Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of
which is that I keep an annually updated cost of living index going all the
way back to when I graduated from college. And as a longtime audiophile, I
have a collection of catalogs and "annuals" going back to 1964.

To try to answer the question of "what compares to what" and auxiliary
questions such as "What would a Citation II cost today" or "What old
equipment best compares to an VTL ST-85 today" I have used this index to
calculate 1964 prices forward, and 2002 prices backward. The only exception
is Audio Research Corp, where I started the pricing comparison based on 1972
data, the first year they appeared.

The following is a summary in 2002 dollars of both old and current
equipment. For comparison I used conventional push-pull tube amplifiers
rated for the most part between 50 and 75 watts per channel. In the 60's
and early 70's this usually meant the manufacturers top of the line power
amps....in 2002 this generally meant manufacturers bottom of the line (or
nearly so) power amps. This is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison
that I can come up with.

Herewith the results:

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)
Citation II (60wpc) $1504 ($12.53dpw)
McIntosh 240 (58wpc) $1733 ($14.94dpw)
Fisher K1000 (65wpc) $1983 ($15.25dpw)
McIntosh 275 (75wpc) $2671 ($17.81dpw)
ARC Dual 75 (75wpc) $3906 ($26.04dpw)
Marantz 9A (70wpc) $4621 ($33.01dpw)

New Amps (in order of ascending actual 2002 price)

VTL ST-85 (85wpc) $1750 ($10.78)
VAC Auricle (55wpc) $2000 ($18.18)
Sonic Frontiers Power 1 (55wpc) $2499 ($22.78)
Conrad Johnson MV-60 (55wpc) $2795 ($25.41)
ARC VT-50 (50wpc) $3995 ($39.95)
BAT VK75 (75wpc) $6000 ($40.00)
ARC VT100 MkIII (100wpc) $5995 ($29.98)
McIntosh 2102 (100wpc) $6000 ($30.00)

I offer this more for study than for any firm conclusions, but I would draw
your attention to a few things:

* The lowest dollar/watt amps are the Eico and the Dyna MkIII's, followed by
the VTL ST85.
* Both the ARC VT100MkIII and the McIntosh 2102 cost slightly less on a
dollar per watt basis than the Marantz 9A did in 1964...extreme quality was
costly even back then.
* Of the newer amps, on a dollar per watt basis, all except the VTL cost
more than any of the 1964 amps other than the ARC Dual75 and the Marantz 9A
which seems to indicate some pricing inflation.
* Both in 1964 and 2002, dollar per watt generally increased with the price
of the unit. In other words the higher prices were associated with cost of
parts and/or circuit complexity, craftsmanship, or reputation and the
general difficulty of getting higher wattages out of tubes.
* The biggest change in "position" was McIntosh, which on a dollar per watt
basis went from solid upper middle class in the '60's to very high end in
this decade.
* ARC was premium priced when introduced and has remained so.
* Is BAT the Marantz of this decade?
* When exclaiming over the high cost of the current high end, it is useful
to understand that in terms of output most high-end amps today (tube or
otherwise) are much more powerful than those of the 60's and as already
noted, cost per watt goes up with power (at least with tubes).

************************************************** ***

If you would like a copy of the Excel spreadsheet showing actual and imputed
pricing for the years 1964, 72, 80, 87, 85, and 2002, and dollars/watts
figures for all these amps, just request and I will be happy to send.

If I get a chance, I'll extend my pricing index back to 1955 and compare
actual tube prices from tubes heyday to the current price of tubes...since
tube prices have to be one major component of a tube amp. Don't hold your
breath waiting, however, as this will be a lot of work.

--
Harry. Lavo
"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington

  #2   Report Post  
Michael Squires
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

In article rHFrb.117831$9E1.581678@attbi_s52,
Harry Lavo wrote:
Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)


One problem with the analysis is that Dyna and to a lesser extent Eico
were discounted, and the Dyna equipment was almost always sold as the
less expensive kit. The other manufacturer's equipment was rarely
discounted.

I also wonder if utility was linear with money, since I didn't think
twice about buying a MKIII kit but would think many times
before paying $1203 today for any amplifier.

Mike Squires
1965: Rek-o-Kut K34H/PAS3/dual MKIII/Altec 605-A
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

  #3   Report Post  
BEAR
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

Nice one, Harry!

It would appear that tube amps, at least the commercial variety that you are
comparing have not really become overpriced at all. However, there *are*
"boutique" brand - mostly handmade and mostly exoticly packaged - that
do run into higher $$ than the units mentioned... One unit that comes to
mind (although not a boutique brand at all) is the Japanese "Marantz"
845 amp that they came out with a few years back...

I wonder how many readers think that one is also a "rip off"??

I am sure, well pretty sure that someone could build the same circuit using
different components and chassis for about $500-$1000, plus or minus
a bit. (minus the name, of course... :- ) )

Does this make the Marantz amp a "rip-off"?? I wonder what readers of
this esteemed newsgroup think about it?

(Is a Patek Phillip "watch" a rip off?? I can buy a Timex for $19.95)

Hmmm...

_-_-bear

PS. maybe my math is off but when I divided the MkIII: $1203/60w/2ch =
$10.02 not $7.52??

Harry Lavo wrote:

Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a little
research.


snip

This is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison
that I can come up with.

Herewith the results:

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)
Citation II (60wpc) $1504 ($12.53dpw)
McIntosh 240 (58wpc) $1733 ($14.94dpw)
Fisher K1000 (65wpc) $1983 ($15.25dpw)
McIntosh 275 (75wpc) $2671 ($17.81dpw)
ARC Dual 75 (75wpc) $3906 ($26.04dpw)
Marantz 9A (70wpc) $4621 ($33.01dpw)

New Amps (in order of ascending actual 2002 price)

VTL ST-85 (85wpc) $1750 ($10.78)
VAC Auricle (55wpc) $2000 ($18.18)
Sonic Frontiers Power 1 (55wpc) $2499 ($22.78)
Conrad Johnson MV-60 (55wpc) $2795 ($25.41)
ARC VT-50 (50wpc) $3995 ($39.95)
BAT VK75 (75wpc) $6000 ($40.00)
ARC VT100 MkIII (100wpc) $5995 ($29.98)
McIntosh 2102 (100wpc) $6000 ($30.00)


snip

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

  #4   Report Post  
Ted Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

One question .... is this a straight line projection of the prices based on the
CLI? I Ask because if that is the case I have a quibble. I suspect that if
you factor in weighted costs for US labor and materials above and beyond CLI
changes most of the units that were manufactured in the US and assembled (at
least inpart) of components made in the US) wwould cost even more in 2002
dollars than the current offerings, not less, no matter how you sliced it.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire

  #5   Report Post  
Keith G
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Michael Squires" wrote in message
newscPrb.118765$275.344439@attbi_s53...
In article rHFrb.117831$9E1.581678@attbi_s52,
Harry Lavo wrote:
Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a

little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)


One problem with the analysis is that Dyna and to a lesser extent Eico
were discounted, and the Dyna equipment was almost always sold as the
less expensive kit. The other manufacturer's equipment was rarely
discounted.

I also wonder if utility was linear with money, since I didn't think
twice about buying a MKIII kit but would think many times
before paying $1203 today for any amplifier.


Hah! Mk IIIs might be 'run of the mill' in the US and piled on every street
corner but they cost serious wedge here in the UK. I paid 800 quid for a
pair of immaculate ones - 6550s and unmodded, save only to run on 240v!!

Worth it? Oh yuss, 60 wpc valves don't come any cheaper than that over here
and I love the sound of 'em anyway!



  #6   Report Post  
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

If the watch is for keeping time, the Patek Phillip IS a rip off. The
quartz Timex will probably be more accurate. If the watch is for
jewelry, then the Patek Phillip is worth what it costs. Some of the
expensive high-end amps ARE "jewelry" and may be less accurate than many
less expensive amps. You get what you pay for - sort of.

-MIKE

  #7   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Michael Squires" wrote in message
newscPrb.118765$275.344439@attbi_s53...
In article rHFrb.117831$9E1.581678@attbi_s52,
Harry Lavo wrote:
Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a

little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)


One problem with the analysis is that Dyna and to a lesser extent Eico
were discounted, and the Dyna equipment was almost always sold as the
less expensive kit. The other manufacturer's equipment was rarely
discounted.

I also wonder if utility was linear with money, since I didn't think
twice about buying a MKIII kit but would think many times
before paying $1203 today for any amplifier.

Mike Squires
1965: Rek-o-Kut K34H/PAS3/dual MKIII/Altec 605-A
--


I should have mentioned that I based the kit equipment on their factory
wired prices, to keep it apples to apples. These are all manufacturers
lists prices. BTW, I bought my VTL for about the same discount as I got on
Dynaco's back in the 60's.

I don't know about you, but one thing I use the price index for is to
calculate my current earnings and previous earnings in current dollars. I
know in my case I was actually earning more back then (after taxes) than I
am now, so it was easier to buy. And to make the comparison perfect, it
should be based on discretionary income. It was a lot easier pre-family
than post-family, for example.

If anybody wants to make that calculation, here are the CLI deflators. Just
divide income by this decimal to convert to current (2002) dollars.

1964 .1662
1972 .2240
1980 .4414
1987 .6202
1995 .8323
2002 1.000

Ciao -

Harry

  #8   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Ted Harris" wrote in message
news:SfPrb.116521$mZ5.786581@attbi_s54...
One question .... is this a straight line projection of the prices based

on the
CLI? I Ask because if that is the case I have a quibble. I suspect that

if
you factor in weighted costs for US labor and materials above and beyond

CLI
changes most of the units that were manufactured in the US and assembled

(at
least inpart) of components made in the US) wwould cost even more in 2002
dollars than the current offerings, not less, no matter how you sliced it.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire


This is a straight projection based on the CLI. Where adjustments and
conversions were made in the CLI they were linked based on the overlap
between old and new series. See the CLI factors in another post for what I
used.

  #9   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"BEAR" wrote in message
news:WcPrb.116514$mZ5.786443@attbi_s54...
*quotes out of order*
(Is a Patek Phillip "watch" a rip off?? I can buy a Timex for $19.95)


A Patek Phillip or any other fine watch is first and foremost a piece of
jewelry with form and appearance as its primary design goal. It is only
secondarily a functional instrument. This is clearly the opposite of audio
equipment. I suppose that to the extent that someone wishes to own audio
equipment as decorative home furnishing the analogy would be valid, but for
the vast majority (one would hope the entirety) of the readership of this
newsgroup, such equipment is first and foremost for the funtional purpose of
musical reproduction. If, on the other had, we make the assumption that the
primary function of any watch's is the accurate keeping of time, then the
Patek Phillip would be a rip off as a digital Timex is clearly more
accurate.

The underlying logic in your analogy regardless of its validity, yields an
interesting conclusion. Assuming the primacy of musical reproduction as
design goal, any audio component that fails to achieve a standard of
performance previously attained by another component at a lower price can be
said to be a rip off. Of course we need to define a "standard of
performance", but assuming we do so by some combination of controlled
listening and measurement, the subsequent value analysis should be fairly
straight forward.

Nice one, Harry!

It would appear that tube amps, at least the commercial variety that you

are
comparing have not really become overpriced at all. However, there *are*
"boutique" brand - mostly handmade and mostly exoticly packaged - that
do run into higher $$ than the units mentioned... One unit that comes to
mind (although not a boutique brand at all) is the Japanese "Marantz"
845 amp that they came out with a few years back...

I wonder how many readers think that one is also a "rip off"??

I am sure, well pretty sure that someone could build the same circuit

using
different components and chassis for about $500-$1000, plus or minus
a bit. (minus the name, of course... :- ) )


Assuming you could build the same circuit for $1,000 and it failed to
perform up to par with some other $800 amp, it would still be a ripoff.

  #10   Report Post  
Rich Andrews
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Harry Lavo" wrote in news:rHFrb.117831$9E1.581678
@attbi_s52:

What might be interesting is if you did a dollar per pound analysis.

r

Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off

and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a

little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of
which is that I keep an annually updated cost of living index going all

the
way back to when I graduated from college. And as a longtime

audiophile, I
have a collection of catalogs and "annuals" going back to 1964.

To try to answer the question of "what compares to what" and auxiliary
questions such as "What would a Citation II cost today" or "What old
equipment best compares to an VTL ST-85 today" I have used this index to
calculate 1964 prices forward, and 2002 prices backward. The only

exception
is Audio Research Corp, where I started the pricing comparison based on

1972
data, the first year they appeared.

The following is a summary in 2002 dollars of both old and current
equipment. For comparison I used conventional push-pull tube amplifiers
rated for the most part between 50 and 75 watts per channel. In the

60's
and early 70's this usually meant the manufacturers top of the line

power
amps....in 2002 this generally meant manufacturers bottom of the line

(or
nearly so) power amps. This is as close to an apples-to-apples

comparison
that I can come up with.

Herewith the results:

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)
Citation II (60wpc) $1504 ($12.53dpw)
McIntosh 240 (58wpc) $1733 ($14.94dpw)
Fisher K1000 (65wpc) $1983 ($15.25dpw)
McIntosh 275 (75wpc) $2671 ($17.81dpw)
ARC Dual 75 (75wpc) $3906 ($26.04dpw)
Marantz 9A (70wpc) $4621 ($33.01dpw)

New Amps (in order of ascending actual 2002 price)

VTL ST-85 (85wpc) $1750 ($10.78)
VAC Auricle (55wpc) $2000 ($18.18)
Sonic Frontiers Power 1 (55wpc) $2499 ($22.78)
Conrad Johnson MV-60 (55wpc) $2795 ($25.41)
ARC VT-50 (50wpc) $3995 ($39.95)
BAT VK75 (75wpc) $6000 ($40.00)
ARC VT100 MkIII (100wpc) $5995 ($29.98)
McIntosh 2102 (100wpc) $6000 ($30.00)

I offer this more for study than for any firm conclusions, but I would

draw
your attention to a few things:

* The lowest dollar/watt amps are the Eico and the Dyna MkIII's,

followed by
the VTL ST85.
* Both the ARC VT100MkIII and the McIntosh 2102 cost slightly less on a
dollar per watt basis than the Marantz 9A did in 1964...extreme quality

was
costly even back then.
* Of the newer amps, on a dollar per watt basis, all except the VTL

cost
more than any of the 1964 amps other than the ARC Dual75 and the Marantz

9A
which seems to indicate some pricing inflation.
* Both in 1964 and 2002, dollar per watt generally increased with the

price
of the unit. In other words the higher prices were associated with cost

of
parts and/or circuit complexity, craftsmanship, or reputation and the
general difficulty of getting higher wattages out of tubes.
* The biggest change in "position" was McIntosh, which on a dollar per

watt
basis went from solid upper middle class in the '60's to very high end

in
this decade.
* ARC was premium priced when introduced and has remained so.
* Is BAT the Marantz of this decade?
* When exclaiming over the high cost of the current high end, it is

useful
to understand that in terms of output most high-end amps today (tube or
otherwise) are much more powerful than those of the 60's and as already
noted, cost per watt goes up with power (at least with tubes).

************************************************** ***

If you would like a copy of the Excel spreadsheet showing actual and

imputed
pricing for the years 1964, 72, 80, 87, 85, and 2002, and dollars/watts
figures for all these amps, just request and I will be happy to send.

