Machine tool accessories for sale in Portland

Leigh, will you be using MarMachine as your registration name. Not easy to find you at the swap meet. Don't want to walk the whole thing.

Ivan Vegvary

Saw $4.45 in San Diego last week.

Crom!!

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

=============== The big question is "did the price of gas go up" or "did the value of the dollar go down?"

This is not a trick question, as the "solutions" under one assumption are likely to make the situation worse if the other assumption is the controlling/correct one

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

------------------------------ Watch out w'en you'er gittin all you want. Fattenin' hogs ain't in luck.

Joel Chandler Harris (1848-1908), U.S. journalist. Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings, "Plantation Proverbs" (1880).

Having been heavily involved in precious metals since the early 70's, I'd suggest to you that a troy ounce still weighs 480 grains. It takes a whole lot more of your dollars to buy a new truck, a new car, a house, or an ounce of silver or gold. Considering the ounce hasn't changed, you do the math! :-)

The latest bench mark for crude oil should prove to be a wonderful indicator of the value of your dollar in the near future.

Sigh! I recall, with fondness, those good old days when a dollar was still worth thirty cents.

Harold

It went up. San Diego has Always been much much higher than in the rest of California.

I understand. But the price of the fuel went up. The rest of the products of our society has not risen at the same rate or even in the same magnitude.

The issue is speculation bidding and the fact we are undergoing a gasoline shortage do to some refineries being off line

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

I dunno, Gunner. When the "shortage" has been addressed, and the refineries are back on line, do you really think you're going to see gas for $2?

In my opinion, those days are gone-----long gone. Just like the buying power of the dollar.

Harold

Gunner wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

There is no shortage. The shortage is because big oil wants to report yet even more record profits.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:01:31 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner quickly quoth:

I just (nearly) filled up today at $3.03/gal for premium.

I am staying with my old friend, yes he is younger then me, Steve Fuller. He bought the space a the race track so I assume it is in his name. I get to reimburse him if you buy enough stuff. Anything in particular I should load? Leigh at MarMachine

Leigh, I have a LeBlonde Regal 13" lather. Would like to buy 5C collet holder/closer instead of having to make one. What dimensions do you need? I also need a shaper tool holder. I have a small Atlas 7". I will give you dimensions on that one.

Thanks, Ivan Vegvary

10 yrs ago, what sort of computer could you purchase for say...$200?

Gunner, wanting Harold to think a bit deeper...

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

Or, could it be you're trying to railroad me, like the right has been doing to you?

Ten years ago------how much influence did China have over the computer market ?

Ten years ago-----how much did you pay for a new truck?

Ten years ago----how much did you make/hr?

Computers are not a fair measure-------they are amongst the precious few things that have gone down in price, which should come as no surprise to anyone. They were well overpriced for years, creating countless millionaires in their wake. That's what I call unearned money.

I just replaced, due to failure, my old McIntosh amplifier that I purchased new in '75 for $1,499.00. The new one is a slightly better amp, but for all practical purposes, a direct replacement. You can have one of the new ones for only $5,800. Taking into account the minor improvements, tell me the dollar hasn't lost value. I dare say the power of the dollar today is about on par with the power of a quarter 25 years ago. Anyone have any statistics to prove, or disprove my thoughts?

Harold

===========

33 years or 1974

goto

for more than you want to know.

In answer to your specific question see the table below giving what 1.00$(Feb 2007) would be equivilant to in that years money, and what 1.00 and 1 quarter of a past years money would be worth in Feb 2007 dollars.

Value of Value of Value of 1 Feb07$ 1 CY$ in CY quarter Year in CY$ Feb07$ in Feb07$

