🚀 go-pugleaf

Ron wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:12 pm, jakdedert <jakded...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 8:50 pm, Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 16, 8:34 pm, ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 16, 8:00 pm, Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 4:00 am, Soundhaspriority <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <sshankSTRIKET...@tds.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Xns9B70C1104A486sshanktds...@216.196.97.131
>>>>>>>>> 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.com/500_series_receivers.htm
> 
> A Pioneer SA-540 integrated amp (early 80's lower end)
> http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa285/zziggy75/images9/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/p96/bigelile/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