Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
SRS wrote: This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. In the dark bluish-purple plastic "can"? In my circuit, it wanted a 220K base bias resistor (red-red-yellow :-) |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Mike Rivers wrote:
SRS wrote: This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. Is it still noisy with hardly any gain? Not a very promising beginning.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
[[ This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ ]] Check out the E-V mics on page 64! And the Bruno Velotron on page 65! - John |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
SRS wrote: This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. I still have this... http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/allied1961.JPG greg |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Learning to curse in Pakistani is certainly worth a visit IMO. The Shack O' Shame hasn't given out catalogs in years and now only hires fast-food rejects with electronic skills.... Can repeatedly turn on/off a stereo or i-pod without f--ing up. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote... SRS wrote: This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. In the dark bluish-purple plastic "can"? In my circuit, it wanted a 220K base bias resistor (red-red-yellow :-) You really want to use two resistors for bias rather than relying on the transistor leakage. I know, everybody did it... even Uher... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
I looked and looked, but couldn't find the remote control cars
anywhere in that catalog! :-) Thanks for posting the link... it was fun to browse through it. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
It is very nice, thank you
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
I love the WIreless Record Player
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 11, 3:25*pm, Charlie Olsen wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:40:29 -0800 (PST), RDOGuy wrote: I looked and looked, but couldn't find the remote control cars anywhere in that catalog! *:-) Thanks for posting the link... it was fun to browse through it. Anyone have a link to the old Lafayette Catalogs? Do a Google search for Lafayette Radio Catalogs. There are pages of links to them. Eric |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"SRS" wrote in message .. . This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ Guess it really was a "Radio" shack back then. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
GregS wrote:
In article , (GregS) wrote: In article , Mike Rivers wrote: SRS wrote: This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it. I still have this... http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/allied1961.JPG greg From cat..... http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61a.pdf Ah, the E-V 664 "Buchanan Hammer". The first mic I ever owned! http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61b.pdf Not as old nor, I suppose, as cool but some might enjoy this. http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/Catalog/Catalog.htm -- ================================================== ====================== Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
I found that by changing the year portion of the URL, you can also go
to a 1946 catalog as we as pretty much any year from 1961 to 2003. I have been sending out a link to the 1962 catalog as my Christmas card this year. Great Hi-Fi stuff in 1962. Thanks for such a fun link. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
check out 1965, McIntosh and Dynakit
soundriven wrote: I found that by changing the year portion of the URL, you can also go to a 1946 catalog as we as pretty much any year from 1961 to 2003. I have been sending out a link to the 1962 catalog as my Christmas card this year. Great Hi-Fi stuff in 1962. Thanks for such a fun link. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. Keep up the good work maintaining it and filling in the missing years. -CC |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. -CC |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 16, 8:34*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"? |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 16, 8:50*pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:34*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ________________ Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs and switches on the fronts of them. Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did: Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it. It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on the front of those receivers. Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut - to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating. Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is! -CC |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ________________ Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs and switches on the fronts of them. Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did: Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it. It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on the front of those receivers. Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut - to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating. Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is! -CC I sold hifi back in those days. Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned* that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20. The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance now. That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. Some things are better than ever. Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old days' and more. jak |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 17, 10:12*pm, jakdedert wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ________________ Dumbed down? *Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs and switches on the fronts of them. Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did: Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it. It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll take over today's dumbed down consumer components. *They are an insult to mine and others' intelligence. *People used to DEMAND what was on the front of those receivers. Surround sound? So what! *A really intelligent receiver would have bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. *Lo-cut - to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. *Cutting extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating. Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is! -CC I sold hifi back in those days. *Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned* that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20. The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance now. *That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. *Some things are better than ever. *Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old days' and more. jak Maybe the lower end receivers are "dumped down", but I don't see how it's any different today than it was in the 70's or early 80's. I have a Pioneer SX-580 receiver (late 70's lower end) http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.co..._receivers.htm A Pioneer SA-540 integrated amp (early 80's lower end) http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ages9/lu11.jpg A Marantz 1090 integrated amp from the late 70's (middle of the road) http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/1090.html They all have the basic features, except for the Marantz was has a "high filter", which makes no audio difference to my ears, and a midrange control. I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg I think the Kenwood was a middle of the road amp, but not sure. I bought if from a coke head neighbor that needed $20.00 for a fix back in 1990. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Ron wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:12 pm, jakdedert wrote: ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote: On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote: On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote: wrote in message This is a hoot. http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name every time I was there. I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds. Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store. "I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing" Robert Morein (310) 237-6511 (215) 646-4894 ____________________ That site is a SCREAM! ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for boomboxes as well as home components. I care more about performance than looks. ______________________________ If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down. What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ________________ Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs and switches on the fronts of them. Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did: Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it. It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on the front of those receivers. Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut - to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating. Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is! -CC I sold hifi back in those days. Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned* that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20. The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance now. That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. Some things are better than ever. Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old days' and more. jak Maybe the lower end receivers are "dumped down", but I don't see how it's any different today than it was in the 70's or early 80's. I have a Pioneer SX-580 receiver (late 70's lower end) http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.co..._receivers.htm A Pioneer SA-540 integrated amp (early 80's lower end) http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ages9/lu11.jpg A Marantz 1090 integrated amp from the late 70's (middle of the road) http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/1090.html They all have the basic features, except for the Marantz was has a "high filter", which makes no audio difference to my ears, and a midrange control. I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg I think the Kenwood was a middle of the road amp, but not sure. I bought if from a coke head neighbor that needed $20.00 for a fix back in 1990. I think the OP also fails to appreciate the relative value of those old pieces. Consider your first listing. In '78 it listed for $250. Depending on which index to which you refer http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that amount is worth from $795 to $1500 in todays dollars. That's for a receiver that pumps out a whopping 20 watts per channel! Never mind the features; that's not a whole lot of power. Granted the distortion figures are laudable, and the build quality is very good; but $1500 will buy a pretty nice rig these days. Further, that was the low-end of the spectrum. People often spent over $500 for the higher-end models. Those were the ones with the real features...and even better specs. That $500 in 1978 equates to a 2008 figure that, I think I'm pretty safe in saying, that few spend for their receivers these days. I'm sure that many on this list 'might' spend that much; but I think the market penetration at that level was somewhat deeper in those days. I mean, how many people do you know with $3000 receivers? jak |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Ron" wrote in message ... I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg Hard to tell anything from that photo! MrT. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 18, 7:30*pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message ... I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg Hard to tell anything from that photo! MrT. My camera doesn't take good closeups, it's about 10 yrs old. Here's a better pic http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...486_edited.jpg |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Ron" wrote in message ... I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg Here's a better pic http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...486_edited.jpg Variable turnover controls (really quasi parametric, not true parametric as labelled here) are not 'unique', but certainly not very common. I'll bet that amp was not overly cheap in it's day though. It easily cost a months wages in the seventies for a good amp, or turntable, or pair of speakers. Something not many people are willing to spend today. Fortunately it's just not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent pair of speakers. MrT. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 19, 12:54*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
Fortunately it's just not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent pair of speakers. MrT. ________________________ Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? Say that again when that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other explosion-filled movie. I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy clean clip-free signal is just as important. -CC |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
