"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Oh my gawd yes, state-of-the-art!!!

... 60 years ago or so...



Do you have some kind of problem with anything of any quality or
character?

Yes, the new stuff is small, light, etc.. and has lots of modes and such..
but it's almost uniformly garbage. And paying more money doesn't guarantee
anything.. look at the Satellit 800.

By historical standards, the Sat 800 isn't so expensive. Back in the 50s, a
mid-level receiver would run around $100 to $150. I'm sure it takes fewer
hours of work to afford a good performing radio today.


Back in the day, the cheap 'crap' of the day was so much better quality
and
built to last many times longer than the best there is today.

Quality as defined how? Selectivity and sensitivity have never been less
expensive. The old radios needed repairs and I'm sure we both have replaced
plenty of leaky paper caps, drifted carbon comp resistors and tubes. Yes,
the old radios were more repairable. They were made mostly with standard
parts and built by hand.



"Progress" isn't always good.



Imagine you could go back fifty years and had hundreds of thousands of
modern radios to sell, all at inflation corrected prices. Who would be
interested in the then current radios? Well, I suppose they'd be even more
interested in how you and all those radios got there. But that subject is
more on-topic in rec.time.machine.

Frank Dresser