Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

  1. #1
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Just imagine you wanted to cut 24 tracks in 1981. So you buy one of these...

    http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-...cm3324-090106/

    Move on 30 years and here they are on Ebay..

    http://www.ebay.es/itm/SONY-PCM-3324...item53ed184a3b

    They really did sell for $150K. That's 1981 $ too.... now, you can hardly give them away. They make a good (barn) door stop, though...

    Think of how many Loars, or pre-war D-28's you could have got for $150K in 1981....even old Neumann tube mics... all of which would have held and increased in value incredibly..... today, even kids with basic home studios would reject this old Sony... "you mean it's only 16-bit?".

    Times certainly do change.
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

  2. #2
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Pretty sure Chris Lord Alge still uses a 3348 to track with...

    But yeh.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  3. #3
    Registered User G7MOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Lancashire/UK
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Incredible! I think my Grandma was right when she said, The only thing certain in life, is death. lol.
    I never fail at anything, I just succeed at doing things that never work....


    Fylde Touchstone Walnut Mandolin.
    Gibson Alrite Model D.

  4. #4
    Registered User Ivan Kelsall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Manchester - Lancashire - NW England
    Posts
    14,187

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    How very true !. I remember the very first hand-held calculators that we had at work,Hewlett-Packard HP-25/35's.They were around £300 ($480 US) each to buy,& that was around 1973 (ish).They were however,a massive improvement on the electro-mechanical calculators that we'd been using,huge great things like the old time cash registers.These days you can buy a calculator that will do far more than the old HP's for a mere fraction of the price.Thankfully not all progress 'improves things worse' !,
    Ivan
    Weber F-5 'Fern'.
    Lebeda F-5 "Special".
    Stelling Bellflower BANJO
    Tokai - 'Tele-alike'.
    Ellis DeLuxe "A" style.

  5. #5
    man about town Markus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,970
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Ivan, now your phone is a calculator ... having a separate device seems so 1973.
    Collings MT2
    Breedlove OF
    Ellie eMando
    Schmergl Devastator

  6. #6
    Destroyer of Mandolins
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,017

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Your phone is a calculator and everything else imaginable.
    Dedicated Ovation player
    Avid Bose user

  7. #7
    bon vivant jaycat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, Mass.
    Posts
    2,775

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    "My telephone is also a camera . . . and my sunglasses are also a tricycle."

    --Tom Waits
    "The paths of experimentation twist and turn through mountains of miscalculations, and often lose themselves in error and darkness!"
    --Leslie Daniel, "The Brain That Wouldn't Die."

    Some tunes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa1...SV2qtug/videos

  8. #8

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    MY phone is a phone. I've had it ten years and never so much as sent a text. I have a camera for taking photos and my toes if I want to do sums. I also play mandolin.

  9. #9
    Notary Sojac Paul Kotapish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alameda, California
    Posts
    2,484

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    You can do 24-track recording on your iPhone these days:

    http://www.harmonicdog.com/

    But it's never been about the deck and the board, really, has it? Les Paul, George Martin and the Beatles, and all those sonic pioneers worked their magic with tools that are laughable by today's standards. A great player on a good instrument with a decent mic and someone who knows where to place it comprise about 90% of what you need.

    Fun to look at old music technology, though. Anyone have a Mellotron? You can get an app for the iPhone that sounds pretty darn close, too.
    Just one guy's opinion
    www.guitarfish.net

  10. #10

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Yesterday would have been Bob Moog's 75th birthday...

  11. #11
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Kotapish View Post

    But it's never been about the deck and the board, really, has it? Les Paul, George Martin and the Beatles, and all those sonic pioneers worked their magic with tools that are laughable by today's standards.
    Looking at the gear the is being auctioned from Les Paul's estate, I wouldn't class much of it as laugable. Astonishing perhaps as to the quantity that had been amassed over the years, but all very much quality classic stuff.

    Nor would i lump the EMI preamps and rest of the classic gear the George Martin used into a laughable category.
    Last edited by Ben Milne; May-24-2012 at 9:35pm.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  12. #12
    bon vivant jaycat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, Mass.
    Posts
    2,775

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    We all work with the tools that are available at the time. Does anyone wish that Robert Johnson, or Bill Monroe, or Louis Armstrong, or Jimmie Rodgers, had recorded direct to digital?
    "The paths of experimentation twist and turn through mountains of miscalculations, and often lose themselves in error and darkness!"
    --Leslie Daniel, "The Brain That Wouldn't Die."

    Some tunes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa1...SV2qtug/videos

  13. #13
    Registered User foldedpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    5,293

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Quote Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
    We all work with the tools that are available at the time. Does anyone wish that Robert Johnson, or Bill Monroe, or Louis Armstrong, or Jimmie Rodgers, had recorded direct to digital?
    Well, maybe Robert Johnson. That would have saved years of argument over whether his voice sounded like that, or it was an artifact of the recording.

  14. #14
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Going digital would probably have induced more argument...
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  15. #15
    Registered User neil argonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    I suppose the other thing that needs to be considered is that back then, spending that money would bring far more chance of a return for your investment, as there would be much less competition for sales of recorded music, due to the prohibitive price of making it, and you could charge people for use of your studio with this recording equipment, in a time when making quality multitrack recordings at home wasn't an option.

  16. #16
    Registered User jim simpson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wheeling, WV
    Posts
    5,508

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    I recall in the mid 80's, a 3340 reel-to-reel would go for about $500 used. I swapped one for a used 70 Mustang project. I think the Mustang would be worth more today if I still had it. I then bought a Tascam 234 4-track cassette recorder new for around $500.00. It was one of the 1st pro quality cassette units. I recently sold a 234 that had all the rubber belts and capstan roller replaced for $150.00.
    Now I'm finally trying to learn a digital recorder.
    Old Hometown, Cabin Fever String Band

  17. #17
    Destroyer of Mandolins
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,017

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    I'm certainly no financial expert of any kind, but $150,000 seems like a lot of money for a tape recorder. Granted it's probably the ultimate professional, super-sophisticated, do everything model, but in 2012 dollars that's nearly $400,000! I'm not saying this isn't true or anything, but that seems like a very unrealistic price tag for any piece of technology, even from that era. How many of these things were there?
    Dedicated Ovation player
    Avid Bose user

  18. #18
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    A Teac 3340 reel to reel is nothing along the lines of this baby. This certainly ain't the average tape machine... If one were available at the right price near me I'd snaffle it.

    This was absolute cutting edge digital technology, purely for the realm of high end recording studios with established clientele such as major labels. Getting one probably wasn't a matter of if they could afford to have one, but whether they could afford not to (actually probably only the studios backed by labels could have afforded them IE Sony themselves).


    Considering where computer technology was at at that time, it's remarkable that such quality could be achieved.

    Think about how much processing power is required by your home computer to process 24 tracks of 16bit/48k audio.
    30 years on, our best computers available to the consumer market can do this.
    In this digital recorder's hey day, computers were more expensive, (mostly available only to governments and corporations) and could perform only a minute fraction of what today's machines are capable of.
    Anbody care to speculate what a 2.8ghz computer with 4GB of RAM and 1TB of hard drive space would have cost in 1981? (To suggest that it were possible might have been cause for a call to a mental institution).
    Last edited by Ben Milne; May-25-2012 at 10:03am.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  19. #19
    Destroyer of Mandolins
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,017

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    I suppose when all things are considered $400 grand is a drop in the bucket to the recording industry. I wouldn't be surprised if Justin Bieber makes that much while brushing his hair. Just seems like one of those 'wow' moments to me, as in "Wow! That's an expensive tape recorder!"
    Dedicated Ovation player
    Avid Bose user

  20. #20
    Registered User Elliot Luber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    4,157

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    I remember covering the launch of the PCM-3324 when it first came out. The professional community was dead set against a rotary head design, which the Japanese preferred because they could piggy back production on lines building video cassette recorders. But, American and British studio engineers insisted on Stationary Head recorders which enabled them to do razor blade edits. This made them more comfortable with the new digital medium because it was like the analog machines (invented by Les Paul). Hence, there was a standards split between Mitsubishi and Sony, which Japan really hated. It was also eventually discovered that studios sporting brand new Mitsubishi recorders also had chief engineers who were suddenly driving new Mitsubishi Starion sports cars, and studio owners weren't at all happy about it.

  21. #21
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: $150,000 in 1981 - how times change

    Razor blade edits... those were the days. Could be tricky enough on analog. I don't even want to think about what it must have been like doing it on digital.

    Looking at that beast reminds my of the (rather more modest) tape recorders I worked with back in the 70's when I was doing after-school evenings helping out with theatre sound. There was an old, but very nice, Ferrograph Series 5. I would imagine these were not often seen in the US? They were hand made in Britain (as opposed to, you know, China), and were an all-tube recorder. That one was built sometime in the mid 60's. Later, there was a Ferrograph Series 7.

    Here's a bit about those:

    http://www.ferrographworld.com


    They were a 'reely' () great recorder. There was also a Nagra portable and a superb Revox A77 (A Mk III as I recall). All of those things weighed a ton. Even the 'portable'! Alas... all long gone. They got (very) warm and even smelled nice! The little Tascam DR-100 I use now has a far better spec and you hardly know you're carrying it... but though it is very efficient and makes fine recordings, somehow, it lacks the 'magic' of those old machines. Oh, and no razor blades required either...
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •