How reliable are old UHF converters?
 

Hi, I was considering purchasing an old tube type UHF converter from the 1950's to use with my vintage TV. I was just wondering if it´s a good idea - are these things any good? I would really be able to pick up UHF channels with such a device?

Hi Cap:
I have to confess I probably have 40 various versions of those converters and have never fired any of them up! :dunno: Given that most of them are one tub-ers they can't be too hard to get working, and I would be willing to bet that there would not have been so many made if they did not work. How about it, anybody out there actually USE one?
Marlin

Hi:

I have used the UHF converters in the past with good results. Assuming you have a good antenna most should work about the same. The two that I have used most often were the common Mallory model and a rather large wooden RCA converter.

Steve K

I tried one of those one tuber's, a Blonder Tongue 99 on my CTC-20 color set and it worked but had bad contact issues in the tuner mechanism. I pulled the chassis out (2 screws and remove the pull off knobs) and sprayed isopropyl alcohol in it and the wafer in-out switch while working the controls. After thorough drying I then I applied WD-40 to the tuner sliding contact with a Q-tip. Put the thing back together and all the intermittent issues had disappeared. I get the impression it needs a good strong signal to work well (I used my tower antenna with tower mounted amp) and got good reception. Kind of a pain to use though, but it was a way back then of opening up a new horizon so to speak. There were better ones made with more than one tube, some sporting RF gain stage which would be better.

Try it!

Rob

Thanks guys,

Your answers made my mind. I'll go for it and buy a converter.

Hi,

I have used and repaired several of these converters. When they were new, performance was often poor due to the combination of low transmitter power at the UHF TV station, and the high noise figure of the diode mixer in the converter. Today, most UHF stations use much higher power levels, so performance of the converter is usually pretty good. If you do encounter very weak, noisy reception even on strong signals, the diode mixer is a likely culprit. Look for a small brown cartidge in a clip in holder, usually located on top of the chassis. The diode can be snapped out of the holder. You can use a 1N82A diode for a replacement, often with a phenomenal improvement in performance. Of course, make sure the tubes are good. Good luck!

uhf converter
 

Hi guys just a short note to let you know i had a mallory uhf converter shipped out to Australia (got it on ebay)It works however it produces a very weak snowy picture, l also had to get a power downconverter as we run on 240v.anyway it looks good on my vintage tv.

I've had decent luck with the tube type convertors; I have a few solid state models from the 60s that tend to drift and things like that, bad contacts,again. The Mallory that is on my Transvision works fine as does a Blonder-Tongue I have hooked up to another set.

Once broadcast television goes all digital (whenever the hell that happens) I foresee the return of converters that sit on top of of your set, but this time they'll be digital to analog.

Anthony

That's already here, it's called Satellite TV! :p:
Oh yeah, Digital Cable too :puke:

Sheddup Beavis :-)

Actually not everyone has either of those (or are cheapskates like me) so I believe there will be a market for such a converter.

Anthony

I went from analog to digital cable shortly after learning that all television broadcasting will be digital by 2006 or, as Bryan said in his last post, "whenever the (expletive) that happens . . . " I have an RCA XL-100 19" TV set that works well for me; I just purchased a 3-year service contract on it and don't want to have to junk it just because everything will be digital (yeah, sure--and I'm the king of Siam; we all know how slowly the government works) in two and a half years or so. One of the technicians from Comcast cable recently told me, however, that the FCC cannot completely outlaw analog TV, because of the sheer number of analog televisions (in the millions in this country alone) currently in use. The cable companies realize this full well, which is why Comcast (and most other cable operators) will provide digital-to-analog converters on a lease basis to subscribers with analog TV sets. In addition to wanting to be ready for the change to all-digital, whenever that comes (!), I went to digital cable because two of my favorite cable channels (Game Show Network and the National Geographic Channel) are now exclusively on Comcast digital cable and are not available on the analog service.

The FCC is prepared to delay the shutdown of NTSC transmissions until digital set penetration in the marketplace reaches 85%. :thmbsp: Some are predicting that will not happen for perhaps 15 years. :cool: The incentive for trying to make it happen sooner is that the FCC wants to auction off the old channels for other uses, and that monetary income will be delayed until NTSC is shut down. $$$$ :mad:

I went to DirecTV because Cable was so F--ing unreliable!

I figured if the cable co. couldn't get an analog signal to my set they probably coudn't get a digital one to it either.

So far I have been quite happy with DirecTV, other than a minor quibble with excessive compression on some channels, it has a good picture.
It also has a channel 3 output that works great with vintage sets!

What I find most annoying about cable (and probably satellite too) is that all the channels seem to be at different volumes.

Broadcast television is bad enough, what with commercials that'll blow your toupee off, but cable seems to be far worse, and there's really no excuse for it When the feed comes into the cable company's facilities they surely need to process it in some manner, wouldn't it be relatively simple for them to somehow even out the level of volume?

My late model Sony set has something called Steady Sound which is a miserable crock of poo as it actually somehow raises the volume of music and pulls voice levels down lower. When I bought the set I had high hopes that this feature was going to give me even volume----some other brand was advertising such a thing a little while ago (Philips?)

Anthony

Anthony,

Philips-Magnavox TV sets have a feature Philips calls "Smart Sound", which is supposed to produce even sound levels for both commercials and regular programming. I agree with you, though; those commercials can be annoying as all get-out from a loudness standpoint (not to mention their outrageous claims), which is why I don't even listen to them anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if the mute button will be the first to wear out on my cable remote--that's how much I use the thing. Makes watching TV just that much more enjoyable.

Not just a cable problem
 

My 61A60 Toshiba RPTV that I bought new almost 3 years ago has this "constant volume" feature. I forget what it is called and I've never even tried it. I am highly suspicious of any processing that might inhibit the wanted dynamic range of the sound during movies on TV, etc. I am not on cable (they'd have to pay ME $50+/mo!), but there is an instance of a commercial playing recently on CTV that would blast me out of my chair so badly above the other programming level that I almost phoned the station to complain.

Rob,

I'm curious. If you don't have cable, what stations do you receive where you live? I seem to remember you mentioning awhile back that you are close to Buffalo; if so, I'm sure you get at least one Canadian station as well as all Buffalo channels, as Buffalo isn't that far from Toronto. I would think, however, that, as you have mentioned, if you have an amplified fringe-area antenna with a rotor on a tower, you'd be getting every TV station within at least 100 miles in all directions.

I agree with you on the cost of cable. It is very expensive, especially if you have digital service. I have Comcast digital cable, which runs about $40 per month (without the premium channels), but to me it is worth it, since I don't go out much and don't have very many expenses (I live in an apartment). Moreover, I am in a fringe area for reception of Cleveland TV stations, so I don't have much choice if I want to get decent reception (cannot erect an outside antenna or satellite system without first getting the landlord's approval). I realize I don't need digital cable just to get clear reception of the so-called "local" channels (all of which are 45 miles southwest of here), but I want to be ready for the digital revolution when it comes, not to mention the fact that two of my favorite cable channels (Game Show Network and the National Geographic Channel) are now available only on Comcast's digital service.