If I get a chance, I'll extend my pricing index back to 1955 and compare
actual tube prices from tubes heyday to the current price of

tubes...since
tube prices have to be one major component of a tube amp. Don't hold

your
breath waiting, however, as this will be a lot of work.


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.



  #11   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:26:40 GMT, Bruce Abrams
wrote:

"BEAR" wrote in message
news:WcPrb.116514$mZ5.786443@attbi_s54...
*quotes out of order*
(Is a Patek Phillip "watch" a rip off?? I can buy a Timex for $19.95)


A Patek Phillip or any other fine watch is first and foremost a piece of
jewelry with form and appearance as its primary design goal. It is only
secondarily a functional instrument. This is clearly the opposite of audio
equipment.


Actually no - this would appear to be *exactly* what so-called 'high
end' audio equipment actually is. Remember, deep inside the alloy
casework of a $10,000 Mark Levinson CD transport, is a standard $50
Philips mechanism with all its associated electronics...............

I suppose that to the extent that someone wishes to own audio
equipment as decorative home furnishing the analogy would be valid, but for
the vast majority (one would hope the entirety) of the readership of this
newsgroup, such equipment is first and foremost for the funtional purpose of
musical reproduction. If, on the other had, we make the assumption that the
primary function of any watch's is the accurate keeping of time, then the
Patek Phillip would be a rip off as a digital Timex is clearly more
accurate.


Actually, if it says 'Patek Phillip' on the dial, then it's
*definitely* a ripoff! :-)

The underlying logic in your analogy regardless of its validity, yields an
interesting conclusion. Assuming the primacy of musical reproduction as
design goal, any audio component that fails to achieve a standard of
performance previously attained by another component at a lower price can be
said to be a rip off. Of course we need to define a "standard of
performance", but assuming we do so by some combination of controlled
listening and measurement, the subsequent value analysis should be fairly
straight forward.


OK, so all tube amps are ripoffs. Glad we cleared that one up! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #12   Report Post  
TChelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

BEAR wrote in message news:WcPrb.116514$mZ5.786443@attbi_s54...
Nice one, Harry!

(Is a Patek Phillip "watch" a rip off?? I can buy a Timex for $19.95)

Hmmm...

_-_-bear

Well, if Patek Philip claims that time measures more accurately than
Timex or maybe a Seiko than the answer would be a resounding -YES.

  #13   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....snip.....

I don't know about you, but one thing I use the price index for is to
calculate my current earnings and previous earnings in current dollars. I
know in my case I was actually earning more back then (after taxes) than I
am now, so it was easier to buy. And to make the comparison perfect, it
should be based on discretionary income. It was a lot easier pre-family
than post-family, for example.


The hell you say. Pre-family I was working at minimum wage and paying tuition.
Family days, post college got progrssively easier BUT now that the kids are
gone Fat City.

If anybody wants to make that calculation, here are the CLI deflators. Just
divide income by this decimal to convert to current (2002) dollars.

1964 .1662
1972 .2240
1980 .4414
1987 .6202
1995 .8323
2002 1.000

Ciao -

Harry


Thanks. What was the source for the indexes? I used to be involved with Price
Indexing when I worked at the phone factory. We used Joel Popkin as a
Consultant back then.

I also did a lot of work on obsolescence/depreciation back then (1982-96). It
was interesting to note that value for electronic products (in audio
specifically power amplifiers and digital playback devices) fell more rapidly
than other hard-goods in the economy we studied (no I didn't include computers)
apparently because of the exponential improvements in price/performance.

I'd better stop here or we'll have to start the old-vs-new argument again.

  #14   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:JtXrb.166728$Fm2.145689@attbi_s04...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...snip.....

I don't know about you, but one thing I use the price index for is to
calculate my current earnings and previous earnings in current dollars.

I
know in my case I was actually earning more back then (after taxes) than

I
am now, so it was easier to buy. And to make the comparison perfect, it
should be based on discretionary income. It was a lot easier pre-family
than post-family, for example.


The hell you say. Pre-family I was working at minimum wage and paying

tuition.
Family days, post college got progrssively easier BUT now that the kids

are
gone Fat City.

If anybody wants to make that calculation, here are the CLI deflators.

Just
divide income by this decimal to convert to current (2002) dollars.

1964 .1662
1972 .2240
1980 .4414
1987 .6202
1995 .8323
2002 1.000

Ciao -

Harry


Thanks. What was the source for the indexes? I used to be involved with

Price
Indexing when I worked at the phone factory. We used Joel Popkin as a
Consultant back then.

I also did a lot of work on obsolescence/depreciation back then (1982-96).

It
was interesting to note that value for electronic products (in audio
specifically power amplifiers and digital playback devices) fell more

rapidly
than other hard-goods in the economy we studied (no I didn't include

computers)
apparently because of the exponential improvements in price/performance.

I'd better stop here or we'll have to start the old-vs-new argument again.


I used the Dept of Commerce Cost of Living Indexes, Year over Year, always a
year back to make sure accurate.

As to the depreciation, there certainly was a time when tubes fell out of
favor with the advent of more powerful transistor gear, until a lot of
people realized the new gear didn't sound as good as they (remembered) their
old gear as sounding, and then tubes started coming back. They had already
started to appreciate again when I sold my dad's Dyna PAS3, ST-70, and FM-3
in 1992. Moreover, early transistor gear depreciated rapidly because it
sounded so sh**ty compared to more recent transistor stuff.

  #15   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

.....snip....

nousaine wrote:

I also did a lot of work on obsolescence/depreciation back then (1982-96).

It
was interesting to note that value for electronic products (in audio
specifically power amplifiers and digital playback devices) fell more

rapidly
than other hard-goods in the economy we studied (no I didn't include

computers)
apparently because of the exponential improvements in price/performance.

I'd better stop here or we'll have to start the old-vs-new argument again.


I used the Dept of Commerce Cost of Living Indexes, Year over Year, always a
year back to make sure accurate.


Thank you.


As to the depreciation, there certainly was a time when tubes fell out of
favor with the advent of more powerful transistor gear, until a lot of
people realized the new gear didn't sound as good as they (remembered) their
old gear as sounding, and then tubes started coming back. They had already
started to appreciate again when I sold my dad's Dyna PAS3, ST-70, and FM-3
in 1992. Moreover, early transistor gear depreciated rapidly because it
sounded so sh**ty compared to more recent transistor stuff.


Thank you for making this point. It is true that obsolete equipment often
enters an economically enhanced stage sometime after it enters the Residual-Use
stage of the product life cycle.

For example, a well-kept Jaguar XK-120 or John Deere C tractor will have an
unusually high value because enthusiasts and collectors value them. But,
economically they are radically compromised and productively inefficient.



  #16   Report Post  
Lou
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

Hi Harry,

One thing not addressed was wages, the average wage in 69 was about $9.00 an
hour. I bet Sears still pays about that, and many less... There was a series
that was run in the Philly papers, partly taken from there book "What Ever
Happened to the American Dream" by Larry Burkett. It pointed out the average
wage as $9.00 in 69, and about the same in 93... That being the case, for
the average guy, I would suspect that the cost has done nothing but gone up,
and quite a bit at that.

--
Best Regards,

Lou
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:rHFrb.117831$9E1.581678@attbi_s52...
Hi group -

The recurrent discussion here about whether the high-end is a rip off and
the recent discussion about "then and now" output amps led me to do a

little
research. I was trained as an economist, so I have my "quirks", one of
which is that I keep an annually updated cost of living index going all

the
way back to when I graduated from college. And as a longtime audiophile,

I
have a collection of catalogs and "annuals" going back to 1964.

To try to answer the question of "what compares to what" and auxiliary
questions such as "What would a Citation II cost today" or "What old
equipment best compares to an VTL ST-85 today" I have used this index to
calculate 1964 prices forward, and 2002 prices backward. The only

exception
is Audio Research Corp, where I started the pricing comparison based on

1972
data, the first year they appeared.

The following is a summary in 2002 dollars of both old and current
equipment. For comparison I used conventional push-pull tube amplifiers
rated for the most part between 50 and 75 watts per channel. In the 60's
and early 70's this usually meant the manufacturers top of the line power
amps....in 2002 this generally meant manufacturers bottom of the line (or
nearly so) power amps. This is as close to an apples-to-apples

comparison
that I can come up with.

Herewith the results:

Old Amps (in order of ascending price) in 2002 dollars:

Eico HF89 (50wpc) $839 ($8.39dpw)
Pr. Dynaco Mk III (60wpc) $1203 ($7.52dpw)
Citation II (60wpc) $1504 ($12.53dpw)
McIntosh 240 (58wpc) $1733 ($14.94dpw)
Fisher K1000 (65wpc) $1983 ($15.25dpw)
McIntosh 275 (75wpc) $2671 ($17.81dpw)
ARC Dual 75 (75wpc) $3906 ($26.04dpw)
Marantz 9A (70wpc) $4621 ($33.01dpw)

New Amps (in order of ascending actual 2002 price)

VTL ST-85 (85wpc) $1750 ($10.78)
VAC Auricle (55wpc) $2000 ($18.18)
Sonic Frontiers Power 1 (55wpc) $2499 ($22.78)
Conrad Johnson MV-60 (55wpc) $2795 ($25.41)
ARC VT-50 (50wpc) $3995 ($39.95)
BAT VK75 (75wpc) $6000 ($40.00)
ARC VT100 MkIII (100wpc) $5995 ($29.98)
McIntosh 2102 (100wpc) $6000 ($30.00)

I offer this more for study than for any firm conclusions, but I would

draw
your attention to a few things:

* The lowest dollar/watt amps are the Eico and the Dyna MkIII's, followed

by
the VTL ST85.
* Both the ARC VT100MkIII and the McIntosh 2102 cost slightly less on a
dollar per watt basis than the Marantz 9A did in 1964...extreme quality

was
costly even back then.
* Of the newer amps, on a dollar per watt basis, all except the VTL cost
more than any of the 1964 amps other than the ARC Dual75 and the Marantz

9A
which seems to indicate some pricing inflation.
* Both in 1964 and 2002, dollar per watt generally increased with the

price
of the unit. In other words the higher prices were associated with cost

of
parts and/or circuit complexity, craftsmanship, or reputation and the
general difficulty of getting higher wattages out of tubes.
* The biggest change in "position" was McIntosh, which on a dollar per

watt
basis went from solid upper middle class in the '60's to very high end in
this decade.
* ARC was premium priced when introduced and has remained so.
* Is BAT the Marantz of this decade?
* When exclaiming over the high cost of the current high end, it is useful
to understand that in terms of output most high-end amps today (tube or
otherwise) are much more powerful than those of the 60's and as already
noted, cost per watt goes up with power (at least with tubes).

