| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Minderbinder wrote:
...snip, snip, snip.. Yes, that's right, it is. A few times in the thread I said "The fact remains I could get a soundcard that did what I wanted ('louder, please') in 1999, and I can't now." No one, not one single responder, has been able to refute that. They call me names, they tell me to buy wall warts, they tell me my needs are eccentric (volume is eccentric?), they tell me I'm trolling, they tell me to **** off, but no one can deny that one simple fact. It stands. I think this paragraph is representative of various problems with mrbog's written style. Consider: 1. Rather than putting forward a neutral question, mrbog makes a strong assumption, which he then expects people to "refute". The tone is hostile and aggressive, and therefore invites challenges rather than helpful responses and follow-up questions. I've followed the whole thread and don't have a clue what mrbog's age might be ....but have a feeling he reflects a modern trend of confrontation. In example: A vendor recently updated it's web page and it now crashes my (rather old) browser. So I sent a note to the webmaster to alert them. Here are snips from the response: Me ...I'd rather browse with 4.5. That is fine and dandy but 4.5 is years old now, and there are much more browser advancements that have been made that you need to be taken advantage of. [Like I "need to be taken advantage of." OK, I'll write that off to not proof reading... ] --- --- Me ...running windows 98se. Ummm you probably would spend a lot less time writing messages like this if you could use a version of winder$ that is at least less then 6 years old. :-) --- --- Anyway, the tone was a bit less than professional. Now take that tone over to usenet and ...well, we get the mrbog thread. Now, oddly this thread has remained on topic; hope I don't sway that trend. ;-) Later... Ron Capik cynic in training -- |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TonyP" wrote in message . au...
If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining? TonyP. See my original post for the answer to the above question. (I wonder if Hamaker will somehow accuse me of trolling for this response too.) |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:DsTqd.3915$Hk6.3667@trnddc05...
My girlfriend's Ipod headphones are just as inadequately loud as my sony's. ****ty sound. I have never had any trouble getting adequate, approaching deafening, loudness from today's sound cards using a wide variety of headphones, including some relatively insensitive high-end phones. Since it seems we have finally ruled out your use of insensitive headphones (after much gnashing of teeth), I guess we must assume something else is at fault. Here are some things that come to mind: 1. You like your audio dangerously loud. 2. Your hearing is impaired, possibly due to #1 above (no offense -- we must cover the possibilities). 3. Your source material is recorded unusually low (i.e., not to standard). 4. Your system is somehow misconfigured. You don't say which audio source is too low (CD, DVD, MP3, WAV, Synth, other, or all). The more recent versions of Windows Media Player can be set to reduce the dynamic range of DVDs, so soft passages aren't as soft (or maybe louder passages aren't as loud, or both). So that might or might not help, I don't know. On a Windows XP system, you might want to go to Control Panel / Sounds and Audio Devices / Volume / Advanced. On the Volume Control dialog, make sure all the sliders are all the way up. Also, check Options / Properties to make sure the device you're trying to control is being displayed, and that it's volume is all the way up. Then gingerly try your headphones again. You might want to start with the master volume all the way down to avoid nasty surprises. My apologies if you have already tried this, or if this has already been suggested. It's a long thread, I might have missed it. If your hearing has been impaired, you fall into the "special needs" category, and you might indeed require external amplification. I know this has been discussed to death, but that might involve the use of a wall wart. If you are honestly concerned about the stand-by power consumption, you can plug it into a switched power strip and turn it on only when you are using it. I'm afraid it's the standard way these things are done these days. The vast majority of consumers are fine with it, which is why few alternatives exist. As I mentioned in a previous post, consumers vote with their dollars, and evidently the 4x output didn't get enough votes. Finally, you could have an electronics hobbyist or electronics technician increase the gain of your sound card. It's relatively simple for someone with a schematic (or someone who is a good guesser) that knows their electronics and knows how to solder surface mount parts. Anyway, if none of this helps, I really don't think anyone here can help you. Anyway, good luck. Thanks for going to the trouble to write that, but yea, it's all unfortunately either been suggested before or ruled out. An my hearing is above average.. What I've been through in trying to find an adequate soundcard has been a long struggle. Ever since I got win2k, in 2000, (and then later XP) I've been trying to get a louder soundcard. I've bought 4, all of which I either returned, resold, or are sitting in my closet. They're all not loud enough. Maybe for "easy-listening" old people, these are loud enough. My music demands volume, and on that point I know I'm not alone. I could hire a technition I guess. But what does that say about modern soundcard that I have to hire a guy just to get what I had in 99 for $30? And that's my point. Which is apparently very illogical because I'm getting flamed for it, and even called a troll for it. But no one can directly refute it. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
I could hire a technition I guess. But what does that say about
modern soundcard that I have to hire a guy just to get what I had in 99 for $30? And that's my point. Which is apparently very illogical because I'm getting flamed for it, and even called a troll for it. What it says, I'm afraid, is that the market has moved on. The cards made today actually have superior performance over what was available in '99, and they have other features that are more in demand, and dropped features that are less in demand. All engineering is a compromise. Most specifications and product requirements are in some kind of conflict, be it price, available space, noise, distortion, gain, frequency response, etc. Not every consumer cares about every feature, but the designers and engineers have to weigh one against the other, and produce a product that will make them money (or at least, not lose money in the case of a lot of computer hardware). So you are now faced with a dilemma: Either live with the low sound levels, or use one of the less appealing solutions that are fairly inexpensively available. The response to your post might have been less objectionable if you had written the subject line in a way that no one could possibly argue with: "My favorite PC soundcard was made in 1999". It is a simple, indisputable statement of fact. Of course, the solutions offered wouldn't have been any different, because there aren't any others. I don't suppose it will make you feel any better, but as an audiophile, I really prefer the straigtforward stereo amplifiers/receivers (with phono preamps) that were built in the '70s and '80s. I care not a fig for 5.1 or 6.1 or 3.14 surround, or whatever gimmick it is these days. I don't need a control panel that makes the space shuttle look puny. I guess you could say that I think the best stereos were built before 1980 (by Heathkit and me). Sure, there are still a few 2-channel receivers out there, but the selection is much smaller now than it was then, and frankly, I can't afford the ones I like, and I don't like the ones I can afford. Fortunately, my Heathkit is still working fine, and it's still compatible with most source equipment (for the time being), so I'm not SOL just yet. YMMV with computer technology. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minderbinder wrote in message .. .
*sigh* In an attempt to bring some closure to this thread, I'm going to assume that mrbog is not, in fact, trolling and deliberately insulting everyone (difficult as it may be to believe) - and therefore, will attempt to summarise things as objectively as I can. If we assume that mrbog is seriously attempting to solve a problem both politely and logically, I can identify a few things which have very likely led to the giant flame war that has resulted. Minderbinder, I hope I can at least clear up something right here from the start: I am in fact NOT "seriously attempting to solve a problem both politely and logically". There's no typo there, I mean exactly that! That's not what I'm trying to do! I am also NOT trolling. You see, there's a different, valid reason, to post what I did, and follow up as the thread progressed. The purpose of my post is as follows: The primary reason for my post is to point out that the present selection of soundcards is fundamentally flawed. Soundcards are too quiet. Now notice- that's neither "trying to solve me problem", NOR is it "trolling". I feel as though this is a discussion that needs to happen. My assertion, repeated again and again is that my very simple demand "volume" has been left in the lurch and I'm forced to either get a wallwart or an electrician. I still maintain that that IS A GOOD POINT THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE. And further, has not been adequately refuted. The purpose of newsgroups isn't purely question and answer. It's also discussion of the industry, where are we headed? is it a good idea? (Now don't respond and tell me that I just said that newsgroupd are NOT for question-answer, because that's not what I just said, read it.) The secondary reason is to try and solve my problem. Secondary. I didn't, and ultimately don't think my problem will be solved. But I want to tell you- a couple times here I thought we almost had it. I looked into every offered solution with the hopes that my years long "struggle" would be over. But unfortunately it didn't work out. You're going to nitpick on polite sugar coating, and all I have to say to that is, people aren't angry at HOW I said what I did, they're angry at hearing that their advice was flawed. And that the soundcard of today may be lacking in an essential feature. Yes, that's right, it is. A few times in the thread I said "The fact remains I could get a soundcard that did what I wanted ('louder, please') in 1999, and I can't now." No one, not one single responder, has been able to refute that. They call me names, they tell me to buy wall warts, they tell me my needs are eccentric (volume is eccentric?), they tell me I'm trolling, they tell me to **** off, but no one can deny that one simple fact. It stands. I think this paragraph is representative of various problems with mrbog's written style. Consider: 1. Rather than putting forward a neutral question, mrbog makes a strong assumption, which he then expects people to "refute". The tone is hostile and aggressive, and therefore invites challenges rather than helpful responses and follow-up questions. What "assumption" did I put forth in that paragraph? Be specific, otherwise it's empty statement. 2. mrbog repeatedly insists that his opinions are "facts", implying that his statements are based on objective measurements, rather than subjective, personal preference and experience. By extension, the belief that the best soundcards were _not_ made in 1999, or that current soundcards are loud enough, is akin to believing that the sky is green. Be specific. Which of my opinions did I claim are facts. Your statement is empty if it's not employing references. (Wallwarts wasting power isn't opinion, go reach over begind you PC and touch an AC adapter, it's warm when the device is not in used. case closed. that's not an opinion.) This is the dumbest thing you said in your otherwise thorough response. So you're saying my problem is I'm not dumb eough to be happy about plugging an ac adapter into my wall?? One estimate stated that 5% of all power consumption in the US is from appliances that are turned OFF and the AC adapters are still sucking. Do you call that a "power nuance"? I read your paragraph three times I don't understand where you're going with that. Immediately classifying any response that doesn't match your own opinion as "wrong" or "dumb" is extremely rude. If somebody tries to offer an explanation, even if it is incorrect due to some oversight or mistake, it is extremely rude and hostile bluntly to say "you're wrong". I'm pretty sure this would be considered unacceptable and anti-social if you said it to somebody's face, even bearing in mind the rather direct, confrontational nature of American English. Nope, I don't agree at all. If someone says the sky is red, I can't say "you're wrong, it's blue", just because that would be "rude"??? If that's the length you want people to go to, to meet your behavior standard, then you're going to far. You want argument without argumentative? As I said to Amy, "Should I pretend that the advice is good advice just because it's free?" And THAT is a metaphor for this entire thread. A more polite strategy would be to say something like, "I have to disagree with point X, because of [give evidence]. Can you suggest something else, that might work in this case?". It's perfectly natural for people to get angry when their suggestions are dismissed as "wrong", without even a reference to some objective evidence. That's out of context. You strategically didn't include what Amy had said. Everyone, look at what Amy said in that post that I was responding to, then come back and tell me I was in appropriate. 1. Following up a short expression of gratitude, "thanks", with "you're wrong and don't have a solution" probably won't be taken positively. OK right here, you lost me. We're on different planets. You're making yourself look like the type of person that, every time someone says "no", he says "well that's not very positive". Look, sometimes the answer is NO. Ho do I tell you you're wrong without telling you your wrong? It's absurd. This thread is people attacking the messenger and the phrasing of the message, but not the content of it. You just don't like hearing that someone with simple demands could be left in the lurch by modern soundcards. It must be mrbog's fault. He must be either eccentric, or rude. Similarly, the "thanks" was also qualified with a condescending "at least you tried", as if you were in some kind of superior position, offering encouragement to the intellectually feeble. ????? Now you're like the person who gets mad when someone says "have a nice day" because he thinks everyone's sarcastic. Look it's clear that you read my post with a red visor over your mental eyes. Surely if I'm disagreeing I must be a sarcastic asshole, that's the only logical explanation for me saying "thanks" and "at least you tried". I'm sure now that I'm not the one with the problem here. 2. I know what I said about power bricks. I don't need to be reminded. Similarly, It's sufficient to say "unfortunately, the Extigy requires a power brick" for me to realise my mistake. I don't need you to go to the extra effort of saying "I guess you didn't know that". Again, you seem to delight in pointing out the mistakes of others. We're in la-la land- you interpret the absolutely plain phrase "I guess you didn't know that" to be "delight". Come on man. You're sounding like a "spin doctor" after a debate. 3. Actually, I do know a fair bit about connecting computer and consumer audio equipment, and have years of industry (and hobby) experience with PC hardware of all kinds. There's good reason to ask whether you intend to connect passive speakers, an external amplifier, headphones or whatever. You nevertheless claim that you made your needs perfectly clear, dismissing as nonsense all requests for clarification. Actually, if you had said from the start that you were getting insufficient output to drive a pair of headphones, we could quickly have narrowed the problem down to your current card, rather than post-1999 cards in general. Almost any card currently on the market generates sufficient power to drive a set of headphones. Yea, actually, I've bought 4 cards trying to solve this problem. I've also tried multiple pairs of headphones. And to your point that it matters whether I was using headphones or external speakers- I have yet to see an explanation of why that matters. A practical explanation. Having that information hasn't seemed to help or hurt anything here. 4. You didn't specify a budget in your original post. Looking at the thread in general, you have been very stingy with the details of what your actual needs are. Thus, many posters have made reasonable suggestions, only to be ambushed by requirements that they had no way of knowing about. Nope, my reaons for pointing out the price issues are not to add a requirement to my problem (and it's solution), but rather toward the primary purpose of my post. To point out that soundcards now are lacking in key areas. They "ain't what they used to be" when it comes to volume. If I have to pay 3 times as much in 2004 for what I could get in 99, then whether or not I have the cash is irrelevant- the point is, the industries going the wrong direction (in regards to that one key issue). Since I've gone this far, I thought I may as well have a go at re-writing mrbog's original message in a way that I think would be much more likely to draw useful responses: I read your example post, and it sounded familiar.  I'm gonnathrow you a curveball here, my friend: http://tinyurl.com/4bs92 http://tinyurl.com/5dgmu BTW, I even TOOK some of the advices in the responses and ended up returing soundcards! After 3 years I've figured out that "it ain't me". Finally I have to say there's a bit of irony here. You write a post detailing the nuances of politeness, and you're the same guy that wrote this post a week ago, featuring "Knobhead", "Flying ****", and "lazy whinger": http://tinyurl.com/5b3nc Oh yea, I'm going to take tact advice from you. Your not exactly Emily Post. Three words for you: Pot, Kettle, Black. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
I myself prefer that the soundcards do NOT have amplifiers built in.
Why? Because they are generally low quality 1 watt or less amps. As the output approaches the limit of the amp, you have nothing but distortion. The peak voltages present during distortion can easily ruin the best speakers made. I prefer a optical or digital coaxial output fed into a high quality amp of 200 watts RMS minimum per speaker. You can kiss your old card powered two channel soundcard goodbye. Those days are over. Also realize that if someone did decide to make a card with the amp built in like you want, it may not need a wall wart to power it but you can be assured that it will draw the same power via the bus it's plugged into. Do you really think that the cards of 1999 did not need power to run the onboard amps? Welcome to modern days. Instead of the computers power supply providing the power needed, the wall wart does it! Sure, you could move the amp inside most cheap speakers back on to the sound card. What would you gain?? The sound card itself would now require that much more power. So now say the half amp of power that the wall wart was using is no longer needed but guess what? The computers power supply has to deliver that same amount of current. So where are the savings? None that I can see. Maybe the fact that the no longer needed wall wart will no longer occupy an outlet in your power strip? Simplicity wise, yes the older soundcards were great! Plug in the speakers and go. I had many that had built in amps. The later ones all had jumpers that would route the line out to the jacks instead of the cards built in amp. Anyhow, this is my take on the situation here. "mrbog" wrote in message om... Minderbinder wrote in message .. . *sigh* In an attempt to bring some closure to this thread, I'm going to assume that mrbog is not, in fact, trolling and deliberately insulting everyone (difficult as it may be to believe) - and therefore, will attempt to summarise things as objectively as I can. If we assume that mrbog is seriously attempting to solve a problem both politely and logically, I can identify a few things which have very likely led to the giant flame war that has resulted. Minderbinder, I hope I can at least clear up something right here from the start: I am in fact NOT "seriously attempting to solve a problem both politely and logically". There's no typo there, I mean exactly that! That's not what I'm trying to do! I am also NOT trolling. You see, there's a different, valid reason, to post what I did, and follow up as the thread progressed. The purpose of my post is as follows: The primary reason for my post is to point out that the present selection of soundcards is fundamentally flawed. Soundcards are too quiet. Now notice- that's neither "trying to solve me problem", NOR is it "trolling". I feel as though this is a discussion that needs to happen. My assertion, repeated again and again is that my very simple demand "volume" has been left in the lurch and I'm forced to either get a wallwart or an electrician. I still maintain that that IS A GOOD POINT THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE. And further, has not been adequately refuted. The purpose of newsgroups isn't purely question and answer. It's also discussion of the industry, where are we headed? is it a good idea? (Now don't respond and tell me that I just said that newsgroupd are NOT for question-answer, because that's not what I just said, read it.) The secondary reason is to try and solve my problem. Secondary. I didn't, and ultimately don't think my problem will be solved. But I want to tell you- a couple times here I thought we almost had it. I looked into every offered solution with the hopes that my years long "struggle" would be over. But unfortunately it didn't work out. You're going to nitpick on polite sugar coating, and all I have to say to that is, people aren't angry at HOW I said what I did, they're angry at hearing that their advice was flawed. And that the soundcard of today may be lacking in an essential feature. Yes, that's right, it is. A few times in the thread I said "The fact remains I could get a soundcard that did what I wanted ('louder, please') in 1999, and I can't now." No one, not one single responder, has been able to refute that. They call me names, they tell me to buy wall warts, they tell me my needs are eccentric (volume is eccentric?), they tell me I'm trolling, they tell me to **** off, but no one can deny that one simple fact. It stands. I think this paragraph is representative of various problems with mrbog's written style. Consider: 1. Rather than putting forward a neutral question, mrbog makes a strong assumption, which he then expects people to "refute". The tone is hostile and aggressive, and therefore invites challenges rather than helpful responses and follow-up questions. What "assumption" did I put forth in that paragraph? Be specific, otherwise it's empty statement. 2. mrbog repeatedly insists that his opinions are "facts", implying that his statements are based on objective measurements, rather than subjective, personal preference and experience. By extension, the belief that the best soundcards were _not_ made in 1999, or that current soundcards are loud enough, is akin to believing that the sky is green. Be specific. Which of my opinions did I claim are facts. Your statement is empty if it's not employing references. (Wallwarts wasting power isn't opinion, go reach over begind you PC and touch an AC adapter, it's warm when the device is not in used. case closed. that's not an opinion.) This is the dumbest thing you said in your otherwise thorough response. So you're saying my problem is I'm not dumb eough to be happy about plugging an ac adapter into my wall?? One estimate stated that 5% of all power consumption in the US is from appliances that are turned OFF and the AC adapters are still sucking. Do you call that a "power nuance"? I read your paragraph three times I don't understand where you're going with that. Immediately classifying any response that doesn't match your own opinion as "wrong" or "dumb" is extremely rude. If somebody tries to offer an explanation, even if it is incorrect due to some oversight or mistake, it is extremely rude and hostile bluntly to say "you're wrong". I'm pretty sure this would be considered unacceptable and anti-social if you said it to somebody's face, even bearing in mind the rather direct, confrontational nature of American English. Nope, I don't agree at all. If someone says the sky is red, I can't say "you're wrong, it's blue", just because that would be "rude"??? If that's the length you want people to go to, to meet your behavior standard, then you're going to far. You want argument without argumentative? As I said to Amy, "Should I pretend that the advice is good advice just because it's free?" And THAT is a metaphor for this entire thread. A more polite strategy would be to say something like, "I have to disagree with point X, because of [give evidence]. Can you suggest something else, that might work in this case?". It's perfectly natural for people to get angry when their suggestions are dismissed as "wrong", without even a reference to some objective evidence. That's out of context. You strategically didn't include what Amy had said. Everyone, look at what Amy said in that post that I was responding to, then come back and tell me I was in appropriate. 1. Following up a short expression of gratitude, "thanks", with "you're wrong and don't have a solution" probably won't be taken positively. OK right here, you lost me. We're on different planets. You're making yourself look like the type of person that, every time someone says "no", he says "well that's not very positive". Look, sometimes the answer is NO. Ho do I tell you you're wrong without telling you your wrong? It's absurd. This thread is people attacking the messenger and the phrasing of the message, but not the content of it. You just don't like hearing that someone with simple demands could be left in the lurch by modern soundcards. It must be mrbog's fault. He must be either eccentric, or rude. Similarly, the "thanks" was also qualified with a condescending "at least you tried", as if you were in some kind of superior position, offering encouragement to the intellectually feeble. ????? Now you're like the person who gets mad when someone says "have a nice day" because he thinks everyone's sarcastic. Look it's clear that you read my post with a red visor over your mental eyes. Surely if I'm disagreeing I must be a sarcastic asshole, that's the only logical explanation for me saying "thanks" and "at least you tried". I'm sure now that I'm not the one with the problem here. 2. I know what I said about power bricks. I don't need to be reminded. Similarly, It's sufficient to say "unfortunately, the Extigy requires a power brick" for me to realise my mistake. I don't need you to go to the extra effort of saying "I guess you didn't know that". Again, you seem to delight in pointing out the mistakes of others. We're in la-la land- you interpret the absolutely plain phrase "I guess you didn't know that" to be "delight". Come on man. You're sounding like a "spin doctor" after a debate. 3. Actually, I do know a fair bit about connecting computer and consumer audio equipment, and have years of industry (and hobby) experience with PC hardware of all kinds. There's good reason to ask whether you intend to connect passive speakers, an external amplifier, headphones or whatever. You nevertheless claim that you made your needs perfectly clear, dismissing as nonsense all requests for clarification. Actually, if you had said from the start that you were getting insufficient output to drive a pair of headphones, we could quickly have narrowed the problem down to your current card, rather than post-1999 cards in general. Almost any card currently on the market generates sufficient power to drive a set of headphones. Yea, actually, I've bought 4 cards trying to solve this problem. I've also tried multiple pairs of headphones. And to your point that it matters whether I was using headphones or external speakers- I have yet to see an explanation of why that matters. A practical explanation. Having that information hasn't seemed to help or hurt anything here. 4. You didn't specify a budget in your original post. Looking at the thread in general, you have been very stingy with the details of what your actual needs are. Thus, many posters have made reasonable suggestions, only to be ambushed by requirements that they had no way of knowing about. Nope, my reaons for pointing out the price issues are not to add a requirement to my problem (and it's solution), but rather toward the primary purpose of my post. To point out that soundcards now are lacking in key areas. They "ain't what they used to be" when it comes to volume. If I have to pay 3 times as much in 2004 for what I could get in 99, then whether or not I have the cash is irrelevant- the point is, the industries going the wrong direction (in regards to that one key issue). Since I've gone this far, I thought I may as well have a go at re-writing mrbog's original message in a way that I think would be much more likely to draw useful responses: I read your example post, and it sounded familiar. I'm gonnathrow you a curveball here, my friend: http://tinyurl.com/4bs92 http://tinyurl.com/5dgmu BTW, I even TOOK some of the advices in the responses and ended up returing soundcards! After 3 years I've figured out that "it ain't me". Finally I have to say there's a bit of irony here. You write a post detailing the nuances of politeness, and you're the same guy that wrote this post a week ago, featuring "Knobhead", "Flying ****", and "lazy whinger": http://tinyurl.com/5b3nc Oh yea, I'm going to take tact advice from you. Your not exactly Emily Post. Three words for you: Pot, Kettle, Black. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ralph" wrote in message ... Welcome to modern days. Instead of the computers power supply providing the power needed, the wall wart does it! Sure, you could move the amp inside most cheap speakers back on to the sound card. What would you gain?? The sound card itself would now require that much more power. So now say the half amp of power that the wall wart was using is no longer needed but guess what? The computers power supply has to deliver that same amount of current. So where are the savings? None that I can see. Maybe the fact that the no longer needed wall wart will no longer occupy an outlet in your power strip? You have still missed the main reason why power amps were removed from soundcards. The extra current on the card increased the noise and distortion for all outputs, including line out. You will not find ANY card with an inbuilt power amp that remotely approaches the performance of the better soundcards available today. TonyP. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mrbog" wrote in message m... "TonyP" wrote in message . au... If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining? See my original post for the answer to the above question. In other words you can't answer so you snipped the context. It's not the best card ever made if you no longer choose to use it. Many others still do. What your looking for is a *better* soundcard, like most of the current ones, but with an onboard power amp. TonyP. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:eWdrd.16000$%C6.15300@trnddc02... I don't suppose it will make you feel any better, but as an audiophile, I really prefer the straigtforward stereo amplifiers/receivers (with phono preamps) that were built in the '70s and '80s. I care not a fig for 5.1 or 6.1 or 3.14 surround, or whatever gimmick it is these days. I don't need a control panel that makes the space shuttle look puny. I guess you could say that I think the best stereos were built before 1980 (by Heathkit and me). Sure, there are still a few 2-channel receivers out there, but the selection is much smaller now than it was then, and frankly, I can't afford the ones I like, and I don't like the ones I can afford. Fortunately, my Heathkit is still working fine, and it's still compatible with most source equipment (for the time being), so I'm not SOL just yet. YMMV with computer technology. Actually there are much better stereo amps being made now at most price points. I measured a Chinese 80W per channel amp selling for $100 US, and it comprehensively outperformed any amplifier I tested in the 70's or 80's for twice that much, not even allowing for inflation. Even the metal case and PCB quality was superior. The only thing missing now is an RIAA pre-amp. You can now buy a 400W per channel stereo power amp for around $300 US. Try doing that in the 70's. Now compare wages! :-) I will admit there is some real crap available at even greater prices for the uninitiated. TonyP. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:25:12 -0800, mrbog wrote:
Oh yea, I'm going to take tact advice from you. Your not exactly Emily Post. Three words for you: Pot, Kettle, Black. Ahaha... Looks like my first impressions were right after all. Noooo mrbog, I'm not going to follow your tinyurl links (which are usually used by lamers to diguise their links to goatse.cx). You see, the difference between you and me is that if I find out that somebody is a cocksucker who persistently sticks to his stupid dogma, and will admit no argument, then I have no reservations telling him just how stupid I consider him to be. I don't start out a thread by abusing everyone on the forum and making long, whinging rants with the aim of "stimulating discussion" (trolling for arguments). Or did you perhaps think that some electrical engineer would read your rant and think "mrbog is on to something - and makes his point so eloquently" - and then build a special audio card just for you? AhahahahahahHAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Haaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Hehe... hehe... heh. Oh boy, you're a card. Do you really think that the fact that you've received so many hostile responses is because all these people are blinded by the sheer brilliance of your logic - thus causing their feeble brains to revolt against the One Truth? No, mrbog - it's because you're a rude trolling lamer who is incapable of taking two sides of an argument into consideration. My general impression of the thread is that several people have made good points and offered plausible explanations for the decline of amplified sound cards - and rather than discuss these points and give them the consideration they deserve, you respond with blunt refusals. Since you seem unwilling, or unable to express yourself clearly (of which you seem unaware - or at least unwilling to admit) and in a way that promotes rational discussion, the problem just gets worse. Rather than attack your right to free speech, I suggest that your ranting belongs in a weblog, where the general public can easily choose to visit or not as they please - rather than hurling it into a discussion forum (where your views seem to be universally unpopular) like so much mud thrown at the neighbour's clean sheets. At any rate, this thread is getting tiresomely repetitive. There is no discussion, just bull**** - and yes, it is your fault. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TonyP" wrote in message
u... "mrbog" wrote in message m... "TonyP" wrote in message . au... If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining? See my original post for the answer to the above question. In other words you can't answer so you snipped the context. It's not the best card ever made if you no longer choose to use it. Many others still do. What your looking for is a *better* soundcard, like most of the current ones, but with an onboard power amp. TonyP. If nine out of ten people tell you that "your full of ****", a logical person should be able to consider that it is possible he is. -- They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Jetson" wrote in message ... If nine out of ten people tell you that "your full of ****", a logical person should be able to consider that it is possible he is. Yes and a lot more than that have said that already to Mr Bog. However 9 out of 10 people once thought the earth was flat too, so that's no proof of anything really. TonyP. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:01:06 +1100, TonyP wrote:
"George Jetson" wrote in message ... If nine out of ten people tell you that "your full of ****", a logical person should be able to consider that it is possible he is. Yes and a lot more than that have said that already to Mr Bog. However 9 out of 10 people once thought the earth was flat too, so that's no proof of anything really. If Stephen Hawking tells me the universe is finite, and surrounded by a thin crispy shell of delicious chocolate, I might disagree with him, but I won't immediately shout "YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID!" either. If someone with his background is saying it, it might be worth giving it some thought first. I don't think George made any claims of "proof". I'm well prepared to consider the possibility that mrbog is both trolling and full of ****. In fact, it looks like a very high probability. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Minderbinder" wrote in message news  On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:01:06 +1100, TonyP wrote: "George Jetson" wrote in message ... If nine out of ten people tell you that "your full of ****", a logical person should be able to consider that it is possible he is. Yes and a lot more than that have said that already to Mr Bog. However 9 out of 10 people once thought the earth was flat too, so that's no proof of anything really. If Stephen Hawking tells me the universe is finite, and surrounded by a thin crispy shell of delicious chocolate, I might disagree with him, but I won't immediately shout "YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID!" either. If someone with his background is saying it, it might be worth giving it some thought first. I don't think George made any claims of "proof". Agreed, I was just pointing that out. I'm well prepared to consider the possibility that mrbog is both trolling and full of ****. In fact, it looks like a very high probability. Agreed. Or maybe he's just stupid and stubborn. Who knows, who cares. TonyP. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message . ..
It is however being a ludicrously self-centred asshole............ The reason I'm a "ludicrously self-centred asshole" is because I posted a topic for discussion rather than an "ask the experts" style post? Switch it off, asshole. What *you* want would be wasting power *all* the time the PC is powered up, and for *all* those people who don't ever need the power that you do. The alternative, wallwarts, waste MORE power ALL the time. You just factually lose there, it's black and white. (And notice, I'm the one who threw out "asshole" first here. I've been one of the adults on this thread, not one of the children.) Rude and dumb, I'd say. Stop whining and buy a headphone amp. Battery waste. Wallwarts. You really don't get that by now? You just can't see past your own *very peculiar* needs, can you? I bet you were one of those classic whining kids, always demanding candy at the supermarket checkout. My "very peculiar needs"? My peculiar need is "More volume without excessively wasting power". Oh yea, that's so peculiar, I'm so bizarre and twisted for wanting that. It ain't gonna happen, so live with it. For once, we agree. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TonyP" wrote in message . au...
You have still missed the main reason why power amps were removed from soundcards. The extra current on the card increased the noise and distortion for all outputs, including line out. You will not find ANY card with an inbuilt power amp that remotely approaches the performance of the better soundcards available today. TonyP. Nor do I WANT a card that approaches the "performance" of the "better soundcards available today". Only audiophiles care about that miniscule difference. I was PERFECTLY happy with my 1999 soundcard. And all I wanted was a little more volume without wasting a LOT more power. It's that simple. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TonyP" wrote in message . au...
"mrbog" wrote in message m... "TonyP" wrote in message . au... If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining? See my original post for the answer to the above question. In other words you can't answer so you snipped the context. It's not the best card ever made if you no longer choose to use it. Many others still do. What your looking for is a *better* soundcard, like most of the current ones, but with an onboard power amp. TonyP. You know I was going to let this string in the thread go without comment, but your post is just so feeble I can't let it go. You asked "If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining?" I said "See my original post for the answer to the above question." My original post says: "Now, you can't. Even if you use a pci soundblaster card circa 2001 that does have the amped out, you still can't use the amp port on it because windows drivers don't support it." And you're really telling me my response was somehow just an attempt to bail out of your context?? I know everyone likes to pile on here, but come on. Let's not lose rationality in our hatred of ole mrbog. |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Dave Hamaker) wrote in message .com...
Can't think of any at this point. From all your previous actions in this thread, there's little doubt you are either a troll or a zealot. I must be a zealot! I'll take that label. Oh wait, unless that's an established internet term that I don't know about. If you're going by the dictionary, then hell yea, I'm a zealot about this. When most of the industry is wrong and you're right, isn't the right thing to do to become a zealot? I do not have an opinion about wallwart waste. My observations in that area are simply that it appears that practically nobody seems to share your hissy fit over it. http://dataweek.co.za/news.asp?pklNe...ategory ID=46 Also search for a New York Times article, it was on the cover of the circuits section earlier this year, I believe. Also see some of the posts on this thread AGREEING WITH ME (shocking!) about how ****ty wall warts are. It's not like you made a post and got 65 responses to it. Rather, you kept doing things that have kept them coming and coming. We do agree about that. What I did to make them keep coming is respond to flatly wrong and/or illogical statments. And respond to questions directed at me (I supposed you're going to say I'm trolling when I respond to someone's question?). And thanking people for their suggestions while also telling them why the suggestion won't work. Is that trolling? I know the net is international.. And I think we're butting up against the same point of contention, you say my position is to "degrade the performance for everyone who does care". Nope. Don't put words in my mouth. I said something about your rights where they deem to impinge on the rights of others. I'm impinging on other's rights? how? wanting a louder soundcard? Since the 1999 soundcards you refer to (the SBLive had already shipped over 1 million cards in early 1999, and had no 4x out) SNR has improved by 10's of decibels, not millionths. Look, I'm not an audio expert. Have I mentioned. To me, soundcards haven't improved by 10' of decibels, they've degraded by decibels. Literally, they're quieter. All I wants a bit more volume. Lots of available products use wallwarts. That proves, by the same kind of logic you use to prove your headphones are not to blame, that wallwarts are not to blame. It's too easy a problem to solve, and a simple cost that goes along with updating your hardware and/or OS, unless you are a zealot who feels deprived. I don't follow your logic here. I'm honestly sorry, maybe it's me, I'm reading it over and over and I'm not getting it. (seriously it could be me, I just don't follow what you're saying). Nobody has to use a wallwart for this. I suggest buying a pair of Radio Shack Pro-35 headphones on sale. Why? I need to buy special super-sensitive headphones in order to get decent volume? That's improvement? Look, you have to look at this as painting two pictures of the world.... That's the realm of "mere opinion" that I'm trying to avoid. This debate is hardly likely to bring back 4x speaker jacks, so it just becomes an ego-invested argument. I think many of the posts were only trying to give you specific advice for solving your specific stated problem, since it wasn't yet clear this was only about you trying to sell the subject (I guess so you could blame the stupidity of others for your unwillingness to adapt). I'm going to guess you work in a technical field. You want to avoid opinion debates. You want facts and reality you can stick to. Well, this IS an opinion debate. I say "I think we should do it this way, the way we used to was better" You say "no, it's better now that in was then." If that's an opinion debate, then this is an opinion debate. So you should get out of it I guess. Here's some mere opinion from me: We don't agree about who's being stupid about wallwarts. I think that the folks who don't care are right, and you're wrong. I think you are being a politically-correct ideologue about wallwarts and are partial to exaggerated evidence that supports your view, because it makes you feel like you're on the side of saving the world. I'm no electronics expert, but I'm sure a more-expensive wallwart design with negligible off-duty draw is well within the present state of our knowledge. As such, I'm sure economics will cause that shift if your guesses about where this is all headed prove correct, or just if sufficient consensus develops. People are dumb!! People's buying habbits cause stupidity in the world. It's the reason that all cars made are so unsafe. It's the reason Vanilla Ice had the fastest selling album ever!! It's the reason wallwarts are still inefficient. You think they're all right to not care about wallwarts. I'm sorry but you're with the idiots there! And that's NOT an opinion debate. The crappy inefficiency of wall warts is NOT my "opinion". If you don't aggree, you need to just read up on the subject. Hell, read some of what people said in this thread about them. My girlfriend's Ipod headphones are just as inadequately loud as my sony's. ****ty sound. Let me teach you about the logic of the existence proof. It only takes one example to disprove the position that something does not exist (i.e. power-efficient headphones), but the reverse is not true (i.e. one or two examples of power-inefficient headphones does not prove that power-efficient headphones do not exist or even that they aren't readily available). Now hold on- this isn't fair. I didn't say "power-efficient headphones don't exist" Who's putting words in whose mouth? You said my headphones must be the problem (repeatedly), I said I have the same problem with other headphones. You interpret that as me saying that power-efficient headphones don't exist? Which one of us needs a logic lesson? If most soundcards are this quiet on ipod headphones, I move that that's a general problem with most soundcards made today. Ipod headphones are pretty common (and pretty representative of the norm, as I've read). You're positioning yourself against them. So tell me, how many different headphones do I have to try to convince you that this is a general problem. If most soundcards made today require people to get special sensitive headphones, then that makes my point. "They don't make em like they used to." |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minderbinder wrote in message . ..
Folks, I resy my case about this Mindbinder guy. Some highlights: Ahaha... Looks like my first impressions were right after all. Noooo mrbog, I'm not going to follow your tinyurl links (which are usually used by lamers to diguise their links to goatse.cx). I'm sure other people have, and they're seeing what an ass you're being, or seeing how you're avoiding adressing those usenet posts in your response here. You're doing my work for me, thanks. You see, the difference between you and me is that if I find out that somebody is a cocksucker who persistently sticks to his stupid dogma, and will admit no argument, then Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you- the man who two days ago wrote a long post touting the importance of politeness, giving me a nicer way of asking the question. The next post he writes, what do we get? "cocksucker". I have no reservations telling him just how stupid I consider him to be. In his last post he pointed out how wrong it was of me to tell someone I think their argument is "stupid". Hmm.. this is like "pot, kettle, black" to an exponential power. Squared? I don't start out a thread by abusing everyone on the forum and making long, whinging rants with the aim of "stimulating discussion" (trolling for arguments). This gets better and better! You've just outright stated that you equate "stimulating discussion" with "trolling for arguments". I suppose the presidential debates were two trolls going at it in your view? AhahahahahahHAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Haaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Hehe... hehe... heh. Well, I have no retort for that line, I guess you win, right? Great argument! I wonder if you'd added four or five more "ahaha"'s, you'd have totally crushed me and proven me wrong. Since you seem unwilling, or unable to express yourself clearly (of which you seem unaware - or at least unwilling to admit) and in a way that promotes rational discussion, the problem just gets worse. I've been unclear?? You're right, I'm totally unaware! Did I make a point that you couldn't understand? Really? I think I made my points pretty clearly. Was there a time when you couldn't understand what I meant? At any rate, this thread is getting tiresomely repetitive. There is no discussion, just bull**** - and yes, it is your fault. Having read that last bit, here's a great post you should read on how to be polite on usenet newsgroups. I know you won't click on my tinyurl link, but here it is, for everyone else: http://tinyurl.com/476tw |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mrbog" wrote in message m... You asked "If the AWE was really the best soundcard ever made, why aren't you using it rather than complaining?" I said "See my original post for the answer to the above question." My original post says: "Now, you can't. Even if you use a pci soundblaster card circa 2001 that does have the amped out, you still can't use the amp port on it because windows drivers don't support it." But surely a good soundcard MUST have good drivers, or it is NOT a good soundcard. I know I checked driver performance and suitablity before I bought my last three soundcards. By MY definition, a soundcard that will not work in my computer and that does not have suitable drivers for the operating system I am using. is NOT the best soundcard ever made. Turtle Beach once claimed their early 1990's soundcard would never be obsolete either, because it had reprogrammable DSP firmware. Unfortunately it was obsolete very quickly because no new programs were written, apart from it being ISA as well. It had amp outputs too, but was not the best soundcard ever made IMO. But hey, maybe he likes the look of it, what do I care! TonyP. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message . ..
On 2 Dec 2004 21:50:08 -0800, (mrbog) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message . .. It is however being a ludicrously self-centred asshole............ The reason I'm a "ludicrously self-centred asshole" is because I posted a topic for discussion rather than an "ask the experts" style post? No, it's because you're as dumb as a rock and as stubborn as a mule in a tar pit. Switch it off, asshole. What *you* want would be wasting power *all* the time the PC is powered up, and for *all* those people who don't ever need the power that you do. The alternative, wallwarts, waste MORE power ALL the time. You just factually lose there, it's black and white. (And notice, I'm the one who threw out "asshole" first here. I've been one of the adults on this thread, not one of the children.) Which part of 'switch it off' did you fail to understand? Rude and dumb, I'd say. Stop whining and buy a headphone amp. Battery waste. Wallwarts. You really don't get that by now? You really don't get *anything*, do you? They have this magical device these days, attached to many power outlets - it's called a switch. Also, I have yet to see a wallwart draw power when it's not actually plugged into the wall. Basically, you're a pathetic ****. Ah, more namecalling, wonderful. As I've stated already, a power strip is inconvenient. That means everytime my PC wants to make noise I have to reach under my desk and flip a switch? And that's an improvement over having onboard amplification?? |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mrbog" wrote in message om... As I've stated already, a power strip is inconvenient. That means everytime my PC wants to make noise I have to reach under my desk and flip a switch? And that's an improvement over having onboard amplification?? Bull****! Connect the power strip to the PC switched outlet. No extra switch necessary. The amp is then on when the PC is on. That's the SAME as onboard amplification. TonyP. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
(mrbog) writes:
(Dave Hamaker) wrote in message .com... Can't think of any at this point. From all your previous actions in this thread, there's little doubt you are either a troll or a zealot. I must be a zealot! I'll take that label. Oh wait, unless that's an established internet term that I don't know about. If you're going by the dictionary, then hell yea, I'm a zealot about this. When most of the industry is wrong and you're right, isn't the right thing to do to become a zealot? That word just means one's fanatically partisan about something, with some connotations that this is at level where one is unable to listen to reason, think clearly, etc. I believe such connotations apply in force to you, IF, of course, you are not actually engaged in trolling. The problem isn't that one shouldn't be a zealot under the conditions you describe, but with your premise that the industry is wrong and you're right. You're the one out of wack. I do not have an opinion about wallwart waste. My observations in that area are simply that it appears that practically nobody seems to share your hissy fit over it. http://dataweek.co.za/news.asp?pklNe...ategory ID=46 Also search for a New York Times article, it was on the cover of the circuits section earlier this year, I believe. Also see some of the posts on this thread AGREEING WITH ME (shocking!) about how ****ty wall warts are. Sorry. Not interested. I can decide this is not worth my bother from what I already know, and it's not. You do not understand the real costs of attempting effiency in the small at a large scale, where very small cost tradeoffs become significant. Nonetheless, the wallwart/battery issue is quite irrelevant. You either need more sensitive headphones, or your wallwart/battery issue is about why headphone amp designers are so stupid. It's not like you made a post and got 65 responses to it. Rather, you kept doing things that have kept them coming and coming. We do agree about that. What I did to make them keep coming is respond to flatly wrong and/or illogical statments. And respond to questions directed at me (I supposed you're going to say I'm trolling when I respond to someone's question?). And thanking people for their suggestions while also telling them why the suggestion won't work. Is that trolling? The essence of trolling is to get people to keep responding to one's thread by posting things which provoke responses, with no compunctions as to being truthful. A troll isn't going to admit to this since that will end the game. I know the net is international.. And I think we're butting up against the same point of contention, you say my position is to "degrade the performance for everyone who does care". Nope. Don't put words in my mouth. I said something about your rights where they deem to impinge on the rights of others. I'm impinging on other's rights? how? wanting a louder soundcard? There is a line-level standard which is the cooperative basis for component audio equipment being widely interconnectable, and this predates the very existence of soundcards. It is why I can connect my soundcard to my Denon amp with Boston speakers. Soundcard makers went off on their own when they decided the masses needed little unamped speakers and designed soundcards that way. In essence, it was the computer industry thumbing its noses at (i.e. subverting) accumulated audio wisdom, and demonstrating a significant lack of foresight (why does it make sense to give _everybody_ a pitifully weak soundcard amp not capable of operating lots of stuff?). That decision also had quality consequences which eventually, and fortunately, have eliminated this practice. Now we've got you, an admitted audio ignoramus, who wants to roll all this back because of personal convenience, rationalized by pap about the great wallwart threat to humanity. There's no threat to humanity here, because the common man isn't the market for headphone amps; that much, much, smaller market is occupied by people who are particular about their choice of headphones. Ms. Common Man is either going to put up with unsatisfactory headphone volume, assuming all headphones are the same (which sort of seems to be where your own head is at, actually); or is going to end up with different ones. Since the 1999 soundcards you refer to (the SBLive had already shipped over 1 million cards in early 1999, and had no 4x out) SNR has improved by 10's of decibels, not millionths. Look, I'm not an audio expert. Have I mentioned. To me, soundcards haven't improved by 10' of decibels, they've degraded by decibels. Literally, they're quieter. All I wants a bit more volume. I'd suggest not saying things about numbers of decibels if you have barely a clue about them. It makes you sound the pretentious fool. Lots of available products use wallwarts. That proves, by the same kind of logic you use to prove your headphones are not to blame, that wallwarts are not to blame. It's too easy a problem to solve, and a simple cost that goes along with updating your hardware and/or OS, unless you are a zealot who feels deprived. I don't follow your logic here. I'm honestly sorry, maybe it's me, I'm reading it over and over and I'm not getting it. (seriously it could be me, I just don't follow what you're saying). I know. Nobody has to use a wallwart for this. I suggest buying a pair of Radio Shack Pro-35 headphones on sale. Why? I need to buy special super-sensitive headphones in order to get decent volume? That's improvement? Prove that Pro-35's are super-sensitive headphones, and special to boot. I did not buy mine because I was having volume problems; I bought them for their sound and low price. They just happen to be plenty loud for line-out use. Should I conclude that there is no general problem only because the headphones _I've_ personally used with soundcards have had _plenty_ of volume? Look, you have to look at this as painting two pictures of the world.... That's the realm of "mere opinion" that I'm trying to avoid. This debate is hardly likely to bring back 4x speaker jacks, so it just becomes an ego-invested argument. I think many of the posts were only trying to give you specific advice for solving your specific stated problem, since it wasn't yet clear this was only about you trying to sell the subject (I guess so you could blame the stupidity of others for your unwillingness to adapt). I'm going to guess you work in a technical field. That would be correct. You want to avoid opinion debates. Not really. They have their place. Many things are matters of opinion, others less so. If I went over to rec.animals.wildlife and started a fight based on my preference for koalas and pandas that everybody should agree with that or they're wrong, it would be a waste of everybody's time, particularly because it's based on stuffed animals I had as a child and nothing more; and because I have no special expertise about wildlife. You want facts and reality you can stick to. It's not that simple. It's that I prefer to spend my time attempting to share my knowledge over sharing my ignorance. In my view, there's quite enough of the latter already. Well, this IS an opinion debate. I say "I think we should do it this way, the way we used to was better" You say "no, it's better now that in was then." If that's an opinion debate, then this is an opinion debate. So you should get out of it I guess. The key is what is behind our respective opinions. I _understand_ why the 4x was there originally, even though it was against my preferences; and I understand why it went away, even though I agree with the change. It can be fairly stated that a lot of where you're coming from is that you _do_not_ understand why they took it away: that's why it upsets you. Here's some mere opinion from me: We don't agree about who's being stupid about wallwarts. I think that the folks who don't care are right, and you're wrong. I think you are being a politically-correct ideologue about wallwarts and are partial to exaggerated evidence that supports your view, because it makes you feel like you're on the side of saving the world. I'm no electronics expert, but I'm sure a more-expensive wallwart design with negligible off-duty draw is well within the present state of our knowledge. As such, I'm sure economics will cause that shift if your guesses about where this is all headed prove correct, or just if sufficient consensus develops. People are dumb!! People's buying habbits cause stupidity in the world. It's the reason that all cars made are so unsafe. It's the reason Vanilla Ice had the fastest selling album ever!! It's the reason wallwarts are still inefficient. You think they're all right to not care about wallwarts. I'm sorry but you're with the idiots there! And that's NOT an opinion debate. The crappy inefficiency of wall warts is NOT my "opinion". If you don't aggree, you need to just read up on the subject. Hell, read some of what people said in this thread about them. I see no particular basis for your implied conclusion that you're not dumb too. You've already gotten my minilecture about zero-sum thinking. You can lead a horse to water ... My girlfriend's Ipod headphones are just as inadequately loud as my sony's. ****ty sound. Let me teach you about the logic of the existence proof. It only takes one example to disprove the position that something does not exist (i.e. power-efficient headphones), but the reverse is not true (i.e. one or two examples of power-inefficient headphones does not prove that power-efficient headphones do not exist or even that they aren't readily available). Now hold on- this isn't fair. I didn't say "power-efficient headphones don't exist" Who's putting words in whose mouth? You said my headphones must be the problem (repeatedly), I said I have the same problem with other headphones. You interpret that as me saying that power-efficient headphones don't exist? Which one of us needs a logic lesson? It isn't just what you said. It's where you keep taking the argument next. You might as well say "I know most headphones are too quiet," because that's your essential posture. The fact is you only know about 2 headphones. If most soundcards are this quiet on ipod headphones, I move that that's a general problem with most soundcards made today. That requires a presumption that people will generally connect their ipod headphones to soundcards, or indeed anything other than their ipod at all, or rather requires that you prove that is true. Ipod headphones are pretty common (and pretty representative of the norm, as I've read). That only proves that ipods are pretty common, and cheap headphones used with headphone-only devices are going to tend to be a norm. You're positioning yourself against them. Hardly. They're evidently not adequate for monitoring standard line-out outputs (but you can make a headphone out from a line-out with a headphone amp). All the indications I have seen are that there are plenty of adequate headphone models out there; enough to be an adequate solution for this. By now, it's probably evolved that if you buy your headphones from a computer store/department, they're going to be loud enough (returns have an influence on what stores carry). So tell me, how many different headphones do I have to try to convince you that this is a general problem. Oh, let's say 100, randomly-selected, different models. However, I DO NOT CARE about that discussion one whit. _The _only_ reason I'm still here is the opportunity to solve _your_ problem. For that you only have to try _one_ of the headphone models mentioned in this thread as providing ample volume, or I'd settle for you going to one store with a good selection of phones up for demo (with a trip to Radio Shack to try the Pro-35's if nothing there makes you happy). If most soundcards made today require people to get special sensitive headphones, then that makes my point. First you have to demonstrate that sufficiently-sensitive headphones deserve being called special. AFAIK this is just a matter of headphones varying in sensitivity. "They don't make em like they used to." Agreed. Good thing. Ipods are designed as headphone-only devices. They have a headphone out rather than a standard line-out. Headphone outs aren't intended to be used with speakers, so they have a volume control with a peak volume that will handle a wide range of headphone variability. I'm sure Apple's choice of headphones which happen to be inefficient had much to do with trying to minimize their overall cost among headphone choices of similar sound quality and durability. I don't understand why you think that trying your girlfriend's ipod headphones was anything other than a pitifully inadequate response to my repeated suggestion that your best solution is some more-efficient headphones. Is there some reason that's all you did? You don't want to spend any money? You love your current ones so much that nothing else will do? You're convinced that all headphones have to be the same in this aspect? What? How much bother would it be for you to either: 1. Find a large audio retailer that's willing to help you compare your current headphones with others they have set up for demo using the same source? 2. Find a Radio Shack store willing to help you compare yours to a pair of Pro-35's similarly? Well? -Dave |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:14:38 +0000, Dave Hamaker wrote:
Common Man is either going to put up with unsatisfactory headphone volume, assuming all headphones are the same (which sort of seems to be where your own head is at, actually); or is going to end up with different ones. Since mrbog claims to have tried a number of brands of headphones and sound cards, it seems possible that it's his hearing that is at fault. This is probably because people shout at him every day, trying to get through his thick, stubborn skull. Ipods are designed as headphone-only devices. They have a headphone out rather than a standard line-out. Headphone outs aren't intended to be used with speakers, so they have a volume control with a peak volume that will handle a wide range of headphone variability. I'm sure Apple's choice of headphones which happen to be inefficient had much to do with trying to minimize their overall cost among headphone choices of similar sound quality and durability. And possibly to stop numbskulls from immediately jacking the volume up all the way and making their ears bleed when they turn it on. Minderbinder. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Minderbinder" wrote in message news On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:14:38 +0000, Dave Hamaker wrote: Common Man is either going to put up with unsatisfactory headphone volume, assuming all headphones are the same (which sort of seems to be where your own head is at, actually); or is going to end up with different ones. Since mrbog claims to have tried a number of brands of headphones and sound cards, it seems possible that it's his hearing that is at fault. This is probably because people shout at him every day, trying to get through his thick, stubborn skull. mrbog claims his hearing is "above average". We accepted that as fact; he has provided no proof. Based on his other arguments, we may want to revisit this claim. Ipods are designed as headphone-only devices. They have a headphone out rather than a standard line-out. Headphone outs aren't intended to be used with speakers, so they have a volume control with a peak volume that will handle a wide range of headphone variability. I'm sure Apple's choice of headphones which happen to be inefficient had much to do with trying to minimize their overall cost among headphone choices of similar sound quality and durability. And possibly to stop numbskulls from immediately jacking the volume up all the way and making their ears bleed when they turn it on. That's a good point. There's probably some product liability in making outputs that could damage one's hearing. It must be some kind of morbid curiosity that I keep reading this thread. I don't know how many times someone can be told "the market has moved on" or "people vote with their pocketbooks, and you lost -- get over it". I'm not saying he can't prefer the 1990 sound cards for the rest of his life, but at some point, one simply needs to accept reality and get on with their life. I also can't buy into the wall-wart threat to humanity argument. This is single-issue extremism, which is, I believe, the definition of a zealot. Wall-warts have several advantages: 1. They allow the product to fit in a smaller space with enhanced form factor, by moving the bulky power supply out of the way. 2. They reduce magnetically induced hum by moving the power supply out of the way. 3. They provide for portability while providing battery charging and long-term powered operation. 4. They dramatically reduce the cost of UL/CSA approval, because the wall-wart can be UL/CSA approved separately by the wall-wart mfr, and everything else is low-voltage and not subject to UL/CSA in most cases. Truth be known, this might be the biggest reason some products use wall-warts at all. Avoiding the need for UL approval is a big plus. Been there. Done that. Never again. Disadvantages: 1. They hog space on outlets and power strips, though some are designed to be less piggish about this, having sprouted a power cord. Some power strips accommodate wall-warts better than others. 2. They do use power on standby. Wasted power on standby is a pseudo-political issue that could be argued to death. Wall-warts could be designed to shut down when not in use, but that would add considerable expense, and the alternative could actually be worse in some other way. Besides, standby power isn't wasted if the device is being operated in a heated building (think about it). |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minderbinder wrote in message .. .
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:15:02 -0800, mrbog wrote: I am, in fact, not trolling. I can't blame you for not reading the entire 65 post thread, but if you had, you'd see my answers to all of the feeble counter-arguments, many of which you repeated. So, I will summarize, while answering you: *sigh* In an attempt to bring some closure to this thread, I'm going to assume that mrbog is not, in fact, trolling and deliberately insulting everyone (difficult as it may be to believe) - and therefore, will attempt to summarise things as objectively as I can. No! This thread must never die! Never! Here, I'll reopen it: "Mr.Bog," you might try removing your head from your ass before listening to headphones. It tends to help. Also, if you weren't 100 years old and deaf as a post, you wouldn't be having this problem. Overdog If we assume that mrbog is seriously attempting to solve a problem both politely and logically, I can identify a few things which have very likely led to the giant flame war that has resulted. Yes, that's right, it is. A few times in the thread I said "The fact remains I could get a soundcard that did what I wanted ('louder, please') in 1999, and I can't now." No one, not one single responder, has been able to refute that. They call me names, they tell me to buy wall warts, they tell me my needs are eccentric (volume is eccentric?), they tell me I'm trolling, they tell me to **** off, but no one can deny that one simple fact. It stands. I think this paragraph is representative of various problems with mrbog's written style. Consider: 1. Rather than putting forward a neutral question, mrbog makes a strong assumption, which he then expects people to "refute". The tone is hostile and aggressive, and therefore invites challenges rather than helpful responses and follow-up questions. 2. mrbog repeatedly insists that his opinions are "facts", implying that his statements are based on objective measurements, rather than subjective, personal preference and experience. By extension, the belief that the best soundcards were _not_ made in 1999, or that current soundcards are loud enough, is akin to believing that the sky is green. Don't care, don't care, don't care. I don't care about being "more like other audio gear". And, as I said in the original post, "Oh you experts are going to talk about how the amp port was getting some tiny bit of interference from the motherboard's power, something that only an expert would care about. What ****ing ever. " I was perfectly happy before, because I'm a regular user, not some audiophile. Again, I think this is an abusive/agressive tone, right from the start. You flag yourself as a typical consumer who doesn't care all that much about audio quality nuances, yet you express strong concerns about power nuances. You need to understand that the typical consumer doesn't care all that much about the nuances of wall warts either. They aren't going to worry much about what they plug into the wall is shaped like. This is the dumbest thing you said in your otherwise thorough response. So you're saying my problem is I'm not dumb eough to be happy about plugging an ac adapter into my wall?? One estimate stated that 5% of all power consumption in the US is from appliances that are turned OFF and the AC adapters are still sucking. Do you call that a "power nuance"? I read your paragraph three times I don't understand where you're going with that. Immediately classifying any response that doesn't match your own opinion as "wrong" or "dumb" is extremely rude. If somebody tries to offer an explanation, even if it is incorrect due to some oversight or mistake, it is extremely rude and hostile bluntly to say "you're wrong". I'm pretty sure this would be considered unacceptable and anti-social if you said it to somebody's face, even bearing in mind the rather direct, confrontational nature of American English. As I said to Amy, "Should I pretend that the advice is good advice just because it's free?" And THAT is a metaphor for this entire thread. A more polite strategy would be to say something like, "I have to disagree with point X, because of [give evidence]. Can you suggest something else, that might work in this case?". It's perfectly natural for people to get angry when their suggestions are dismissed as "wrong", without even a reference to some objective evidence. Someone suggested the Soundblaster Extigy. It costs $150. After THANKING the responder for at least trying, I pointed out the problem that my 64 awe cost $29.95 in 1999. A $150 device in 2004 to do the same job is not a solution. (plus the extigy requires a wall wart, which the poster must have forget because in the same post where he suggested the extigy, he agreed that wall warts are bad.) Strangly, in spite of that contradiction, he accused me of "pooh pooh"ing everyone's response. This is a response to my own personal contribution, so let me quote the response that mrbog considers a polite expression of gratitude, and try to explain why I interpreted it as sarcastic abuse: Well you response was at least an attempt to help, thanks. Like everyone else, you're wrong and don't have a solution, but you tried. I made my needs perfectly clear- amplified output. Whether I use headphones or not is irrelevant. The fact that I don't use speakers, nor do I want to plug in another AC adapter is relevant, and I did point that out. First of all, the Sound Blaster Extigy has an AC adapter. I'm assuming you just didn't know that, because the same paragraph where you recomend it, you start out with "You're right about the power bricks". So thanks for the idea but no go. The other problem with the Sound Blaster Extigy is that it costs $150. This is just another case for my point that I could get a better soundcard for the average user's needs in 1999. I pad $29.95 for my (beloved, sadly) Soundblaster 64 AWE value. Nearly 6 years later I'm paying $150 to get a bulkier powerhog to be a poor substitute? Pathetic. I'll keep looking, but my point very clearly stands firm, in spite of the barrage of hopelessly flawed arguments against it here. I was happier with my soundcard in 1999 than any card made in 2004 (afaik), and the nature of my need is obviously not so extravagent. 1. Following up a short expression of gratitude, "thanks", with "you're wrong and don't have a solution" probably won't be taken positively. Similarly, the "thanks" was also qualified with a condescending "at least you tried", as if you were in some kind of superior position, offering encouragement to the intellectually feeble. 2. I know what I said about power bricks. I don't need to be reminded. Similarly, It's sufficient to say "unfortunately, the Extigy requires a power brick" for me to realise my mistake. I don't need you to go to the extra effort of saying "I guess you didn't know that". Again, you seem to delight in pointing out the mistakes of others. 3. Actually, I do know a fair bit about connecting computer and consumer audio equipment, and have years of industry (and hobby) experience with PC hardware of all kinds. There's good reason to ask whether you intend to connect passive speakers, an external amplifier, headphones or whatever. You nevertheless claim that you made your needs perfectly clear, dismissing as nonsense all requests for clarification. Actually, if you had said from the start that you were getting insufficient output to drive a pair of headphones, we could quickly have narrowed the problem down to your current card, rather than post-1999 cards in general. Almost any card currently on the market generates sufficient power to drive a set of headphones. 4. You didn't specify a budget in your original post. Looking at the thread in general, you have been very stingy with the details of what your actual needs are. Thus, many posters have made reasonable suggestions, only to be ambushed by requirements that they had no way of knowing about. 5. Again, the hostile tone in the phrase "the barrage of hopelessly flawed arguments" seems to include my suggestion, thus casting a negative light on the whole message - leading me to conclude that your words of gratitude were meant sarcastically rather than earnestly. Since I've gone this far, I thought I may as well have a go at re-writing mrbog's original message in a way that I think would be much more likely to draw useful responses: Hi, Back in 1999, there were plenty of cards on the market that offered amplified outputs. Unfortunately, these cards are no longer well supported on recent versions of Windows, and I don't get sufficient output volume from my [insert sound card here] when using my [insert headphones here]. Can anyone suggest a decent new sound card that will satisfy these requirements? 1. Price less than US$100 [US$60 etc.]. 2. Sufficient output to drive my headphones. 3. Full driver support for Windows XP 4. Doesn't require external power sources (ie. wall warts or batteries) 5. PCI [or USB] interface Thanks in advance, mrbog (simulated) Is there anyone out there who DOESN'T think this would get better responses? Note how the absence of "you snotty egghead sound boffins better not give me any crap!" statements improves the overall tone of the message. If people would apply a bit more USENET ettiquette to their postings, we'd have fewer of these flamewars. Regards, Minderbinder. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:hjZkd.559$mc.380@trnddc07...
It's funny, when you write a response like this, you know you're probably not going to win anyone over. You did a marathon end-run of name-calling, accompanied only by some non-facts, like the absurd idea that it would be a waste of power to use a sound card that had amplification, but using an amplifier isn't??? The rest of us are way past the AC adapter issue and it seems (almost) everyone here agrees with me that an AC adapter is a huge waste of power by comparison. You know, an AC adapter wastes some power, but it isn't the hemorrhage that you might think. In fact, the additional warmth (negligible though it may be) will cause your heating system to run less. It won't make a huge difference in your heating bill, but it might put your concerns about the "waste" in perspective. Of course, it will have a (negligible) negative impact on your cooling bill in the summer time. You make a good point: the "wastefulness" of wal-warts shows up as electric heat, which is sometimes desirable. The truth is, though, gas heating is both cheaper and more energy-efficient than electric heating. Most homeowners would prefer to get all of their heating from gas, to minimize costs and environmental damage. And in the summer, the heating is doubly inefficient because the AC system works overtime to compensate for it. Overdog |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
You make a good point: the "wastefulness" of wal-warts shows up as
electric heat, which is sometimes desirable. The truth is, though, gas heating is both cheaper and more energy-efficient than electric heating. Most homeowners would prefer to get all of their heating from gas, to minimize costs and environmental damage. And in the summer, the heating is doubly inefficient because the AC system works overtime to compensate for it. Well, that's true. The equation undoubtedly changes in the summer. Perhaps more to the point, has anyone *ever* seen their heating bill drop, or the A/C bill increase as the result of installing some gear that uses a wall-wart? Of course not. Nor can they see their electric bill increase, unless it's the only thing they ever run. It's a very small drop in a very large bucket. Anyone who is at all concerned with energy waste would be much better off looking somewhere else first. When all of the other much bigger threats to humanity are eliminated, *then* go after the wall-warts. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:2UKsd.11$xa6.10@trnddc09...
mrbog claims his hearing is "above average". We accepted that as fact; he has provided no proof. Based on his other arguments, we may want to revisit this claim. Proof? That my hearing is above average? What do you want for "proof" of that? A PDF of a doctor's note?? |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Dave Hamaker) wrote in message . com...
http://dataweek.co.za/news.asp?pklNe...ategory ID=46 Also search for a New York Times article, it was on the cover of the circuits section earlier this year, I believe. Also see some of the posts on this thread AGREEING WITH ME (shocking!) about how ****ty wall warts are. Sorry. Not interested. I can decide this is not worth my bother from what I already know, and it's not. You do not understand the real costs of attempting effiency in the small at a large scale, where very small cost tradeoffs become significant. Nonetheless, the wallwart/battery issue is quite irrelevant. You either need more sensitive headphones, or your wallwart/battery issue is about why headphone amp designers are so stupid. You're conveniently choosing not to form an opinion on a major issue. 5% of all power consumed in the US is not "quite irrelevant". Thats one ****load of power going to waste. It's not convenient for your argument, so you just dismiss it. But still it sits, the statistic, the fact. Whether you want to talk about it or not, there it is. The essence of trolling is to get people to keep responding to one's thread by posting things which provoke responses, with no compunctions as to being truthful. A troll isn't going to admit to this since that will end the game. Look, I'm done trying to tell you I'm not trolling. It's an absurd position you expect me to be in. It's like accusing someone of being a communist or a homosexual. There's no way to disprove it. If you had started a thread that got a lot of discussion I could start calling you a troll, and what would you say to disprove it? **** this, if you think I'm a troll, go right ahead, I am no longer in the position of defending my non-trollhood. And by the way, you're a communist homosexual. There is a line-level standard which is the cooperative basis for component audio equipment being widely interconnectable, and this predates the very existence of soundcards. It is why I can connect my soundcard to my Denon amp with Boston speakers. Soundcard makers went off on their own when they decided the masses needed little unamped speakers and designed soundcards that way. In essence, it was the computer industry thumbing its noses at (i.e. subverting) accumulated audio wisdom, and demonstrating a significant lack of foresight (why does it make sense to give _everybody_ a pitifully weak soundcard amp not capable of operating lots of stuff?). That decision also had quality consequences which eventually, and fortunately, have eliminated this practice. This is exactly the kind of audiophile mumbo jumbo that I'm talking about. I don't know nothin 'bout no audio tech. What I know is I want louder sound in my headphones. Hey audio industry, wake up. Now we've got you, an admitted audio ignoramus, who wants to roll all this back because of personal convenience, rationalized by pap about the great wallwart threat to humanity. Ladies and gentlemen, you have it- He says he considers the waste of 5% of all power consumed in the US to be "pap". I could rest my argument on his absurd statement alone. Look, I'm not an audio expert. Have I mentioned. To me, soundcards haven't improved by 10' of decibels, they've degraded by decibels. Literally, they're quieter. All I wants a bit more volume. I'd suggest not saying things about numbers of decibels if you have barely a clue about them. It makes you sound the pretentious fool. Hmm does more decibels mean louder? Then in all of my lamen ignorance I've said something that's technically correct. I WANT MORE GODDAMN DECIBELS. Why? I need to buy special super-sensitive headphones in order to get decent volume? That's improvement? Prove that Pro-35's are super-sensitive headphones, and special to boot. I did not buy mine because I was having volume problems; I bought them for their sound and low price. They just happen to be plenty loud for line-out use. Should I conclude that there is no general problem only because the headphones _I've_ personally used with soundcards have had _plenty_ of volume? You said it yourself in your last sentence there. We agree, you shouldn't. Hence the reason I shouldn't have to buy special pro-35 headphones. Think about it you'll get it. You want to avoid opinion debates. Not really. They have their place. Many things are matters of opinion, others less so. If I went over to rec.animals.wildlife and started a fight based on my preference for koalas and pandas that everybody should agree with that or they're wrong, it would be a waste of everybody's time, particularly because it's based on stuffed animals I had as a child and nothing more; and because I have no special expertise about wildlife. No, but it wouldn't be a waste of everybody's time if you made that same argument at alt.zoo.animalselection. And you wouldn't need special expertise. You could be a dumb consumer, arguing for what you want to see. You're the customer. Well, this IS an opinion debate. I say "I think we should do it this way, the way we used to was better" You say "no, it's better now that in was then." If that's an opinion debate, then this is an opinion debate. So you should get out of it I guess. The key is what is behind our respective opinions. I _understand_ why the 4x was there originally, even though it was against my preferences; and I understand why it went away, even though I agree with the change. It can be fairly stated that a lot of where you're coming from is that you _do_not_ understand why they took it away: that's why it upsets you. You're close to being right, I'll adjust it- I do _understand_ perfectly well the reason they took it away. And it upsets me. The reason they took it away is: A) Audiophiles run the industry and care about little bits of distortion that no one else cares about, and about being "more like other audio equipment" in some techno-obessed way. And, B) The consumer was dumb enough not to understand the problem with using a wallwart based amplifier which ends up costing them even while their asleep. It isn't just what you said. It's where you keep taking the argument next. You might as well say "I know most headphones are too quiet," because that's your essential posture. The fact is you only know about 2 headphones. All the indications I have seen are that there are plenty of adequate headphone models out there; enough to be an adequate solution for this. By now, it's probably evolved that if you buy your headphones from a computer store/department, they're going to be loud enough (returns have an influence on what stores carry). It's funny, you just talked about how you want soundcard to be more like other audio equipment, and then in the next breath you tell me where I can get special headphones for soundcards. You don't see a problem with thinking? So tell me, how many different headphones do I have to try to convince you that this is a general problem. Oh, let's say 100, randomly-selected, different models. However, I DO NOT CARE about that discussion one whit. _The _only_ reason I'm still here is the opportunity to solve _your_ problem. For that you only have to try _one_ of the headphone models mentioned in this thread as providing ample volume, or I'd settle for you going to one store with a good selection of phones up for demo (with a trip to Radio Shack to try the Pro-35's if nothing there makes you happy). HA! Oh, only 100, is that all? Sure you don't want to make it 150, maybe 250, to be sure that it's a figure I obviously could never accomplish? I can tell you this much- between 1999 and now, I've (obviously) had more than 2 pairs of headphones. I don't even know the models of them all (because, as I mentioned, I'm not an audiophile). I could scrounge around for them in my closet I suppose. I could understand having to buy special headphones for a _particular_ soundcard. But if I have to buy some special model of headphones to make ANY soundcard louder, then I move that that's a fundamental problem with the industry, a degradation in features from where it was in 1999. I don't understand why you think that trying your girlfriend's ipod headphones was anything other than a pitifully inadequate response to my repeated suggestion that your best solution is some more-efficient headphones. ??? Let's all review the context shall we. I tried her headphones in response to you saying that my headphones were inefficient. Hmm and you're saying you "don't understand" why I did that?? Is it really so complicated? You say hey man your headphones are the problem. And I say I'll try some other headphones. And that doesn't make sense to you? Is there some reason that's all you did? Yes, sure is! Because that's all the headphones I had in arms reach! How many headphones do you have in arms reach right now? (Er well, you know- if you WEREN'T an audiophile.) You don't want to spend any money? If I have to spend more money in 2004 to get what I had in 1999, then DAMN RIGHT I DON'T. You love your current ones so much that nothing else will do? For the last damn time, it's not my ****ing headphones. And suprise suprise I'm not going to go buy 100 of them, I guess that must mean I'm wrong. You're convinced that all headphones have to be the same in this aspect? What? I'm convinced that the majority of soundcards should work with the majority of headphones. Crazy idea, isn't it? How much bother would it be for you to either: 1. Find a large audio retailer that's willing to help you compare your current headphones with others they have set up for demo using the same source? 2. Find a Radio Shack store willing to help you compare yours to a pair of Pro-35's similarly? Well? Dave the entire point of this thread is to expose a fundamental problem in the industry. If the regular consumer (who uses headphones) is expected to do either of your suggestions just to get ample audio, then you just made my case. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mrbog" wrote in message om... "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:2UKsd.11$xa6.10@trnddc09... mrbog claims his hearing is "above average". We accepted that as fact; he has provided no proof. Based on his other arguments, we may want to revisit this claim. Proof? That my hearing is above average? What do you want for "proof" of that? A PDF of a doctor's note?? No. Sorry. It was a cheap shot. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have been remiss to stay out of this debate. Mrbog (whatever THAT means) has spun quite an intricate web of misstatements and assertions for himself, it might be interesting to untangle one or two of them. For example, mrbog wrote: You're conveniently choosing not to form an opinion on a major issue. 5% of all power consumed in the US is not "quite irrelevant". Thats one ****load of power going to waste. It's not convenient for your argument, so you just dismiss it. But still it sits, the statistic, the fact. Whether you want to talk about it or not, there it is. Really, the "fact" sits. Let's see what that "fact" suggests. The latest (2002) complete Department of Energy statistics for electrical energy production for the United States gives a figure of 3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. Call it 4 trillion watts or 4 x 10^12 Watts (we'll round the figure up to further bolster your argument. Your implication is that wall warts are responsible for 5% of this, or some 0.05 x 4 x 10^12 or some 2 x 10^11 watts. Now, an informal survey of a fair number of wall warts used for this sort of purpose shows an idle power consumption of approximately 1 watt. Again, to bolster your argument, let's call it 2 watts. Assuming your implication that wall warts account for a consumption of 2 x 10^11 watts per year, and that each wall art consumes an average of 2 watts, that means that out in the world there are 1 x 10^11 wall warts, all plugged in at one time. 1 x 10^11 wall warts. The current US population is approximately 250 million souls. 10^11 wall warts distributed fairly amongst the US population means that every one of those hapless souls is in posession, on average, of 400 wall warts. That's every single man, woman and child in the United states. Every single last one of them, each has 400 wall warts. Assuming the average family in the United States has 5 members, that's TWO THOUSAND WALL WARTS PER HOUSEHOLD! Now, assume that each household has an average of 8 rooms. That's TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WALL WARTS PER ROOM. Further assume, two wall warts per outlet, that's ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DUPLEX WALL OUTLETS PER ROOM. Pray tell, mrbog, what on gdwds green earth are all these wall warts powering? Even if ONE IN A HUNDRED were powering headphone amplifiers, that means that that every man, women and child in the United States WAS LISTENING TO 40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME! What a country! I mean, mrbog can't blast his eardrums out like he want, yet little Johnny next door is able to run around with 40 headphones on his head. What a country we have here! Even if the power consumption is ten times the above measured figure, that's still 200 wall warts per household. An alternative explanation might be useful: maybe your 5% assertion is simply patently absurd, unfounded and indefensible. Maybe you just grasped on some absurdity as a means of bolstering your increasingly desparate position. The essence of trolling is to get people to keep responding to one's thread by posting things which provoke responses, with no compunctions as to being truthful. A troll isn't going to admit to this since that will end the game. Look, I'm done trying to tell you I'm not trolling. It's an absurd position you expect me to be in. Well, no, it is an absurd position you have put yourself in, and you have entirely yourself to blame. The title of the thread is "the best soundcard..." with NO qualification whatsoever and, after dozens of posts trying to tweak out of you what was best TO YOU, we find that you focus on a SINGLE property to which the market has spoken quite loudly and umabiguously that it doesn't give a rat's ass about. And YOU'RE ****ed that the ENTIRE rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about what YOU want, you thus blame the entire rest of the world for YOUR inability to cope with that fact. I don't know nothin 'bout no audio tech. You have put an extraordinary amount of effort into demonstrating that fact. And you have done an excellent job in proving the fact to us that you nothing about the topic on which you hold forth. Yet you choose to hold forth and make technical assertions about something you admit you know nothing about. You quote "facts" on power consumption of wallwarts vs soundcard amplifiers without, quite obviously knowing abnything at all about what you are talking about. You make claims of knowledge of the computer and audio market without, quite clearly, having any clue about the subject. What I know is I want louder sound in my headphones. Hey audio industry, wake up. They did, long ago, and moved on. And now YOU'RE ****ed because YOU were caight napping, the rest of the world has LONG since moved on, and you're trying to figure out how to blame everybody else for the fact that you're stuck in the stone age. Ladies and gentlemen, you have it- He says he considers the waste of 5% of all power consumed in the US to be "pap". I could rest my argument on his absurd statement alone. No, YOUR statement, claiming wall warts "waste 5% of all power consumed in the US" can be trivially shown to be an absurd and ridiculous claim on its face. And you are unwilling to sit down and follow through the implications of that absurdity. Look, I'm not an audio expert. Yes, we have understand that, you go out of your way to prove it. The reason they took it away is: A) Audiophiles run the industry and care about little bits of distortion that no one else cares about, and about being "more like other audio equipment" in some techno-obessed way. And, That's your "opinion based, by your own admissions, on no fact whatsoever B) The consumer was dumb enough not to understand the problem with using a wallwart based amplifier which ends up costing them even while their asleep. Based on your absurd and provably wrong assertion regarding the consumption of power of such devices. I'm convinced that the majority of soundcards should work with the majority of headphones. Crazy idea, isn't it? Yes considering that the majority of soundcards ARE NOT USED WITH THE MAJORITY OF HEADPHONES. And you are "convinced" of this, unencumbered by little annoyances like REAL facts and figures, srather than the absurdities you put forth here. Dave the entire point of this thread is to expose a fundamental problem in the industry. According to you, that fundamental problem is that this industry doesn't recognize that mrbog is the sole arbiter of what is "best." and mrbog doesn't like that cold hard reality. In a word, tough. Please, mrbog, if your position is so sound, WHY IS THERE NOT A SINGLE SOUL COMING TO YOUR DEFENSE IN THIS THREAD? |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com I have been remiss to stay out of this debate. Mrbog (whatever THAT means) has spun quite an intricate web of misstatements and assertions for himself, it might be interesting to untangle one or two of them. For example, mrbog wrote: You're conveniently choosing not to form an opinion on a major issue. 5% of all power consumed in the US is not "quite irrelevant". Thats one ****load of power going to waste. It's not convenient for your argument, so you just dismiss it. But still it sits, the statistic, the fact. Whether you want to talk about it or not, there it is. Really, the "fact" sits. Let's see what that "fact" suggests. The latest (2002) complete Department of Energy statistics for electrical energy production for the United States gives a figure of 3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. Call it 4 trillion watts or 4 x 10^12 Watts (we'll round the figure up to further bolster your argument. Your implication is that wall warts are responsible for 5% of this, or some 0.05 x 4 x 10^12 or some 2 x 10^11 watts. Now, an informal survey of a fair number of wall warts used for this sort of purpose shows an idle power consumption of approximately 1 watt. Again, to bolster your argument, let's call it 2 watts. Assuming your implication that wall warts account for a consumption of 2 x 10^11 watts per year, and that each wall art consumes an average of 2 watts, that means that out in the world there are 1 x 10^11 wall warts, all plugged in at one time. 1 x 10^11 wall warts. The current US population is approximately 250 million souls. 10^11 wall warts distributed fairly amongst the US population means that every one of those hapless souls is in posession, on average, of 400 wall warts. That's every single man, woman and child in the United states. Every single last one of them, each has 400 wall warts. Assuming the average family in the United States has 5 members, that's TWO THOUSAND WALL WARTS PER HOUSEHOLD! Now, assume that each household has an average of 8 rooms. That's TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WALL WARTS PER ROOM. Further assume, two wall warts per outlet, that's ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DUPLEX WALL OUTLETS PER ROOM. Pray tell, mrbog, what on gdwds green earth are all these wall warts powering? Even if ONE IN A HUNDRED were powering headphone amplifiers, that means that that every man, women and child in the United States WAS LISTENING TO 40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME! What a country! I mean, mrbog can't blast his eardrums out like he want, yet little Johnny next door is able to run around with 40 headphones on his head. What a country we have here! Even if the power consumption is ten times the above measured figure, that's still 200 wall warts per household. An alternative explanation might be useful: maybe your 5% assertion is simply patently absurd, unfounded and indefensible. Maybe you just grasped on some absurdity as a means of bolstering your increasingly desparate position. I thank God that today I drank my morning coffee *before* reading this post. Cleaning up my work are can be time-consuming. I might have even ruined something. Nice deconstruction! |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: wrote: Assuming the average family in the United States has 5 members, that's TWO THOUSAND WALL WARTS PER HOUSEHOLD! Now, assume that each household has an average of 8 rooms. That's TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WALL WARTS PER ROOM. Further assume, two wall warts per outlet, that's ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DUPLEX WALL OUTLETS PER ROOM. Pray tell, mrbog, what on gdwds green earth are all these wall warts powering? Even if ONE IN A HUNDRED were powering headphone amplifiers, that means that that every man, women and child in the United States WAS LISTENING TO 40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME! An alternative explanation might be useful: maybe your 5% assertion is simply patently absurd, unfounded and indefensible. Maybe you just grasped on some absurdity as a means of bolstering your increasingly desparate position. Pray tell you ask, so sure I'll tell- Your entire scenario, while it seems "scientific" in a Jerry Springer kind of way, is fundamentially flawed. I have one giant chunk of information that you're detailed scientific analysis forgot: WALLWARTS ARE USED ON MORE THAN JUST HOUSEHOLDS. mrbog, in your desparate attempt to defend your position, you have utterly and totally failed to grasp the utter absurdity of your position. Your claim is that wall warts consume 5% of the total energy production of the US. That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total electrical production in one year. You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is 3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. That's not 4 trillion watts or 4 x 10^12 Watts per year, that's 4,000 TRILLION Watts or 4 x 10^15 Watts per year. It makes your assertion so toally absurd because it raises the number of wallwarts by a factor of 1000. You're asserting that the total consumption due to wallwarts is on the order of 200 trillion watts. Assuming a dissipation of 10 watts per wart, your assertion boild down to a testable claim that in the United States, there are currently 20 trillion wall warts. TWENTY TRILLION WALL WARTS. That's EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS FOR EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD in the United States. It makes NO difference where those wallwarts are, whether they are in homes, officies, stores, wherever. Your claim, simply stated, is that for every single person, there are EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS IN THE UNITED STATES. Your claim, simply stated, is that there are TWENTY TRILLION WALLWARTS IN THE UNITED STATES. That, in short, is the consequence of claiming 5% of the US total energy output is consumed by wallwarts. Let's assume that the effective cost of each wallwart is $5.00. Your claim is that the effective worth of all the wall warts in this country is ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. That's an order of magnitude greater than the total expenditures of the Federal Government! That's an extraordinary claim, mrbog, a truly extraordinary claim. Yet it is the inevitable consequence of your claim that wallwarts consume 5% of the total US energy production. In fact, households are small by comparison. Look at real estate distribution figures. The fact is, construction money isn't spent on households in America NEARLY as much as other institutions- office, university, medical, travel, factory, millitary, government, schools, commerce. It's utterly irrelevant: your claim is that 5% of the total US energy output goes into wall warts. It makes NO difference where they are. Your claim then is that wall warts are responsible for the consumption of 5% of the total power output of the US, and that claim leads to absurd conclusions. And you are too stupid and too pigheaded to admit the fact that your claim is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. It is most likely because your claim forms a funcdamental basis for your original ranting, and once that 5% claim is effectivel dconcstructed, your original assertion has no foundation. The square footage in households is absolutely DWARFED by that of "everything else". You're nutty metrics- mapping x million wallwarts to x million households is utter ****. Again, mrbog, you have utterly failed to grasp the more fundamental point: that your 5% figure is absurd. Next time you walk through a mall, think of how many wall warts there are in every socket in every store, in every demo model, cash register, back office lamps, computers. Remember your absurd usenet post in which you wrote all of that off. All of that is off your radar. Go re-read your colorful post right now, your "40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME". It's silliness. Yes, it is totally silly, which is precisely where your absurd figure of 5% total US power budget MUST lead you. Go get yourself a wee bit of education, and see if you can learn what a "reductio ad absurdum" is. That's precisely what was done with your silly figure And by the way, that 5% isn't my figure. No, it is nt. Wherever you got that figure, it was either wrong to begin with or, more likely, you misunderstood, misquoted, mis- represented or misused it. It makes no difference, because it leads to these utterly absurd results. Well, no, it is an absurd position you have put yourself in, and you have entirely yourself to blame. The title of the thread is "the best soundcard..." with NO qualification whatsoever and, after dozens of posts trying to tweak out of you what was best TO YOU, we find that you focus on a SINGLE property to which the market has spoken quite loudly and umabiguously that it doesn't give a rat's ass about. No qualification of the title? Did you read the post?? The title is limited to what- 32 characters? Here is the EXACT subject, as conveyed, from the beginning, by Google groups: "The best PC soundcards were made in 1999." That's it. Those are YOUR words from the very beginning. No truncation, no editing. That's the subject line YOU chose. Your original post makes NO mention of headphones. Yet you choose to hold forth and make technical assertions about something you admit you know nothing about. You quote "facts" on power consumption of wallwarts vs soundcard amplifiers without, quite obviously knowing abnything at all about what you are talking about. You make claims of knowledge of the computer and audio market without, quite clearly, having any clue about the subject. What claims of "knowledge of the computer and audio market" have I made? You have made, at numerous point, specific claims that require explicit knowledge of the market, to wit: "The reason they took it away is: A) Audiophiles run the industry and care about little bits of distortion that no one else cares about, and about being "more like other audio equipment" in some techno- obessed way." You have explicit knowledge of this fact? The statement pretty much requires that you do, and now you deny it. "B) The consumer was dumb enough not to understand the problem with using a wallwart based amplifier which ends up costing them even while their asleep." Again, you have specific market information about what the consumer does or does not know? Now you say you do not, so these claims must be outright fabrications on your part. Further, you stated: "the present selection of soundcards is fundamentally flawed." again, that implies direct and specific knowledge of the market, which you now claim NOT to have. Which is it? The claim I made was "all I want is volume, without wasting power, and I can't get than now". Is that my "claim of knowledge of the market". Yes, and above of quotes of YOU making such claims. You have made other technical claims that are out and out wrong, to wit: "Obviously, the amp port isn't drawing any power unless it's in use." This statement is patently and provably wrong, which simply confirms your claim that you have no technical expertise. In fact, the amplifier circuitry on these soundcards IS drawing power whether or not they are being used. TO claim otherwise is to demonstrate complete lack of knowledge of the operating principles of analog power amplification. You're a master of empty statements. You, sir, are an outright liar. Your own words have demonstrated that. You have made specific technical assertions while at the same time admitting you have no technical expertise to do so, and then criticise others technical rejoinders, again without any technical expertise to do so. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Assuming the average family in the United States has 5 members, that's TWO THOUSAND WALL WARTS PER HOUSEHOLD! Now, assume that each household has an average of 8 rooms. That's TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WALL WARTS PER ROOM. Further assume, two wall warts per outlet, that's ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DUPLEX WALL OUTLETS PER ROOM. Pray tell, mrbog, what on gdwds green earth are all these wall warts powering? Even if ONE IN A HUNDRED were powering headphone amplifiers, that means that that every man, women and child in the United States WAS LISTENING TO 40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME! An alternative explanation might be useful: maybe your 5% assertion is simply patently absurd, unfounded and indefensible. Maybe you just grasped on some absurdity as a means of bolstering your increasingly desparate position. Pray tell you ask, so sure I'll tell- Your entire scenario, while it seems "scientific" in a Jerry Springer kind of way, is fundamentially flawed. I have one giant chunk of information that you're detailed scientific analysis forgot: WALLWARTS ARE USED ON MORE THAN JUST HOUSEHOLDS. mrbog, in your desparate attempt to defend your position, you have utterly and totally failed to grasp the utter absurdity of your position. Your claim is that wall warts consume 5% of the total energy production of the US. That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total electrical production in one year. You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is 3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. That's not 4 trillion watts or 4 x 10^12 Watts per year, that's 4,000 TRILLION Watts or 4 x 10^15 Watts per year. It makes your assertion so toally absurd because it raises the number of wallwarts by a factor of 1000. You're asserting that the total consumption due to wallwarts is on the order of 200 trillion watts. Assuming a dissipation of 10 watts per wart, your assertion boild down to a testable claim that in the United States, there are currently 20 trillion wall warts. TWENTY TRILLION WALL WARTS. That's EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS FOR EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD in the United States. It makes NO difference where those wallwarts are, whether they are in homes, officies, stores, wherever. Your claim, simply stated, is that for every single person, there are EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS IN THE UNITED STATES. Your claim, simply stated, is that there are TWENTY TRILLION WALLWARTS IN THE UNITED STATES. That, in short, is the consequence of claiming 5% of the US total energy output is consumed by wallwarts. Let's assume that the effective cost of each wallwart is $5.00. Your claim is that the effective worth of all the wall warts in this country is ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. That's an order of magnitude greater than the total expenditures of the Federal Government! That's an extraordinary claim, mrbog, a truly extraordinary claim. Yet it is the inevitable consequence of your claim that wallwarts consume 5% of the total US energy production. In fact, households are small by comparison. Look at real estate distribution figures. The fact is, construction money isn't spent on households in America NEARLY as much as other institutions- office, university, medical, travel, factory, millitary, government, schools, commerce. It's utterly irrelevant: your claim is that 5% of the total US energy output goes into wall warts. It makes NO difference where they are. Your claim then is that wall warts are responsible for the consumption of 5% of the total power output of the US, and that claim leads to absurd conclusions. And you are too stupid and too pigheaded to admit the fact that your claim is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. It is most likely because your claim forms a funcdamental basis for your original ranting, and once that 5% claim is effectivel dconcstructed, your original assertion has no foundation. The square footage in households is absolutely DWARFED by that of "everything else". You're nutty metrics- mapping x million wallwarts to x million households is utter ****. Again, mrbog, you have utterly failed to grasp the more fundamental point: that your 5% figure is absurd. Next time you walk through a mall, think of how many wall warts there are in every socket in every store, in every demo model, cash register, back office lamps, computers. Remember your absurd usenet post in which you wrote all of that off. All of that is off your radar. Go re-read your colorful post right now, your "40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME". It's silliness. Yes, it is totally silly, which is precisely where your absurd figure of 5% total US power budget MUST lead you. Go get yourself a wee bit of education, and see if you can learn what a "reductio ad absurdum" is. That's precisely what was done with your silly figure And by the way, that 5% isn't my figure. No, it is nt. Wherever you got that figure, it was either wrong to begin with or, more likely, you misunderstood, misquoted, mis- represented or misused it. It makes no difference, because it leads to these utterly absurd results. Well, no, it is an absurd position you have put yourself in, and you have entirely yourself to blame. The title of the thread is "the best soundcard..." with NO qualification whatsoever and, after dozens of posts trying to tweak out of you what was best TO YOU, we find that you focus on a SINGLE property to which the market has spoken quite loudly and umabiguously that it doesn't give a rat's ass about. No qualification of the title? Did you read the post?? The title is limited to what- 32 characters? Here is the EXACT subject, as conveyed, from the beginning, by Google groups: "The best PC soundcards were made in 1999." That's it. Those are YOUR words from the very beginning. No truncation, no editing. That's the subject line YOU chose. Your original post makes NO mention of headphones. Yet you choose to hold forth and make technical assertions about something you admit you know nothing about. You quote "facts" on power consumption of wallwarts vs soundcard amplifiers without, quite obviously knowing abnything at all about what you are talking about. You make claims of knowledge of the computer and audio market without, quite clearly, having any clue about the subject. What claims of "knowledge of the computer and audio market" have I made? You have made, at numerous point, specific claims that require explicit knowledge of the market, to wit: "The reason they took it away is: A) Audiophiles run the industry and care about little bits of distortion that no one else cares about, and about being "more like other audio equipment" in some techno- obessed way." You have explicit knowledge of this fact? The statement pretty much requires that you do, and now you deny it. "B) The consumer was dumb enough not to understand the problem with using a wallwart based amplifier which ends up costing them even while their asleep." Again, you have specific market information about what the consumer does or does not know? Now you say you do not, so these claims must be outright fabrications on your part. Further, you stated: "the present selection of soundcards is fundamentally flawed." again, that implies direct and specific knowledge of the market, which you now claim NOT to have. Which is it? The claim I made was "all I want is volume, without wasting power, and I can't get than now". Is that my "claim of knowledge of the market". Yes, and above of quotes of YOU making such claims. You have made other technical claims that are out and out wrong, to wit: "Obviously, the amp port isn't drawing any power unless it's in use." This statement is patently and provably wrong, which simply confirms your claim that you have no technical expertise. In fact, the amplifier circuitry on these soundcards IS drawing power whether or not they are being used. TO claim otherwise is to demonstrate complete lack of knowledge of the operating principles of analog power amplification. You're a master of empty statements. You, sir, are an outright liar. Your own words have demonstrated that. You have made specific technical assertions while at the same time admitting you have no technical expertise to do so, and then criticise others technical rejoinders, again without any technical expertise to do so. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
| Powerful Argument in Favor of Agnosticism and Athetism | Audio Opinions | |||
| Opposite of Mu-law? | Tech | |||
| Spinning Wheels II: CD/DVD Player or transport+DAC? (and related question on PC soundcards) | Audio Opinions | |||
| Who made the best older two shaft radio ? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
