twistedcrankcammer

G2, Wanted something like: made for Roger Gordon by Dowd "Al" Goble Roger

G2, That looks like a Sony 777ES receiver, am I correct?? Roger

Tim, you have your facts turned arround a little. Older Klipschorns are 104Db at 1 watt at one meter, new Klipschorns are 105 Db sensitive at one watt at one meter. Percieved sound is not a linear measurenment like speaker output. A speaker of whatever sensitivity, takes double the power to go up 3 Db of sound pressure. Lets take the 105 DB sensitivity rating of the new klipschorn. It putts out a volume of 105 Db as checked from one meter away at one watt. It will take twice the power to go up 3 Db, so we find 108 Db at 2 watts. It will take twice the power to go up another 3 Db, so it takes 4 watts to see 111 Db. To go up another 3 Db, it will take twice the power, so to see 114 Db, it takes 8 watts. From the above, we find it takes 8 times the power to see an increase of 9 Db. This is the same, no matter how efficient or non efficient the speaker. Hearing is subjective, but it is commonly accepted that an increase in 10 Db is considdered to sound twice as loud. So, we see that an increase in 8 times the power only gets a 9 Db increase in sound, or slightly less than twice the percieved sound. Thus it would take slightly more than 80 watts to sound twice as loud as 10 watts. This remains constant regaurdless of speaker or amplifier used, and is why higher Db is much cheaper to reach with a more efficient speaker than a bigger amp less efficient speaker. Roger

G squared, That is too far east and north for a Brown Recluse, but it would have possibly explained a little. I will try to take a picture of my knife late tommorow and get it sent soon. I would like some words on the back side if possible of the sheath. I like some of your butterfly knife sheaths. I really like some of the knives for sale on your attached link.... Prices for his knives?? Roger

Neither in most respects. I used a Nak cassette deck in the past (long time ago) and it was one of the best I have ever used. My son has a NAD, that he purchased on the cheap, and the amp portion requires some work, but the pre is pretty nice.Just trying to be reasonable. Money is money and one doesn't need to spend more than he needs to. OR, he spends a lot, and thinks he has what he needs because he spent a lot. I like tubes and I like ss. I am not going to get bent out of shape wondering if I have the best of if the money I spent was worth it. However, it is still money that comes out of his pocket, so he has to be satisfied. Marvel, Agreed!! I just think that 4 the bang 4 the buck, if he can spend $800, why not push for the extra $100 and get something truely wonderful. You could easily spend many thousands to get close in something new. Most have not listened to Nak when they made fine equipement as it was never an average consumer product, like Yamaha, Dennon, NAD, etc. All Nakamichi casette decks were better than most anything available at the time. To say that people are paying $900 for a Dragon cassette, $3500 for a Dragon CD, or $10,000 for a Dragon Turn Table that are 19 years old speaks volumes in and of itself!! Hey, I don't set the prices on this older stuff, but I will forever be a Nak head! I feel just a strongly about the Nakamichi gear as I do about Klipsch and old school Electro Voice speakers, and encourage anyone with Heritage or extended heritage to take a listen for themselves. Just like an old pair of Fortes, a PA-7 is a bargain in my book, even at $900. Roger

B.Athaus, I also found this link for you www.pbase.com/ingor/nakamichi You will note the 4 large capcitors under the board, the gold screws and connections inside where they cannot be seen. I further found a PA-5 on Audiogon, but the guy also has the ST-7 tunner and CA-5 control amp. If you are willing to wait on the PA-7, I would wait on a CA-7 control amp, but you could considder seeing if he would sell you the ST-7 tunner if you are planning on oldfashion FM capability on your 2 channel settup.. Roger

