Ok. I just bought a really beautiful radio that is mint. It doesn't sound too bad, either. It's an Airline 62-306. My question is, though, why on earth did they waste their time putting a transformer into this radio? Why not make it an AC/DC radio? The transformer is like the size of my fist. It is incredibly small! Unloaded it puts out about 250 or 300 volts. Loaded it puts out about 175 volts. The voltage found in the radio after the field coil is about 150, and all voltages are EXACTLY as said in the schematic. Nothing is wrong with the radio. With voltages as low as these, though, unless I use my VERY BEST magic eye tube, the tube is so incredibly dim it is practically useless. With my best and freshest most bright pick out of a whole bunch of brand new eye tubes, it glows reasonably well. Most eye tubes, new or old, that would glow just fine (if not rather brightly) in any other AC radio I own, glow really dimly in this radio. The audio power of this radio is not much more than an AC/DC radio. Seems like an idea gone bad. At least they could have put in a slightly larger transformer, you think? The eye tube would be brighter, and the 6F6 could put out a bit more power that could be toyed around with for better bass response, etc. As it is, you can't do much to the audio because otherwise you lose power, and so you are stuck with rather sharp audio that lacks bass. (It helps, too, that the speaker, which is in mint condition, employs a rather stiff cone.)

T.D.

Because that was the way they built them for the percieved market.

I forget which site has an excellent example of some of the abuses that went on with radio designs, Kadette being cited specifically, but the more tubes you had in that era there was a higher percieved value and quality. In that same vein, a radio with a transformer was heavier, and was percieved to be of better value and quality than a transformerless radio.

It still goes on today, only more subtle.

:Ok. I just bought a really beautiful radio that is mint. It doesn't sound too bad, either. It's an Airline 62-306. My question is, though, why on earth did they waste their time putting a transformer into this radio? Why not make it an AC/DC radio? The transformer is like the size of my fist. It is incredibly small! Unloaded it puts out about 250 or 300 volts. Loaded it puts out about 175 volts. The voltage found in the radio after the field coil is about 150, and all voltages are EXACTLY as said in the schematic. Nothing is wrong with the radio. With voltages as low as these, though, unless I use my VERY BEST magic eye tube, the tube is so incredibly dim it is practically useless. With my best and freshest most bright pick out of a whole bunch of brand new eye tubes, it glows reasonably well. Most eye tubes, new or old, that would glow just fine (if not rather brightly) in any other AC radio I own, glow really dimly in this radio. The audio power of this radio is not much more than an AC/DC radio. Seems like an idea gone bad. At least they could have put in a slightly larger transformer, you think? The eye tube would be brighter, and the 6F6 could put out a bit more power that could be toyed around with for better bass response, etc. As it is, you can't do much to the audio because otherwise you lose power, and so you are stuck with rather sharp audio that lacks bass. (It helps, too, that the speaker, which is in mint condition, employs a rather stiff cone.)
:
:T.D.

Seems like a waste of a transformer. With something only slightly larger, more power could be had. The best is one of RCA's radios from the early 1940s that used both a 6SQ7 and a 6H6. I saw a Philco with the same. What tops it all off is Crosley's Super 11 with a simple 6K5 in place of a 6Q7, and then the use of two separate 6C5 tubes, one for the detector and one for the AVC. The 6C5 actually does a little extra for the AVC, as a regular diode or triode functions slightly differently in this circuit, but it sure is a way to stretch tube count.

T.D.

I have a prewar Coronado 12a51 console. It has 12 tubes counting the eye tube. The sound on this is amazing how crystal clear and powerful it seems. You can feel the bass through the floor when your near it. I guess this one was done right, with a large enough transformer to give the 12 tubes the power they need to power a 12 inch speaker

Well, I can't say that my Crosley Super 11 doesn't have amazing sound and sensitivty, but some do it right with a lot of tubes and some cheat. I can't say that Crosley exactly cheated because using a separate oscillator is a better idea. The pentagrid oscillators tend to die down at the low end of the dial. The separate AVC tube is actually kind of reactive. I tried wiring the AVC for a simple diode (6H6) just to see what happened. The performance was less than desirable. With the appropriate AVC tube, it actually raises the volume for distant stations as well as cut down the volume for local ones (unplug and the distant ones get quieter).

Still, your set probably did it right. I think mine cut a couple of corners. One place I'm surprised that they didn't add a tube at is the push-pull output. Instead of a phase inverter, they simply tap phase inverted audio off of the first output tube screen. Works very well.

T.