1913 ---------- $0.05 ---------- $20.50 ---------- $5.13 1914 ---------- $0.05 ---------- $20.30 ---------- $5.07 1915 ---------- $0.05 ---------- $20.09 ---------- $5.02 1916 ---------- $0.05 ---------- $18.62 ---------- $4.65 1917 ---------- $0.06 ---------- $15.86 ---------- $3.96 1918 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $13.44 ---------- $3.36 1919 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.73 ---------- $2.93 1920 ---------- $0.10 ---------- $10.15 ---------- $2.54 1921 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.34 ---------- $2.83 1922 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $12.08 ---------- $3.02 1923 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $11.87 ---------- $2.97 1924 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $11.87 ---------- $2.97 1925 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.60 ---------- $2.90 1926 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.47 ---------- $2.87 1927 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.66 ---------- $2.92 1928 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $11.87 ---------- $2.97 1929 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $11.87 ---------- $2.97 1930 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $12.15 ---------- $3.04 1931 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $13.35 ---------- $3.34 1932 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.81 ---------- $3.70 1933 ---------- $0.06 ---------- $15.61 ---------- $3.90 1934 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $15.15 ---------- $3.79 1935 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.81 ---------- $3.70 1936 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.60 ---------- $3.65 1937 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.09 ---------- $3.52 1938 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.39 ---------- $3.60 1939 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.60 ---------- $3.65 1940 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $14.50 ---------- $3.62 1941 ---------- $0.07 ---------- $13.81 ---------- $3.45 1942 ---------- $0.08 ---------- $12.45 ---------- $3.11 1943 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.73 ---------- $2.93 1944 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.53 ---------- $2.88 1945 ---------- $0.09 ---------- $11.28 ---------- $2.82 1946 ---------- $0.10 ---------- $10.41 ---------- $2.60 1947 ---------- $0.11 ---------- $9.10 ---------- $2.28 1948 ---------- $0.12 ---------- $8.42 ---------- $2.11 1949 ---------- $0.12 ---------- $8.53 ---------- $2.13 1950 ---------- $0.12 ---------- $8.42 ---------- $2.11 1951 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.81 ---------- $1.95 1952 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.66 ---------- $1.91 1953 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.60 ---------- $1.90 1954 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.54 ---------- $1.89 1955 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.57 ---------- $1.89 1956 ---------- $0.13 ---------- $7.46 ---------- $1.87 1957 ---------- $0.14 ---------- $7.22 ---------- $1.81 1958 ---------- $0.14 ---------- $7.02 ---------- $1.76 1959 ---------- $0.14 ---------- $6.97 ---------- $1.74 1960 ---------- $0.15 ---------- $6.86 ---------- $1.71 1961 ---------- $0.15 ---------- $6.79 ---------- $1.70 1962 ---------- $0.15 ---------- $6.72 ---------- $1.68 1963 ---------- $0.15 ---------- $6.63 ---------- $1.66 1964 ---------- $0.15 ---------- $6.55 ---------- $1.64 1965 ---------- $0.16 ---------- $6.44 ---------- $1.61 1966 ---------- $0.16 ---------- $6.26 ---------- $1.57 1967 ---------- $0.16 ---------- $6.08 ---------- $1.52 1968 ---------- $0.17 ---------- $5.83 ---------- $1.46 1969 ---------- $0.18 ---------- $5.53 ---------- $1.38 1970 ---------- $0.19 ---------- $5.23 ---------- $1.31 1971 ---------- $0.20 ---------- $5.01 ---------- $1.25 1972 ---------- $0.21 ---------- $4.86 ---------- $1.21 1973 ---------- $0.22 ---------- $4.57 ---------- $1.14 1974 ---------- $0.24 ---------- $4.12 ---------- $1.03

According to Harold and Susan Vordos :

[ ... ]

Of course it has lost value -- but I'm not sure that a McIntosh amplifier is a fair test either. Was your original McIntosh a tube-based amplifier? What about your current one?

If it was, you have to bear in mind a few things which would make the tube McIntosh cost more than the inflation charts would indicate.

1) Tubes are no longer made in the US (except for a boutique maker using Western Electric designs and the Western Electric name, and charging *way* too much for them -- because the audiophiles will pay anything for something "tube". Tubes are hard to find in general, other than the ones still made in Russia. And audiophiles seem to go for "tube" -- they prefer the sound, which in reality is usually more distorted than that from good solid-state designs. 2) Audio quality transformers are no longer produced in general, either, and the McIntosh used a rather unusual (and patented) design, even back then. Now, it costs a *lot* more to get the quality materials and to make a transformer of equal quality. Even power transformers of the type necessary to power the McIntosh are no longer made. (Little things like filament voltage windings combined with plate voltage windings in a single transformer just aren't seen today, except in special production.) 3) The electrolytic capacitors used for filtering the power supply voltages are also rare today. Most current production ones are for lower voltages, and higher capacitance -- designed for solid state circuits.

As a matter of fact, I would strongly suspect that what failed in your old amplifier was a filter capacitor. Lots of hum? Or perhaps even the capacitor blew its seals? Finding an exact replacement is difficult.

