1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lasonc LPC-81 82

Lasonc LPC-81 82
deech, Dec 31, 2017
    • nickeccles
      Love this era of lasonics - they didn't half make some crap after these :wink:
      deech likes this.
    • Rating:
      Some of the most beautiful boxes ever!
    • Easthelp
      Yes, deech, as Mr Eccles and our man Brutus442 :biggrin: have enthused: those are good-looking LaSonic boomboxes. And a fetching way to end the year, indeed.

      My impulse is to liken the tuner façade of the top-mounted LaSonic LPC-81 to that of the JVC RC-M50. But on inspection, well, those tweeter grilles are maybe more reminiscent of those of the upgrade RC-M70. No? Too big a comparison stretch? (Shrug)

      Perhaps it is the tuner dial of the bottom-located LPC-82 that is reminiscent of that of the RC-M50JW and its three shortwave bands. The two shortwave bands of these LaSonics indicate that there is better than the ghost of a chance in tuning one frequency or another anywhere from 2 to 22 MHz. (Though, perhaps typical of LaSonic, the engineers don’t bother with the fine-tuning control that I’ve often felt is happily typical of JVCs.)

      Anyway, I say here that the convex (outward-curving) tweeter grilles of the LPC-82 bear considerably more resemblance to those of a Sanyo C3. (Had to Google the C3’s images.) But there the resemblance seems to end. So maybe it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that the Taiwan-made LaSonic LPC-82 and the Japan-made Sanyo C3 shared a design platform.

      Sensibly, each model comes with a separate POWER switch. (Is it sensible if the power cord isn’t detachable, as with the LPC-81?) And take a look at those sizeable condenser-microphone grilles on the ‘82. Uh, they wouldn’t pick up audio any better than models with condenser grilles that are little more than small slots or single dots – would they? It’s the acuity of the electronics behind the grille that counts, right?

      The LPC-81 seems to have the tape-quality selection advantage (“Normal” versus “CrO₂”) that the LPC-82 lacks, but the bigger ‘82 is probably the more powerful machine – and perhaps better-sounding, too. (Though I can only guess at the power consumption of either three-piece model, including the ‘82 that likely uses eight or ten “D” cell batteries.)

      I’m yet to find out if Our Man Deech has informed us whether or not the machines work – no telltale audiotape in the tape decks with the PLAY key depressed, none of the twelve LEDs flashing away – but those two flat-top units still look good. Keep them like that, deech.
    • deech
      EastHelp you always have your way to write up !
      Please accept my little joke but i remember well
      your seemingly endless writings from the old site :)
      I adore the way you unfold your thoughts though.
      On a quick answer now. The Lasonics in NO WAY
      at all they reach the quality of the SANYOS you mentioned.
      The LPC-82 works flawlessly but the LPC-81 needs a lot of work.
      The 82 uses 8 Ds and the 81 uses 6 Ds and they both have
      their power cord attached as is the case with most of the Lasonics.
    There are no comments to display.
  • Category:
    Uploaded By:
    Dec 31, 2017
    View Count:
    Comment Count:

    EXIF Data

    File Size:
    6.4 MB
    Mime Type:
    Date / Time:
    2017:12:31 17:03:33
    Exposure Time:
    1/125 sec
    ISO Speed Rating:
    ISO 100
    Focal Length:
    4.5 mm

    Note: EXIF data is stored on valid file types when a photo is uploaded. The photo may have been manipulated since upload (rotated, flipped, cropped etc).