jakdedert wrote: I think the OP also fails to appreciate the relative value of those old pieces. Consider your first listing. In '78 it listed for $250. Depending on which index to which you refer http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that amount is worth from $795 to $1500 in todays dollars. That's for a receiver that pumps out a whopping 20 watts per channel! Never mind the features; that's not a whole lot of power. Granted the distortion figures are laudable, and the build quality is very good; but $1500 will buy a pretty nice rig these days. Further, that was the low-end of the spectrum. People often spent over $500 for the higher-end models. Those were the ones with the real features...and even better specs. That $500 in 1978 equates to a 2008 figure that, I think I'm pretty safe in saying, that few spend for their receivers these days. I'm sure that many on this list 'might' spend that much; but I think the market penetration at that level was somewhat deeper in those days. I mean, how many people do you know with $3000 receivers? jak the 1939 catalog had a Bogan Binaural 35w/ch amp for $112.43 ($1678) and the 1965 had a Dynakit 35w/ch for $110.45 ($725.63) and today a Markhill 23w/ch is $800. Consider solidstate amp is less then $100 for 45w/ch, most things were more expensive in the old (non-disposable) days and there were plenty of service jobs if you knew how to fix stuff. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Dec 19, 4:27*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:54*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:Fortunately it's just not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent pair of speakers. MrT. ________________________ Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? *Say that again when that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other explosion-filled movie. I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy clean clip-free signal is just as important. -CC Yeah, but even the cheapest of HT receivers have plenty of power these days. And if you don't have decent speakers, the only explosions you're gonna hear are those cheap cones popping out of their frames. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message ... Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? Say that again when that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other explosion-filled movie. I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy clean clip-free signal is just as important. Sure, which is so much easier to do these days, without spending a months wages. And the point you seem to miss is that if you really want good 5.1 or 7.1 sound, why expect to pay less (in real terms) than many did for 2 channel sound in the seventies? People would be expecting to pay 3 months wages for a HT receiver alone. It's just not gonna happen! MrT. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Great fun. Boy, you had to be pretty well off in 1939 to be able to buy
most of the things in this catalogue. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
And the point you seem to miss is that if you really want good 5.1 or 7.1 sound, why expect to pay less (in real terms) than many did for 2 channel sound in the seventies? People would be expecting to pay 3 months wages for a HT receiver alone. It's just not gonna happen! Computers are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. Television sets are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way; transducer technology hasn't changed so much. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Computers are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. Television sets are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. Yep. So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too. Which of course they are in general. The VAST majority of people now spend far less of their money on audio, and the bottom end systems were always crap. Even CD's are FAR cheaper now than vinyl records ever were, in real terms. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way; transducer technology hasn't changed so much. But at least we don't need to spend a months wages on a phono cartridge now thankfully. (except for nostalgia buffs of course) Speakers are the only item that cost just as much for good ones, and the real good ones are better than ever. Dollar for inflation adjusted dollar at least. (and the crap is just as bad as ever) MrT. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Speakers are the only item that cost just as much for good ones, and the real good ones are better than ever. Dollar for inflation adjusted dollar at least. Right, but speakers should be most of the cost of your system. Maybe even more now that the prices on electronics have dropped. Transducers are still the hardest thing to build and still the weakest link in the chain. (and the crap is just as bad as ever) Yes, but now it's "Multimedia" crap. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Right, but speakers should be most of the cost of your system. Maybe even more now that the prices on electronics have dropped. Definitely a higher percentage now, which was my point. Transducers are still the hardest thing to build and still the weakest link in the chain. But the only problem HiFi transducers now are the speakers. You can buy a good CD player for less than the cost of a phono cartridge alone, let alone a decent turntable or tone arm. And whilst a CD player is a "transducer" (optical to electrical) they are hardly the weakest link in the chain! And in fact microphones are now much cheaper in real terms as well, valve types excepted. I sure know what I was paying for SM58's 30 years ago compared to now!! :-) And let's not compare the cost of high quality recording devices and media !!!!!!!!!!!!!! MrT. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:19 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too. Well, they are. Speakers haven't changed much, but it's become hard to buy a bad CD player or amplifier. Analogue playback was never going to be perfect, so there was some point in spending money following the quest. But it's not hard to grab digital data. The people who WANT to spend loads of money need very strong faith that a $1000 CD player(and, Lord help us, $1000 cables too) really sound any different. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tech,rec.arts.movies.production.sound
|
|||
|
|||
OT but fun - 1939 Radio Shack catalog
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:19 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too. Funny you should only include my name with some one else's quote. Well, they are. And if you'd actually been following the thread, you would know I already said that. MrT. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Radio Shack | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FA: 1961 Allied Radio Electronics catalog | Marketplace | |||
FA: 1961 Allied Radio Electronics catalog | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FA: Old Lafayette Radio, Heathkit & Radio Shack Catalogs | Marketplace | |||
WTB: Radio Shack PZM microphone | Marketplace |