I went for a hearing test recently. The outcome was that my hearing
was okay up to about 4 kHz falling off from that point onwards. The
test stopped at 8kHz. The audiologist explained that below 4 kHz
covers the main speech band but the higher tones make speech clearer
and easier to follow. That said, I also did a word interpretation test
with a score of 90%. I was told I do not require a hearing aid at this
stage. (I also have 9 kHz pure tone tinnitus in one ear only and to my
surprise this ear performed better in the test).

I wondered about relating this to radio. First, I googled AM radio and
got various answers from 3 kHz to 5 kHz (the latter possibly USA). I
assumed it would be 4.5 kHz due to the 9 kHz separation. I also
assumed they would not start at 1 Hz so there must be a lower
frequency cut-off also. If the upper frequency is around 4 kHz, does
this mean the 4-8 kHz range that the audiologist says is important is
missing?

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I went for a hearing test recently. The outcome was that my hearing
was okay up to about 4 kHz falling off from that point onwards. The
test stopped at 8kHz. The audiologist explained that below 4 kHz
covers the main speech band but the higher tones make speech clearer
and easier to follow. That said, I also did a word interpretation test
with a score of 90%. I was told I do not require a hearing aid at this
stage. (I also have 9 kHz pure tone tinnitus in one ear only and to my surprise this ear performed better in the test).

I wondered about relating this to radio. First, I googled AM radio and
got various answers from 3 kHz to 5 kHz (the latter possibly USA). I
assumed it would be 4.5 kHz due to the 9 kHz separation. I also
assumed they would not start at 1 Hz so there must be a lower
frequency cut-off also. If the upper frequency is around 4 kHz, does
this mean the 4-8 kHz range that the audiologist says is important is missing?

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

AM broadcast frequency response is around 50Hz up to 4KHz to leave a
1KHz guard band between stations.
FM broadcast, as you say, rolls off very steeply above 15KHz to allow
for the 19KHz stereo pilot tone. The full bandwidth of a stereo signal
is 253KHz so to ensure the stereo signal will get through, the usual gap between stations is at least 200KHz.

You should only get concerned when the audiologist is talking to you and
you can't hear it! Seriously if you are of the age you can have your
hearing tested free on the NHS - it is widely available at Boots or
SpecSavers.

A child can often hear getting on for 20KHz; I used to be able to hear
up to 14KHz will into my forties but I tested my hearing recently and I
could barely make 10! (and I am 74.)

You can test your hearing yourself simply by downloading an app for your
mobile either that does an audio test for you or is an audio signal
generator and you can vary the frequency yourself. You need to test at
800Hz or 1KHz, then wind the frequency up until you need to increase the
audio level by 10dB to get the same audio level. That will give you a
good idea where your hearing 'sits.' You should use a decent pair of
closed ear headphones to do the test - perhaps a pair of AKG or similar.

Before anyone says anything, a 10dB change in acoustic sound level
represents roughly a doubling of the perceived volume, whereas power
doubling of the output of the audio amp in use is only 3dB.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Woody <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

You can test your hearing yourself ...

[...]

' You should use a decent pair of
closed ear headphones to do the test - perhaps a pair of AKG or similar.

Beware! AKG K240 MkII headphones have a shsrp16dB notch around 4 Kc/s.
At firat I thought it was my hearing but tests with flat-response
pressure microphones and a meter confirmed what I had heard.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:27:00 +0100, [email protected]d
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

Woody <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

You can test your hearing yourself ...

[...]

' You should use a decent pair of
closed ear headphones to do the test - perhaps a pair of AKG or similar.

Beware! AKG K240 MkII headphones have a shsrp16dB notch around 4 Kc/s.
At firat I thought it was my hearing but tests with flat-response
pressure microphones and a meter confirmed what I had heard.

I was always sceptical over whether if you don't hear something, it is
the fault of the equipment or the listener.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:21:05 +0100, Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

BBC FM broadcasts (or VHF as they called it at first) were maintained
up to 15kHz long before stereo (unless you lived away from Wrotham in
which case the best ones were about 7kHz). They may have applied
better filtering when stereo started but the nominal cutoff has always
been 15kHz. For ILR it was specified as14.7kHz.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:32:54 +0100, Roderick Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:21:05 +0100, Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz >>pilot tone. Is this correct?

BBC FM broadcasts (or VHF as they called it at first) were maintained
up to 15kHz long before stereo (unless you lived away from Wrotham in
which case the best ones were about 7kHz). They may have applied
better filtering when stereo started but the nominal cutoff has always
been 15kHz. For ILR it was specified as14.7kHz.

