[shaler78]

I like the way my 40-180 sounds on my local WKHB 620 AM station. 5500 Watts at a low broadcast frequency sounds very good. Broadcasts commercial free '60s '70s and '80s music all night after 7:15. It also looks good at night lit up with the red push buttons.

[PhilcoJohn]

Guys the only tube radios that were made the best are from the 1935-1938 period regardless of the brand. How do you guys truly feel ? Is this really the truth? I know my radios from this era work truly great!

[Ron Ramirez]

Aye, PhilcoJohn, but the question was "Best Performing Philco of the 1939 through 1942 period?". I certainly agree that radios of 1935-38 are better overall, and I have said for many years that Philco quality took a downturn from 1939 on. Nevertheless, there are some well performing Philcos made after 1938, and that's what this thread is about.

[Phlogiston]

I don't notice a lot of difference between the 41-295 and the 40-190 and I far prefer the 190 cabinet. Yes, both are a far cry from the 37-116.

It seems that the years between 1940 and the early 50's were a era where, besides a war, were focused on price rather than performance. The new gadgets, FM and TV were good enough just to have.

[Arran]

I don't totally agree with that, for one thing the tube technology did improve after 1938, eliminating the grid caps and the introduction of shorter envelopes lead to smaller interelectrode capacities. Also many of the early 1940s sets incorporated an FM band, which was supposed to be the next wave in radio broadcasting (though it took until the late 1950s for it to catch on everywhere) Some of the best communications sets constructed were built during the 1940s and 50s. I would say that some of the better designed Philcos in this era were in the Tropic series of models, some of which were also manufactured as Canadian market models.
I believe too many people focus on tube counts, in which case the 1936-38 models win out, but many manufacturers were notorious for "Tube Stuffing" a chassis in ways that really did nothing for the performance. I've noticed that one of the favorite tricks in this period was to use a single triode for a first audio amp, and then to use a double diode like a 6H6 as a second detector, when they could have used a 6Q7 or a 6R7 in it's place. Then you have the magic eye tubes, which are a nice gimmick but do not do anything a light bulb or a shadow meter could not do.
I have also noticed that many of the sets sold from 1936-38 (other then Philco and RCA) have shortwave bands, but they have a rather useless band spread. They typically have a "Police Band" which runs from the upper end of the standard broadcast band (or just past it) to maybe 3.5-4mc, maybe it was active once but it's a dead zone now. Then they follow that with a shortwave band that attempts to cram everything from 5 mc to 22 mc on one scale, with the upper frequencies crowded in at one end.
Regards
Arran

[PhilcoJohn]

Arran, Which radio companies did tube stuff their radios for a higher tube count? I only heard that of the Kadette radio company.

[Ron Ramirez]

Midwest...

[Ron Ramirez]

...and Arran's reference to using separate dual diode and triode tubes where a single dual diode-triode tube would do applies to Philco's 40-200, 41-300, and a few others...

[TA Forbes]

Several companies "stuffed" tubes in their sets. Agree about Midwest, but although I find the sound quality lacking for an 18-tube set with P-PP 6V6s, my Midwest 181 is an excellent receiver.

Zenith often did this with their higher-tube count sets. Two 5Y3s can easily be replaced with a single 5Z3 or 5U4.

[Randy H.]

At least the two 5Y3's DID something, as did the 6J5 and 6H6. But SOME 'tube stuffers' (I don't recall brand names... It's been many years) put the tubes on the chassis, and wired up the heaters, and that's all! There was NOTHING connected to the other elements of the tubes. These sets were EXPENSIVE, due to the large tube count. (As high as 18)

[462ron]

Being new to this hobby I don't have the experience or quantity of working radios yet to make a judgement or comparison but the 41-250 I have I feel sounds pretty good for a table radio and has decent sensitivity. When ever I finally finish my 37-116 I will have a good set to compare with...If and when I finish it...LOL!

Ron

[Arran]

They all had tubes that "did something", (ballasts are not tubes they are resistors), but like the infamous 18 Transistor radios from Hong Kong several decades later they liked to embellish the tube count in various ways. In those they would wire up two or more of the transistors as diodes, they still "did something" but they did not amplify. As far as I know nobody built a set with dummy tubes that did nothing but glow, (other then glass ballasts which are not tubes) but there were plenty of ways to add extra tubes.
Sometimes rather then using a separate triode for the 1st audio, and a dual diode tube for the detector (which many sets connected in parallel) they would use triodes connected as a diode. So instead of using a 6Q7 or a 6R7 they could use up to three 6J5s (or another similar triode), one for the 1st audio, one for the 2nd detector, and another for the AVC/AGC, if it was a set with push pull outputs they could add a fourth 6J5 as a phase inverter. So a company could get a rail car full of 6J5s at a bargain price, and add at least three extra tubes for really no reason at all other then a marketing gimmick.
I suspect this may have been the motivation behind some manufacturers, particularly Brand Z, using dual rectifier tubes like 5Y3s. In the case of their 1940 model year sets they did so with 6X5Gs with disastrous results, not because they were 6X5s but because they exceeded the design specs of the tube. Regardless of what tubes they were pairing up it made little sense as the filament current would end up being higher then just using a single dual diode rectifier with a higher current output.
There are some suspicions about why Canadian Rogers sets used single ended diodes in pairs as rectifiers, like the 2X3 and 2Y3. It may have been for tube stuffing purposes or it may have been as a safety feature in that if one tube burned out the other would not operate as they were in series. Some models had two versions, one with a pair of 2X3s, and one with a type 80, everything else would be the same.
Regards
Arran