Outrageous turntable wiring prices

[anthony]

I had to get a new lead from my venerable Thorens TD126 Mk2 turntable
to my Quad amp, and got my hi-fi guru to do it for me while he was
also rejuvenating a Quad 66 pre-amp for me.
The lead connects to the turntable with a moulded 4-pin plug so it's
a bit tricky to find. My guy finally found a lead for an obviously
extortionate (he agreed) $67. But he reported with glee that one
supply shop quoted him $350 saying "you really shouldn't have to pay
more than that".
When my fellow mentioned he wouldn't pay anything for obvious snake-
oil (comparable to the super-speaker-cable rackets), the supplier
mentioned that he found that most buyers needed to pay a steep price
to get perceived value. If the lead was priced reasonably, most of his
consumers would think there was something wrong with it.......
Anthony in Woodend, Victoria, Australia

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:34:20 -0800, anthony wrote
(in article >):

> I had to get a new lead from my venerable Thorens TD126 Mk2 turntable
> to my Quad amp, and got my hi-fi guru to do it for me while he was
> also rejuvenating a Quad 66 pre-amp for me.
> The lead connects to the turntable with a moulded 4-pin plug so it's
> a bit tricky to find. My guy finally found a lead for an obviously
> extortionate (he agreed) $67. But he reported with glee that one
> supply shop quoted him $350 saying "you really shouldn't have to pay
> more than that".
> When my fellow mentioned he wouldn't pay anything for obvious snake-
> oil (comparable to the super-speaker-cable rackets), the supplier
> mentioned that he found that most buyers needed to pay a steep price
> to get perceived value. If the lead was priced reasonably, most of his
> consumers would think there was something wrong with it.......
> Anthony in Woodend, Victoria, Australia
>

The TD 126 was a great and iconic 'table, but IIRC, it was supplied without a
tonearm. You failed to mention which arm your TD126 has. I've seen them with
SMEs, Ortofons, Graces, Mayware Formula IV, and even Thorens arms. These
days, most tone-arms use a standard 5-pin DIN plug to connect the cable on
the tone-arm end and a pair of RCAs on the other to connect to the phono
preamp stages but Thorens and SME didn't use these. I've seen those 5-pin DIN
cables from the likes of Cardas, Kimber, Tara Labs, and Audioquest, et al.
Cardas sells one for US$4100.00, Tara Labs has one for US$3800.00 and
Audioquest sells one for US$2500.00.

Now I realize that there are people in this world who have so much money that
they think no more of spending four-thousand bucks (or more) on a length of
wire than you or I would think about dropping three-dollars at a Starbucks on
a cuppa' joe. And I don't have any moral problems with companies such as
those listed above bilking the rich for all they're worth. They can afford
it, and didn't Michael Caine once observe in the film "The Wrong Box" that
"...if one cannot join the upper classes, one must do one's part to deplete
them"?

Seriously, though, I have no problem with anybody selling anything they want
to sell at whatever price the traffic will bear, irrespective of whether the
object in question has any worth that even approaches its selling price. What
I DO have a problem with is the notion, engendered by such pricing, that
spending that kind of money on a mere cable is NECESSARY if one is to enjoy
one's turntable/arm and cartridge to the fullest. Nothing can be further from
the truth. While the turntable to preamp link in a phono system can be more
susceptible (due to the tiny currents involved and the reactive nature of the
generator components in the cartridge itself) to such things as capacitance,
inductance, and resistance (not to mention RF interference and hum) than
would an ordinary line-level interconnect, spending upwards of $4000 for such
a cable is neither necessary nor does it in any way insure that this somewhat
critical link is optimum for any particular cartridge. Most cartridges,
either moving magnet, moving iron (sometimes called variable reluctance) and
high-output moving coil types are minimally affected by the cable used to
connect them to a preamp. OTOH, many low-output MC coil cartridges require
optimal loading and good quality pre-amps allow for this either with
switchable resistive and capacitive loads or with the addition of outboard
components.

What is needed is a cable that does the job feeding a preamp that is
correctly loaded for the cartridge used. Usually, this is 47 K Ohms, but
occasionally it's something else, and a $4000 interconnect rarely provides a
cable any more suited to this task than would one costing 1/100th of that
price.

Your cable cost you about A$67 (about the same in US$ these days) because
it's proprietary - used only for certain Thorens tables (I'm assuming here).
Were it the kind described above, you could have gotten one for about $35 and
believe me, it would have been just as good as the one you paid $67 for, the
one that a supply shop was selling for $350, or that $4100.00 one from
AudioQuest. In short, you paid a bit much, but still, in today's economy, you
didn't do badly.

[anthony]

Thanks AudioQuest for a really interesting response.
FYI, I have a Sumiko Premier tone-arm with detachable head-shell (so I
can keep handy a weighted Shure stylus with a 78 needle for when I
feel like dropping a stylus into the shellac instead of vinyl).
Anthony

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:29:43 -0800, anthony wrote
(in article >):

> Thanks AudioQuest for a really interesting response.
> FYI, I have a Sumiko Premier tone-arm with detachable head-shell (so I
> can keep handy a weighted Shure stylus with a 78 needle for when I
> feel like dropping a stylus into the shellac instead of vinyl).
> Anthony

I believe Jelco built the Sumiko Premier (as well as the AudioQuest PT
series, the Grado arm of the mid 1990's, and a number of others. Jelco makes
fine arms with really superior bearings. I have two Jelco arms, myself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message


> So, is my job to make people happy, or to charge them fair
> prices? An interesting source of debate material, indeed.

I see no debate.

Your job is to make the customer happy and their job is to pay you when you
do that.

If making the customer happy means charging a costs-based fee, then do it.

If making the customer happy means charging them an
perceived-needs-based-fee, then do that.

You get extra points in the Science category for the graduated escalation
from a costs-based fee to a perceived-needs based fee. But, you loose just
as many points if the category is Customer Service.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:17:34 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> anthony wrote:
>> When my fellow mentioned he wouldn't pay anything for obvious snake-
>> oil (comparable to the super-speaker-cable rackets), the supplier
>> mentioned that he found that most buyers needed to pay a steep price
>> to get perceived value. If the lead was priced reasonably, most of his
>> consumers would think there was something wrong with it.......
>
> Perhaps the following article, which I wrote 25 years ago,
> might be instructive in this context:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
> Audio Anecdote of the <interval>
>
> About 12 years ago I ran what became a very well-respected
> repair department specializing in state-of-the-art components.
> I became known as one of the few Revox wizards that not only
> did great work, but did it in less than 10 years. I had a very
> impressive array of equipment and documentation, equalled by
> almost no other repair agency, and exceeding most manufacturers,
> as well.
>
> Another store in the area (*** ***** ***, in *********) had a
> similar reputation. They had one thing I did not: a legend. One
> of the sources of their legend was the alignment work they did
> on the venerable and awesome Marantz 10B tuner.
>
> The Marantz 10B was a tube-based tuner that boasted some very
> impressive specifications. It had near-infinite alternate-
> channel selectivity, adjacent channel rejection that bettered
> most other tuner's alternate channel specs. Its image rejection
> was phenomenal. Its audio distortions were remarkably low. And
> it had an oscilloscope for a tuning meter (actually a useful
> thing in those days). What it had as a disadvantage was tubes.
>
> The tuner did need its periodic alignment. For this the *****
> *** was legend. The standard price for 10B alignment and setup
> was $250. My God, everyone said, this must be the best alignment
> around! My God, I thought, what could possibly cost that much?
>
> Well, the inevitable happened, someone brought a Marantz 10B
> into my shop for alignment. There it was, on my bench. A true
> diety of audio, and I had to work on it. Was I able? Was I
> WORTHY?
>
> I had a 10B service manual, so I sat down to study it. Wait a
> minute, I thought, this can't be a 10B service manual, it's too
> simple and straightforward. There's no magic. The only thing
> different is that they require you to align the IF section for
> minimum group delay and frequency dispersion. So what?
>
> Well, this first job took an hour or so. When I was all done,
> the tuner met or exceeded every spec. I was most pleased.
> Hooking it up, it sounded wonderful. In the middle of Boston,
> no multi-path problems, no birdies.
>
> The gentleman came to pick up his tuner. Out of his pocket he
> pulled a wad of $20 bills. "That'll be $45.", I said. "WHAT!",
> he exclaimed. I calmly explained to him that it took me an hour
> and a half, and my going rate was $30 and hour. He reluctantly
> forked over $45, took his tuner, and immediately marched over
> to the ***** ***, and had them align it for $250!
>
> He then brought it back to me two weeks later and told me to
> measure how much better it was. It measured exactly the same.
> He left with his tuner under his arm and his nose quite high
> in the air.
>
> Well, it occured to me there that I had severely UNDERcharged
> him. The next time someone brought a 10B in, it took me 20
> minutes, and I tried charging $75 dollars. The customers
> comments were, "Well, your not as expensive as the ***** ***,
> but I guess you get what you pay for." He left, moderately
> happy.
>
> Well, hell, I thought. Why not try playing the game as others
> do. The next time someone brought in a 10B, I took 20 minutes
> to align it, and tried charging $225. The customer was in
> seventh audio heaven. Finally, he said, someone who can do as
> good a job as the Music Box, and charges less to boot!
>
> There use to be a local radio program on HiFi in Boston. The
> next program, this guy calls in and can't say enough good
> things about me. Says I do the best 10B alignment in the
> world, and I also charge honest prices. Next thing I know, I
> have more people beating my door down trying to get me to
> align 10Bs than I know what to do with.
>
> Some years later met the service man at the Music Box on
> neutral territory, and compared notes. It turns out that he
> took the same time I did, he did the same things I did, and
> he encountered the same response I did. "Why charge $250 to do
> such a simple job?", I asked. His reply was most simple,
> "Because people refuse to pay less."
>
> Here we have, to me, a moral dilemna: I do a $30 job on a piece
> of equipment, charge $30, and people are not happy. I do the
> same $30 job, charge $225, and people are ecstatic. I did the
> best job possible, but in my mind, it was not worth $225.
>
> So, is my job to make people happy, or to charge them fair
> prices? An interesting source of debate material, indeed.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
>
>

I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was exorbitantly
expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B was about US$750 in its day. At
this same time, one could buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory
built, for about US$55). That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy
people. The wealthy don't think about money the way the rest of us do and
they never have. They WANT to pay more for services that the hoi polloi would
gladly pay as little for as possible (Like my buddy Dick. He owns a Ferrari
360 Modena. I get my cars washed at a local hand car wash. They are very
careful and do a great job. I pay about $20 for a good car wash, or $40 to
have the car washed and hand waxed. Friend Dick takes his Ferrari to an "auto
detailer" once a week and pays about $150 to get it WASHED and cleaned out
inside. Do this auto detailer do a better job than the car wash I use? Not
that I can see. But he feels that his Ferrari gets "special treatment" there.
It doesn't. I took my Alfa Romeo there once (I let Dick talk me into it) to
get it ready to display in a car show. They did EXACTLY the same job as the
place I normally use. They just charge about 10X.

It's this same dynamic (I believe) that drives a lot of the prices in
high-end audio these days. With the possible exception of speakers, I think
that most high-end audio components are WILDLY overpriced. I cannot see how
any amplifier or CD player or DAC can be worth some of the prices I see being
asked for this stuff. electrical components are simply not that expensive.
Even the best of them.

I had a Marantz 10B once, I pulled it out of a "junk pile" at an FM radio
station that was redecorating. "You're throwing this away?' I asked the chief
engineer. "Yeah, we just bought a Day-Sequerra as our studio monitor. You
want the old one?" DID I! Luckily, I could do my own alignment. I had my
Dad's old TV-FM signal generator . As you say, it was easy to align of you
followed the instructions. I "retired" the 10B when I bough a Yamaha T-85
tuner in the early '80's. It was more selective, more sensitive, had a much
better stereo demodulator and to my ears, sounded a bit cleaner as well. It's
a moot point now, of course. There is no FM left worth listening to....

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 16, 3:34=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was exorbitantly
> expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B was about US$750 in its day.=
At
> this same time, one could buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory
> built, for about US$55). That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy
> people.

Or poorer people who skimp on other things, saving their money to be
exotica.

The wealthy don't think about money the way the rest of us do and
> they never have.

IMO they wouldn't be too smart if they did, I'm assuming their
offspring and families would also be well off, why would they be
concerned over leaving their money to their estates?

They WANT to pay more for services that the hoi polloi would
> gladly pay as little for as possible (Like my buddy Dick. He owns a Ferra=
ri
> 360 Modena. I get my cars washed at a local hand car wash. They are very
> careful and do a great job. I pay about $20 for a good car wash, or $40 t=
o
> have the car washed and hand waxed. Friend Dick takes his Ferrari to an "=
auto
> detailer" once a week and pays about $150 to get it WASHED and cleaned ou=
t
> inside. Do this auto detailer do a better job than the car wash I use? No=
t
> that I can see. But he feels that his Ferrari gets "special treatment" th=
ere.
> It doesn't. I took my Alfa Romeo there once (I let Dick talk me into it) =
to
> get it ready to display in a car show. They did EXACTLY the same job as t=
he
> place I normally use. They just charge about 10X.
>

In my over 50 yrs. experience with the hobby they charge in accordance
with its current value, i.e. how much would it cost to replace it with
the exact one that's working properly? Perhaps also they have a
'classic' maintained in very nice condition and performing well in
their system, that they've developed a fondness for.

> I had a Marantz 10B once, I pulled it out of a "junk pile" at an FM radio
> station that was redecorating. "You're throwing this away?' I asked the c=
hief
> engineer. "Yeah, we just bought a Day-Sequerra as our studio monitor. You
> want the old one?" =A0DID I! Luckily, I could do my own alignment. I had =
my
> Dad's old TV-FM signal generator .

Well, even if I couldn't, today I could sell it on Ebay. :-)

As =A0you say, it was easy to align of you
> followed the instructions. I "retired" the 10B when I bough a Yamaha T-85
> tuner in the early '80's. It was more selective, more sensitive, had a mu=
ch
> better stereo demodulator and to my ears, sounded a bit cleaner as well. =
It's
> a moot point now, of course. There is no FM left worth listening to....

Indeed. However there are people who just keep them around on display
as some do with vintage Leicas. How much do some of them sell for on
Ebay even though their cell phones can capture better images?



- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:52:00 -0800, wrote
(in article >):

> On Nov 16, 3:34=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was exorbitantly
>> expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B was about US$750 in its day.=
> At
>> this same time, one could buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory
>> built, for about US$55). That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy
>> people.
>
> Or poorer people who skimp on other things, saving their money to be
> exotica.

Thats why the word "mostly" appears in the above sentence.
>
> The wealthy don't think about money the way the rest of us do and
>> they never have.
>
> IMO they wouldn't be too smart if they did, I'm assuming their
> offspring and families would also be well off, why would they be
> concerned over leaving their money to their estates?

That wasn't a judgement, merely a statement of fact.
>
> They WANT to pay more for services that the hoi polloi would
>> gladly pay as little for as possible (Like my buddy Dick. He owns a Ferra=
> ri
>> 360 Modena. I get my cars washed at a local hand car wash. They are very
>> careful and do a great job. I pay about $20 for a good car wash, or $40 t=
> o
>> have the car washed and hand waxed. Friend Dick takes his Ferrari to an "=
> auto
>> detailer" once a week and pays about $150 to get it WASHED and cleaned ou=
> t
>> inside. Does this auto detailer do a better job than the car wash I use? No=
> t
>> that I can see. But he feels that his Ferrari gets "special treatment" th=
> ere.
>> It doesn't. I took my Alfa Romeo there once (I let Dick talk me into it) =
> to
>> get it ready to display in a car show. They did EXACTLY the same job as t=
> he
>> place I normally use. They just charge about 10X.
>>
>
> In my over 50 yrs. experience with the hobby they charge in accordance
> with its current value, i.e. how much would it cost to replace it with
> the exact one that's working properly?

I'm afraid that in the context of my above example, I don't follow you, here.


> Perhaps also they have a
> 'classic' maintained in very nice condition and performing well in
> their system, that they've developed a fondness for.

Well many people have "classic" hardware in a lot of interests. It does pay
to maintain them in tip-top condition, especially classic sports cars as they
appreciate faster than almost anything else.
>
>> I had a Marantz 10B once, I pulled it out of a "junk pile" at an FM radio
>> station that was redecorating. "You're throwing this away?' I asked the c=
> hief
>> engineer. "Yeah, we just bought a Day-Sequerra as our studio monitor. You
>> want the old one?" =A0DID I! Luckily, I could do my own alignment. I had =
> my
>> Dad's old TV-FM signal generator .
>
> Well, even if I couldn't, today I could sell it on Ebay. :-)
>
> As =A0you say, it was easy to align of you
>> followed the instructions. I "retired" the 10B when I bough a Yamaha T-85
>> tuner in the early '80's. It was more selective, more sensitive, had a mu=
> ch
>> better stereo demodulator and to my ears, sounded a bit cleaner as well. =
> It's
>> a moot point now, of course. There is no FM left worth listening to....
>
> Indeed. However there are people who just keep them around on display
> as some do with vintage Leicas. How much do some of them sell for on
> Ebay even though their cell phones can capture better images?
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

I dunno. Some Leicas have reall good lenses. The f3.5 50mm Elmar is a great
lens as is the 50 mm f1.4 Summacron. I have several Leicas (as well as
several Contax and Contaflexes) I use them for display (as you said) but
every one is a very good picture taker and is gorgeously made. BTW, the best
small format digital still has some ways to go to equal the resolution of
35mm Kodachrome (may it rest in peace).


[ We seem to be drifting away from audio here. Let's bring it
back on topic. -- dsr ]

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:12:24 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was exorbitantly
>> expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B was about US$750 in its day.
>> At
>> this same time, one could buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory
>> built, for about US$55).
>
> Save that the 10b, in terms of sheer performance, especially
> in anything other than optimum reception conditions, would
> absolutely trounce the Eico, or nearly any other tuner up
> until the late 1970's.

What a champion of the incredibly obvious you are 8^). The point was , that
compared to perfectly acceptable tuners of the same era, the 10B was
eye-wateringly expensive. Nobody is comparing RF performance of a 10B against
a cheaper tuner here, just the price. Also, if one lived in an urban or close
suburban environment, where signal strength, selectivity, image rejection,
etc. weren't that important, one would find that the same radio station,
properly tuned in, would sound pretty much the same on the EICO as it would
on the Marantz. In more difficult reception environments, OTOH, no contest!


> I specifically encountered situations
> where other tuners in the same place from the same antenna
> feed could barely find stations and give results that were
> bascially unstable and unlistenable while a 10B would present
> full, pristine, quiet stereo.

Yesssssssss, and?
>
>> That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy
>> people.
>
> Not all of the clientele I dealt with could fall in
> the category of "wealthy" by any stretch of the
> imagination. They were middle-income EE types,
> pulling maybe $25k a year, equivalent to about $75k
> now.


$25K in the late sixties = more like $175-$200K today.

>> The wealthy don't think about money the way the rest of us do and
>> they never have.
>
> Well, look at the number of average Joes that fall for
> stuff like nitrogen-filled tires (uh, normal atmosphere
> is 80% nitrogen!), that readily buy "super" cables for
> their flat screen TV (my wife just bought a large flat
> screen TV and the guy sold here a 10$ HDMI cable for $40
> Problem was a) it's a rip off and b) he nevere asked
> whether we were using HDMI connections: we weren't.
> When I took it back, the guy was ready to try to convince
> me it was superior until I gave him that look that says
> go there at your own peril).

Well, ignorance or stupidity notwithstanding....
>
> Pretending to be wealthy by doing some of the (stupid)
> things people think wealthy people do is certainly not
> unheard of.

In this day and age, almost nothing is unheard of.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was
> exorbitantly expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B
> was about US$750 in its day.

If you looked at the 10B as a technical product, its construction and
pricing seemed to be pretty reasonable.

The box was pretty much full of parts. If memory serves it was farly heavy.
It
had a complex high-performance IF strip, multiplex section, and built-in CRT
tuning display. I don't think that there was a lot of fat. This wasn't like
the radios of the 1930s that did just about anything with a tube that they
could to increase the parts count.

In the day one might pay between $200-300 for a minimalist high end H.H.
Scott, or just under $400 for the far more complex top-of-the-line Fisher.
The price ladder to the 10B had a number of highly placed rungs.

> At this same time, one could
> buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory built,
> for about US$55).

A reality check. According to the 1964 Radio Shack catalog page 30, their
(pretty competitive) price for the assembled HFT-90 (mono) tuner was $69.95.
This is a mono tuner and *not* competitive in any way with the stereo
Marantz 10B. The Eico multiplex adaptor was $64.95 wired. The price for a
truely competitive assembled Eico stereo tuner was thus over $130.

In those days I used a Sherwood tuner whose street price was about $150.

> That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy people.

Virtually all of the truely wealthy people I know spend their money on homes
and boats, and have minimal audio systems. If they have a good audio ststem
it is part of their HT room. The truely elaborate audio systems I know of
were purchased by upper middle class professionals - doctors, lawyers, etc.
Newly not-so-rich.

> It's this same dynamic (I believe) that drives a lot of
> the prices in high-end audio these days. With the
> possible exception of speakers, I think that most
> high-end audio components are WILDLY overpriced. I cannot
> see how any amplifier or CD player or DAC can be worth
> some of the prices I see being asked for this stuff.
> electrical components are simply not that expensive. Even
> the best of them.

Agreed. IME high end audio kinda left this earth in the 80s and 90s. In the
60s and 70s the money spent on McIntosh or Marantz got you a technically
superior piece of hardware compared to a Scott or Fisher, which in turn got
you a technically superior piece of hardware to the common mass-market stuff
like a Magnavox or a RCA.

> I had a Marantz 10B once, I pulled it out of a "junk
> pile" at an FM radio station that was redecorating.
> "You're throwing this away?' I asked the chief engineer.
> "Yeah, we just bought a Day-Sequerra as our studio
> monitor. You want the old one?" DID I! Luckily, I could
> do my own alignment. I had my Dad's old TV-FM signal
> generator . As you say, it was easy to align of you
> followed the instructions. I "retired" the 10B when I
> bough a Yamaha T-85 tuner in the early '80's. It was more
> selective, more sensitive, had a much better stereo
> demodulator and to my ears, sounded a bit cleaner as
> well. It's a moot point now, of course. There is no FM
> left worth listening to....

I never compared my Pioneer TX9100 side-by-side to a 10B, but other than the
missing oscilliscope, it had everything it took to beat it. Being solid
state with crystal filters, it never needed re-alignment, and for the most
part it never had been manually aligned because it was built right from the
beginning.

One of the best FM tuners I've ever had is almost an after thought. It is in
my Sansa Clip Plus portable digital music player that cost me about $35
including shipping. Its weakest link is its antenna which is also the
headphone cable. It has no manual adjustments at all.

I've done some online checking and the FM tuners in $1 all-in-one chips may
put even the 10B to shame with impressive features like double conversion
receivers.

The little Sony tuner that we oohed and ahead over about a year back is
actually a very expensive and overbuilt device. A lot of its relatively
massive size and cost are due to its HD FM features, not its basic
functioning as an traditional FM stereo receiver.

[dave a]

On 11/17/2010 6:49 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

>
> $25K in the late sixties = more like $175-$200K today.
>

According to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl, $25K in 1968 is
about the same as $157K today.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:59:50 -0800, dave a wrote
(in article >):

> On 11/17/2010 6:49 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>>
>> $25K in the late sixties = more like $175-$200K today.
>>
>
> According to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl, $25K in 1968 is
> about the same as $157K today.
>

Then we've lost even more buying power than I thought. Because something that
would have cost $25K in 1968 would cost more than 10X that today (except
housing. That's more like 20X+). I figure that the dollar today is worth
about $0.08 compared to say, 1968. Gasoline, bread, cars, are all more than
10X what similar products cost in 1968 - of course some of this, like
gasoline, depends on where you live. Here in CA, a gallon of premium was
about $0.29 - $0.32 in 1968. Today it's about $3.40. The pity is that wages
have not kept up with prices, otherwise, it wouldn't be very important.


[ Back to audio topics, now, please. -- dsr ]

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:50:46 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I don't doubt this at all. But let's face it, the 10B was
>> exorbitantly expensive in it's day (IIRC, the Marantz 10B
>> was about US$750 in its day.
>
> If you looked at the 10B as a technical product, its construction and
> pricing seemed to be pretty reasonable.
>
> The box was pretty much full of parts. If memory serves it was farly heavy.
> It
> had a complex high-performance IF strip, multiplex section, and built-in CRT
> tuning display. I don't think that there was a lot of fat. This wasn't like
> the radios of the 1930s that did just about anything with a tube that they
> could to increase the parts count.
>
> In the day one might pay between $200-300 for a minimalist high end H.H.
> Scott, or just under $400 for the far more complex top-of-the-line Fisher.
> The price ladder to the 10B had a number of highly placed rungs.

Actually, arguably the best FM stereo tuner of that era was the H.H. Scott
4310. I knew FM radio station chief engineers who swore by them and said that
they had better RF and audio performance than did the 10B. The 4310 was a
handsome unit but it lacked the visual appeal of the 10B, not having the
oscilloscope. What it did have was much better stereo demodulator circuit
than did the Marantz. The 10B's multiplex circuit had lousy SCA filters. If
you tried to listen to a station which was stereocasting AND broadcasting
SCA, the tuner would whistle and there was no way to "tune" it to eliminate
that whistle. Over the years, a number of people have offered circuit mods to
address this problem, but to my knowledge, Marantz themselves never fixed it.


4310s were de rigueur if your FM station was part of the ad hoc "QXR Network"
on the east coast in the mid 1960's. This "network" stretched from Bangor
Maine to Washington DC along the Eastern Seaboard and originated with WQXR in
New York City. Affiliates, would pick-up the signal from the closest sister
station to New York city that they could receive with full quieting. Then
they would rebroadcast it. The tuners used were usually kept at the
transmitter site, and the antennas were high-gain log-periodics that were cut
to the frequency of that sister station. The tuners needed to have superior
RF performance for this duty and outstanding s/n. I always wanted one, but
they were far rarer than Marantz 10Bs. IIRC, they sold for about $500.


>
>> At this same time, one could
>> buy a very good-performing EICO HTF-90, factory built,
>> for about US$55).
>
> A reality check. According to the 1964 Radio Shack catalog page 30, their
> (pretty competitive) price for the assembled HFT-90 (mono) tuner was $69.95.
> This is a mono tuner and *not* competitive in any way with the stereo
> Marantz 10B. The Eico multiplex adaptor was $64.95 wired. The price for a
> truely competitive assembled Eico stereo tuner was thus over $130.

OK, I got mine in 1962. I got it as a kit for $39.95 (bought from Allied) and
the stereo multiplex decoder I bought was a Knight-kit and it sold for $30. I
believe. The factory-built HFT-90 was $54.95 at the time. I remember that
clearly. If the price went-up in the ensuing couple of years, it went up.

> In those days I used a Sherwood tuner whose street price was about $150.

Also a good urban/suburban choice. If one didn't NEED the RF performance,
there were a lot of decent, reasonably priced FM tuners available from Scott,
Fisher, Sherwood, Knight, Heath, Eico, Pilot, even Dynaco.
>
>> That means that it was mostly bought by wealthy people.
>
> Virtually all of the truely wealthy people I know spend their money on homes
> and boats, and have minimal audio systems.

And I'm sure that just as many wealthy people did buy fine audio systems. I
was friends with a local doctor in my home town (due to our mutual interest
in audio). He had a JBL Paragon speaker system (lovely piece of walnut Danish
modern furniture, mediocre - but interesting - speaker system) Marantz 10B,
McIntosh pre-amp/amp, Empire 298 'Troubadour" turntable/arm, Stanton
Cartridge. He also had a large colonial-style mansion, drove an XKE, and kept
a 40-ft sailboat at the local marina.

Different people had different priorities and all of this is anecdotal
anyway.


> If they have a good audio ststem
> it is part of their HT room. The truely elaborate audio systems I know of
> were purchased by upper middle class professionals - doctors, lawyers, etc.
> Newly not-so-rich.
>
>> It's this same dynamic (I believe) that drives a lot of
>> the prices in high-end audio these days. With the
>> possible exception of speakers, I think that most
>> high-end audio components are WILDLY overpriced. I cannot
>> see how any amplifier or CD player or DAC can be worth
>> some of the prices I see being asked for this stuff.
>> electrical components are simply not that expensive. Even
>> the best of them.
>
> Agreed. IME high end audio kinda left this earth in the 80s and 90s. In the
> 60s and 70s the money spent on McIntosh or Marantz got you a technically
> superior piece of hardware compared to a Scott or Fisher, which in turn got
> you a technically superior piece of hardware to the common mass-market stuff
> like a Magnavox or a RCA.

You are pretty much correct. Marantz, McIntosh, and the Harman-Kardon
Citation series was the creme-de-la-creme and these components were, for the
most part, what would today, be considered, "state-of-the-art". Occasionally
Fisher or Scott would make a superior product (like the aforementioned 4310)
and generally, these brands, among others represented good value for money.
>> I had a Marantz 10B once, I pulled it out of a "junk
>> pile" at an FM radio station that was redecorating.
>> "You're throwing this away?' I asked the chief engineer.
>> "Yeah, we just bought a Day-Sequerra as our studio
>> monitor. You want the old one?" DID I! Luckily, I could
>> do my own alignment. I had my Dad's old TV-FM signal
>> generator . As you say, it was easy to align of you
>> followed the instructions. I "retired" the 10B when I
>> bough a Yamaha T-85 tuner in the early '80's. It was more
>> selective, more sensitive, had a much better stereo
>> demodulator and to my ears, sounded a bit cleaner as
>> well. It's a moot point now, of course. There is no FM
>> left worth listening to....
>
> I never compared my Pioneer TX9100 side-by-side to a 10B, but other than the
> missing oscilliscope, it had everything it took to beat it. Being solid
> state with crystal filters, it never needed re-alignment, and for the most
> part it never had been manually aligned because it was built right from the
> beginning.

The Yamaha T-85 is (I still have it, but there's nothing to listen to any
more. The FM band is just junk now-days, so I haven't turned it on in years)
digitally tuned, has THREE separate, selectable crystal IF sections for
narrow, normal, and wide bandwidth, a PLL multiplex demodulator (but all
tuners had that by then), and used discrete devices in the audio section and
no electrolytics in the audio path.
>
> One of the best FM tuners I've ever had is almost an after thought. It is in
> my Sansa Clip Plus portable digital music player that cost me about $35
> including shipping. Its weakest link is its antenna which is also the
> headphone cable. It has no manual adjustments at all.
>
> I've done some online checking and the FM tuners in $1 all-in-one chips may
> put even the 10B to shame with impressive features like double conversion
> receivers.

Technology does that. It's funny, as technology gets better, the
infrastructure to support it makes the advances in that technology moot.
Incredible FM performance from cheap chipsets, and nothing to listen to. Cars
that can do 200 MPH+, and even in Europe, speed limits are being imposed
where just a few years ago, one could drive as fast as one liked but the cars
weren't as fast or as safe as now.
>
> The little Sony tuner that we oohed and ahead over about a year back is
> actually a very expensive and overbuilt device. A lot of its relatively
> massive size and cost are due to its HD FM features, not its basic
> functioning as an traditional FM stereo receiver.

Yet it's a very cheap device at less than $100.