[rdnzl]

I picked this up today, locally from a forum member. (safety rules were practiced)  It is a Philco 116B and it has been recently restored electronically, and it sounds superb, and picks up lots of stations even in my poor location for reception.  I am surprised at how massive it is.  I thought my 37-670 was large.  This is large.  

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/SgYYyu2.jpg?1]

[morzh]

116 is the same shape and mass as the 16. Large, very massive.
One only could appreciate it when juxtaposing it with say a 620B.

[rdnzl]

It's bigger than my 650B and it is pretty big.

[John Bartley]

Nice radio and very nice shape !! I don't think I'd touch anything on the finish on that one, if the rest is like the front.

[rdnzl]

I'm not going to. I don't do refinish work anyway. I would too afraid it would turn out like my 8th grade wood shop projects.

[Ron Ramirez]

And it's a better radio overall than the 37-670.

Congratulations!

[rdnzl]

Hi Ron. What is it that makes it better? I know if has a huge speaker, but what else?

[Ron Ramirez]

* Larger speaker (10-1/2 inch instead of 8 inch)
* Two stages of IF amplification (compared to one in the 37-670)
* Separate oscillator tube (the 37-670 uses a 6A8G which combines mixer and oscillator functions)

And, of course, the 116B does not use that ridiculous "Unit Construction" of the 1937-38 models; thus, easier to service.

[rdnzl]

Interesting. So, the 37-670 has the same tube count, but they aren't used efficiently?

[morzh]

They are used differently.
For example, the audio driver stage in 116 uses 1 tube, and in 37-670 it uses three tubes: a phase inverter, then pushpull transformer driver.
Which means 116 has an advantage of pure amplification somwhere by using 2 tubes for it remaining from being utilized in the output driver.
But then it has to be seen if there is some slight advantage that 37-670 achieves in the audio amp section.

[rdnzl]

I wish I knew more about the tech aspects. I know enough to have a clue what you are talking about, without fully absorbing it.

I like them both! But I noted in another post that Ron said that the 116B was the finest table radio of the era. I like owning the finest table radio of the era.

[Paul Philco322]

It's a beauty, living like the fancy folks did. Enjoy it.  

Think of the engineering and design of the day, no cad cam, no 3D printers, no computers. Set up a test production line from the drawing board to the test production line, work out the kinks. Remarkable achievements considering the year it was produced. Some people look at it and see an old radio. You have to place it in the technological context of the times.  They can't see the folks that designed and built it, the distant stations that the listener heard from places they would never see or travel to and the news and programs that came through the big speaker. Radio at it's finest. 

Paul

[rdnzl]

I think these were $100 back then. That was a lot of money in 1935. My grandfather worked on the railroad in Illinois in 1935 and made $2 a day.

[Paul Philco322]

If 100 in 935 it would be 1885.55 according to my inflation calculator. A bit of money for a radio, who had 100 in 35?

PAul

[Art Hoch]

Beautiful old radio!!