[TenTec] d-104 and omni V
George Arthur Talbot
Talbot@kmr.LL.mit.edu
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:28:25 +1200
--=====================_76093857==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
George,
Well spoken!
I greatly enjoyed your treatise and tongue in cheek humor.
>At 11:47 PM 3/20/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:49:00 -0600
>From: "George T. Baker" <w5yr@att.net>
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] d-104 and omni V
>
>Carl, when I bought my first D104 in 1947 (I still have and use the one
>my wife bought me as a birthday gift in 1955) I really wasn't aware that
>it had been made for CB radios. But, you may be right since I clearly
>remember using it on NBFM on the 11-meter band in 1948 and making a few
In 1948, how much deviation was 'narrow band'?
>contacts. Worked right well as I recall. Of course, it also worked on 75
>and 20 and 10 meter phone (all we had in those days) so I guess it was
>not too particular about radio frequency or license class.
When was it we got 160 and 40 meters? I was around when we got the 'WARC'
bands. I had an old Heath VF-1 that had 11 meters marked on it.
>I think that it is amazing that Astatic could have anticipated the CB
>movement so *many* years before it ever happened. I think that they
>actually designed and started making the D104 just before WWII started,
>but I am not sure.
>
>Tongue out of cheek:
>
>You should know that for many, many years the D104 was the nearest thing
>to a "standard" ham mike that the average guy could afford. The frequency
>response was specifically tailored to enhance the voice frequencies and
>to provide a signal that could be read more easily in QRN and QRM. Many
>DX stations used it as the standard for that reason. It did, however,
>require that it be terminated in the proper load resistance in order to
>sound "right" and it was a very high output device - better part of a
>volt output. Most rigs in those days were designed for such mics and the
>D104 worked perfectly well to the taste of almost everyone.
>
>When the CB craze came along, Astatic among other mic folks saw the
>opportunity to cash in on the lack of technical sophistication of the
>participants. So, they drummed up the *amplified* D104 (just had to be
>better, ya know, since is was *amplified* and we only get 5 watts to
>start with anyway!) and in a burst of marketing genius did two profound
>things: (1) found someone who could *gold* plate the things for a song
>and (2) promoted the all-too-catchy handle "Lollipop" for its name. The
>earthier types in the CB ranks found Lollipop to be too tame so "Chicken
>Choker" became the official moniker. Its place in history was then
>assured . . .
I like that, "Chicken Choker", very good!
>It is still a very good mic if properly used. Most rigs today are not
>looking for high-output, high-Z crystal mics. They fail to terminate the
>D104 properly and are readily overdriven by the high output. That largely
>accounts for the bad rap that you are laying on this grand old mic.
I own a D-104, must get it out of storage next time I am in the States and
get it hooked up to my Paragon. In the mean time it will be my Dynamic Boom
Headset or the Electret Condenser model 705 Ten Tec Desk mic.
>'Tain't so, friend! ;^)
>
>72/73, George
>Fairview, TX 30 mi NE Dallas in Collin county
>Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 54th year and it just keeps getting better!
>R/C since 1964 - AMA 98452 RVing since 1972 Kachina #91900556
Keep it up! Maybe for another 54 years? Hang in there, my Dad turned 93 in
October, still in good health and I am teaching him computer every time I
get home. Mom has already mastered e-mail, and she is in her 80's.
Very 73,
George V73GT
--=====================_76093857==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
George,<br>
<br>
Well spoken! <br>
<br>
I greatly enjoyed your treatise and tongue in cheek humor.<br>
<br>
<br>
>At 11:47 PM 3/20/00 -0500, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:49:00 -0600<br>
From: "George T. Baker" <w5yr@att.net><br>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] d-104 and omni V<br>
<br>
Carl, when I bought my first D104 in 1947 (I still have and use the
one<br>
my wife bought me as a birthday gift in 1955) I really wasn't aware
that<br>
it had been made for CB radios. But, you may be right since I
clearly<br>
remember using it on NBFM on the 11-meter band in 1948 and making a
few</blockquote><br>
<br>
In 1948, how much deviation was 'narrow band'?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>contacts. Worked right well as I recall. Of
course, it also worked on 75<br>
and 20 and 10 meter phone (all we had in those days) so I guess it
was<br>
not too particular about radio frequency or license
class.</blockquote><br>
<br>
When was it we got 160 and 40 meters? I was around when we got the 'WARC'
bands. I had an old Heath VF-1 that had 11 meters marked on it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>I think that it is amazing that Astatic could
have anticipated the CB<br>
movement so *many* years before it ever happened. I think that they<br>
actually designed and started making the D104 just before WWII
started,<br>
but I am not sure.<br>
<br>
Tongue out of cheek: <br>
<br>
You should know that for many, many years the D104 was the nearest
thing<br>
to a "standard" ham mike that the average guy could afford. The
frequency<br>
response was specifically tailored to enhance the voice frequencies
and<br>
to provide a signal that could be read more easily in QRN and QRM.
Many<br>
DX stations used it as the standard for that reason. It did,
however,<br>
require that it be terminated in the proper load resistance in order
to<br>
sound "right" and it was a very high output device - better
part of a<br>
volt output. Most rigs in those days were designed for such mics and
the<br>
D104 worked perfectly well to the taste of almost everyone. <br>
<br>
When the CB craze came along, Astatic among other mic folks saw the<br>
opportunity to cash in on the lack of technical sophistication of
the<br>
participants. So, they drummed up the *amplified* D104 (just had to
be<br>
better, ya know, since is was *amplified* and we only get 5 watts
to<br>
start with anyway!) and in a burst of marketing genius did two
profound<br>
things: (1) found someone who could *gold* plate the things for a
song<br>
and (2) promoted the all-too-catchy handle "Lollipop" for its
name. The<br>
earthier types in the CB ranks found Lollipop to be too tame so
"Chicken<br>
Choker" became the official moniker. Its place in history was
then<br>
assured . . . </blockquote><br>
<br>
I like that, "Chicken Choker", very good!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>It is still a very good mic if properly used.
Most rigs today are not<br>
looking for high-output, high-Z crystal mics. They fail to terminate
the<br>
D104 properly and are readily overdriven by the high output. That
largely<br>
accounts for the bad rap that you are laying on this grand old
mic.</blockquote><br>
<br>
I own a D-104, must get it out of storage next time I am in the States
and get it hooked up to my Paragon. In the mean time it will be my
Dynamic Boom Headset or the Electret Condenser model 705 Ten Tec Desk
mic.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>'Tain't so, friend!
;^)<br>
<br>
72/73, George
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<br>
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE Dallas in Collin county<br>
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 54th year and it just keeps getting
better!<br>
R/C since 1964 - AMA 98452 RVing since
1972 Kachina
#91900556</blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
Keep it up! Maybe for another 54 years? Hang in there, my Dad turned 93
in October, still in good health and I am teaching him computer every
time I get home. Mom has already mastered e-mail, and she is in her
80's.<br>
<br>
Very 73,<br>
<br>
George V73GT<br>
</html>
--=====================_76093857==_.ALT--
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm