Realistic mach one. Just over hyped?

[RS Steve]

In '75 I worked at the local RS store while in high school. After listening to many of the speakers I wound up buying the Optimus 1B's. I thought they sounded much better than the Mach 1's. I do remember hand trucking plenty of Mach 1's out the door for customers though.

I purchased mine with a STA-2100D, and LAB-400 TT, I later added the T-200's which I liked better. Playing all 4 at once was a pretty solid wall of sound back then. Back to the original post though, I never thought the Mach 1 was over hyped, they seem to have just as much dislike. They have never been considered a speaker that was good for picky audiophile type listening and never could compete with such. But rock the house with wall rattling, loud in your face, party music, they did very well. Most that saw them in stores liked how they looked, and probably didn't know what high end speakers could sound like. All I know is, my Mach 1's were very much appreciated and enjoyed back in the day, they were just another stepping stone along the way.

 

[damacman]

That is cheap by today's standards. Used you can get better speakers for that coin. RS Maqch 1's were the start of the slippery slope for RS.

I gotta tell you - I'm not sure I've ever seen a positive contribution from you. Every post of yours that I've seen is written from some sort of audio ivory tower at which you sneer at others opinions.

 

[superdog]

I powered the pair I had with a McIntosh MC2105. On Sir Duke, they were rockin' the upstairs with the needles pegged on the amp. As the MC2105 was sitting on top of an MC2300 it only made sense to see what even more power could do. The MC2300 / Mach Ones was an impressive combination by any standards and the 15s shook the floor with authority on Stevie Wonder with the tone controls flat and loudness off. Synergy. I remember thinking - if Radio Shack demoed them like this, they wouldn't have been able to build them fast enough. Loud is one thing - powerful another.

I had coveted them as a kid pouring over rat shack catalogs and seeing them in the stores. No, they weren't HiFi but they were fun. I never took them serious enough to do any critical listening. Stuff like Midnight Star, Stevie Wonder, Donna Summer, and other fun music was served well by them.

The ex took them in the divorce.

I think that is the problem with Mach ones and the like.Someone always compares them to true audiophile speakers which they are not.They can be quite enjoyable though in their own right.They are what they are and powering them with a clean, powerful, quality amp brings out the best in them as you have spoken about.

 

[mhardy6647]

I believe the original Mach 1's included a lifetime warranty also that was pretty much unheard of, I think they changed it to a 5 year at some point.

Indeed, looks like the first year (1976) offered such a warranty:

FYI and FWIW, here is the applicable guarantee from the previous page (46) in the 1976 catalog:



No mention of it in 1977:

 

[z-adamson]

That is cheap by today's standards. Used you can get better speakers for that coin. RS Maqch 1's were the start of the slippery slope for RS.

You said this...

The Mach 1's were a cheap price point design and that is all they were designed to be.

$199-$249 ($800-$1000 adjusted for inflation) for a pair of speakers was not CHEAP in the late 70s.

If you insist that it is, then I would love to see how you define cheap.

 

[mhardy6647]

You said this...

The Mach 1's were a cheap price point design and that is all they were designed to be.

$199-$249 ($800-$1000 adjusted for inflation) for a pair of speakers was not CHEAP in the late 70s.

If you insist that it is, then I would love to see how you define cheap.

Or look at the other way -- what sort of stuff was more expensive in the mid-late 1970s? Here's a smattering.

AH477etc by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[HH-Bham]

I purchased mine with a STA-2100D

Did you trade/sell it to a guy from Alabama a couple years ago by any chance? Jupiter is where I picked up mine.

 

[z-adamson]

Or look at the other way -- what sort of stuff was more expensive in the mid-late 1970s? Here's a smattering.

AH477etc by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

L166 and L65 are in a whole other league. No experience with the Phillips and Dahquist.

Just because the Mach One wasnt top of the line, does not mean it was cheap. It was however top of the line for RS until mid eighties when it was replaced by the T300.

One can argue what wether or not these were cheap until blue in the face, but without a working definition, it is all pointless. So, according to dictionary.com, cheap is...

Costing very little; relatively low in price; inexpensive:

$199-$249 ($800-$1000 adjusted for inflation) for a pair of speakers does not fit the definition considering average household income of the time.

 

[RS Steve]

Did you trade/sell it to a guy from Alabama a couple years ago by any chance? Jupiter is where I picked up mine.

That's very possible, sold off all my RS gear except my LAB-200 turntable.

