of receiving set manufacturers that 1929 receivers will be more selective than those made a year ago, have already stirred up pleasant dreams in the minds of those who play with frequency assignments. If sets are more selective, why not cut down the frequency band each transmitter can occupy — say to 8000 cycles instead of 10,000 cycles — and, with new selectivity, have the situation that we enjoy (?) now? Rumor has it that suggestions have already been made to reduce the channel width to 4000 cycles each side of the carrier. Now let us look at this suggestion seriously. This would mean that receiving sets would not deliver to a loud speaker any audio tone above 4000 cycles, just as at present they are not expected to transmit anything above 5000 cycles. The disadvantage would be that the user would get poorer fidelity. But would they? Is it not a fact that the majority of listeners prefer reception with a nunimum of noise, and hiss, and other forms of unwanted racket? Is it not a fact that the general public is not at all critical about fidelity so long as there is plenty of bass? Is it not a fact that the majority of receivers have audio-frequency amplifiers or filters which cut off above about 3500 cycles? Is it not a fact that the efforts of a well-known receiver manufacturer to produce the best fidelity possible a year or so ago failed because of too much high-note reception, and that after many sets of this type came back, a filter was put into the audio system that put its audio amplifier back into the class of those a year before? We believe all of these things are facts, and we deplore them. We believe that the frequency range of receivers should be broadened, not reduced, that the number of stations should be {Continued on page 242) • AUGUST 1929 • • 203