Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • 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. My memory of these events is quite different from yours. I have run Macs exclusively since 1984. I remember the transitions from one processor family to another quite clearly. Each time (3, so far), runtime modules for older apps, those designed for the last generation/manufacturer of processors lasted only for the duration of the first OS release to support the new processor. Yes, Power PC was supported starting with OS7 and that OS would also run 68K software, but OS8 wouldn't run the older software. I bought a Power PC clone and when Jobs came back he killed the clone business and my Power Computing clone could not be upgraded to OS8. I also recall that my Neither my Power Computing machine or the Mac RISC processor machine I replaced it with would run ANY version of OSX, although IIRC, the first iteration of OSX did have the customary runtime module that allowed the new Intel machines to run G3 and G4 RISC apps, but that disappeared with the next OSX release.
  2. You are overlooking that OSX would not run on any 68K Macs, and, in fact, if my memory serves, While OS8 would run on 68K and RISC processors, OS9 would only run on the Motorola RISC processors. I hardly would call that “support”.
  3. I’ll tell you how it will affect Intel-based Macs. Apple will come out with a new version of the OS designed for the new Arm chips. It will not run on any previous Macs, but will have a “runtime module” that will run all of one’s Intel-based apps. At some point, depending on how fast the rest of the industry releases Arm-friendly version of their Mac apps, Apple will drop the compatibility module leaving owners of Intel-based Macs high and dry. Of course, Apple will never tell anyone what their plans are because they don’t want to queer sales of their about-to-be-orphaned lined of Intel-based Macs! Yeah, I’m cynical. I’ve been through this dance too many times already!
  4. Do they? I wasn't aware of that! Of course, I've not reviewed a piece of Meridian gear since then, so there would be no reason to me to know that. Thanks.
  5. Mea Culpa! I certainly forgot about that one! Reading it after all these years brought it all back You are right and I was wrong! I blame on advancing age, there sonny! I still insist that the caps in question were tantalums, because after Meridian came back and challenged me, I looked the cap's manufacturer up in a parts catalogue, and even that said that the caps in question were tantalums. But it was water under the bridge by that time. Thanks for that stroll down memory-loss lane!
  6. No, I recall it. George Tice took, what was in essence , a Radio Shack digital clock and "treated" it (cryogenically IIRC). His claim was that the treated clock, when plugged into the same breaker circuit as one's audio system, would miraculously clean-up a dirty mains supply. One of the audio societies (Boston?) took a Tice clock and the same model untreated Radio Shack clock and with a large listening group, blindly tried the audio system with nothing else plugged into the system, then with the Tice clock plugged in and then with the off-the-shelf Radio Shack clock and none of the assembled listeners heard any difference between any of the them! IOW, the clocks did nothing, either positive or negative.
  7. Someone was telling me that John Atkinson has stepped down as Editor-In-Chief at Stereophile to be replaced by Jim Austin, a long-time Contributing Editor (interesting both have the initials JA!). Someone else told me that Atkinson is in poor health and that is the reason for him stepping-down from the day-to-day running of the magazine (He will remain as Technical Editor, I understand). I certainly hope Atkinson is OK, and I hate to seem him go. He has been instrumental in making Stereophile the fine publication it is today. Anybody able to shed more light on this?
  8. I remember, many years ago, reviewing the Meridian modification of the original little Philips/Magnavox top-loading CD player, but I don't recall taking Stuart, et al, to task about their mods. In fact I don't remember even opening-up that unit. I did publish an article in Stereophile (when JGH was still at the helm) about how to improve the sound of the Magnavox FD-1000 by replacing some capacitors in the audio portion of the player with better quality polypropylene units from Wondercap or SiderialCap but that was the extent of it. Perhaps you are conflating the two, or perhaps you are confusing my review of the Meridian Player with the time I modified a pair of Acoustat hybrid electrostatic speakers by replacing their lousy 8" woofer with a much better one and then sending the speakers back to them. As a result, (even though they said that they didn't appreciate what I did) they changed the woofer they were using to the unit I replaced it with in subsequent examples.
  9. Not Again! This makes the third time that Apple has changed processors. The first was from Motorola 68K family to the Moto RISC family, and then the Moto RISC family to the Intel processors and now to In-house designed ARM processors. Each time they built runtime modules to allow new machines to run the obsoleted processors applications during the transition, but that only lasted for the first OS designed for the new processor family. The next iteration dropped support for the older processors and believe me it was a nightmare every time. If Apple wants wants Macs to be able to run iOS applications, wouldn't it make more sense to develop a virtual machine to run the iOS apps and leave the Mac line alone and retain the Intel processor family? That makes more sense to me, anyway. If you install a virtual machine (like Parallels, for instance) to allow Windows to run on Macs simultaneously with Mac OS, and to be able to share data between the two environments, It seems to me that the same thing could be done between Mac OS and and iOS.
  10. You do not need to spend an arm and a leg for a network streamer. Just find one that does what you need it to do. My advice would be to look into the Lumin U1 Mini. It's only US$2000 and supports all the major streaming protocols and even decodes MQA. I understand that performance-wise it's almost identical to Lumin's $6000 U1, which has been very well reviewed here and elsewhere but the casework is not as fancy and the power supply is not in a separate box. Remember whatever you buy you neither need nor want it to have a built-in DAC. Your Yiggi is pretty much nonpareil. There's a free Lumin application for both Android and Apple's iOS that apparently makes the the U1 and U1 Mini a joy to use. Myself, I use JRiver Media Player 24 as my server software from my Mac Mini and an Oppo UDP-205 as my interface to my stereo system (I have a Yiggy too!) I use JRIver's app for iOS to control the Oppo. It's not as sophisticated as the Lumin app (from what I have read on their website), but after a few teething problems I find that the combo of JRiver and the Oppo work very well to stream my music files from my Mac to my amp/speakers (Harman Kardon HK990 and Martin-Logan Aeon-i speakers with room correction DSP). I also have an Krell KAV-300i, but the H-K sounds better, especially with the DSP switched-in.
  11. What is interesting here (to me, anyway) is the record label: Audio Fidelity. I'd like to relate a story about them. In 1957, Westrex (the R & D laboratory of Western Electric) was experimenting with the 45/45 system of recording stereo to vinyl (the system that became the world standard and is still so today). They let record companies know that if they sent Westrex a master stereo tape copy, a stereo master disc would be cut from that tape and it would be returned to the record company along with the master tape copy. The caveat here, was that Westrex would introduce some low-level noise into the disc so that it would be useful for experimenting with the development of stereo disc replicating methodologies at the various record companies, but that the disc would not be good enough to release as a commercially available recording. The reason for the introduction of noise was that the RIAA had decided that the introduction of stereophonic records would be rolled out in the fall of, IIRC, either 1959 or 1960. Audio Fidelity, a small "audiophile" label did not abide by the Westrex restriction. The tape they sent to have mastered was a demonstration album With The Dukes of Dixieland and some bullfight music . Instead of just using that master to develop their production technique for stereo records, Audio Fidelity went into limited (500 copies IIRC) production with the disc, noise and all, and became the first record company to release a a stereo LP! That was in late 1957. By the summer of 1958, the flood gates had been opened and all the major labels in the US (I'm not sure about the UK or the rest of Europe) were producing and selling stereo versions of their records, and the major equipment manufacturers were introducing stereo amps, or adapters to allow two identical mono amps to act as a single stereo amp. New tone-arms wired for stereo were on the market and kits were available to retrofit mono arms with stereo wiring, and General Electric had released it's VR-22 variable reluctance stereo cartridge and Shure was selling it's moving-magnet M7D and Sonotone had released the 8TA4-SD ceramic stereo cartridge. Later that year Joseph Grado came out with the first moving coil stereo cartridge (which he invented). The floodgates had been pre-maturely opened by this small record company called Audio Fidelity (followed soon after by a stereo LP from another small company, Bel Canto). Over the next several years, Audio Fidelity stereo record covers were emblazoned with the words: "Doctored for Super Stereo" and were accompanied by the graphic of a hypodermic syringe. Most of these "doctored" releases were what came to be called "ping-pong" stereo to highlight the stereo effect.
  12. Now wait a minute! That is simply unbelievable (I believe the rest of the posts on this thread 😉). Fas42 can improve any system by hard-soldering the interconnects on both ends and replacing your speakers with speakers out of a Chinese-made boom-box!
  13. Because tubes get hot, I wouldn’t treat the pins with any liquid or anything like Stabilant 22A which is actually a paste that is thinned with isopropyl alcohol.
  14. Yeah, I don’tt Think contact cleaners on tube pins is a very good Idea.
  15. There is only one "contact enhancer" that has any real legitimacy. And that is Stabilant 22A. This used to be marketed by Dayton-Wright and Sumiko as "Tweek". But they no longer sell it. You can order it directly from the manufacturer, D.W. Electrochemical Company in Ontario, Canada (they have a website), or from Amazon, or you can pick up a 15ml bottle from many auto supply houses. Warning this stuff ain't cheap but that's because it's the real thing! It has a NATO stock number, a US Mil-Spec #, as well as a NASA Specification. It is used in the manufacture of cars, rockets, satellites, as well as military equipment. It works, I have actual, personal proof. My Alfa Romeo had an intermittent electronic speedometer. I would clean the contacts and reconnect the speedo and it would work for a while and then quit again. I finally, in desperation, treated the connector with Stabilant 22A. It never gave me any more trouble. I also treated the tail-light sockets with the stuff and never had any more trouble with with tail lights (older Italian cars were notorious for flakey electrics. I understand that modern ones no longer have those problems). Now, as to whether it will improve the sound of one's hifi, is another matter. RCA connectors, XLRs, and 5-way binding posts already give one a near perfect connection in that a Wheatstone bridge can't even measure the contact resistance because it's so low. NASA and the military and the US auto industry use Stabilant to insure that the electrical connections are fairly immune to failure even in high vibration environments. It will enhance marginal connections and make them reliable. No doubt of that, but whether or not they make a hifi system sound better is really not in evidence as far as I can see. I took the "Tweek Challenge" when I bought my first bottle. I "Tweeked" one channel of my system and compared it to the untreated channel. I heard nothing that I could consider a real difference (using a mono source, of course), but I continue to use it on speaker connections because I feel that they are the most vulnerable to vibrating loose. But, as Mourip pointed out, YMMV.
  • Create New...