Probably not. If you have a budget, the last thing you want to do is have someone almost twist your arm to spend more. Regarding the NAD, as has been pointed out, their power ratings are extremely conservative, and you probably won't be disappointed in certain of their models. Try to find someone close by who has some of this gear and see if you can try it on your own system. It won't matter how good it is rated or how much someone else likes it if you get it and then are second guessing the purchase. It is his money, and he is the one who will have to descide ultimately, but I listened alot to the NAD, Nakamichi, and Klipsch at the time of my purchase. You obviously Like NAD, but do you have direct experience with the Nakamichi?? The NAD is not even in the same league. The NAD was a good amp then for $600, but there was a reason the PA-7 was almost 4 times the price!! Consevatively rated at 60 watts per channel or not, the NAD does not approach 200 watts per channel either, or spec out as clean at 60 as the Nak does at 200. Have you ever had a PA-7 wired to your stuff??? You will not find a PA-7 for under $900, and I haven't seen one yet that didn't sell for $900, so he could easily unload it if he were to find he disagrees. I also suggest you look at feedback on AudioReview.com on the Nak, or web search and look at articles. I truely don't believe you have ever listened to a Nak if you would suggest that someone would be happy with an NAD, and even if he goes with a PA-5 or PA-5II, it is still alot more amp then the NAD ever was. Roger 200 watts for Forte IIs is only necessary if your room is an airplane hangar. Denon is edgy. I like their build quality but all 3 Denon integrateds I have used are edgy and sterile on horns. NAD is in my bedrrom system and is a real fine piece of equipemnt for musical performance with pretty 2 dimensional soundstage. Great stuff at the price point. HK, NAD, Marantz and Sansui sound pretty good on horns. Sony, Yamaha, and other commodity brands lack detail and soundstage. Non tubies say non tubie comments. Tubies loook at SS as a convenience item. NOTE: Replace your crossover network capacitors before a major amp search. 92 Forte IIs are not sounding their best with 16 year old commodity stock caps. 200 watts is only required for Forte if your room is an airhanger?? [bs] [bs] [bs] The Forte is no where near as sensitive as Klipschorns in the first place!!! In the second place, ever hear of headroom?? Keep the system playing at a lower than distortion area of the amp. I remember Forte as being rated at 100 watts per channel, but what is the peak?? They will handle 500 watts peak output. Do you think a 100 watt RMS amp is going to be capable of anything near a 500 watt peak, why do you think your speakers are sounding like crap on the big end?? They have no headroom left. What do you think the headroom is on a 60 watt amp?? If you haven't owned a high end SS amp with alot more power than required, then you really have no more idea of what you are saying about this than I would talking about tubes wouldn't you agree? The Forte is 98 Db senstive and the Forte II is 99 dB sensitive, so it takes 4 times as much power to get the same audio output from a Forte as it does from a Corner Horn, and the Forte can only put out 119 DB compared to a Corner Horns 124 Db. So by comparison, if you are saying that you will never need more thena 100 watt amp to run the Forte, you are in essence telling everyone hear that owns Corner Horns that they have no buiseness with an amp bigger than 25 watts per channel for their speakers!! Once again I must call [bs] [bs] [bs] Roger

Actually B.Althus, If you were to buy a PA-5 or PA-5II, I would say to wait for one to come up with a "cool top" as this was an option with the smaller amp. The PA-7 is twice as thick with bigger everything and heavier built than My GFA-565 mono blocks. They also have some preety nice billet aluminum rack handles. I will take a lok and see if I can find a site to post with a view with the top cover off of a PA-7 Regaurds...Roger

Probably not. If you have a budget, the last thing you want to do is have someone almost twist your arm to spend more. Regarding the NAD, as has been pointed out, their power ratings are extremely conservative, and you probably won't be disappointed in certain of their models. Try to find someone close by who has some of this gear and see if you can try it on your own system. It won't matter how good it is rated or how much someone else likes it if you get it and then are second guessing the purchase. It is his money, and he is the one who will have to descide ultimately, but I listened alot to the NAD, Nakamichi, and Klipsch at the time of my purchase. You obviously Like NAD, but do you have direct experience with the Nakamichi?? The NAD is not even in the same league. The NAD was a good amp then for $600, but there was a reason the PA-7 was almost 4 times the price!! Consevatively rated at 60 watts per channel or not, the NAD does not approach 200 watts per channel either, or spec out as clean at 60 as the Nak does at 200. Have you ever had a PA-7 wired to your stuff??? You will not find a PA-7 for under $900, and I haven't seen one yet that didn't sell for $900, so he could easily unload it if he were to find he disagrees. I also suggest you look at feedback on AudioReview.com on the Nak, or web search and look at articles. I truely don't believe you have ever listened to a Nak if you would suggest that someone would be happy with an NAD, and even if he goes with a PA-5 or PA-5II, it is still alot more amp then the NAD ever was. Roger

B.Althaus, I just checked out the PA-5 that you looked at. To give you further insight of the Nakamichi of that era, the Nakamichi Draggon equipement was sold at this same time. The Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck is considdered by many to be the best cassette deck ever made. These come up often and bring $900 for a cassette deck now. Right now there is a Nakamichi Dragon CD for sale on ebay, and as you can see it is listed for $3500.00. When a Nakamichi Dragon turn table comes up, they bring $10,000 for a 20 year old turntable. Further, in reading about the PA-5 and PA-7, you will find they are a STASIS design from Nelson Pass. If you are not familiar with Nelson Pass, I would ask you to do a search for Pass Labs and check out his amps and speakers. You will see the "Rushmoore" speakers by Nelson Pass. These are new and available for delivery for fifty thousand U.S. dollars a pair. The Nakamichi PA-7 is a chance to get into a used amp that is on another level. Roger

My brother and his wife are attouneys and he has the best Denon has to offer. Since you are going with 2 channel, I would go with the Nakamichi 7 pre amp as well, or you could use a newer Denon pre amp if so desired, but that Denon does not compete with the Nakamichi amp, it really is that good. I also own Adcom GFA-565 Mono blocks that are 300 watts per channel and the Nak will bring things out in clarrity that has to be experienced, just like the Forte can bring out little sounds that you never heard before in your source material before. The Nakamichi is 19 years old and still brings almost half of it's new price. How much will that Denon bring?? Nuff said??? Roger

B.Althaus, Patients padewon, I put my search on most recently listed and check Klipsch, Electro Voice, Adcom, and Nakamichi on a by-weekly basis. I have done this continuously for about the last 3 or 4 years. This way, I only see the new things listed that I haven't already sean. I keep current on condition and value. You will see more of the PA-5s than the PA-7s, and more of the PA-7s then the PA-7IIs. The PA-7s often come in groups. Someone will list one, and one or two more will be listed the same week. I usually see at least 4 or 5 PA-7s for every PA-7II. I usually see a PA-7 come up about every 3 weeks to a month, so be patient, it is worth the wait. Have you taken the time to google a Nakamichi PA-7 and see the insides of one yet?? Pretty impressive huh?? Roger

G2, No good deed goes unpunished!! What geographical area did this church reside in, and how long ago has this happened?? Roger

G2, No good deed goes unpunished!! What geographical area did this church reside in, and how long ago has this happened?? Roger

OB, OT, You guys are going to have someone believing that rubber surround crap!!! Roger

DougDrake, The Forte II had rubber surrounds on the passive radiator in back, one of these passive radiators has scratches but they are not white. The woofers did not have rubber surrounds, they are a pleted surround, hence the dilema in what has caused it. The passive radiator can still be had from Klpsch for this speaker, as for woofers?? Roger

B.Althus, With a budget of arround $800, the Nakamichi PA-7 at 200 watts per channel can be bought for arround $900 or a little over on ebay when they come up. The Nakamichi PA-7II was it's replacement and had 225 watts per channel RMS. These amps were arround $2,300 back arround 1989 when new and the fact that they still bring this kind of money now speaks volumes of build quallity and sound quality. The Nakamichi PA-5 and PA-5II bring arround the $500 to $600 range and are 100 watts per channel and 150 watts per channel respectively. If you can swing it, I would look for a nice PA-7, the clean power and extra headroom are excellent, plus this amp has a warm sound. Google the Nakamichi PA-7 and see if you can find some shots of the amp under the hood and you will be impressed. DougDrake, As for the NAD stuff, my dealer carried the full Klipsch line, Nakamichi equipement, and NAD equipement. The NAD stuff was clean for the money, but most amps were in the 60 watts per channel range. The NAD equipement was for those that could not afford the Nakamichi. $2,300 was alot more coin in 1989 then now, and the NAD was not in the same league with NAK, power wise, sound wise, or build construction. I believe the 60 watt per channel NAD was like $600 in 1989. I am not saying NAD was bad by any means, but a more modern comparison would be Adcom vs: Krell. Roger

G2, I am a vast wealth of useless information D/T IQ of 148, I retain alot of crap. Anyhow, a little bit of history for you. I am sure you knew that Edison invented the light bulb. You may have known that Edison invented the phonograph. What you may not have known is that as a boy, Edison was a telegraph operator who worked on a train obtaining messages for the train and sending messages for passengers from station to station, and used that job to buy chemicals for his first chemistry set which he kept on the train. One day at a station, the train started to pull out before Edison had got back on the train and as he was running down the tracks after the train, the conductor reached over and grabbed young Edison by his Ears and pulled Edison over the railing of the Caboose by his ears. Edison heard a loud pop when the coductor did this. From that point on, Edison had Tinitus and progressive hearing loss. If you go to the Edison home and laboratory in Florida where he spent his latter years, on display is one of his old phonographs with a large wooden horn on display. If you look at the old wooden horn, you will see multiple sets of teeth marks in the wood that were left by Edison in his elderly conditioin as he had become deaf enough that he would bite into the wooden horn to transfer the sound into his head so that he could listen to music. A little bit of history, and hence my reference to the old wooden horned corner horns and your tinitus. Roger

thebes, 1968 GT 500 KR Shelby Fastback. White with black interior, 10 spoke rims 40,056 miles on the ticker. In storage for 11 years, never undercoated, had specs of rust showing through the orriginal paint underneath the car on the floor boards. 4 speed car, tilt etc. Guy had a double mortgage and was going to loose his house. Asking $10,000 back in the day. Came and looked at my 1967 GT 390 and agreed on my car and $5,000. My mom wouldn't cosign for me, and they could well afford to!! I had to wait till I was 18 to get my liscense because she wouldn't sign for me to take drivers ed. A few years later; 3 cars, one money. All cars were real but little things like crager rims and headers, needed returned to stock. Two 1968 GT-500 early 68 non KRs and a 1969 Boss 429. All three for $40,000. Didn't have the money or credit and parrents wouldn't help. I knew then where they would be now. 1968 Mustang listed as a 390. Drove 1.5 hours but did not take the $3,500 with me. I was intrigued by the white paint, black stripe and hood scoop. Yes a 1968.5 R code real 428 cobra jet with the orriginal engine. I made a 100 mph stab at getting home to get the money, car was gone before I got back. Found a totally crushed 1968.5 R code body in the woods while hunting. Car was rolled. Was told I could hall it away for free. Never got arround to it. With the VIN, I could have gotten a legit tittle as it was never junked. That tittle would be worth a few thousand now for someone wanting to build a fake. On a brighter note. A buddy just scored a triumph silver jubilee 1 of 1,000 motorcycle in the last 6 months. These bikes were built to celebrate the Queens 25 years on the thrown. The bike was on the orriginal red line flat tires and covered with junk and dust with only 70 miles on it... TRUE story!! Finally thebes; Two doctors are making love. After they finish, the male Dr. tells the female Dr. "You must be a surgeon he says". "Why is that she asks?" He states, "Because you washed your hands both before and after". She tells him; "Well you must be an Anasthesiologist." "Why is that" he asked". "Because I didn't feel SH*T", she says. Roger

BeserkNitro, I hope you killed that sucker fast!! Get that box out of your house NOW!! It could have eggs in it, and that would be all you need on top of everything else!!!! Roger

Oldtimer, You are correct, 1,779 cm3 is about 109 inches3. I divided 1779 by 2.54 squared not cubed. 135horse power out of 109 cubes is almost 1.24 horsepower per cube. Not bad efficiency for a production engine at all. I have been a gear head since I was a kid and still own my first car, one of those two 1967 390 big block GT fastback mustangs. I also used to own a 1969.5 Boss 302 Mustang. The 69 Boss 302 came out mid year and they only made 1,628 that year. They built 7,056 1970 Boss 302s. Roger

Ford actually made some cammer heads out of aluminum back in 1964, although at least 9 out of 10 are iron. They also made a small handfull of aluminum 427 blocks, much rarer than the heads. The last set of factory aluminum cammer heads I saw for sale better then 10 years ago had been cracked, welded on, warped, so they were decked, and they were bare, no valves, no rockers, no shafts, nothing and the asking price was $13,000 for the pair all screwed up and fixed. I know where several set of virgin aluminum factory heads are, but none are for sale, and I wouldn't want to even guess on value. I have only ever seen or heard of two factory aluminum blocks. To give you an idea there, prior to Carol Shelby reproducing an aftermarket block and a few others, I know of guys that paid to have blocks hand machined, not CNC from solid hunks of aluminum as it was less $$$ than a factory aluminum block. Jay Lenos engine doesn't even have the aluminum heads or block. They are unobtainium[:'(] Roger

Oldtimer, I didn't meen to piss you off. You did better than I expected on the BMW questions. I orriginally responded to your would you get upset if it was a fairlane question figguring you weren't a car guy because I didn't figgure you knew the made a Fairlane that brings better than a 1/4 million these days. I don't think their is anyone on these lists that wouldn't get upset about someone leaning on or throwing something on a car worth that kind of coin. BTW, just FYI, In 1964, FORD built 100 Thunderbolt fairlanes. I believe they only know the whereabouts of 69. Anyway they deleted the heater, they deleated the radio, they deleted the carpet and had a rubber mat among other things to lighten the car out of the box. They had aluminum bumpers, they eliminated the inside two headlights and had fresh ram air induction to the dual 4 BBLs. They had a special teardrop fiberglassblister hood because they had a non regular production set of heads and intake that wouldn't fit under a regular hood. The car came with a plaque in the glove compartment that disclaimed any waranty or liabillity for the car. Ford gave the 100 cars to their top 100 dealers and the dealers were told by ford to sell the cars to the local hot shoe at the local track for one dollar each. untouched out of the box, these cars ran deep into th 11 second quarter mile range. Dyno Don Nicholson prepped his car and was running 10.80s back in 1964 on crap rubber of the day. The 427 Hi-Riser put out over 500 horsepower on 427 cubic inches stock from Ford and I own one of these engines. My sign in name "TwistedCrankCammer" stands for the Single overhead Cam Hemi Ford 427 that was built to run in NASCAR but got outlawed before they ever got to compete. "Cammer" stands for the engine, and Twisted Crank stands for a forged crank. All of these motors came with a Forged Crank, and all Forged cranks were twisted in the manufacturing process back then. All cast cranks have the casting dividing line in the same place for the length of the crank, but on a forged crank, these marks are on a different location on each throw of the crank due to the twisting process of making a forged crank back then. For your information: 1779cc is roughly 275 cubic inches. What is the power output so we can compare horsepower per cubic inch. I also own a factory Ford 427 SOHC engine and I am building an aftemarket one out of aftermarket Aluminum parts. In Factory orriginal trim the single 4 BBL cammer for NASCAR made 590 horsepower out of 427 cubic inches clear back in 1964. The dual 4 BBL version made 630 horsepower out of 427 cubic inches back in 1964. You could buy these engines by ordering them at the parts counter in 1964. At 630 horsepower at 427 cubic inches that is 1.477 horsepower per cubic inch for an over the counter 1964 engine. Google it!! There is a single 4 BBL new old stock never started cammer on fordfe.com web site in the classified section on the second page right now with pictures for sale for $40,000. Ford also built the GT-40 in the 60s and sold Carol Shelbys Cobras in the 60s and I don't know anyone who wouldn't trade an Alfa, BMW, or VW for one. You can also go to Jays Garge. Jay Leno has a Cammer put down in a Cobra and has video of it on his web site, BTW, my parrents bought a brand new bug in 1969 when I was 5 and I still remember the trip to the dealership to buy it. My sister had a 1974 Super Beetle convertible, tripple white car that had 4,000 miles when she got it that she traded in on a brand new ford mustang GT convertible in 1989. She still has that car in moth balls, very low mileage. I plan on building the all aluminum cammer up and Holma Moody, the orriginal builders of the GT-40 for Ford is building brand new reproductions of the orriginal GT-40 ou of aluminum. Roger

Oldtimer, Admit it, ya don't even know what a Thunderbolt is do ya?? Just for your information, they were built in 1964 and bring over twice as much as a new 900 class BMW. Have you ever owned or driven a 900 class BMW?? Have you ever even seen one in real life?? I have. Just to see if you really even know BMWs, what does BMW stand for?? Where did they get their start?? and what does the BMW emblem stand for?? Roger

Oldtimer, Do tell about the Fed-Ex expieriences?? On another note, did you see my post to you in regaurds to your Fairlane comment?? Roger