Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?



charles wrote:
In article <5hanrcF3jjchmU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Carver <mark.carver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Graham wrote:

When I was studying TV receiver theory in about '69 the "black rather
than white spots" argument was definilatly given as the reason
for negative mod, but the klystron operating point does seem just
as plausible. Klystrons and TWTs didn't make much of an
impact on the syllabus AFAIR.


Now here's a question to widen things out. Why did the French opt for
positive modulation, and AM sound, for their 625 line SECAM
transmissions. A SECAM composite waveform is no different in the RF
domain, as PAL, or is it ?


One answer, perhaps not the correct one, is that they were French and had
to be different from everyone else.


As in:- S-ystem E-ntirely C-ontrary the A-merican M-ethod
and:- N-ever T-he S-ame C-olour T-wice

Mike

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How good were 1950s/1960s Band 1 TV receivers?
    ... than white spots" argument was definilatly given as the reason ... but the klystron operating point does seem just ... modulation, and AM sound, for their 625 line SECAM transmissions. ... What other reason could there be;).... ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: How good were 1950s/1960s Band 1 TV receivers?
    ... When I was studying TV receiver theory in about '69 the "black rather ... than white spots" argument was definilatly given as the reason ... but the klystron operating point does seem just ... A SECAM composite waveform is no different in the RF ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: How good were 1950s/1960s Band 1 TV receivers?
    ... than white spots" argument was definilatly given as the reason ... but the klystron operating point does seem just ... A SECAM composite waveform is no different in the RF domain, as PAL, or is it? ... Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)