 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Classic Cars (UK group) / October 2003retro radio query
Does anyone know of any modern car radios that happen to have that elusive retro look. I'm thinking 60s/70s - twin silver knobs, analogue tuner but perhaps with FM and maybe a cassette player - perhaps there's even a model out there that has CD/MP3 functionality. I vaguely recollect there being a place that retrofits FM to old radios but this isn't /quite/ what I'm after and I've heard it's expensive. No, I just want something that harks back to an older style. Any ideas?  SignatureKen Davidson "DocDelete" <docdelete@removehotmail.com> realised it was Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:34:00 +0100 and decided it was time to write: >Does anyone know of any modern car radios that happen to have that elusive >retro look. I'm thinking 60s/70s - twin silver knobs, analogue tuner but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >this isn't /quite/ what I'm after and I've heard it's expensive. No, I just >want something that harks back to an older style. Perhaps this? http://www.gardenofspeedin.com/products.asp?detail=461&sub=10 SignatureY. Hi, I recently bought a Volvo P1800 which has fitted a period radio that has been retro-fitted to FM as you mentioned. Amoungst the paperwork was a reciept for the purchase at a bargain price of ?375 !!! If I was making the purchase I would seruosly consider the cheaper alternative of the gardenofspeedin website. Good luck. Si. "Yippee" <yippee.noreturnaddressuntilthevirusfloodisover@intuh.net.do.not.spam> wrote in message news:ci58ov8k2ribvg1tneon9puqlt6ot0d03s@newsfeed03.glasvezel.net... > "DocDelete" <docdelete@removehotmail.com> realised it was Wed, 8 Oct > 2003 14:34:00 +0100 and decided it was time to write: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Y. > If I was making the purchase I would seruosly consider the cheaper > alternative of the gardenofspeedin website. Thanks, anyone got experience of these people? They're in the US, and I note the FM frequency channel naming conventions seem different - do they broadcast within the same bands? SignatureKen Davidson >>If I was making the purchase I would seruosly consider the cheaper >>alternative of the gardenofspeedin website. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They're in the US, and I note the FM frequency channel naming conventions > seem different - do they broadcast within the same bands? Yes US FM is in the same frequency-band, but as you have discovered, the channel-spacing interval is different to that used in the UK - this means that depending on the actual numeric frequency of a UK FM station you want to listen to, a US radio may or may not be able to be tuned precisely to that frequency. You may be significantly "off" frequency, which you probably won't notice too much if the station in question is a stronmg one - but as the signal level falls, you will notice a significantly reduced audio quality [scratching/fizzing noises and the like]. > You may be significantly "off" frequency, which > you probably won't notice too much if the station > in question is a stronmg one - but as the signal > level falls, you will notice a significantly > reduced audio quality [scratching/fizzing noises > and the like]. I might rule this option out then for those long hikes up the M6 / M74 to Scotland, where radio drift is king. OT: I thought DAB would've been more popular by now, but it seems that the pressures of commercial requirements and channel allocations are conspiring to reduce quality to something lower than we were all promised. SignatureKen Davidson >>You may be significantly "off" frequency, which >>you probably won't notice too much if the station [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pressures of commercial requirements and channel allocations are conspiring > to reduce quality to something lower than we were all promised. I looked at DAB a while back: problem that I could see was that there are quite large areas of the country where there is either buggerall coverage, or the multiplexes that *do* provide coverage don't carry the channels I really want [things like the Bloomberg finance news]. On this basis I decided not to invest the several- hundred-pounds in a DAB-capable car radio... > I might rule this option out then for those long hikes up the M6 / M74 > to Scotland, where radio drift is king. In which case you really need RDS, and the US type isn't the same as in the UK. > OT: I thought DAB would've been more popular by now, but it seems that > the pressures of commercial requirements and channel allocations are > conspiring to reduce quality to something lower than we were all > promised. I doubt you'd notice the reduced quality in a car as it's not a million miles away from MP3. The reception benefits should be great, though, as mobile use was the reason for its development. Signature*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > I doubt you'd notice the reduced quality in a car as it's not a million > miles away from MP3. The reception benefits should be great, though, as > mobile use was the reason for its development. According to http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993772 the US set up is stalling due to bandwidth and interference issues. Here in the UK, because of a higher recommended bitrate and carrier choice, this shouldn't be a problem. However, I've heard of UK broadcasters that are already downgrading their bandwith to stupidly low levels to exploit their channel allocation with more programmes. I'm not sure where I read this info, but the gist was that music channels were being sent out at bit-rates only suitable for talk shows, and talk shows going out even lower. I think the figures were something like music at 64-96kbits/s, and speech muddying around at 32kbits/s - clearly desperately lower than most MP3 files, and the speech at 32kbits/s would be noticeably poor even in a car. Actually, I'm /not/ one of those people who attempts to attain hi-fi quality in the difficult environment of the car, but even I would be p*ssed of with speech literally squawking out with so much modulation noise that you'd be tempted to flip back to LongWave ;-) SignatureKen Davidson > I think > the figures were something like music at 64-96kbits/s, and speech muddying > around at 32kbits/s - clearly desperately lower than most MP3 files, and the > speech at 32kbits/s would be noticeably poor even in a car. Yes, exactly that is happening. I think it's diappeared now, but for a time Bloomber Radio which continues to be broadcast on Worldspace digital radio was transmitted at 32kbit/s. The best available is Radio 3/Virgin at 196 kbit/s. Most music is transmitted at 128kbit/s which introduces audible compression artifacts, and some chnnels noticeably the local ones broadcast at 96kbit/s. The last time a BBC person was called to account for this he claimed that "only a few extreme HiFi buffs would notice" and that "what most people want is sound quality like Medium wave radio" although he glossed over the fact that we dont even get that. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > The last time a BBC person was called to account for this he claimed > that "only a few extreme HiFi buffs would notice" and that "what most > people want is sound quality like Medium wave radio" although he glossed > over the fact that we dont even get that. Precisely, and more to the point I think that bit about people wanting only MW quality is crud. I've lost count * of the number of people who've said to me "I like Virgin Radio* but as it's not FM I just can't stand listening to it." And that's in a car or otherwise, listening to music and speech. And, before I naff off to alt.hi-fi, to me the extreme hi-fi buff is the chap who buys gold-encrusted interconnect cable at ?90 per metre and *swears* there's an audible difference - not the chap who simply wants to hear music without modulation noise or rogue disharmonics in the background. *Alright, I haven't lost count but there've been a few ;-) **Those of outside London don't receive Virgin on the FM band SignatureKen Davidson > **Those of outside London don't receive Virgin on the FM band But give them their due, Virgin are at present the only non-classical music station broadcasting at 198kb/s. ANd they are availabel nationally on DAB. I do however note that not one station broadcasts at the 300kb/s that was originally promised for DAB. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > And, before I naff off to alt.hi-fi, to me the extreme hi-fi buff is the > chap who buys gold-encrusted interconnect cable at £90 per metre and > *swears* there's an audible difference - not the chap who simply wants > to hear music without modulation noise or rogue disharmonics in the > background. 90 quid a metre is cheap rubbish. Try Opus MM speaker cable at $29750 for an 8ft pair. Signature*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat * Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > 90 quid a metre is cheap rubbish. Try Opus MM speaker cable at $29750 for > an 8ft pair. Holy shitola. I'm sorry but there's people starving in Africa. This is obscene, I though ?90/m was bad enough but... Christonabike, isn't this the budget for the loom in the space shuttle? Tell you what, I'll stick to my mains cable for the speakers, and anyone who buys this stuff deserves a kick up the arse. I don't care how good it is (the cable, not a kick up the arse). I'd love to see the results of blindfold listening tests, and the peaks on the chart produced by the objective measuring equipment. Talk about the emperor's new clothes. SignatureKen Davidson > Tell you what, I'll stick to my mains cable for the speakers, and anyone who > buys this stuff deserves a kick up the arse. Mains cable will do for middle of the road systems. The two things you need are a) Plenty of low resistance conductor capable of passing the peak current