• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

The Butt Ugliest Receiver Ever???

Chad Johnson

chadjohnsonpic.jpg
 
Arby said:
For your approval... The Akai AA-R22.
Click to expand...
Arby, I have one of those sitting next to me in the office, unplugged, as I type. I was thinking of adding it to this thread, but don't have a camera handy.

The one I have belongs to a co-worker. We used it years ago when we were office mates. Not sure if he wants it back or not. He's still down the hall, I guess I should ask.

The last time I used it it worked fine, but I do remember it acting a little flaky sometimes.

At least all of the weird schematics and other BS light up, and aren't just painted on like some of the others on this thread.
 
bholio said:
Arby, I have one of those sitting next to me in the office, unplugged, as I type.
Click to expand...

Smart man. I hated the receiver (can't ya' tell?) but it's all I could afford in the early 80's while raising a young family. :sigh:

It was either the Akai or this early Panasonic portable stereo I bought a few years earlier while in the Army.

PanasoniclRD-74902EarlyBoomBox.jpg
(not my picture)
 
Bill said:
My vote goes to the MCS 3125. Don't get me wrong, this receiver is one of my all time favorites. Awesome build and sound quality, but to me it is just plain ugly.

Bill from Indy
Click to expand...

Now that's ugly!!! I was gonna say the old Fisher I had as akid with turntable built in the top, but the MCS takes the cake!
 
Hands down ugliest

There's certainly some ugly receivers here but I think I've got them all beat.

This is the 550-T from "The Fisher". I think they started producing them in 1966.
They're almost as heavy as they are ugly (almost). I guess the simulated wood grain on the top half of the face plate is supposed to give it that "down home" feel while the brown rocker switches were chosen for uniqueness. The knobs pretty much speak for themselves.

However looks can be deceiving because this receiver sounds great. I would suggest to anybody who finds one at a thrift store or garage sale to give it a listen because 10 to 1 you'll buy it.
 

Attachments

  • fisher 550t.jpg
    fisher 550t.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 130
Oh man, that woodgrain front panel really had me fooled...just like the wood panels on a 1977 Ford LTD wagon...
 
Back then the Fishers were considered some of the most beautiful of units. Yes, the woodgrain dates them a bit but compared to what they have been producing since the BPC era started, it is still right up there with the best of them IMHO.
 
Yeah, I don't think we should be knocking the early units. Except Telefunken. :D It's kinda like knocking Model A styling because it doesn't look like a '67 Mustang.
 
Lady Ayeka said:
the Galaxy Commander is NOT an ugly receiver!!:thumbsdn::grumpy: granted, there are much better units out there, (hinthint, PIONEER VSX-D1S) but the KR-1000 is just so damned futuristic in that unique, delightful early 80's way!!
Click to expand...

I agree - I think it's a rather attractive unit.
 
They're cool in a way, sort of a Galaxy Commander-ish way, but I have a hard time taking seriously anything with a built-in equalizer. I suppose standard tone controls would qualify as a 2-band eq. Inconsistent though I may be, eq sliders just aren't my cup o' tea.

(Any rhyming within the previous sentence is completely incidental, and should not be construed that the author of said sentence possesses any modicum of poetic ability. Thank you.)
 
Tone controls are not the same as an active equializer. I cana not think of a more compromiing circuit in the chain than tone controls; better not to have them. An active equalizer does away with the limitations and distortions introduced by tone controls.
 
What did you do for the volume control markings. Looks interesting. Nice lighting and photo. I've got the 60 watter 301 and in the beginning I was ashamed to admit I had it but it has grown on me.
 
Man, that thing was designed by committee! :no:

Beauty is in the eye of the owner though. Enjoy my friend.... :thmbsp:
 
Brian said:
What did you do for the volume control markings. Looks interesting. Nice lighting and photo. I've got the 60 watter 301 and in the beginning I was ashamed to admit I had it but it has grown on me.
Click to expand...

I used my old Dymo Labelmaker.
 
chasaboo said:
Man, that thing was designed by committee! :no:
Click to expand...

Well, if you follow the lines, every one has a clean beginning and end, never arbitrary. Notice the tuning wheel and the and input/function center stack. Not a line out of place. It's an example of modular design (four elements: tuning dial module, SEAS equalizer module, source module, and control module, all grouped logically in a horizontal/vertical matrix), with sight lines and access ergonomically positioned.

Yeah, industrial design was an area of interest/study to me, and this JVC is a much better example of function over form than the "Ginza-at-midnight" Pioneers of the same era (IMNSHO), but one that doesn't imitate the Scandinavian designs of Tandberg and B&O like Yamaha did. It draws much of its inspiration from automotive designers.

And its sound is VERY clean. At that time, Japanese Victor Company was making some of the best pro gear in the A/V world, and their consumer lines presented a sound and video quality that Sony, Pioneer, and Technics didn't.

Peace, out. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom