Jump to content

gmgraves

Members
  • Content Count

    7684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gmgraves

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ain’t that the truth! People buy expensive interconnect cables and misinterpret some frequency response anomaly wrought by the ‘cable’ as an “improvement” (remember, a cable is passive, it cannot add anything to a signal, it can only subtract from the signal passing through it. If it effects a change in sound, it’s because it has altered the frequency response by attenuating some portion of the pass band).
  2. Here’s the list of the most beautiful production cars: Jaguar E-Type (61-67) Ferrari 1962 SWB Berlinetta Lusso 250 GT Dino (by Ferrari) 246 (late ‘60’s) Mercedes 300SL Gullwing Coupe Ford liked the Ghibli so much that they “copied” it (poorly) for the ‘71- ‘74 Mustang.
  3. Agreed. Tube circuits became cook-book fare decades ago...
  4. I’m not forgetting anything, Alex. Even today, there are people who buy hi-end audio as much for show as for sound (and some buy it solely for show). I was just commenting that that’s not me. I buy performance and features, and equipment that has the right combination of both of those is what constitutes “bling” and show to me.
  5. When I was a teen, my dad had a tech-rep friend who actually did have a tube amp in his trunk! He also had a Wollensak stereo tape recorder shock-mounted on the center console of his Oldsmobile. He played the tape recorder through the tube amp. It was the first car stereo I ever saw/heard! The amp was, as I recall, something that he built using a vibrator out of a car radio to chop the battery’s DC to operate the power transformer for the tubes’ plate voltage. The output tubes looked like 6V6s to me, so the output was probably 10 - 12 Watts/channel. Plenty in those days.
  6. 3500 GT with Superleggera Touring Body. Had a bright yellow one. Didn’t cost me as much as that turntable though. Bought a ‘59 for $27K in ‘83. The early ones (like mine) are desirable because they had three two-barrel Weber carburetors (42 DCOE). The later ones should be avoided like the plague. They have Lucas mechanical fuel injection; unreliable, troublesome, and there are no replacement parts - the automotive triple threat. Webers, OTOH, can always be rebuilt! Alas, I sold it because I decided that I wanted a Lamborghini Espada. Can’t imagine now what I was thinking then. When I drove the red one that I wanted to buy, I hated it. It was big and heavy and while cruising at 150 on the Autostrada in Italy with four adults on board, it was probably a very stable platform, but on Santa Cruz Mountain roads, it handled like a rhinoceros on a wet mud bank! Needless to say, I passed on the Lambo. Good thing too. To have kept it running, I would have had to have John D. Rockefeller as a radiator cap!
  7. It is gorgeous, and I’ll bet it sounds good as well. As much as a new Maserati GT though? I dunno about that.
  8. Sure, but you are paying for “bling”. That will appeal to some, sure, but there are plenty of more than decent tubed 40 WPC amps out there for a lot less expensive than this piece of audio jewelry (Prima Luna, for instance - less than half what this thing costs). If one wants the bling, go ahead, but you’re not paying for amplifier, you’re paying for styling. Me? I’d rather pay for performance. I’m not a fan of Dan D’agostino’s stuff for the same reason. 70% of the cost is that, admittedly gorgeous casework, but I don’t want to pay for it! That’s one reason why I’m such a fan of Schiit gear (if not the name). The casework, while handsome in a “test equipment-ey” way, is serviceable but definitely not expensive but the gear is definitely high-end performance-wise. Another is Audio by Van Alstine. Good performance, bargain basement styling. You get the performance without the bling. Or, one can buy Chinese. The Yaqin MC-100 tube amp is powerful, a double mono design (two power transformers), and is gorgeous (sounds good too)!
  9. I realize that in small quantities, parts are very expensive. But that’s really beside the point. Nothing about that design makes it WORTH $12 grand! Now, a millionaire might look at that price tag, think of it as chump change, shrug their shoulders, and PAY it. That’s the privilege of the rich. OTOH, that doesn’t mean that the unit represent’s good value for money spent. It just means that the rich buyer has so much money that he doesn’t care. But this attitude that manufacturers of audio equipment have that they will build stuff that is only affordable by the rich, is one of the main things that’s wrong with our hobby today. It’s the primary reason that we are an interest of middle-aged men or older (mostly). Youngsters look at the prices, see that the value for money spent isn’t there, and decide “who needs it?”
  10. Maybe, but the OP’s point was well taken. Such a device represents very poor value.
  11. It’s been a long time, but I seem to recall that the. Kernel of OS X was the one used in the NeXT computer. NeXT was BSD UNIX. One thing that the UNIX core of OS X does is make the system bulletproof. While the Mac interface is logical, fun to use, and robust, what makes it really powerful is the easy access to the CLI.
  12. Still, I simply don’t see $12K in that design. Maybe $1.2k, but not 12K.
  13. The latter is what it looks like to me...
  14. I feel that way about Mac OS X. It’s UNIX with the slickest of GUIs on top. And the Command Line is just a click away if you want or need it!
×
×
  • Create New...