I just knew ILR was not as good :-)

Out of interest, do you know what it is for DAB?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/06/2025 09:41, Scott wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:32:54 +0100, Roderick Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

BBC FM broadcasts (or VHF as they called it at first) were maintained
up to 15kHz long before stereo (unless you lived away from Wrotham in
which case the best ones were about 7kHz). They may have applied
better filtering when stereo started but the nominal cutoff has always
been 15kHz. For ILR it was specified as14.7kHz.

I just knew ILR was not as good :-)

Out of interest, do you know what it is for DAB?

That depends in the data bandwidth the station pays for. The studios
tend to work at a sample rate of 48 kHz giving them up to about 22 kHz
for audio, but most stations only pay for 128 kbps on the multiplex, and
I have seen as low as 32 kbps, which is not much better than a
cellphone. The BBC have a fixed total bandwidth, which they can allocate between different stations, so if, say Radio 3 want better quality, they
can borrow some data from Radio 4 if that is only carrying soeech.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri 13/06/2025 10:09, John Williamson wrote:

On 13/06/2025 09:41, Scott wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:32:54 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<[email protected]> wrote:

BBC FM broadcasts (or VHF as they called it at first) were maintained
up to 15kHz long before stereo (unless you lived away from Wrotham in
which case the best ones were about 7kHz). They may have applied
better filtering when stereo started but the nominal cutoff has always
been 15kHz. For ILR it was specified as14.7kHz.

I just knew ILR was not as good :-)

Out of interest, do you know what it is for DAB?

That depends in the data bandwidth the station pays for. The studios
tend to work at a sample rate of 48 kHz giving them up to about 22 kHz
for audio, but most stations only pay for 128 kbps on the multiplex, and
I have seen as low as 32 kbps, which  is not much better than a
cellphone. The BBC have a fixed total bandwidth, which they can allocate between different stations, so if, say Radio 3 want better quality, they
can borrow some data from Radio 4 if that is only carrying soeech.

Just a note there.
DAB is now on a minimum decreed by OfCom of 112Kb data rate. Most used
to be 128Kb except Classic which was 160Kb, and BBC R3 which was 192Kb
but reduced to 160Kb Or less) when Optimod was used in the rush hours.
DAB+ on the other hand uses a much lower fundamental data rate and is
also more robust so is better suited to (especially) car radio.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/6/12 20:52:39, Woody wrote:

On Thu 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I went for a hearing test recently. The outcome was that my hearing
was okay up to about 4 kHz falling off from that point onwards. The

Wow! I did mine about a year ago, and was a little startled to find it
rolled off below 8 kHz, since I've never been a noisy nightclub person
or worked in a noisy environment. However, reading around a bit, I found
that wasn't unusual for my age (I was about 63 when I did the tests; <8
is a _little_ low for that age, but not much).
[]
I just used several of the do-it-yourself ones on YouTube; fair enough,
one should use good headphones if testing a younger person, but I'd say
for the frequencies we're talking about here, even the built-in speakers
will do.>>

I wondered about relating this to radio. First, I googled AM radio and
got various answers from 3 kHz to 5 kHz (the latter possibly USA). I
assumed it would be 4.5 kHz due to the 9 kHz separation. I also
assumed they would not start at 1 Hz so there must be a lower
frequency cut-off also. If the upper frequency is around 4 kHz, does
this mean the 4-8 kHz range that the audiologist says is important is
missing?

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

I think so. And I think a few stations went somewhat above that _before_ stereo.>>

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Several of the YouTube tests discuss age.>

AM broadcast frequency response is around 50Hz up to 4KHz to leave a
1KHz guard band between stations.
FM broadcast, as you say, rolls off very steeply above 15KHz to allow
for the 19KHz stereo pilot tone. The full bandwidth of a stereo signal
is 253KHz so to ensure the stereo signal will get through, the usual gap between stations is at least 200KHz.

It doesn't map directly for FM, like it does for AM.>

You should only get concerned when the audiologist is talking to you and
you can't hear it! Seriously if you are of the age you can have your
hearing tested free on the NHS - it is widely available at Boots or SpecSavers.

Can't help worrying - as with eye tests - what incentive there is to
tell you you need aids, or rather what disincentive there is not to.>

A child can often hear getting on for 20KHz; I used to be able to hear
up to 14KHz will into my forties but I tested my hearing recently and I
could barely make 10! (and I am 74.)

You're lucky, I think! (As I said I'm <8 at 65.)>

You can test your hearing yourself simply by downloading an app for your mobile either that does an audio test for you or is an audio signal
generator and you can vary the frequency yourself. You need to test at
800Hz or 1KHz, then wind the frequency up until you need to increase the audio level by 10dB to get the same audio level. That will give you a
good idea where your hearing 'sits.' You should use a decent pair of
closed ear headphones to do the test - perhaps a pair of AKG or similar.

