e28ea034   
   From: IainNG@kolumbus.fi   
      
   "Patrick Turner"  wrote in message   
   news:5e95f750-8bd2-4395-8603-38d126f29932@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...   
      
   >I'm not sure what MC75 cost in 1967. What did Quad and other brands   
   >cost?   
      
   Here are some UK retail prices in UKP from 1968:   
      
   Dynaco ST-35 £40.19s   
   Dynaco ST-70 £59.17s   
   Kerr McCosh CWA2/12Wpc £48.   
   Kerr McCosh CWA40 (40W Monobloc) £45   
   Leak Stereo 30 (transistorised) £58.10s   
   Leak Stereo 70 (ditto) £69.10   
   Leak Point One (valve) 30Wpc £45   
   Lowther L18S £47   
   Radford STA15  £42.10s   
   Radford STA25  £52.10s   
   Radford STA100 £112   
   Quad II (12Wpc) £25   
   Shirley Laboratories 25W stereo £52   
   Vortexion 100W (silicon)  £70   
      
   With people earning £20 per week, you can draw   
   your own conclusions. It is not surprising that as   
   available power increases, the cost per watt   
   decreases.  With the exception of the Dynaco,   
   all theamplifiers loisted above were made in the UK.   
   The Quad II was the cheapest, by far.   
      
   > At the rate of 10 shillings/Watt, my small rented   
   > apartment in London at that time cost me 6W.   
      
   Ah, so you had to supply 6W to power the apartment? :-)   
   But here it cost $12, about similar, give or take 50%.   
      
   > You cannot hear economics and the THD meter can't measure economics.   
      
   Agreed. I have no doubt that major customers took   
   some units for listening evaluation by some of the best   
   ears in the business. Next the units would be handed over   
   to the technical boffins for technical evaluation, performanc, build   
   quality and reliability. Then all of these parameters including of course   
   the price would be compared with other available products, and a   
   choice would be made.   
      
   >   
   > >However, there was NOTHING to stop anyone buying a couple of STA 100   
   > >amps for home   
   >   
   > Why a couple? It's a stereo amplfier.   
      
   > The THD at 100W was 0.1% which, at typical   
   > domestic listening levels, was probably reduced by   
   > an order of magnitude.   
      
   The 0.1% seems too good to be true, and probably due to larger than   
   normal amounts of NFB.   
      
   It's true. Measured by customers and reviewer, and published   
   by the manufacturer.   
      
      
   > >Who really needed to buy a Radford in 1967?   
   >   
   > Well broadcasters and professional studios   
   > had them in quantity.   
      
   >Such people needed big numbers and went to ppl who made big numbers.   
      
   They went primarily for a high power high performance reliable amp.   
      
      
   >I still maintain the recipe of the STA 100 is inappropriate for home hi-   
   >fi and that a quad or six pack of OP tubes will perform better.   
      
   Patrick. The STA100 was *never* intended, nor marketed   
   for home hi-fi.  The STA15 and STA25 were designed for   
   domestic use.   
      
      
    Iain   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)