- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
A bit of Christmas fun :D
- Thread starter steve_1979
- Start date
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
I would buy someone (if I could afford it) an OLED TV, so we could get some feedback and pictures. 🙂
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
JamesMellor said:
Thanks.🙂
I'd love to have an original Sony Walkman. Not to listen to just to put an a shelf like an ornament. It's a true hifi icon. 8)
plastic penguin
Well-known member
- Apr 28, 2008
- 6,536
- 3,145
- 36,570
my Sister got one that Christmas , I got a pair of old AR 7's and a battered Eagle amp and a tabletop memorx tape deck , I still think I got the better deal <S>
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
marou said:
HaHa, thanks marou. They are fine loudspeakers, as an example of the technology of fifty years ago, and my current ADM9s have much better bass.
However I would be pleased by them, as a gift.
JC
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
jcbrum said:
A wee bit off from what I have gleaned about the state of hi-fi in 1963.
The metal domed tweeter had not been invented for another 19 years.
Most (domestic) amplifiers of 1963 would be incapable of driving a P3ESR even to it's minimum recommended power of 15watts per channel.
The BBC LS3/5A (from which the P3ESR evolved) was still 11 years in the future.
Most people were still using radiograms or portable record players (like the Dansette). A few were making their own speaker enclosures from kits of parts and slabs of plywood nailed into room corners (corner enclosures) stuffed with fibre wadding and wallpapered to match the decor! These would typically have used large, oval shaped, 'full-range' speakers from Rola-Celestion or Goodmans with no seperate tweeters. (Only very rich enthusiasts would be using Tannoy dual concentric drivers.)
Something like the P3ESR would have been considered very futuristic and quite exotic. I am guessing that only the Quad ESL 57s would have given them a run for their money (from what was available in radio and electronics stores in 1963).
Hmmm, I think you're right, Chebby. It was an 'off the cuff' remark, to which I gave insufficient thought. I was probably out by about 5 years.
Although I did have 'radiogram' type stuff long ago, mostly sourced from second hand sales of one sort and another, my first serious hifi was a Quad II / 22 set initially with big flat panel Wharfedale speakers. I soon progressed to Quad 33 / 303 and briefly tried ESL57s although they were too big. So, I bought LS3/5a speakers. It all seems so long ago, nowadays.
I think you're probably also right about the ESL 57 "run for the money" remark, and I never did like metal tweeters in most applications.
JC
Although I did have 'radiogram' type stuff long ago, mostly sourced from second hand sales of one sort and another, my first serious hifi was a Quad II / 22 set initially with big flat panel Wharfedale speakers. I soon progressed to Quad 33 / 303 and briefly tried ESL57s although they were too big. So, I bought LS3/5a speakers. It all seems so long ago, nowadays.
I think you're probably also right about the ESL 57 "run for the money" remark, and I never did like metal tweeters in most applications.
JC
At the risk of a bit of thread drift, and having given the matter a bit more thought overnight, I think I can say that from the mid sixties onwards, only two loudspeakers really mattered, in terms of domestic HiFi.
They were the Quad electrostatics, and the Spendor BC1. Nothing much else was of any consequence.
Here is a link which may be of interest to some.
JC
They were the Quad electrostatics, and the Spendor BC1. Nothing much else was of any consequence.
Here is a link which may be of interest to some.
JC
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
‘Muddy’ sound using cassette tapes/deck/through quality hi fi components
- Started by Anthony L
- Replies: 63
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram