With only a little bit of bias on my part 
I have pleasure in quoting the reaction of the author to the equivalent EMI product when compared to modern i.e. 1939 standards:
"The performance of this receiver was exceptionally good, even when judged by modern standards, and the controls were notably easy to handle, in that they were non-critical and substantially independent of each other. Interlacing was particularly good and occurred automatically, even with the most casual adjustment of the controls. Definition was also very good, and the range of brightness and contrast control provided was adequate."
It is certainly true that the EMI receivers have excellent definition and interlacing and non-critical controls. Although nowadays it would be difficult to claim that the range of brightness and contrast is even "adequate".
Peter
I have pleasure in quoting the reaction of the author to the equivalent EMI product when compared to modern i.e. 1939 standards:"The performance of this receiver was exceptionally good, even when judged by modern standards, and the controls were notably easy to handle, in that they were non-critical and substantially independent of each other. Interlacing was particularly good and occurred automatically, even with the most casual adjustment of the controls. Definition was also very good, and the range of brightness and contrast control provided was adequate."
It is certainly true that the EMI receivers have excellent definition and interlacing and non-critical controls. Although nowadays it would be difficult to claim that the range of brightness and contrast is even "adequate".
Peter