Before anyone says anything, a 10dB change in acoustic sound level
represents roughly a doubling of the perceived volume, whereas power
doubling of the output of the audio amp in use is only 3dB.

Many of the YT ones just say press pause when you can no longer hear it
(or - perhaps better - when you start to, for ones that start high and
work down).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

I went for a hearing test recently. The outcome was that my hearing
was okay up to about 4 kHz falling off from that point onwards. The
test stopped at 8kHz. The audiologist explained that below 4 kHz
covers the main speech band but the higher tones make speech clearer
and easier to follow. That said, I also did a word interpretation test
with a score of 90%. I was told I do not require a hearing aid at this
stage. (I also have 9 kHz pure tone tinnitus in one ear only and to my surprise this ear performed better in the test).

I wondered about relating this to radio. First, I googled AM radio and
got various answers from 3 kHz to 5 kHz (the latter possibly USA). I
assumed it would be 4.5 kHz due to the 9 kHz separation. I also
assumed they would not start at 1 Hz so there must be a lower
frequency cut-off also. If the upper frequency is around 4 kHz, does
this mean the 4-8 kHz range that the audiologist says is important is missing?

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band
high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You can test your hearing yourself simply by downloading an app for your >mobile either that does an audio test for you or is an audio signal
generator and you can vary the frequency yourself. You need to test at
800Hz or 1KHz, then wind the frequency up until you need to increase the >audio level by 10dB to get the same audio level. That will give you a
good idea where your hearing 'sits.' You should use a decent pair of
closed ear headphones to do the test - perhaps a pair of AKG or similar.

Before anyone says anything, a 10dB change in acoustic sound level
represents roughly a doubling of the perceived volume, whereas power
doubling of the output of the audio amp in use is only 3dB.

Or use this one, that adds in an ever increasing amount of background
noise! Pleased to say i passed it OK prolly unlike me mates at that time
i never stuck my head on bass bins like they were prone to do!!

https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/take-online-hearing-check/
--
Tony Sayer


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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I was once working on a 19KHz or 23 KHz tone detector and had not
noticed that the loudspeaker on the signal generator was turned up.

A very annoyed colleague came through the next room and turned it off,
it was driving around the bend!

I had not noticed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I went for a hearing test recently. The outcome was that my hearing
was okay up to about 4 kHz falling off from that point onwards. The
test stopped at 8kHz. The audiologist explained that below 4 kHz
covers the main speech band but the higher tones make speech clearer
and easier to follow. That said, I also did a word interpretation test
with a score of 90%. I was told I do not require a hearing aid at this
stage. (I also have 9 kHz pure tone tinnitus in one ear only and to my surprise this ear performed better in the test).

I wondered about relating this to radio. First, I googled AM radio and
got various answers from 3 kHz to 5 kHz (the latter possibly USA). I
assumed it would be 4.5 kHz due to the 9 kHz separation. I also
assumed they would not start at 1 Hz so there must be a lower
frequency cut-off also. If the upper frequency is around 4 kHz, does
this mean the 4-8 kHz range that the audiologist says is important is missing?

For FM, I understood the cut-off was 15 kHz to make way for the 19 kHz
pilot tone. Is this correct?

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Anyone working in telly has a 'natural' notch at
15.625kHz.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMjAyNS82LzI1IDE1OjE3OjIsIFNpbW9uTSB3cm90ZToNCltdDQo+IEFueW9uZSB3b3Jr aW5nIGluIHRlbGx5IGhhcyBhICduYXR1cmFsJyBub3RjaCBhdCAxNS42MjVrSHouDQoNCk9y IGRpZCwgd2hlbiB3ZSBjb3VsZCBoZWFyIHRoYXQgaGlnaC4NCkl0J3MgdmVyeSBub3RpY2Vh YmxlIHdoZW4gbG9va2luZyBhdCB0aGUgc3BlY3RydW0gb2YgYSB2YXN0IG51bWJlciBvZiAN CnRyYWNrcyAoaW4gc29tZXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgY2FuIGRvIGEgc3BlY3RydW0gLSBJIHVzZSBH b2xkV2F2ZSwgcHJvYmFibHkgDQptb3N0IHVzZSBBdWRpZ3kgaXMgaXQ/LCBJIGd1ZXNzIG1v c3Qgb2YgdGhhdCBzb3J0IG9mIHNvZnR3YXJlIGhhcyB0aGUgDQpjYXBhYmlsaXR5KSB0aGF0 IHRoZXJlJ3MgYSBsb3ctbGV2ZWwgYXVkaW8gc3Bpa2UgdGhlcmUgKG9yIHRoZSBBbWVyaWNh biANCm9uZSB3aGljaCBpcyBhbG1vc3QgdGhlIHNhbWUsIDUyNcOXMzA9MTUuNzUpOyBJIHBy ZXN1bWUgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgDQpjYWJsZXMgbGF5IG5lYXIgYSB2aWRlbyBtb25pdG9yIGF0 IF9zb21lXyBwb2ludCBpbiB0aGUgdHJhY2sncyBoaXN0b3J5LiANCihFdmVuIGlmIG5vdCBh dWRpbyBleHRyYWN0ZWQgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IGZyb20gYSB2aWRlbyB3aXRoIFBhemVyYSBv ciANCm9uZSBvZiB0aGUgbWFueSBlcXVpdmFsZW50cywgdGhlIHNwaWtlIGlzIEknZCBzYXkg bW9yZSBvZnRlbiB0aGFuIG5vdDogDQptYXliZSBhIF9jb21wdXRlcl8gbW9uaXRvci4pDQoN ClN0cmFuZ2UsIHRob3VnaCwgSSBkb24ndCB0aGluayBJJ3ZlIGV2ZXIgbm90aWNlZCBvbmUg YXQgMTAuMTI1IGtIeiEgSSANCmNlcnRhaW5seSByZW1lbWJlciBfaGVhcmluZ18gdGhvc2Ug LSBvYnZpb3VzbHkgaXQgd2FzIGxvd2VyLCBhbmQgSSB0aGluayANCnBhcnRzIGluIHRob3Nl IHNldHMgZGlkbid0IHRlbmQgdG8gYmUgY2xhbXBlZCBkb3duIGFzIHRpZ2h0bHksIGVpdGhl ci4gDQooQW5kL29yIG1heWJlIGhpZ2hlciBwb3dlciBsZXZlbHM/KSBBcyBmb3Igd2h5IGl0 IGlzbid0IHRoZXJlIGluIGF1ZGlvIA0KdHJhY2tzLCBwcm9iYWJseSBsZXNzIHZpZGVvIHJl Y29yZGluZyBpbiB0aG9zZSBkYXlzLCBhbmQgZmlsbSBzb3VuZCANCm1heWJlIGJldHRlciBp c29sYXRlZCAodGhvdWdoIEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIHdoeSkuIChBbnlvbmUgZXZlciBzZWVuIHN1 Y2ggYSANCnNwaWtlIGluIGEgc3BlY3Ryb2dyYW0/KQ0KLS0gDQpKLiBQLiBHaWxsaXZlci4g VU1SQTogMTk2MC88MTk4NSBNQisrRygpQUwtSVMtQ2grKyhwKUFyQFQrSCtTaDAhOmApRE5B Zg0KAA0KZnJlZWRvbSBvZiBzcGVlY2ggaXMgdXNlbGVzcyBpZiBub2JvZHkgY2FuIGhlYXIg eW91Lg0KLS0gRGF2aWQgSGFycmlzIC0tCUF1dGhvciwgUGVnYXN1cyBNYWlsCUR1bmVkaW4s IE1heSAyMDAyLg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/06/2025 17:34, John Williamson wrote:

On 25/06/2025 17:32, John Williamson wrote:

On 25/06/2025 15:17, SimonM wrote:

On 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what >>>> point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Anyone working in telly has a 'natural' notch at 15.625kHz.

When I was involved in fixing TV sets, the notch was at 10,250 Hz, 'cos
it was 405 lines.

Sorry, 10,125 Hz...

The 15625 Hz spike in 625/25 TV gets everywhere. IN the 1990s I recorded
some TV theme tunes from the phono outputs of a VHS VCR, in some cases
using it only a tuner of live TV and in other cases recording to VHS and playing back.

In all cases, whether the VCR was set to output FM or NICAM sound, or
whether the VHS was playing from its linear sound track or its hifi one,
the recordings made by my PC's sound card show a definite 15625 spike.

I suppose the only common factor was that a nearby CRT TV connected to
the VCR by UHF was turned on at the time. Maybe the TV's line-scanning
waveform was bleeding through into the VCR's audio output. I should have
tried with the TV turned off...

Things I recorded in the 1970s, with a dynamic mike pressed against the
TV's speaker, have much worse line whistle, but that may be induced from
the line coils of the CRT to the coil of the mike without going via the
speaker and "airborne" sound.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/06/2025 17:32, John Williamson wrote:

On 25/06/2025 15:17, SimonM wrote:

On 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Anyone working in telly has a 'natural' notch at 15.625kHz.

When I was involved in fixing TV sets, the notch was at 10,250 Hz, 'cos
it was 405 lines.

Sorry, 10,125 Hz...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/06/2025 15:17, SimonM wrote:

On 12/06/2025 20:21, Scott wrote:

I know that higher frequency response falls away with age, but at what
point should the citizen start to become concerned?

Anyone working in telly has a 'natural' notch at 15.625kHz.

When I was involved in fixing TV sets, the notch was at 10,250 Hz, 'cos
it was 405 lines.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 14-6-2025 om 10:36 schreef Liz Tuddenham:

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

It's no use, because most radio's have a lowpass filter built in at
about 5 kHz.
So if you modulate 10 kHz audio, it is surpressed in the receiver.

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz
You already mentioned the aerial bandwidth.

In the late 70's Radio Caroline used an Optimod to increase the audio bandwidth.
I do not remember if it was on1187 kHz or 962 kHz (later 963 kHz).
Because I had a wide AM receiver it sounded wonderful at daytime. But in
the darker period the neighbour transmitters caused extra sounds. The
ship was in the Thames delta, which is further away from The Netherlands
than in the years 72-74.
I am told Caroline used about 6 kHz audio bandwidth.

Rink

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 00:08:55 +0200, Rink
<[email protected]> wrote:

Op 14-6-2025 om 10:36 schreef Liz Tuddenham:

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band
high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

It's no use, because most radio's have a lowpass filter built in at
about 5 kHz.
So if you modulate 10 kHz audio, it is surpressed in the receiver.

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz
You already mentioned the aerial bandwidth.

In the late 70's Radio Caroline used an Optimod to increase the audio >bandwidth.
I do not remember if it was on1187 kHz or 962 kHz (later 963 kHz).
Because I had a wide AM receiver it sounded wonderful at daytime. But in
the darker period the neighbour transmitters caused extra sounds. The
ship was in the Thames delta, which is further away from The Netherlands
than in the years 72-74.
I am told Caroline used about 6 kHz audio bandwidth.

I may have picked this up completely wrongly but I thought I read that
the BBC used up to 15 kHz on some Home Service transmitters where the
frequency was not shared (in the UK) and there were no complaints from overseas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rink <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz

I don't understand that.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1041m9t$3331b$[email protected]>, Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarwe [email protected]> scribeth thus

Op 14-6-2025 om 10:36 schreef Liz Tuddenham:

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band
high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

It's no use, because most radio's have a lowpass filter built in at
about 5 kHz.
So if you modulate 10 kHz audio, it is surpressed in the receiver.

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz
You already mentioned the aerial bandwidth.

In the late 70's Radio Caroline used an Optimod to increase the audio >bandwidth.
I do not remember if it was on1187 kHz or 962 kHz (later 963 kHz).
Because I had a wide AM receiver it sounded wonderful at daytime. But in
the darker period the neighbour transmitters caused extra sounds. The
ship was in the Thames delta, which is further away from The Netherlands
than in the years 72-74.
I am told Caroline used about 6 kHz audio bandwidth.

Rink

Bit late to this post but many years ago i built a TV sound only tuner
for Band 1 and 3 TV.

It was quite surprising just how good the 405 line Amplitude modulated
system was when we were thinking that really quality would be FM only!..
--
Tony Sayer


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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/06/2025 17:50, NY wrote:

Things I recorded in the 1970s, with a dynamic
mike pressed against the TV's speaker, have much
worse line whistle, but that may be induced from
the line coils of the CRT to the coil of the mike
without going via the speaker and "airborne" sound.

That's plausible, especially when you consider the
relative amplitudes.

Time to give Angela Rippon and Crystal Palace an
honourable mention...?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:13:02 +0100, tony sayer <[email protected]>
wrote:

In article <1041m9t$3331b$[email protected]>, Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarwe >[email protected]> scribeth thus

Op 14-6-2025 om 10:36 schreef Liz Tuddenham:

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band
high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

It's no use, because most radio's have a lowpass filter built in at
about 5 kHz.
So if you modulate 10 kHz audio, it is surpressed in the receiver.

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz
You already mentioned the aerial bandwidth.

In the late 70's Radio Caroline used an Optimod to increase the audio >>bandwidth.
I do not remember if it was on1187 kHz or 962 kHz (later 963 kHz).
Because I had a wide AM receiver it sounded wonderful at daytime. But in >>the darker period the neighbour transmitters caused extra sounds. The
ship was in the Thames delta, which is further away from The Netherlands >>than in the years 72-74.
I am told Caroline used about 6 kHz audio bandwidth.

Rink

Bit late to this post but many years ago i built a TV sound only tuner
for Band 1 and 3 TV.

It was quite surprising just how good the 405 line Amplitude modulated
system was when we were thinking that really quality would be FM only!..

I'm sure I can recall in the distant past picking up TV sound on a
portable FM radio? How could this happen? Harmonics? Faulty TV
somewhere?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/7/14 9:6:58, Scott wrote:
[]

I'm sure I can recall in the distant past picking up TV sound on a
portable FM radio? How could this happen? Harmonics? Faulty TV
somewhere?

Either are plausible. Was it very quiet? That would be AM sound picked
up on an FM set - the harmonics of Band I, at least the lower
channel(s), might come within Band II. FM sets were often not immune to
AM; I remember people picking up police (or something like that) AM when
it was still in the top of Band II when they had sets made for outside
UK. (Was it 100 rather than 108 MHz that was the nominal top of Band II
for the UK initially?)

IF pickup maybe? I can't remember what were the common IF frequencies
for sets operating on systems A and I. (Though for sound, they usually
used the offset - 6 MHz for system I - since the LO was there for
"free". But could be an IM one from the vision LO or something.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Astaire was, of course, peerless, but it's worth remembering that Rogers
does everything he does, only backwards and in high heels. - Barry
Norman in Radio Times 5-11 January 2013 (possibly quoting Faith Whittlesey)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14/07/2025 14:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That would be AM sound picked up on an FM set

I seem to remember that it was known as 'slope detection'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1053u9o$3kqsi$[email protected]>, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:

That would be AM sound picked up on an FM set

I seem to remember that it was known as 'slope detection'.

Isn't that the other way round? You tune an ordinary resonant circuit
(as used for AM) so that the FM signal's carrier is on the "slope" of
the circuit's response, so the output depends on the signal's deviation
from the carrier frequency.

-- Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/7/15 0:56:4, Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <1053u9o$3kqsi$[email protected]>, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:

That would be AM sound picked up on an FM set

I seem to remember that it was known as 'slope detection'.

Isn't that the other way round? You tune an ordinary resonant circuit
(as used for AM) so that the FM signal's carrier is on the "slope" of
the circuit's response, so the output depends on the signal's deviation
from the carrier frequency.

-- Richard

Now you mention it, I think that _is_ where that term was most used -
basically a poor man's way of decoding FM, by detuning so it was on the
skirt of an AM receiver's response.

But I could imagine it being used to detect AM on an FM set, by similar detuning - so it didn't get squashed by the AGC. But - especially in
those days - more likely to be done by just AM breakthrough. Especially
if the FM discriminator was the Foster-Seeley type, rather than a pulse-counting or PLL; F-S were common in the early days of FM. They
were basically two ordinary _A_ M envelope detector stages, tuned
slightly either side of the nominal IF frequency, and with their diodes
the opposite way round, and their output combined. At least, that's my
memory from about 50 years ago! (PLL seemed much more complicated to me
then!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Mike Jackson |\ _,,,---,,_
and Squeak /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Shame there's no snooze button
[1998] |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'- on a cat who wants breakfast
zzz '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 2-7-2025 om 10:59 schreef Scott:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 00:08:55 +0200, Rink
<[email protected]> wrote:

Op 14-6-2025 om 10:36 schreef Liz Tuddenham:

Just a thought:

Now that R4 longwave doesn't have broadcast stations either side of it,
is there any reason it couldn't be used for experimental wide-band
high-quality audio from now until shutdown?

(OK, bandwidth of the links, bandwith of the aerial etc. ...but
wouldn't it be fun!)

It's no use, because most radio's have a lowpass filter built in at
about 5 kHz.
So if you modulate 10 kHz audio, it is surpressed in the receiver.

And then 198 kHz is a relative low carrier frequency compaired to an
audio frequency of 10 kHz, so it costs a lot of extra energy to modulate
10 kHz on 198 kHz
You already mentioned the aerial bandwidth.

In the late 70's Radio Caroline used an Optimod to increase the audio
bandwidth.
I do not remember if it was on1187 kHz or 962 kHz (later 963 kHz).
Because I had a wide AM receiver it sounded wonderful at daytime. But in
the darker period the neighbour transmitters caused extra sounds. The
ship was in the Thames delta, which is further away from The Netherlands
than in the years 72-74.
I am told Caroline used about 6 kHz audio bandwidth.

I may have picked this up completely wrongly but I thought I read that
the BBC used up to 15 kHz on some Home Service transmitters where the frequency was not shared (in the UK) and there were no complaints from overseas.

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became
Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

Caroline did in her sea period (70's and 80's) about 6 or 7 kHz audio frequencies, which disturbed the next channels on both sides. Especially
when it was dark.

Rink

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became
Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

--
TOJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:25:29 +0100, J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:

FM sets were often not immune to AM; I remember people picking up police
(or something like that) AM when it was still in the top of Band II

Likewise.