************************************************** ***

If you would like a copy of the Excel spreadsheet showing actual and

imputed
pricing for the years 1964, 72, 80, 87, 85, and 2002, and dollars/watts
figures for all these amps, just request and I will be happy to send.

If I get a chance, I'll extend my pricing index back to 1955 and compare
actual tube prices from tubes heyday to the current price of tubes...since
tube prices have to be one major component of a tube amp. Don't hold your
breath waiting, however, as this will be a lot of work.

--
Harry. Lavo
"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington


  #17   Report Post  
Midlant
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
news:FR_rb.166129$HS4.1358702@attbi_s01...
Time seems to help with almost all emerging technologies. The CD is

now
20+ years old and it has taken nearly that long for them to sound

really
good. The sad part is that not all sound as good as they should.

r


I have read statements such as this many times over the years. I agree
some cd's sound terrible but, don't you think it may be more to the
engineering of the recording session than the cd? Every cd I own
produces crystal clear music. But some do sound a little flat or 2d. I
put my TT away along with several boxes of records over 10 years ago
because cd's sounded so much better and had great depth to the music.
A friend of mine still runs both and has a small fortune tied up in his
TT. Both run through the same preamp and amp and speakers. I'll take the
cdp any day. The LP's sound flat in comparison.
When I listen to some older cd's I realize just how good my system is
even though it's pretty mundane by today's standards. Today's equipment
lets us hear so much more than what we were hearing 10 years ago.
I have a Travis Tritt cd Ten Feet Tall and Bulletproof that sounds
terrible no matter whose system I play it on. It's sound crappy since
the day I bought. Consequently it sits in the rack as it has done for
the last 9 years. I don't believe it's due to the cd but to the
recording and mastering engineers. I have no idea what they were
thinking or using at the time.
Since my upgrade I very seldom listen to any of the over 300 cd's I have
since I can hear the differences in them. They don't sound as good as
they once did. Only thing that changed was the equipment.

John

Rega Planet 2000 CDP
Acurus RL-11 Preamp
McCormack DNA-125 Amplifier
Revel M20 Monitors

Not very high end by $$$ but everything works. The weak link would be
the preamp. I haven't changed it out with any other to hear if it is
though. It did amazing things for my Adcom GFA-555 II amp a few years
ago. Honestly I can't say anything bad about this selection as the music
is deep and detailed. I would love to have full range speakers but,
these little M20's are really amazing. My listening room is very small
14' x 16' so I have to keep size in perspective.

  #18   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Midlant" wrote in message
news:fx9sb.173717$Fm2.151453@attbi_s04...
"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
news:FR_rb.166129$HS4.1358702@attbi_s01...
Time seems to help with almost all emerging technologies. The CD is

now
20+ years old and it has taken nearly that long for them to sound

really
good. The sad part is that not all sound as good as they should.

r


I have read statements such as this many times over the years. I agree
some cd's sound terrible but, don't you think it may be more to the
engineering of the recording session than the cd? Every cd I own
produces crystal clear music. But some do sound a little flat or 2d. I
put my TT away along with several boxes of records over 10 years ago
because cd's sounded so much better and had great depth to the music.
A friend of mine still runs both and has a small fortune tied up in his
TT. Both run through the same preamp and amp and speakers. I'll take the
cdp any day. The LP's sound flat in comparison.
When I listen to some older cd's I realize just how good my system is
even though it's pretty mundane by today's standards. Today's equipment
lets us hear so much more than what we were hearing 10 years ago.
I have a Travis Tritt cd Ten Feet Tall and Bulletproof that sounds
terrible no matter whose system I play it on. It's sound crappy since
the day I bought. Consequently it sits in the rack as it has done for
the last 9 years. I don't believe it's due to the cd but to the
recording and mastering engineers. I have no idea what they were
thinking or using at the time.
Since my upgrade I very seldom listen to any of the over 300 cd's I have
since I can hear the differences in them. They don't sound as good as
they once did. Only thing that changed was the equipment.

John

Rega Planet 2000 CDP
Acurus RL-11 Preamp
McCormack DNA-125 Amplifier
Revel M20 Monitors

Not very high end by $$$ but everything works. The weak link would be
the preamp. I haven't changed it out with any other to hear if it is
though. It did amazing things for my Adcom GFA-555 II amp a few years
ago. Honestly I can't say anything bad about this selection as the music
is deep and detailed. I would love to have full range speakers but,
these little M20's are really amazing. My listening room is very small
14' x 16' so I have to keep size in perspective.


