Unknown Gates product-Remote Conditioner

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

craigmorris74

Well-known member
GDIY Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
865
Location
benton, ky
I was at work looking through the shelves and stumbled upon a Gates radio product of some kind called a Remote Conditioner.  The product # is rubbed off, and I can't find anything that looks like it in old Gates catalogs.

It has a UTC input transformer, and what looks like 3 other transformers.  It has one GFG, one GJ5, and one GF5 tube.  Finally, it has one nice big knob on the front for "program level". 

Any ideas what this thing was used for?

Thanks,
Craig
 
the lower left illustration shows the remote conditioner. This remote amplifier is one of the most successful remotes made that contains it's own power supply on the same chassis as the amplifier. Characteristics are fine and the demand for these units  sustains the fine claims for it


I suspect based on their description it's for a Remote broadcast,  you know for being away from the radio station and doing a live feed. Poweramp it would appear to be? But that's all a guess. I can't even find any info on those tubes.
 
I recall seeing an old "remote amplifier" at a radio station where I worked circa 1970-72, but I don't recall if it was a Gates or something else.  My recollection was that it had originally been located at a local church in order to feed the audio from Sunday services back to the station via a dedicated Ma Bell landline.  I think it was basically a semi-low wattage power amp driving a 600 Ohm transformer which connected to Ma Bell. 

By the time I was working at the station, the remote end unit had been replaced with some sort of solid-state unit...perhaps a Shure M63??  Being low man on the totem pole at the station, I ended up doing board-op work on many Sunday mornings, playing "Reverend Ike" and other preachers on the Magnecords.  Around 10:00 or 10:30, a tech from Ma Bell would call the station, and he would throw tones at me while I read back the VU numbers as he tweaked the EQ at the far end.  Most likely a Pultec!  <g>

BTW, I suspect the tube line-up in that Gates box was actually 6F6, 6J5, and 6F5.  Either the numbers aren't all the legible, or perhaps Gates branded their own bottles????

Bri
 
What was funny, that radio station was a rock station, so coming out from the church service at noon into "Whole Lotta Love" was quite a shift in program content!

All of the Sunday morning programming was "paid" time blocks, and the station's owner was glad to get the money.

Bri
 
I think I posted my drawing of it here somewhere several years ago, I can't find it ATM.  Basic remote amp.  If selling one on ebay call it an "RCA OP-6 killer" to get the big bids. 
 
I had 2 of them, both like this.  These were made in various forms for about 10 years, so there may be slight differences including tube types.  This would be applicable to the black anodized multichannel remote mixers as well. 

The #1 improvement you can make is changing the 6F5 for something reasonable like a triode 6J7, adjusting the plate and cathode values (strap in some parallel R or replace with metal film).  6F5 mu is high, they are pretty noisy because of it, and 61 dB gain before the gain pot is fairly useless in the modern world. 

Click this link for a full size pic

7962772088_c5ee9ea074_b.jpg
 
Reverse the input transformer, primary/secondary.  You don't need all that "free" gain.  The resulting input Z will be bridging.  You may want to experiment with secondary tuning.  The tubes are fine.
 
Why, that's a wacky idea, reverse a 250/500:50K.  I guess if you want a bridging input amp with a 20 dB step down, no longer a mic preamp.  I have yet to hear a reasonably quiet 6F5 or 6SF5.  Certainly not one that approaches 6J7/6J5/6C5 for front end use. 
 
Terminating a 200r or 500r secondary with infinite Z doesn't seem to be a good idea either for flat response.

And gain of iron should be much less noisier than tube gain for low or hi mu.

Reducing mic level signal 20+ db doesn't seem good for S/N ratio going into 1st tube.
 
Back
Top