requirement of the LF component and b) Low capacitance between the conductors to prevent shunting the HF signals. You can get some wonderful stuff for under £2.00 a metre, but I am inclined to agree that anything much more expensive is probably the "King's new clothes". The only thing to avoid on almost any system is the manky bit of bell wire that the manufacturers provide with budget systems. SignatureAJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk > Mains cable will do for middle of the road systems. Oh dear. I've always considered mine a bit better than that. Although it doesn't have designer labels... > The two things you need are a) Plenty of low resistance conductor > capable of passing the peak current requirement of the LF component Err, mains cable is available in a vast range of sizes. And the largest common domestic size is rated at 70 amps. Not that it would fit the average speaker connector, or that I'm saying it's necessary or desirable. > and b) Low capacitance between the conductors to prevent shunting the HF > signals. With the average amp having an output impedance of near zero, you'd need a hell of a lot of capacitance to have an effect at audio frequencies, and I don't think you'll find a mains cable that would. Signature*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >> Tell you what, I'll stick to my mains cable for the speakers, and anyone who >> buys this stuff deserves a kick up the arse. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The only thing to avoid on almost any system is the manky bit of bell wire >that the manufacturers provide with budget systems. For a reasonable LS cable, try Maplins. They do a nice range called "Van Damme", available in 2, 4 or 8 core, 0.75 to 4mm, max cost £5.00 a metre for 8 core, £3.00 for 2-core. Alex > For a reasonable LS cable, try Maplins. They do a nice range called > "Van Damme", available in 2, 4 or 8 core, 0.75 to 4mm, max cost £5.00 > a metre for 8 core, £3.00 for 2-core. Think it's more designed for stage etc l/s use as it is sheathed. Their XR72 Hi-Fi speaker cable at 0.69 a metre would be easier to conceal. Signature*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >> For a reasonable LS cable, try Maplins. They do a nice range called >> "Van Damme", available in 2, 4 or 8 core, 0.75 to 4mm, max cost £5.00 >> a metre for 8 core, £3.00 for 2-core. > > Think it's more designed for stage etc l/s use as it is sheathed. Their >XR72 Hi-Fi speaker cable at 0.69 a metre would be easier to conceal. Hmm. I prefer it sheathed. Keeps it nice and tidy. Plus I used to work on (behind) the stage, and you appreciate the durability there. Alex Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> realised it was Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:11:32 +0100 and decided it was time to write: >90 quid a metre is cheap rubbish. Try Opus MM speaker cable at $29750 for >an 8ft pair. That's a rip-off. It's only $23,500 according to http://gallery.consumerreview.com/audio/gallery/files/opus-mm.asp SignatureY. In article <o0pdovk1nl1bu8rndd0n4odvg8krk4jqrs@newsfeed03.glasvezel.net>, Yippee <yippee.noreturnaddressuntilthevirusfloodisover@intuh.net.do.not.spam> wrote: > >90 quid a metre is cheap rubbish. Try Opus MM speaker cable at $29750 > >for an 8ft pair. > That's a rip-off. It's only $23,500 according to > http://gallery.consumerreview.com/audio/gallery/files/opus-mm.asp Probably seconds. Signature*Husbands should come with instructions Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > And, before I naff off to alt.hi-fi, to me the extreme hi-fi buff is the > > chap who buys gold-encrusted interconnect cable at ?90 per metre and > > *swears* there's an audible difference - not the chap who simply wants > > to hear music without modulation noise or rogue disharmonics in the > > background. I have yet to see a hifi buff measuring the v.s.w.r of their cables. Whereas radios hams are very fussy when it comes to cable conditions. Bad cables = radio energy escaping from the cable rather than that aerial mounted up high (= possible interference to next doors tv). Besides, peak audio runs to 20000 hertz, mr radio ham pushes 434900000 hertz up his 90p per metre cables. (Example). -- Regards SDD Warning: Email reply address is a spamtrap, remove teeth to reply directly !!!! > I think it's diappeared now, but for a > time Bloomber Radio which continues to be broadcast on Worldspace > digital radio was transmitted at 32kbit/s. The best available is Radio > 3/Virgin at 196 kbit/s. Most music is transmitted at 128kbit/s which > introduces audible compression artifacts, and some chnnels noticeably > the local ones broadcast at 96kbit/s. > The last time a BBC person was called to account for this he claimed > that "only a few extreme HiFi buffs would notice" and that "what most > people want is sound quality like Medium wave radio" although he glossed > over the fact that we dont even get that. I'm not sure why a BBC person would be expected to account for the quality of non BBC stations, but the main BBC ones sound rather better than medium wave, IMHO. And the lack of multi-path reception problems that spoil good FM reception for many are most worthwhile. I only use it for R3&4 reception, and on the whole I'm pleased with it. But a cheaper way for decent domestic reception as an alternative to FM is a secondhand Freeview box - the bitrate on this is higher than DAB, although the choice of stations not so great. I'm afraid it's those that wanted the high quality that it is capable of that are the reason for the cramming in of lower bandwidth stations - they didn't buy it early enough, so the powers that be decided they needed more choice rather than the ultimate audio quality. Signature*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > I'm not sure why a BBC person would be expected to account for the quality > of non BBC stations, He wasn't. Local radio includes rather a large number of BBC stations and the Beeb to its discredit drops R4 down as low as 64kb/s at times. > but the main BBC ones sound rather better than medium > wave, IMHO. Swap one osrt of mush for another sort of mush. > And the lack of multi-path reception problems that spoil good > FM reception for many are most worthwhile. I only use it for R3&4 > reception, R3 is broadcast at the highest bit rate currently in use, and R4 is mainly speech so I suspect that you're getting the best of what's available. [snip] > I'm afraid it's those that wanted the high quality that it is capable of > that are the reason for the cramming in of lower bandwidth stations - they > didn't buy it early enough, so the powers that be decided they needed more > choice rather than the ultimate audio quality. "More choice" is this a euphemism for more moronic phone ins? Whatever, "the powers that be" have ensured that DAB is pointless, congratulations to them for the f.ck up. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > > I'm not sure why a BBC person would be expected to account for the > > quality of non BBC stations, > He wasn't. Local radio includes rather a large number of BBC stations > and the Beeb to its discredit drops R4 down as low as 64kb/s at times. Not so. It's possible the World Service which is broadcast on R4's frequency after R4 closes down is this low, but then it's a service which wouldn't claim to be of the highest audio quality as it's generally received via short wave. > > but the main BBC ones sound rather better than medium > > wave, IMHO. > Swap one osrt of mush for another sort of mush. Perhaps we hear things rather differently. Most medium wave broadcasts are appalling as are most modern receivers. > > And the lack of multi-path reception problems that spoil good > > FM reception for many are most worthwhile. I only use it for R3&4 > > reception, > R3 is broadcast at the highest bit rate currently in use, and R4 is > mainly speech so I suspect that you're getting the best of what's > available. I'd soon stop using DAB if the quality disappointed - after all there are plenty of choices. > [snip] > > I'm afraid it's those that wanted the high quality that it is capable > > of that are the reason for the cramming in of lower bandwidth stations > > - they didn't buy it early enough, so the powers that be decided they > > needed more choice rather than the ultimate audio quality. > "More choice" is this a euphemism for more moronic phone ins? Yup. And dozens of 'pop' stations playing the same records introduced by the same moronic sounding DeeeeeeJaaaaays. > Whatever, "the powers that be" have ensured that DAB is pointless, > congratulations to them for the f.ck up. I suppose I'm simply saying 'I'm all right Jack' since the stations I listen to are reasonable. But others have the choice not to buy DAB and or listen to the stations where they think the quality is too bad - the commercial ones need an audience to survive. However, most of the stuff on FM is processed to hell and beyond with loudness enhancers like Optimod - apparently without complaint from the listeners, so I'm not surprised the DAB powers are willing to transmit something worse than MP3. The public apparently don't care. Signature*I don't work here. I'm a consultant Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > I'm not surprised the DAB powers are willing to transmit > something worse than MP3. The public apparently don't care. Oh Gawd, please don't start me off. It's an attitude that's everywhere - you're talking to a graphic designer who has to put up with stuff like, "oh just download that 2k gif and print it on our brochure at A4 - it'll be fine". Right, back to cars: where's me spanner? -- Ken Davidson "DocDelete" <docdelete@removehotmail.com> realised it was Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:05:18 +0100 and decided it was time to write: >Thanks, anyone got experience of these people? I haven't, but you might want to Google a bit to see who else sells these things: http://www.google.com/search?q=Custom+Autosound+USA-6 The maker's website is http://www.custom-autosound.com/ - an English supplier of their products is http://www.corvette.co.uk/ SignatureY. >Does anyone know of any modern car radios that happen to have that elusive >retro look. I'm thinking 60s/70s - twin silver knobs, analogue tuner but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Any ideas? I once saw a very old radio in a Rolls Royce, which played beautiful FM and CD quality. It turned out that he had taken an old 60's radio, removed the front plate, and fixed the front plate so that it hinged down. Behind this face was a modern Radio, with the CD-changer hidden in the glove box. The new radio also had a little IR-remote, which worked through the face (ie the tuning window) so you could even operate the radio with the old front still up. Alex > I once saw a very old radio in a Rolls Royce, which played beautiful > FM and CD quality. It turned out that he had taken an old 60's radio, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Alex What a smart idea - though I think the space behind the front plate on my Triumph 2.5pi would be too shallow. One to think about. Thanks to all so far - I've got three options, (1) keep peepers open on Ebay for radio models that straddle the 70s/80s, (2) modify something as above or (3) go to GardenofSpeedin... SignatureKen Davidson > > I once saw a very old radio in a Rolls Royce, which played beautiful > > FM and CD quality. It turned out that he had taken an old 60's radio, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for radio models that straddle the 70s/80s, (2) modify something as above or > (3) go to GardenofSpeedin... Try a look on German eBay. A lot of 60's & 70's car radio's for the German market came with FM. Some sellers will sell to the uk & most seem to speak English! Try http://world.altavista.com/ for a rough~ish translation of the German auction text. Blaupunkt or Grundig, + FM & oldtimer are useful search entries! > Try a look on German eBay. A lot of 60's & 70's car radio's for the > German market came with FM. The thing that made FM reception practical in cars was the interference absorption circuit which notches this out of the audio. Didn't really appear until the mid '70s. Trying to suppress a car for the older types is a real PITA. German FM coverage was at a higher field strength than in the UK, as they didn't have any MW frequencies. They'd probably be ok on local stations though. Signature*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? * Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > Try a look on German eBay. A lot of 60's & 70's car radio's for the > > German market came with FM. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They'd probably be ok on local stations though. Interesting... Didn't realise that! I bought a Blaupunkt Frankfurt radio via German eBay (radio is circa 1968) & fitted it to a Jag 420. Works fine around London. though reception does seem to drop off a lot quicker that with a modern set. i.e. BBC Radio London has gone by the time I reach the M25 junction of the M23! Radio four lasts a few miles more. I saw one the other day on Ebay, cant find it now so maybe it's gone. It was an old radio fitted with FM, very good condition. So people do have them. > >Does anyone know of any modern car radios that happen to have that elusive > >retro look. I'm thinking 60s/70s - twin silver knobs, analogue tuner but [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Alex > Does anyone know of any modern car radios that happen to have that elusive > retro look. I'm thinking 60s/70s - twin silver knobs, analogue tuner but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Ken Davidson I bought a Murphy Radio/cassette some years ago. It has FM PLL tuning with seek, plus AM (Medium Wave - also with seek). There are five preset buttons that each have an AM and FM setting. And a built in clock (The display shows tuned frequency when the radio is first turned on and when you change station, but after about a minute it reverts to a clock) And it spindle mounts. The left hand spindle is volume and tone. The right hand spindle is balance and tuning, and it also used to reset the clock. The display turns off with the ignition so there is nothing in an unoccupied car to attract attention. It might be worth looking at what Murphy do now (I haven't got their web address). I don't suppose my model is still available, but a company usually develops a concept once they have sold a few of the early models. Jim > It might be worth looking at what Murphy do now (I haven't got their web > address). I don't suppose my model is still available, but a company usually > develops a concept once they have sold a few of the early models. Thanks for that Jim, though it seems Murphy no longer make (or badge engineer) car audio. I've got my peepers on an old set on Ebay so maybe... SignatureKen Davidson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.