Another JC Penney MCS Stereo commercial circa 1980

[yandrsupreme]

i've had this system since 1978, with 4 speakers, so i can use the quad matrix... it warms up digital CD's like no other, and still sounds perfect almost 35 years later! The original retail price of this was 725$... about 1,500$ in today's money. These were pretty high end components, but they LAST.

[raymondleeleggs]

That like a $1000.00 system in todays money.

[musicman257]

a\its a good brand most of jc penny stuff is made by technics

[Goldiney]

Don't forget to factor in inflation.

[SlimeTron5000]

@Goldiney Were people paid higher before (but this is just a re-badged brand)?

[Goldiney]

@SlimeTron5000 I mean 499.99 is expensive anyways ... just think about what the price would be today if it were adjusted for inflation.

[SlimeTron5000]

@Goldiney Yes or no?

[pentaxsubversion]

Sorry but as a vintage audiophile lover i have too say mcs is shotty gear, be better of with harmon kardon rotel and dynaco A25s

[pookylooky]

MCS is much better than Harmon Kardon, Rotel and Dynaco. That stuff is big box store junk. You are a idiot. I have real hi-fi, Mcintosh

[4Cal2000]

No doubt about it good quality system.I remember in 1981 when my older brother drove me to purchase a complete system,reciever,turntable,cass­ette deck,and speakers that i saw on an ad on the sunday paper.Just when we were reaching up the end of the escalator there it was... the very same system i was purchasing that day.The stereo system looked spectacular! Bought it installed it at home,wow!Incredible sound! I was17 back then.29 years later i still have the speakers,tape deck,and turntable,

[joebradio]

..just remember... prices higher in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico

[Watcher3223]

For the price, you actually did get good equipment.

MCS was mainly rebranded Technics and Panasonic components.

And, if you sold audio equipment of equivalent quality brand new, the price would be much higher when you consider inflation.

$499 in 1980 would be about $1200 in 2007.

Compared to what's around today, there were better engineering practices, better quality parts (and much more discrete components), and higher quality manufacturing practices made these things expensive.

[ultimatechorus]

I had this back in the early eighties. This system was awesome. Receiver was only 35 watts with a pair of 12" 3 way speakers. Only 35 watts, very loud and the bass from this thing would shake the whole house. They don't make home systems like these anymore. Today's home systems can't shake the whole house with out a subwoofer. I now have a Sony 65 watts home theatre system. The Sony can't touch the MCS. It may have been 35 watts but it sounded like 100,

[Watcher3223]

I'll bet the 35 watt rating was conservative; actual power might have been a little bit more.

As for the 65 for your Sony home theater system, no doubt they may have taken certain liberties to arrive at that number. Real world performance may be half that or less.

However, Sony is not bad, but, like anything else and with few exceptions, you have to spend more to get more.

Sony ES equipment, for example, is usually excellent, but you certainly pay for it.