(Was it 100 rather than 108 MHz that was the nominal top of Band II
for the UK initially?)

It was 98 I believe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2025 23:11, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

(Was it 100 rather than 108 MHz that was the nominal top of Band II
for the UK initially?)

It was 98 I believe.

I think it went through various stages, our Radio 1 was 98.90 MHz

There was a period when some police were still operating in Band II - it
was a bit of a free for all with (I think) the Home Office looked after frequency allocations themselves.

Famously when Capital Radio started, they complained about the police
being on the channel (or was it the Met who complained about
interference from Capital Radio?).

It was common for a transmitter to be put on a channel with tone and
wait to see if anyone complained!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 17-7-2025 om 16:21 schreef The Other John:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became
Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

You're right.
Thanks for the correction.
Rink

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became
Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped
frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio
2 got medium.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/7/31 15:41:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became
Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio
2 got medium.

I'm pretty sure the changes weren't on the same date: I don't remember
hearing the Home Service or Light (or Third) Programme, but I'm pretty
sure I remember Radio 2 being on long wave.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As the man said when confronted by a large dinner salad, "This isn't
food. This is what food eats."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/07/2025 16:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/7/31 15:41:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became >>>> Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped
frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio
2 got medium.

I'm pretty sure the changes weren't on the same date: I don't remember hearing the Home Service or Light (or Third) Programme, but I'm pretty
sure I remember Radio 2 being on long wave.

I wasn't 100% certain of the date of the swap, to be honest. I just
remember Mum having to retune her radio and being miffed.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:51:42 +0100, John Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:

On 31/07/2025 16:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/7/31 15:41:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became >>>>> Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2. >>>>

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped
frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio >>> 2 got medium.

I'm pretty sure the changes weren't on the same date: I don't remember
hearing the Home Service or Light (or Third) Programme, but I'm pretty
sure I remember Radio 2 being on long wave.

I wasn't 100% certain of the date of the swap, to be honest. I just
remember Mum having to retune her radio and being miffed.

I thought these changes took place in 1978 when R1 moved from 247m to
275/285m, R2 moved from 1500m to 433/330m, R3 from 648m to 247m and R4
from regional medium wave frequencies (England) to 1500m.

(Jingle) '275 and 285, 275 and 285, we're on a new wave band, still
the best in the land'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/07/2025 16:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/7/31 15:41:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio
frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became >>>> Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2.

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped
frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio
2 got medium.

I'm pretty sure the changes weren't on the same date: I don't remember hearing the Home Service or Light (or Third) Programme, but I'm pretty
sure I remember Radio 2 being on long wave.

Yes, Radio 4 has been Radio 4 rather than the Home Service, and Radio 2
has not be the Light Programme, for as long as I can remember, whereas
the frequency changes were some time in the last 1970s IIRC.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/07/2025 17:09, Scott wrote:

I thought these changes took place in 1978 when R1 moved from 247m to 275/285m, R2 moved from 1500m to 433/330m, R3 from 648m to 247m and R4
from regional medium wave frequencies (England) to 1500m.

(Jingle) '275 and 285, 275 and 285, we're on a new wave band, still
the best in the land'

As a matter of interest, when UK radio stations start quoting their
frequency rather than their wavelength? My parents' Grundig Yacht Boy
radio which they bought some time in the late 1960s, has MW marked in
kHz (now I've finally managed to find an online photo that shows the
scale in enough detail!) I think LW is also in kHz: it shows BBC Radio 2 against a three-digit (200 kHz) rather than four-digit (1500 m) number.
So it looks as at least for a German market, frequency was used from a
long time ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 31-7-2025 om 18:09 schreef Scott:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:51:42 +0100, John Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:

On 31/07/2025 16:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/7/31 15:41:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 17/07/2025 15:21, The Other John wrote:

On 17/07/2025 14:39, Rink wrote:

I never heard an official landbased AM station with such high audio >>>>>> frequencies.
But I must say: as far as I know Home Service ended in 1967 (it became >>>>>> Radio 2), and I did not have a radio in 1967...

The Home Service became Radio 4 and The Light Programme became Radio 2. >>>>>

Also, the Light Programme was on 1500 metres Long wave, and the Home
service was on a number of medium wave frequencies. The two swapped
frequencies when they changed the names. Radio 4 got long wave and Radio >>>> 2 got medium.

I'm pretty sure the changes weren't on the same date: I don't remember
hearing the Home Service or Light (or Third) Programme, but I'm pretty
sure I remember Radio 2 being on long wave.

I wasn't 100% certain of the date of the swap, to be honest. I just
remember Mum having to retune her radio and being miffed.