4) Audiophile equipment is *way* overpriced, even if made from easily available components. (There are people selling replacement knobs made of wood for several hundred dollars, because it "sounds" better. :-) With people willing to spend *that* kind of money, what reason do they have to lower the price to something more in line with actual production costs?

So -- I consider high-end audio gear to be as unfair a standard as computer equipment. One is grossly overpriced, and the other is vastly underpriced compared to its price back around 1975. The McIntosh was a top end amplifier back in 1975. If they were to re-design it to modern components they could do it to sell for about $2000 to $3000 without sacrificing quality -- but the audiophiles would avoid it because it would cost too little.

Enjoy, DoN.

It's actually a pretty good indicator, at least if Unca George's posted information is correct, and I have no reason to think it's not. If anything, considering the new amp has 33% greater output, and some added circuitry, if anything, they, too, may have gone down a little. There's no doubt in my mind the dollar is no good. It takes well over $600 of them to buy that 480 grains of gold I spoke of previously. Sivler, too, is up----well over $13. Or should I say the dollar is down?

The old amp is solid state. By '75, McIntosh had long since abandoned building tube type amps, only to return to the market years later. They sell them today, along with tube type pre-amps. here's a strong demand by a select few that "think" tubes sound better. I don't agree, and the specs on tube type equipment are pretty much eclipsed by those of solid state amps. Worse yet, tubes, as you know, tend to degrade rather quickly. If you ever attended any of the amplifier clinics that were hosted by McIntosh, with Dave O'Brien (who recently passed away), you know that when a Mc amp was placed on the bench to verify that it was performing to specs, if it wasn't, the first thing Dave would do is remove the output tubes (KT

88's, or 6L6's in push-pull, depending on the amp in question) and toss the old ones. When the smoke cleared, the amp met specs, and they thanked you for having purchased Mac. There was never a charge for Mc owners, although they'd analyze any amp, and charge only for replacement tubes that were needed. The clinics eventually came to an end, as you might expect.

Exactly. Some of the folks that think that way also think that a CD doesn't have a faithful reproduction of a performance, either. That, of course, is nonsense. But then, who am I to tell the other guy how he likes his toast buttered?

That, for McIntosh, is a non-issue. They wind their own autoformers and transformers today, just as they've always done.

Yep! But it's a little more than that. The amp died over a long period of time, and, as you suspect, as do I, it's an electrolytic that is the culprit. One of the techs at Mc suggested that the likelihood of a transformer failing was very remote. He also made it clear that they no longer provide the exact replacement for the electrolytic(s), but one that serves the purpose is available. I chose to buy a new amp because I don't relish the thoughts of shipping the old one to New York from Washington, when it weighs 128 pounds without packaging. It would have to go motor freight. I'll take it to my old reliable repairman when I next visit Utah. He used to be one of the certified Mc repair stations, and has seen the amp before. It will then be on the market, once repaired. I had every intention of buying a new amp (along with a pre-amp, CD player and a new FM tuner) when the house was finished-----this just moved up the date for the amp.

I agree----but you can't buy high end stereo gear without spending money, and I'm not anywhere near capable of producing my own. Not that I would be inclined. I've owned Mc gear since '66, and have gone through a few amps, pre-amps and tuners in my day. I've been totally pleased with Mc, and would hesitate to change to anything else. Besides, what other home consumer sound gear can you think of that has resale value? I've used some of the pieces for a few years and sold them for 75% of my investment price. I hardly consider the 25% a loss when I run the gear several hours daily, and always have.

It still is!

If they were to re-design it to

While I'm inclined to think that the amp could be marketed for a lower price, any incentive to do so would be lost with the price reduction. Why would any firm attempt to market an item that has a very limited market, without some kind of incentive? They're not exactly production built, not the way an auto is built, anyway.

Have you listened to one of them? I was so used to the old one that I didn't realize the changes through the years. My old amp always had a slight left channel 60 Hz sound. The new one is silent. Dead silent. It has a lot more head room, at least from all indications. While I'm not exactly a low end nut, I hear a distinct difference in the low end as compared to the old amp. It has a clean, crisp low end, like when listening to symphony with a herd of string bases. Better separation too, from all indications. They have clearly made improvements over the years. One thing in particular-----the 2300 lacked the power guard circuitry, which can save you from frying tweeters when over driving the amp. (Yeah, I was known to do that on occasion).