John -

It depends. I'm more concerned about the first ten years. I've got original
cd's of "The King and I" and "Pineapple Poll" from '82 that are completely
unlistenable...unless a jitter buster is put in the cirucit...that's how
much jitter is on the cd. On the other hand, I've got some cd's that sound
superb that were done in the late '80's. It wasn't only (or even mainly)
the engineering, it was that a lot of the equipment/expertise to use the
equipment just wasn't up to snuff when digital was first new in the early
'80's.

Harry

  #19   Report Post  
Chelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

Hi Harry,

Thanks for the reply.

I read your article with interest but I may have to disagree with your
generalization that p/w has increased compared to 20 or 30 years ago. If
your are comparing tube Amps than it may be so due to the fact that mass
production of tube by GE and Japanese company had stopped long time ago.
However, if you do a comparison about solid state than I believe the prices
has generally gone down but due to other additions such as remote control
and gold plated RCA and silver wiring the pricing generally higher by
comparison than those days.

There is also the issue of better power supply now than 30 years which
maybe more expensive than those days. If possible look at solid state Amps
and try to draw a similar chart . It may not be easy because they have
gradually added other stuff like digital volume control which can make a
fair comparison very difficult. However, my friend who is well versed in
electronic stuff estimated that a hybrid Amp of first class should cost
about US500 -1000 DIY. I am talking about the parts only and no labor
costs included. Of course if you add silvers and gold to the make up it may
double or triple the price.

The other stuff like isolated power supply, separate housing for components
and Teflon layers to prevent EMI make everything just more expensive. Just
like cars. Horse power/price comparison can hardly be accurate.

Thanks and Regards.
  #20   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:yjasb.173953$Fm2.151953@attbi_s04...
It depends. I'm more concerned about the first ten years. I've got original
cd's of "The King and I" and "Pineapple Poll" from '82 that are completely
unlistenable...unless a jitter buster is put in the cirucit...that's how
much jitter is on the cd.


Harry, please do not think I am claiming you are nit hearing
something, but your statement needs correction.

Despite a LOT of strident claims to the contrary, CD's CAN'T have
jitter. The CD has NO explicit timing information on it other
than the fact that it has a 44.1 kHz sample rate. There is NOTHING
in the data that says when a sample has to show up. The data, as
read off the CD, is pretty scrambled up as part of the error
detection and correction algorithm: it is NOT read off in sample
order because it's not put on in sample order to begin with.

Now, there could well be problems that might cause a poorly
designed or marginal performing transport to screw up the
reconstructed data stream when it's sending it out, but that's
a player issue.

Further, if the original digital data recorded on to the CD had a
lot of jitter, say, that the A/D converter or some intermediate
process had a bad clock, there's NOTHING a "jitter buster" could
do to correct it: a "jitter buster" can ONLY correct timing skews
in the serial data stream AFTER it is read off the CD. That timing
error does NOT come from the CD, indeed, there is no timing stream
ON the CD to begin with. The serial data stream timing and any
errors in it are due to the transport, which is what's generating
the clock. If a jitter buster helps, it's basically providing a
function that is missing in the D/A converter.

Once again, the principle bears repeating: the ONLY time when jitter
has ANY relevance to audio quality is at the moment of conversion
between the analog domain and the digital domain and vice versa.
EVERYWHERE in between, it's irrelevant. Just consider the fact that
the Reed-Solomon encoding on the CDs is: if you want to talk about
timing, it's the "ultimate" in jitter, since the data scrambled out
of order when put on the disk, thus pretty much destroying ANY
sample-to-sample time relationship. The data, when it's read off the
disk, CANNOT and IS NOT sent off to the DAC as it's read: it MUST
be accumulated into a buffer until a complete block is read, then
the inverse Reed-Solomon decoding is applied to that buffer and
only then can the transport, using it's OWN clock, hand out the
result, sample by sample, to the output, at a rate determined NOT
by the CD, but by the transport's own internal clock. Indeed, the
CD is speed up or clowed down to match that transports clock, the
transport does NOT speed up or slow down the output to match the
CD.

On the other hand, I've got some cd's that sound
superb that were done in the late '80's. It wasn't only (or even mainly)
the engineering, it was that a lot of the equipment/expertise to use the
equipment just wasn't up to snuff when digital was first new in the early
'80's.


I have some CD's that were done in the mid 1980's that are superb.
They were made on some of the most primitive production equipment of
the era. I have some CD's done this year that are dreadful. They
were made on some of the most advanced production equipment available.

What does that tell us? COnsider a correlary to Dick Pierce's first
law of acoustics:

"Any idiot can make a recording and, unfortunately, many do."


  #21   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

news:yjasb.173953$Fm2.151953@attbi_s04...
It depends. I'm more concerned about the first ten years. I've got

original
cd's of "The King and I" and "Pineapple Poll" from '82 that are

completely
unlistenable...unless a jitter buster is put in the cirucit...that's how
much jitter is on the cd.


Harry, please do not think I am claiming you are nit hearing
something, but your statement needs correction.

Despite a LOT of strident claims to the contrary, CD's CAN'T have
jitter. The CD has NO explicit timing information on it other
than the fact that it has a 44.1 kHz sample rate. There is NOTHING
in the data that says when a sample has to show up. The data, as
read off the CD, is pretty scrambled up as part of the error
detection and correction algorithm: it is NOT read off in sample
order because it's not put on in sample order to begin with.

Now, there could well be problems that might cause a poorly
designed or marginal performing transport to screw up the
reconstructed data stream when it's sending it out, but that's
a player issue.

Further, if the original digital data recorded on to the CD had a
lot of jitter, say, that the A/D converter or some intermediate
process had a bad clock, there's NOTHING a "jitter buster" could
do to correct it: a "jitter buster" can ONLY correct timing skews
in the serial data stream AFTER it is read off the CD. That timing
error does NOT come from the CD, indeed, there is no timing stream
ON the CD to begin with. The serial data stream timing and any
errors in it are due to the transport, which is what's generating
the clock. If a jitter buster helps, it's basically providing a
function that is missing in the D/A converter.

Once again, the principle bears repeating: the ONLY time when jitter
has ANY relevance to audio quality is at the moment of conversion
between the analog domain and the digital domain and vice versa.
EVERYWHERE in between, it's irrelevant. Just consider the fact that
the Reed-Solomon encoding on the CDs is: if you want to talk about
timing, it's the "ultimate" in jitter, since the data scrambled out
of order when put on the disk, thus pretty much destroying ANY
sample-to-sample time relationship. The data, when it's read off the
disk, CANNOT and IS NOT sent off to the DAC as it's read: it MUST
be accumulated into a buffer until a complete block is read, then
the inverse Reed-Solomon decoding is applied to that buffer and
only then can the transport, using it's OWN clock, hand out the
result, sample by sample, to the output, at a rate determined NOT
by the CD, but by the transport's own internal clock. Indeed, the
CD is speed up or clowed down to match that transports clock, the
transport does NOT speed up or slow down the output to match the
CD.


Thank you for correcting me, Dick. So let me explain the phenomenon. The
system was a Phillips 880, fed through either a toslink to an AA DTI Pro set
for 18 bit, on via balanced cable to a Proceed PDP. The jitterbuster was
absolutely needed for the Proceed PDP to sound "musical" as opposed to "grey
and sterile" on all disks. From your posts here, I understand you consider
its jitter handling terrible, and from what I heard I would concur.
However, the DTI in the system it became a very fine DAC indeed...it was
this combo that finally wooed my into buying cd's instead of (for the most
part) LP's about 1990.

However, with the two disks in question, when fed without the DTI in the
system they sounded like they were put through a comb filter. With the DTI
in the system they sounded fine. In the Phillips 880 alone they sound fine
(not with huge resolution, but no comb filter). In a more modern player in
they also sound fine.

So, the question is, what could cause this disk-related phenomenon. To push
the intrigue still further, these were "not for resale" demo release cd's
put out by RCA for evaluation purposes (by reviewers, I would suspect) at
the dawn of the CD era. Not coincidentally, I picked them up at a use
record/bookstore in Great Barrington, MA where High Fidelity magazine used
to be published. Not a coincidence, I would guess.

Any light you could through would be appreciated. I always assumed it was
jitter related somehow.
  #22   Report Post  
BEAR
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comparative High-End Tube Amp Costs - Then and Now

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

news:yjasb.173953$Fm2.151953@attbi_s04...
It depends. I'm more concerned about the first ten years. I've got

original
cd's of "The King and I" and "Pineapple Poll" from '82 that are

completely
unlistenable...unless a jitter buster is put in the cirucit...that's how
much jitter is on the cd.


Harry, please do not think I am claiming you are nit hearing
something, but your statement needs correction.

Despite a LOT of strident claims to the contrary, CD's CAN'T have
jitter. The CD has NO explicit timing information on it other
than the fact that it has a 44.1 kHz sample rate.


snippo



So, the question is, what could cause this disk-related phenomenon. To push
the intrigue still further, these were "not for resale" demo release cd's
put out by RCA for evaluation purposes (by reviewers, I would suspect) at
the dawn of the CD era. Not coincidentally, I picked them up at a use
record/bookstore in Great Barrington, MA where High Fidelity magazine used
to be published. Not a coincidence, I would guess.

Any light you could through would be appreciated. I always assumed it was
jitter related somehow.


My limited understanding of this issue is based entirely upon reading an industry
magazine on CD duplicating for a few years...

What I think they said, iirc, is that after many years of puzzlement and argument
over this sort of issue it was determined that certain equipment used by certain
plants (wherein they duplicate the supplied digital master, or converted it from
PCM tape to CD format, etc...) had certain "jitter" problems built in to the
commercially built gear that was being used for this purpose. This "jitter"
problem *apparently* was responsible for some rather ratty sounding discs -
apparently a very large number of them over a long period of time. Apparently
the problem was not present in *every* plant, or in every piece of commercial
gear (not so much by design as by accident, iirc), but now this has been largely
obviated via the use of modern testing methods that are now routinely used and
the redesign of said clocks and timing circuits in almost all commercial gear.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the original recordings from being total garbage,
or the original master having horrid jitter, although as noted today that jitter
problem is fairly unlikely with today's pro gear.

That's my understanding of the issue on the recording side.

_-_-bear

--
_-_- BEAR Labs
- Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs -
http://www.bearlabs.com

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"