I thought these changes took place in 1978 when R1 moved from 247m to 275/285m, R2 moved from 1500m to 433/330m, R3 from 648m to 247m and R4
from regional medium wave frequencies (England) to 1500m.

(Jingle) '275 and 285, 275 and 285, we're on a new wave band, still
the best in the land'

Yes, those frequency changes were on 23 November 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ5bNA6amQ

This one is also very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtvEVAH0No4

I didn't know that The King's Singers were on a 7 inch single !

Rink

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/7/31 18:44:22, NY wrote:

On 31/07/2025 17:09, Scott wrote:

I thought these changes took place in 1978 when R1 moved from 247m to
275/285m, R2 moved from 1500m to 433/330m, R3 from 648m to 247m and R4
from regional medium wave frequencies (England) to 1500m.

(Jingle) '275 and 285, 275 and 285, we're on a new wave band, still
the best in the land'

As a matter of interest, when UK radio stations start quoting their
frequency rather than their wavelength? My parents' Grundig Yacht Boy

Ah yes, the Boys. Grundig had a range of those, Yacht Boy being one of
them. My friend Len at work (Communications department, Marconi Research Centre, as it was then) called one of his prototypes Call Girl, in response.

radio which they bought some time in the late 1960s, has MW marked in
kHz (now I've finally managed to find an online photo that shows the
scale in enough detail!) I think LW is also in kHz: it shows BBC Radio 2 against a three-digit (200 kHz) rather than four-digit (1500 m) number.
So it looks as at least for a German market, frequency was used from a
long time ago.

Yes, I had that feeling - possibly most of contiguous western Europe.

Was band II - or FM - and above, _ever_ referred to in metres (or cm)? I
never heard it/them so, except in the _names_ of the bands in amateur
circles (the 2m, 70cm, and IIRR 23cm bands [but AFAICR amateurs always
referred to the _frequency_ they were on within those bands]). I
certainly _never_ heard or saw anyone referring to a band II station
being on so many metres.

Come to think of it, I also have a _vague_ memory of Band II having
channel numbers on some sets (as well as the MHz) - but I don't remember
anyone ever _using_ those.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 05:58:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 2025/7/31 18:44:22, NY wrote:

On 31/07/2025 17:09, Scott wrote:

I thought these changes took place in 1978 when R1 moved from 247m to
275/285m, R2 moved from 1500m to 433/330m, R3 from 648m to 247m and R4
from regional medium wave frequencies (England) to 1500m.

(Jingle) '275 and 285, 275 and 285, we're on a new wave band, still
the best in the land'

As a matter of interest, when UK radio stations start quoting their
frequency rather than their wavelength? My parents' Grundig Yacht Boy

Ah yes, the Boys. Grundig had a range of those, Yacht Boy being one of
them. My friend Len at work (Communications department, Marconi Research >Centre, as it was then) called one of his prototypes Call Girl, in response.

radio which they bought some time in the late 1960s, has MW marked in
kHz (now I've finally managed to find an online photo that shows the
scale in enough detail!) I think LW is also in kHz: it shows BBC Radio 2
against a three-digit (200 kHz) rather than four-digit (1500 m) number.
So it looks as at least for a German market, frequency was used from a
long time ago.

Yes, I had that feeling - possibly most of contiguous western Europe.

Was band II - or FM - and above, _ever_ referred to in metres (or cm)? I >never heard it/them so, except in the _names_ of the bands in amateur >circles (the 2m, 70cm, and IIRR 23cm bands [but AFAICR amateurs always >referred to the _frequency_ they were on within those bands]). I
certainly _never_ heard or saw anyone referring to a band II station
being on so many metres.

Did one of the DJs do it for fun - maybe Kenny Everett or Steve
Wright?

Come to think of it, I also have a _vague_ memory of Band II having
channel numbers on some sets (as well as the MHz) - but I don't remember >anyone ever _using_ those.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025/8/1 9:14:49, Scott wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 05:58:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[]

Was band II - or FM - and above, _ever_ referred to in metres (or cm)? I
never heard it/them so, except in the _names_ of the bands in amateur
circles (the 2m, 70cm, and IIRR 23cm bands [but AFAICR amateurs always
referred to the _frequency_ they were on within those bands]). I
certainly _never_ heard or saw anyone referring to a band II station
being on so many metres.

Did one of the DJs do it for fun - maybe Kenny Everett or Steve
Wright?

It's the sort of thing those two would do! (Though it'd have to be
"_about_ three and a quarter metres", as R2 was - still is, I think -
broadcast on a _range_ of frequencies near the bottom of the band -
regional variations.)>>

Come to think of it, I also have a _vague_ memory of Band II having
channel numbers on some sets (as well as the MHz) - but I don't remember
anyone ever _using_ those.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)