The old amp is a Mc 2300. The new one is a Mc 402.

Check their web site. They just put a new amp on the market. 1000 watts/channel! Very, very impressive! It would probably fry my speakers, so I wasn't tempted. Not sure my wallet was, either!

Harold

================ This does indeed involve metal.

The BLS makes what they call hedonic adjustments to the before and after prices to reflect that in many cases the commodity is "new and improved." This would seem to be an almost totally subjective process. For example how much hedonic adjustment would you make for the base price of a TV where the old version could receive 100 channels and the new one can receive 1,000 channels, but there are only 10 tv channels that you can receive?

Now for the price of gold. When the effect of inflation is not considered, a totally misleading picture results, much as the the record stock market prices such as the Dow-Jones averages.

===> Note the 1979 CPI-U adjusted price of gold in 2007 dollars. This is almost 3 times the current price.

According to Harold and Susan Vordos :

[ ... ]

O.K. If both are solid state, I withdraw my statement.

Sigh!

I've been tempted to pick up a McIntosh tube based amplifier when I've seen them at hamfests, but never done it. They are interesting technically -- but really expensive to keep up to snuff with constantly changing the tubes. :-)

And I've been really happy with the Hafler 220 amplifier (supplied as as semi-kit or fully built -- I got the kit) which I've used for perhaps twenty years now. A true 110W per channel, with a design which eliminates the crossover distortion often found when a stack of power transistors switches from pulling up to pulling down or vice versa.

[ ... ]

:-)

Though there *is* a distortion in really low levels recorded digitally. Granted, it is low enough so it would be buried in tape noise or in surface noise from anything but a totally pristine vinyl record. But I was able to detect it when playing back an outdoor recording which I had made on DAT at a music festival. I left it running for a while while taking down some of the other equipment, and wound up recording just the wind noise in nearby trees and occasional birdsong well below the level of the singers (at the mics). I was interested to see what was there, and (wearing headphones) I kept turning up the volume, and could hear steps in the volume of the wind noise which was recorded only with the bottom few bits.

But if I had backed up to the music program earlier at the same settings I would have blown out my eardrums (and possibly the headphones themselves). So, while it exists, it is not significant in any reasonable listening conditions.

Top quality vinyl, the first play or two (probably in a clean room), can be good enough to have reproduced the same signal without the obvious steps. But it doesn't last. :-)

Though the cost of the materials has gone up with the decrease of volume of production. I'll bet that they now use toroidal transformers, which while harder to wind, are better magnetically.

[ ... ]

I would agree -- unless it was being run well beyond its ratings. And I suspect that the design of the amplifier prevents that with McIntosh.

O.K. I can see that.

You won't keep it for emergency service, just in case your new one fails without warning?

O.K.

Agreed.

O.K.

No doubt.

[ ... ]

Agreed.

No. But I have somewhat defective hearing. Anything over about

2KHz has to be way too loud for anyone else in the vicinity, and the hearing does not come back (or at least used to come back barely) around 22 KHZ, beyond the normal recorded frequencies.

As an example of how bad my hearing in the high frequency range is, back around late high school I was playing a stereo test record into a pair of headphones, listening to the sweep audio tone, and adjusting the volume into the headphones to keep it within range of hearing. At a certain point, a friend about twelve feet away shouted "How can you stand it?", just based on what he could hear leaking out of rather good ear seals.

As have I -- when I got my switching sequence wrong when going from recording a group in my living room to listening to the playback. I turned on the amplifier before I shut down the microphones, and the audio feedback killed a tweeter.

That looks really nice.

Hafler (back when I got mine) had a 500 Watts/channel one, with a fan cooled heatsink assembly. At normal levels, the fan was off. As the levels increased, the fan would speed up. It was never audible under the sound from the speakers (but if you were driving a non-speaker load, you would hear it, of course.)

Enjoy, DoN.

As we get older our hearing of higher frequencies diminishes in direct proportion to the nagging of female life partners. Must be some form of defense mechanism. Something to do with survival.

Ivan Vegvary

According to Ivan Vegvary :

Perhaps, but this problem was discovered when I was in High School, and I had no life partner at that time.

And -- as it works out, it is my female life partner who is losing her hearing. :-)

Enjoy, DoN.