Why were monophonic TVs sold for so long?

[ESigma25]

I've always been curious why monophonic TVs were sold seemingly until the end of CRT production itself, long after the cost of adding a second speaker and the necessary hardware would have been enough to have a real impact on the price. Were TV manufacturers just that cheap that they were willing to make relatively big sets with only one speaker (and often no composite jacks) up to the 2000s? It just doesn't make much sense to me given by the mid 90s only the cheapest and crappiest VCRs didn't output in stereo.

[maxhifi]

Originally Posted by ESigma25

I've always been curious why monophonic TVs were sold seemingly until the end of CRT production itself, long after the cost of adding a second speaker and the necessary hardware would have been enough to have a real impact on the price. Were TV manufacturers just that cheap that they were willing to make relatively big sets with only one speaker (and often no composite jacks) up to the 2000s? It just doesn't make much sense to me given by the mid 90s only the cheapest and crappiest VCRs didn't output in stereo.

1. They were cheaper, and by the end, they where the absolute cheapest.

2. Stereo speakers 18 inches apart don't really add a lot to the experience of watching TV. For someone who just wanted a basic TV to watch, it wasn't a feature worth spending money on.

3. There was really no use for AV jacks, unless you were a videophile, until the DVD player became mainstream in the very late 90s. Before that, I suspect the vast majority of composite inputs were never used. Most people would connect their VCR directly to the VHF input of their TV, even if a better method was possible. In reality the quality difference was insignificant on most normal sized TVs.

[lnx64]

Most composite inputs were used for the 8-bit micro computers that were becoming a thing then. Even the IBM PC 5150 with CGA had composite out (and could output 16 colors or more over composite vs 4 colors in graphics mode in RGBI).

[dishdude]

The stereo chip also had licensing costs too. RCA got sued for creating their own fake "XS Stereo" system.

[ESigma25]

Originally Posted by dishdude

The stereo chip also had licensing costs too. RCA got sued for creating their own fake "XS Stereo" system.

This I've never heard before! I can definitely see TV makers refusing to pay the licensing fee then and just making mono sets aside from higher-end models.

[dishdude]

Originally Posted by ESigma25

This I've never heard before! I can definitely see TV makers refusing to pay the licensing fee then and just making mono sets aside from higher-end models.

The lawsuit is an interesting read on the history of TV stereo.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court...s/1178786.html

[old_tv_nut]

The dispute started because dbx didn't follow the prior usual industry practice of negotiating reasonable licensing fees (although patent law does not require it), but instead demanded what it felt was a justifiable fee. The rest of the industry got a bad taste in their mouths from this, but couldn't find a way around it. The impression I got (not being directly involved in any of this) was that the dbx royalties were about three times that of what many considered reasonable, based on prior cases like FM stereo.

Notice that the lawsuit didn't claim that RCA used the patent without paying, because they didn't. It instead was posed as a suit on behalf of consumers because RCA didn't achieve the implicitly advertised result. If RCA had developed a totally different method of achieving the result (though it is doubtful they could), this suit would have been much weaker. Note that some basic system patents can be so broad that simply receiving the signal and decoding it in ANY way infringes on the basic patent, although it seems this was not exactly the case here.

If usual practice had been followed, dbx would have proposed a licensing schedule, and the potential licensees would negotiate a lower schedule based on similar previous cases, perhaps with some licensees agreeing privately, others going through arbitration, and the most stubborn going to court. This might take several years to settle, but in the meantime, all would be producing product and setting aside funds for the expected fees accrued. Once agreement was reached, the patent holder would then receive back royalties for goods already produced and start receiving royalties for ongoing production, up to the date that the patent expired.

[etype2]

An interesting side note. I’m foggy on this, but in Milwaukee in the 1960’s, (it could have been in the 50’s) radio and television stations cooperated on broadcasting stereo on two different frequencies. You had to have two FM receivers, one for the the right and the other for the left channel.

The same was true for television prior to multiplex. The TV station broadcast a special with one audio channel and an FM station broadcast the other channel.

I remember doing this and it worked well enough for the time.

[old_tv_nut]

I recall stereo using one AM and one FM station, also the TV/FM combo.

[etype2]

In 1980, Sony elevated stereo television with the “Profeel” (professional feeling) system. The system consisted of a separate monitor, stereo tuner, Betamax and detached speakers. You could pick and choose components and rack mount the entire system or buy furniture grade cabinetry. This was considered to be high end, elevated standard home equipment.

[Electronic M]

I wonder if they ever actually did a mono FM + Mono TV stereo simulcast format?...I've seen early linear track stereo VCRs that predated TV MTS stereo that had a switch to record line-level audio from the input (which would b connected to an FM stereo reciever) while recording video from the internal tuner for televised concerts where the sound was simulcast by a local FM MPX stereo station.

ISTR reading or being told some cable stations such as MTV before MTS stereo existed would have their audio modulated to an FM stereo carrier fed over the CATV system such that you could tune the stereo audio in on an FM receiver with its antenna terminals connected to the TV cable system.

[Popester]

Etype2 brings up an interesting point about AM FM broadcast. I think the technical term was either simulcast or multiplex. My parents stereo system was made in '58 or '59. It was a Thomas stereo made in Sepulvida, CA. It had a setting that allowed the AM station to come through the left channel and the right channel to have the FM station. Thomas made mostly organs that were highlighted on the Lawrence Welk tv show.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Popester

Etype2 brings up an interesting point about AM FM broadcast. I think the technical term was either simulcast or multiplex. My parents stereo system was made in '58 or '59. It was a Thomas stereo made in Sepulvida, CA. It had a setting that allowed the AM station to come through the left channel and the right channel to have the FM station. Thomas made mostly organs that were highlighted on the Lawrence Welk tv show.

The term was AM-FM simulcast stereo.
Multiplex was the FM stereo standard Zenith invented and the FCC standardized in 1961, and remains the FM stereo broadcast standard today.

[crt89]

For what it's worth, I remember seeing mono Durabrand black cabinet CRT TVs on Walmart.com around 2007-2008. I never looked to see if they carried them in the store. I couldn't believe they would sell mono TVs in an era where flat panel TVs were taking over.

Strangely the original Nintendo Entertainment System had both RF and RCA outputs. But the revised top loading systems in the 90s omitted them and only had RF. Probably a cost cutting measure, given the NES was on the way out by the time the updated consoles were introduced.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by ESigma25

.......It just doesn't make much sense to me given by the mid 90s only the cheapest and crappiest VCRs didn't output in stereo.

Well dont forget... some of us prefer Mono by friend!!!! (I know I always have)

My CRT only has 1 speaker but I dont listen thru it.... I have my VCR hooked up to my tuner and I listen thru that.. (Mono)