Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

cently completed dual-band receiver (for low-band monochrome as well as high-band polychrome), which is Dr. Goldmark's answer to allegations his sequential system would obsolete monochrome sets. , ! Reducing to its essence the week-long technical testimony — noteworthy for the keen respect the statements of such men as Goldmark, Lodge, Smith, Jolliffe, ■ Kell, et al., commanded — the hearing shaped up about like this: i CBS says color TV is ready now, is vastly superior to black-and-white. It * claims its sequential system is better than any yet devised; that it will permit of future development ; that uhf offers propagation characteristics good enough for color TV; that, although ifdoesn't regard interchangeability as a major consid I eration, it has developed a dual-band receiver; that FCC should adopt uhf standards, I and let public choose betv;een polychrome and monochrome. , i Additionally, CBS asserts RCA's simultaneous color system (Vol. 2, No. 44) ' was tried m.any years ago, found wanting. Still has same defects as then — lack of i flexibility (3-tube cameras and receivers) ; inability to utilise present coaxial cables for networking; transmission difficulties. RCA rests its case not only on fact that black-and-white already has FCC ' go-signal and that public is already buying receivers and getting satisfactory pic . tures. It also bases opposition to CBS proposals on; lack of interchangeability of j sequential system v/ith present monochrome ; inexperience v/ith, and uncertainty of j uhf propagation characteristics; inadequate field testing of system; flicker, color fringing, color breakup; lack of full color fidelity; picture brightness kept at I uncomfortably low level; lack of flexibility in networking. In addition, RCA •! advances its ov;n simultaneous method of color TV — though asserting it is not yet i ready, won’t be for 4-5 years, then can easily be fitted into existing pattern. j. Each of these arguments, plus questions of cost and availability of trans ■« mitters and receivers, plus other technical and trade data, was subject to long disquisitions, pro and con — still to be fought out in cross-examination. Siding •: with CBS position were; Bendix, Cov/les, Federal, West inghouse , Zenith. Allied with RCA position v/ere: Television Broadcasters Assn., Philco, Farnsworth, Emerson, Thomascolor, Sonora (latter by m.ail). Then there was Continental (of Boston), proposing use of uhf for high-definition monochrome-. RTFS video panel entered what might be called a demurrer, although it carefully termed its presentation an "interim report." Indeed, CBS's inability to obtain support of RTFB's 30 members (Vol. 2, No. 45), organised at FCC's behest as a cross-section of industry's best engineering talent, militates probably more than any other single factor against CBS's brilliantly-publicized effort to sweep the radio industry into its camp. On establishment of color standards now, 11 RTFB panelmen had voted no, 3 yes ; on compatibility of simultaneous system v/ith present monochrome system, 9 had favored, 4 opposed. Results of RTFB questionnaire mainly bore out report's implication that further v/ork should be done before color standards are set ; indicated mos panelmen favored 60-frame speed as against CBS-proposed 48-frame speed. But CBS spokesmen v/ere inclined to deprecate importance of these votes, saying they were Sure Commission would take into consideration company affiliations of voters. E.1CCISS TAX ON T7 SETS; with RMA's Excise Tax Committee, under Chairman Joseph Gerl f (Sonora), preparing to hit nev/ Congress for excise removal or reduction, DuMont approached Bureau of Internal Revenue this week for ruling on what is taxable in it' TV sets, i.e., what parts come under 10% excise tax. RCA, which got ruling in September, submitted list of portions of TV combinations which are in radio or phonograph sections of sets (taxable) and list of parts in TV section only (nontaxable). Bureau said list was satisfactory, that tax could be computed on RCA's i< list. From wording of ruling, it would seem that TV sets sans radio and phonograpll are not taxable. Presumably, Dulnont will get some sort of answer. I