04-13-2009, 02:13 PM
Radio models were like automobile models. Announcement and beginning of production was in the fall of the year previous to the model year. F'rinstance, I have a Philco 640X, that was bought new by my aunt and uncle. I first saw it in their home on Thanksgiving day, 1935. It's a '36 model set. Then, my father bought a Philco 37-650X just before Christmas, 1936.
RCA was no different than any other of the companies. Their "Red books" were published in the fall of the year when the radios came into the stores. The books are dated for the year they came out (the 1934 book covered the 1935 models!), and that was the way it went for every year.
Now, on Zenith. I fully acknowledge that there are lots of Zenith afficionados among us, and Zenith has become more of a cult than any other brand of radio I can think of. Anything said about Zenith that's not a literary genuflect, causes a flame war. More about that below.
In the thirties, tube count was the measure of radio performance. Companies, like Midwest sold radio chassis (and cabinets, if desired), riding on tube count. They usually had push-pull pparallel output stages, and two rectifiers, rather than one larger one (Wait 'til I get to Zenith!), so they stacked up a lot of tubes for the impressionable customer. Then, International Kadette broke the camel's back with a "10 tube" table model set, using as many ballast resistor tubes as functioning tubes. I understand that the Federal Trade commission, gave them a whippin' for misleading advertising.
Now, when we look at E.H. Scott, we see the most superbly engineered radio chassis in history. If a tube was required to perform a function in the chassis, it was used. Indeed, the tube count was large, but it could never have been questioned why a tube was employed. Scott was the leader in high fidelity audio, and in the 23 tube all-wave set, used Push-pull parallel 2A3 tubes in the power amp stage. You simply cannot challenge Scott's engineering and avoid being considered a fool.
Now again, on Zenith. Didn't bloat tube counts? Look at the Stratosphere. The power amp stage has eight 45's in parallel push-pull. Didn't those guys know about 2A3's? Is it possible that Zenith wanted to ace the rest of the industry in some way? Then, in subsequent years, they were well known for using two 6X5 rectifiers, instead of a single 5Y4. They also had a reputation for under-rated power transformers. Power amp stages in several Zeniths had multiple tubes in a "dynamic coupled" circuit, using a 6P5, and 6AC5 each side of the push-pull output. Nothing wrong there of course, but maybe another case for tube bloat. Zenith radios have a mystique that causes a unique affection for them. Is it possible it's because a family of farmers on TV had one?
Now, if you want to see the grand daddy of tube count bloat, look at the 37 tube Crosley "WLW" set. If you study the schematic, you'll see the silliest accumulation of tubes in one cabinet ever offered. And, the receiver section of that set is most mediocre. The circuit design of the set is nauseating, at least to me.
In 1936, Philco built their model 680, a magnificent creation. As with Scott, every tube in the set was there for a reason, and none were added just to use more tubes. The same was true for RCA, Stromberg-Carlson, Freed-Eisemann, and so on. RCA and Philco were Zenith's prime rivals. Not even Philco could surpass RCA in technological innovations, but Philco was able to stand up to RCA with Hazeltine's engineering. Zenith never pioneered anything technological, thus my use of "following". And, there is nothing wrong with that either. Zenith did make some fine chassis; good performers. I have a few in my collection, and love them. But, standing alongside Philco and RCA, Zenith doesn't stand as tall; that's all. Zenith did rise to its greatest heights in radio receivers, with its Trans-Oceanic sets. I have one of each iteration of those glorious creations, from first to last. RCA ,Philco, and everybody else were the followers there.
I understand, possibly better than most, that every one of us is differently attracted to his or her own artifact. I don't expect anyone else to go ballistic over the same stuff I do, and have done for about 65 years. Nor should anyone be vexed if I don't worship his holy grails. It's fun for me for my own reasons; that's all.
RCA was no different than any other of the companies. Their "Red books" were published in the fall of the year when the radios came into the stores. The books are dated for the year they came out (the 1934 book covered the 1935 models!), and that was the way it went for every year.
Now, on Zenith. I fully acknowledge that there are lots of Zenith afficionados among us, and Zenith has become more of a cult than any other brand of radio I can think of. Anything said about Zenith that's not a literary genuflect, causes a flame war. More about that below.
In the thirties, tube count was the measure of radio performance. Companies, like Midwest sold radio chassis (and cabinets, if desired), riding on tube count. They usually had push-pull pparallel output stages, and two rectifiers, rather than one larger one (Wait 'til I get to Zenith!), so they stacked up a lot of tubes for the impressionable customer. Then, International Kadette broke the camel's back with a "10 tube" table model set, using as many ballast resistor tubes as functioning tubes. I understand that the Federal Trade commission, gave them a whippin' for misleading advertising.
Now, when we look at E.H. Scott, we see the most superbly engineered radio chassis in history. If a tube was required to perform a function in the chassis, it was used. Indeed, the tube count was large, but it could never have been questioned why a tube was employed. Scott was the leader in high fidelity audio, and in the 23 tube all-wave set, used Push-pull parallel 2A3 tubes in the power amp stage. You simply cannot challenge Scott's engineering and avoid being considered a fool.
Now again, on Zenith. Didn't bloat tube counts? Look at the Stratosphere. The power amp stage has eight 45's in parallel push-pull. Didn't those guys know about 2A3's? Is it possible that Zenith wanted to ace the rest of the industry in some way? Then, in subsequent years, they were well known for using two 6X5 rectifiers, instead of a single 5Y4. They also had a reputation for under-rated power transformers. Power amp stages in several Zeniths had multiple tubes in a "dynamic coupled" circuit, using a 6P5, and 6AC5 each side of the push-pull output. Nothing wrong there of course, but maybe another case for tube bloat. Zenith radios have a mystique that causes a unique affection for them. Is it possible it's because a family of farmers on TV had one?
Now, if you want to see the grand daddy of tube count bloat, look at the 37 tube Crosley "WLW" set. If you study the schematic, you'll see the silliest accumulation of tubes in one cabinet ever offered. And, the receiver section of that set is most mediocre. The circuit design of the set is nauseating, at least to me.
In 1936, Philco built their model 680, a magnificent creation. As with Scott, every tube in the set was there for a reason, and none were added just to use more tubes. The same was true for RCA, Stromberg-Carlson, Freed-Eisemann, and so on. RCA and Philco were Zenith's prime rivals. Not even Philco could surpass RCA in technological innovations, but Philco was able to stand up to RCA with Hazeltine's engineering. Zenith never pioneered anything technological, thus my use of "following". And, there is nothing wrong with that either. Zenith did make some fine chassis; good performers. I have a few in my collection, and love them. But, standing alongside Philco and RCA, Zenith doesn't stand as tall; that's all. Zenith did rise to its greatest heights in radio receivers, with its Trans-Oceanic sets. I have one of each iteration of those glorious creations, from first to last. RCA ,Philco, and everybody else were the followers there.
I understand, possibly better than most, that every one of us is differently attracted to his or her own artifact. I don't expect anyone else to go ballistic over the same stuff I do, and have done for about 65 years. Nor should anyone be vexed if I don't worship his holy grails. It's fun for me for my own reasons; that's all.