 

[woofercooker]

I gotta tell you - I'm not sure I've ever seen a positive contribution from you. Every post of yours that I've seen is written from some sort of audio ivory tower at which you sneer at others opinions.

Even I worked at Radio Shack.. I'm in my 50's now and have much higher end stuff and can afford it now that I'm, Well, I'm ready for retiriement. I could say all Radio Shack speakers SUCK compared to my "Good Stuff" but I won't. And they don't all suck I enjoyed the Mach Ones and Twos for what they are supposed to be. Since I have discovered the Optimus 5 and Optimus 7 AND the Video Lady Nova 8b, I have more appreciation for Radio Shack Speakers than I ever have in my life. Especially the Optimus 7s. No more Negativity please!!! We all know Radio Shack never was "high end" and should not be compared to. The Machs Rock!!! Period!!!

 

[bhunter]

That is cheap by today's standards. Used you can get better speakers for that coin. RS Maqch 1's were the start of the slippery slope for RS.

Every single product I ever purchased from RS was poorly made and failed prematurely. I never bought RS stereo gear, but plenty of phones, recorders, alarms, and other odds and ends. None left a favorable impression.

 

[z-adamson]

Every single product I ever purchased from RS was poorly made and failed prematurely. I never bought RS stereo gear, but plenty of phones, recorders, alarms, and other odds and ends. None left a favorable impression.

Radio Shack gear was always an affordable alternative to whatever the current trendy, top of the line product is. Sometimes cheap, sometimes not, but never top of the line. Example, many of their sta receivers were intended to compete directly with pioneer, the Realistic T300 was RS's attempt at competing with the jbl l150.

 

[the skipper]

The shack's big thing was their monthly sale flyers where virtually everything eventually went on sale for a ridiculously low price. When this happened, nothing could compare price/performance wise.

 

[Lavane]

Indeed, looks like the first year (1976) offered such a warranty:

FYI and FWIW, here is the applicable guarantee from the previous page (46) in the 1976 catalog:

View attachment 978900

No mention of it in 1977:

I like how there are house plants sitting next to the Mach1. You just know when no one is looking they will sneek right on top.

 

[Justgotohm]

And the couple is on the wrong side of the speaker.

 

[Bodyblue]

I never bought RS stereo gear,

So why are you commenting about stereo equipment sold at RS then? Ohhh just to bash them?

 

[Bodyblue]

You said this...

The Mach 1's were a cheap price point design and that is all they were designed to be.

$199-$249 ($800-$1000 adjusted for inflation) for a pair of speakers was not CHEAP in the late 70s.

If you insist that it is, then I would love to see how you define cheap.

It was an ignorant statement. Radio Shack is an easy target and the trolls line up to take shots at it.

 

[Ds2000]

I'd have died without RS in my teen days. I bought raw drivers and crossover parts very often, there was constant experimentation with the cast away cabs I found. I finally settled on a Marantz 5G pair, in which I put the phenolic ring Realistic tweets, and the 16oz magnet paper cone Realistic woofer with the 1" aluminum coil, along with new caps and resistors for the crossover. The RS woofer was better for my use than the original Marantz woofs.

Realistic may be dead, but long live Realistic.

Oh I still have the speaker parts, I'll be re-foaming the woofers and eventually offering them on BT to the enthusiasts.

 

[bhunter]

So why are you commenting about stereo equipment sold at RS then? Ohhh just to bash them?

Yes! Precisely because I purchased their products and they were junk. I didn't purchase their stereo gear, but that doesn't mean I have not heard it or seen it. Just as our moldy friend stated, their stuff was to get a product to market, regardless of how well that product performed over time. At one time, they were unique, but ultimately failed in the marketplace.

They should have stayed in the craft hobbyist sector.

 

[RS Steve]

For the record, a lot of RS stereo equipment was made by Foster / Fostex electronics who were pretty well respected, so lumping all RS products as junk is just plain wrong. It's one thing to jump in a thread and say you had a bad experience with a certain product and voice your opinion, but to thread crap and brand bash is something we try to avoid on AK. I honestly don't give 2 chits if people want to look down their nose at RS equipment, I very much enjoyed what I owned, and had good experiences with the equipment. We all have to start somewhere, and some did it with RS gear like me. This type of thread will only drum up the snooty responses, and realistic fans defending the brand. Nobody is saying Mach 1's or any RS gear was super high end audio equipment, but they did sell some good iconic stuff that is still appreciated today.