[SRS[_2_]]

This is a hoot.


http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

[Mike Rivers]

SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.

In the dark bluish-purple plastic "can"?
In my circuit, it wanted a 220K base bias resistor
(red-red-yellow :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.

Is it still noisy with hardly any gain? Not a very promising beginning....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Albert]

[[ This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/ ]]

Check out the E-V mics on page 64!
And the Bruno Velotron on page 65!

- John

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.


I still have this...

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/allied1961.JPG

greg

[rraudio]

Learning to curse in Pakistani is certainly worth a visit IMO.
The Shack O' Shame hasn't given out catalogs in years and now only
hires fast-food rejects with electronic skills.... Can repeatedly turn
on/off a stereo or i-pod without f--ing up.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote...
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.

In the dark bluish-purple plastic "can"?
In my circuit, it wanted a 220K base bias resistor
(red-red-yellow :-)

You really want to use two resistors for bias rather than relying on
the transistor leakage. I know, everybody did it... even Uher...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[RDOGuy]

I looked and looked, but couldn't find the remote control cars
anywhere in that catalog! :-)

Thanks for posting the link... it was fun to browse through it.

[Fernando]

It is very nice, thank you

[Fernando]

I love the WIreless Record Player

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers
wrote:
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.


I still have this...

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/allied1961.JPG

greg


From cat.....

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61a.pdf

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61b.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Dec 11, 3:25*pm, Charlie Olsen wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:40:29 -0800 (PST), RDOGuy wrote:
I looked and looked, but couldn't find the remote control cars
anywhere in that catalog! *:-)

Thanks for posting the link... it was fun to browse through it.

Anyone have a link to the old Lafayette Catalogs?

Do a Google search for Lafayette Radio Catalogs. There are pages of
links to them.


Eric

[PanHandler[_2_]]

"SRS" wrote in message
.. .
This is a hoot.


http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/


Guess it really was a "Radio" shack back then.

[Michael R. Kesti[_3_]]

GregS wrote:

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers
wrote:
SRS wrote:
This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I remember most of that stuff. I wish I still had my 1954 Allied Radio
catalog. I still have the CK722 transistor that I ordered from it.


I still have this...

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/allied1961.JPG

greg

From cat.....

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61a.pdf

Ah, the E-V 664 "Buchanan Hammer". The first mic I ever owned!

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/61b.pdf

Not as old nor, I suppose, as cool but some might enjoy this.

http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/Catalog/Catalog.htm

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

X-Complaints-To:

doink

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[soundriven]

I found that by changing the year portion of the URL, you can also go
to a 1946 catalog as we as pretty much any year from 1961 to 2003. I
have been sending out a link to the 1962 catalog as my Christmas card
this year. Great Hi-Fi stuff in 1962. Thanks for such a fun link.

[[email protected]]

check out 1965, McIntosh and Dynakit

soundriven wrote:

I found that by changing the year portion of the URL, you can also go
to a 1946 catalog as we as pretty much any year from 1961 to 2003. I
have been sending out a link to the 1962 catalog as my Christmas card
this year. Great Hi-Fi stuff in 1962. Thanks for such a fun link.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message



This is a hoot.

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.

Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.

"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"

Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
____________________
That site is a SCREAM!

ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.

Keep up the good work maintaining it and filling in the missing years.

-CC

[Ron]

On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message



This is a hoot.

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.

Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.

"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"

Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894

____________________
That site is a SCREAM!

ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.

I care more about performance than looks.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:





On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message



This is a hoot.

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds..

Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.

"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"

Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894

____________________
That site is a SCREAM!

ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.

I care more about performance than looks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.

-CC

[Ron]

On Dec 16, 8:34*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:

On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message



This is a hoot.

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.

Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.

"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"

Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894

____________________
That site is a SCREAM!

ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.

I care more about performance than looks.
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.

What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Dec 16, 8:50*pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:34*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:





On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, Ron wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:22*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:

On Dec 11, 4:00*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message



This is a hoot.

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/

I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.

Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.

"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"

Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894

____________________
That site is a SCREAM!

ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.

I care more about performance than looks.
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.

What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
________________
Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s
receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs
and switches on the fronts of them.

Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did:
Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period
had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it.

It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll
take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult
to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on
the front of those receivers.

Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have
bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to
blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut -
to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in
post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting
extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating.
Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what
a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is!

-CC

[jakdedert]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:





On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message

This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/
I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.
Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.
"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"
Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
____________________
That site is a SCREAM!
ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.
I care more about performance than looks.
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.
What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
________________
Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s
receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs
and switches on the fronts of them.

Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did:
Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period
had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it.

It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll
take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult
to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on
the front of those receivers.

Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have
bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to
blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut -
to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in
post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting
extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating.
Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what
a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is!

-CC

I sold hifi back in those days. Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned*
that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20.

The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance
now. That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. Some things are
better than ever. Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you
can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old
days' and more.

jak

[Ron]

On Dec 17, 10:12*pm, jakdedert wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:

On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message

This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/
I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. *I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.
Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.
"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"
Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
____________________
That site is a SCREAM!
ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.
I care more about performance than looks.
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.
What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
________________
Dumbed down? *Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s
receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs
and switches on the fronts of them.

Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did:
Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period
had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it.

It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll
take over today's dumbed down consumer components. *They are an insult
to mine and others' intelligence. *People used to DEMAND what was on
the front of those receivers.

Surround sound? So what! *A really intelligent receiver would have
bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to
blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. *Lo-cut -
to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in
post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. *Cutting
extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating.
Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what
a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is!

-CC

I sold hifi back in those days. *Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned*
that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20.

The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance
now. *That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. *Some things are
better than ever. *Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you
can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old
days' and more.

jak

Maybe the lower end receivers are "dumped down", but I don't see how
it's any different today than it was in the 70's or early 80's.

I have a Pioneer SX-580 receiver (late 70's lower end)
http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.co..._receivers.htm

A Pioneer SA-540 integrated amp (early 80's lower end)
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ages9/lu11.jpg

A Marantz 1090 integrated amp from the late 70's (middle of the road)
http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/1090.html

They all have the basic features, except for the Marantz was has a
"high filter", which makes no audio difference to my ears, and a
midrange control.

I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that
has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg

I think the Kenwood was a middle of the road amp, but not sure. I
bought if from a coke head neighbor that needed $20.00 for a fix back
in 1990.

[jakdedert]

Ron wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:12 pm, jakdedert wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message

This is a hoot.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1939/
I cried myself to sleep for weeks after my local Radio Shack closed last
year. While I rarely bought anything, the clerks taught me how to curse in
Pakistani. And I could get lots of catalogs by giving them a different name
every time I was there. I get Radio Shack catalogs by the hundreds.
Now I have to content myself with an ice cream from my Baskin Robbins (I got
Bwian fired from this one, too) and the grocery store.
"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"
Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
____________________
That site is a SCREAM!
ANYONE who wants to know what audio equipment is SUPPOSED to look like
should browse any catalog from the late 70s - early 80s. That goes for
boomboxes as well as home components.
I care more about performance than looks.
______________________________
If that's the case, I'll take looks over dumbed-down.
What exactly do you mean my "dumbed-down"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
________________
Dumbed down? Magnify some of the pages showing those early 80s
receivers. You should be able to read some of the labels on the knobs
and switches on the fronts of them.
Today's receivers have next to none of the functions the old ones did:
Hi-cut, Low-Cut, Stereo/Mono, Loudness, etc. Later ones of that period
had signal level indicators for FM and AM reception, you name it.
It's not really "looks" per se, it's actually functionality that I'll
take over today's dumbed down consumer components. They are an insult
to mine and others' intelligence. People used to DEMAND what was on
the front of those receivers.
Surround sound? So what! A really intelligent receiver would have
bass & treble - at minimum, for the center and surrounds as well, to
blend the timbre of all five speakers as best as possible. Lo-cut -
to chop off the subsonic frequencies that are often overboosted in
post production of many hip-hop songs that I happen to like. Cutting
extraneous bass below 20HZ also prevents the amps from overheating.
Get it? But NOOO, the manufacturers think we're too DUMB to know what
a low-cut filter or high-cut filter is!
-CC
I sold hifi back in those days. Frankly, 9 out of 10 people who *owned*
that gear had no idea what all those switches were for...maybe 19 out of 20.

The gear's dumbed down because an audio system is just another appliance
now. That said, it's pretty sophisticated appliances. Some things are
better than ever. Depending how much money you want to spend on it, you
can have all the functionality and quality you remember from the 'old
days' and more.

jak

Maybe the lower end receivers are "dumped down", but I don't see how
it's any different today than it was in the 70's or early 80's.

I have a Pioneer SX-580 receiver (late 70's lower end)
http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.co..._receivers.htm

A Pioneer SA-540 integrated amp (early 80's lower end)
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ages9/lu11.jpg

A Marantz 1090 integrated amp from the late 70's (middle of the road)
http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/1090.html

They all have the basic features, except for the Marantz was has a
"high filter", which makes no audio difference to my ears, and a
midrange control.

I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that
has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg

I think the Kenwood was a middle of the road amp, but not sure. I
bought if from a coke head neighbor that needed $20.00 for a fix back
in 1990.

I think the OP also fails to appreciate the relative value of those old
pieces. Consider your first listing. In '78 it listed for $250.
Depending on which index to which you refer
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that amount is worth from
$795 to $1500 in todays dollars. That's for a receiver that pumps out a
whopping 20 watts per channel! Never mind the features; that's not a
whole lot of power. Granted the distortion figures are laudable, and
the build quality is very good; but $1500 will buy a pretty nice rig
these days.

Further, that was the low-end of the spectrum. People often spent over
$500 for the higher-end models. Those were the ones with the real
features...and even better specs.

That $500 in 1978 equates to a 2008 figure that, I think I'm pretty safe
in saying, that few spend for their receivers these days. I'm sure that
many on this list 'might' spend that much; but I think the market
penetration at that level was somewhat deeper in those days. I mean,
how many people do you know with $3000 receivers?

jak

[Mr.T]

"Ron" wrote in message
...
I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that
has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg

Hard to tell anything from that photo!

MrT.

[Ron]

On Dec 18, 7:30*pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...

I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that
has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg

Hard to tell anything from that photo!

MrT.

My camera doesn't take good closeups, it's about 10 yrs old.

Here's a better pic
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...486_edited.jpg

[Mr.T]

"Ron" wrote in message
...
I also have a Kenwood KA-52B integrated amp from the late 80's that
has some pretty unique tone controls. Crappy pic but you get the idea
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...e/IM002466.jpg

Here's a better pic
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...486_edited.jpg

Variable turnover controls (really quasi parametric, not true parametric as
labelled here) are not 'unique', but certainly not very common. I'll bet
that amp was not overly cheap in it's day though. It easily cost a months
wages in the seventies for a good amp, or turntable, or pair of speakers.
Something not many people are willing to spend today. Fortunately it's just
not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary
for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent
pair of speakers.

MrT.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Dec 19, 12:54*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
Fortunately it's just
not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary
for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent
pair of speakers.

MrT.
________________________
Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? Say that again when
that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other
explosion-filled movie.
I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy
clean clip-free signal is just as important.

-CC

[[email protected]]

jakdedert wrote:

I think the OP also fails to appreciate the relative value of those old
pieces. Consider your first listing. In '78 it listed for $250.
Depending on which index to which you refer
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ that amount is worth from
$795 to $1500 in todays dollars. That's for a receiver that pumps out a
whopping 20 watts per channel! Never mind the features; that's not a
whole lot of power. Granted the distortion figures are laudable, and
the build quality is very good; but $1500 will buy a pretty nice rig
these days.

Further, that was the low-end of the spectrum. People often spent over
$500 for the higher-end models. Those were the ones with the real
features...and even better specs.

That $500 in 1978 equates to a 2008 figure that, I think I'm pretty safe
in saying, that few spend for their receivers these days. I'm sure that
many on this list 'might' spend that much; but I think the market
penetration at that level was somewhat deeper in those days. I mean,
how many people do you know with $3000 receivers?

jak

the 1939 catalog had a Bogan Binaural 35w/ch amp for $112.43 ($1678) and
the 1965 had a Dynakit 35w/ch for $110.45 ($725.63) and today a Markhill
23w/ch is $800. Consider solidstate amp is less then $100 for 45w/ch,
most things were more expensive in the old (non-disposable) days and
there were plenty of service jobs if you knew how to fix stuff.

[Ron]

On Dec 19, 4:27*pm, ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:54*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:Fortunately it's just
not necessary for a reasonable amplifier any more, definitely not necessary
for a good CD player, but most people don't realise it still is for a decent
pair of speakers.

MrT.

________________________
Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? *Say that again when
that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other
explosion-filled movie.
I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy
clean clip-free signal is just as important.

-CC

Yeah, but even the cheapest of HT receivers have plenty of power these
days. And if you don't have decent speakers, the only explosions
you're gonna hear are those cheap cones popping out of their frames.

[Mr.T]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
Not necessary for a reasonable amp anymore??? Say that again when
that cheap amp you bought distorts & clips during a Star Wars or other
explosion-filled movie.
I agree with you regarding the speakers, but feeding them a healthy
clean clip-free signal is just as important.

Sure, which is so much easier to do these days, without spending a months
wages.

And the point you seem to miss is that if you really want good 5.1 or 7.1
sound, why expect to pay less (in real terms) than many did for 2 channel
sound in the seventies? People would be expecting to pay 3 months wages for
a HT receiver alone. It's just not gonna happen!

MrT.

[mark steven brooks]

Great fun. Boy, you had to be pretty well off in 1939 to be able to buy
most of the things in this catalogue.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
And the point you seem to miss is that if you really want good 5.1 or 7.1
sound, why expect to pay less (in real terms) than many did for 2 channel
sound in the seventies? People would be expecting to pay 3 months wages for
a HT receiver alone. It's just not gonna happen!

Computers are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. Television
sets are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. So people expect
stereo systems to be cheaper too. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way;
transducer technology hasn't changed so much.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Computers are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies. Television
sets are a lot cheaper than they were in the seventies.

Yep.

So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too.

Which of course they are in general.
The VAST majority of people now spend far less of their money on audio, and
the bottom end systems were always crap.
Even CD's are FAR cheaper now than vinyl records ever were, in real terms.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way;
transducer technology hasn't changed so much.

But at least we don't need to spend a months wages on a phono cartridge now
thankfully.
(except for nostalgia buffs of course)
Speakers are the only item that cost just as much for good ones, and the
real good ones are better than ever. Dollar for inflation adjusted dollar at
least.
(and the crap is just as bad as ever)

MrT.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Speakers are the only item that cost just as much for good ones, and the
real good ones are better than ever. Dollar for inflation adjusted dollar at
least.

Right, but speakers should be most of the cost of your system. Maybe even
more now that the prices on electronics have dropped. Transducers are
still the hardest thing to build and still the weakest link in the chain.

(and the crap is just as bad as ever)

Yes, but now it's "Multimedia" crap.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Right, but speakers should be most of the cost of your system. Maybe even
more now that the prices on electronics have dropped.

Definitely a higher percentage now, which was my point.

Transducers are
still the hardest thing to build and still the weakest link in the chain.

But the only problem HiFi transducers now are the speakers.
You can buy a good CD player for less than the cost of a phono cartridge
alone, let alone a decent turntable or tone arm.
And whilst a CD player is a "transducer" (optical to electrical) they are
hardly the weakest link in the chain!

And in fact microphones are now much cheaper in real terms as well, valve
types excepted.
I sure know what I was paying for SM58's 30 years ago compared to now!! :-)
And let's not compare the cost of high quality recording devices and media
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MrT.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:19 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too.

Well, they are. Speakers haven't changed much, but it's become hard
to buy a bad CD player or amplifier. Analogue playback was never
going to be perfect, so there was some point in spending money
following the quest. But it's not hard to grab digital data. The
people who WANT to spend loads of money need very strong faith that a
$1000 CD player(and, Lord help us, $1000 cables too) really sound any
different.

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:19 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
So people expect stereo systems to be cheaper too.

Funny you should only include my name with some one else's quote.

Well, they are.

And if you'd actually been following the thread, you would know I already
said that.

MrT.