Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2173585 > unrolled thread

cloud hobbit is

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  cloud hobbit is jackpineforeveryone@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 07:52 -0700
    Re: cloud hobbit is Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 16:50 -0700
      Re: cloud hobbit is Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:28 -0400
        Re: cloud hobbit is "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-30 10:07 +1000
          Re: cloud hobbit is Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-10-01 01:34 +0000
            Re: cloud hobbit is "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-01 14:54 +1000
          Re: cloud hobbit is Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 03:44 -0700
            Re: cloud hobbit is "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-02 17:09 +1100
    Re: cloud hobbit is hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 18:03 -0700
    Re: cloud hobbit is "We'll Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews" <macabbeus@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:53 -0700
      Re: cloud hobbit is Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-27 13:56 -0700
        Re: cloud hobbit is hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-01 23:35 -0700
      Re: cloud hobbit is Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 15:30 -0700
    Re: cloud hobbit is hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-01 23:25 -0700

#2173585 — cloud hobbit is

obsessed.   what a way to spend your life. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2173771

Obsessed?  With What?

Truth?
Freedom?
Intelligence?
Honesty?
Integrity?
Good Audio equipment?

I am obsessed a bit with all of these things.

I bet you had something else in mind.  Something you think is BAD.
Whatever could it be?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2174766

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
<youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:

>Obsessed?  With What?
>
>Truth?
>Freedom?
>Intelligence?
>Honesty?
>Integrity?
>Good Audio equipment?
>

Oooh, I'll bite.

Good Audio equipment?

OK... how about this as a game?

a) You have $100K to spend

b) You have $15K to spend

c) You have $2.5K to spend

Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2175131

On 29/09/2016 14:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obsessed?  With What?
>>
>> Truth?
>> Freedom?
>> Intelligence?
>> Honesty?
>> Integrity?
>> Good Audio equipment?
>>
>
> Oooh, I'll bite.
>
> Good Audio equipment?
>
> OK... how about this as a game?
>
> a) You have $100K to spend
>
> b) You have $15K to spend
>
> c) You have $2.5K to spend
>
> Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.
>

Assumptions:

-- active speakers are better because the amps are perfectly matched to 
the speakers;

-- half the budget should go on the speakers;

-- vinyl sounds better.

-- the only tweaks worth exploring are clean power supply, vibration 
reduction and decent quality cables;

-- it's always worth looking at second-hand audiophile gear.

As to specific setups at each of these price points, that's too tricky. 
It really all depends on your listening habits and musical preferences 
(not to mention the all-important WAF, or "Wife Acceptance Factor").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2175586

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:07:25 +1000, Alex W. wrote:

> On 29/09/2016 14:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obsessed?  With What?
>>>
>>> Truth?
>>> Freedom? Intelligence? Honesty?
>>> Integrity?
>>> Good Audio equipment?
>>>
>> Oooh, I'll bite.
>>
>> Good Audio equipment?
>>
>> OK... how about this as a game?
>>
>> a) You have $100K to spend
>>
>> b) You have $15K to spend
>>
>> c) You have $2.5K to spend
>>
>> Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.
>>
> Assumptions:
> 
> -- active speakers are better because the amps are perfectly matched to
> the speakers;
> 
> -- half the budget should go on the speakers;
> 
> -- vinyl sounds better.
> 
> -- the only tweaks worth exploring are clean power supply, vibration
> reduction and decent quality cables;
> 
> -- it's always worth looking at second-hand audiophile gear.
> 
> As to specific setups at each of these price points, that's too tricky.
> It really all depends on your listening habits and musical preferences
> (not to mention the all-important WAF, or "Wife Acceptance Factor").

Otherwise known as 'the domestic authorities.'

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2175650

On 01/10/2016 11:34, Smiler wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:07:25 +1000, Alex W. wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2016 14:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obsessed?  With What?
>>>>
>>>> Truth?
>>>> Freedom? Intelligence? Honesty?
>>>> Integrity?
>>>> Good Audio equipment?
>>>>
>>> Oooh, I'll bite.
>>>
>>> Good Audio equipment?
>>>
>>> OK... how about this as a game?
>>>
>>> a) You have $100K to spend
>>>
>>> b) You have $15K to spend
>>>
>>> c) You have $2.5K to spend
>>>
>>> Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.
>>>
>> Assumptions:
>>
>> -- active speakers are better because the amps are perfectly matched to
>> the speakers;
>>
>> -- half the budget should go on the speakers;
>>
>> -- vinyl sounds better.
>>
>> -- the only tweaks worth exploring are clean power supply, vibration
>> reduction and decent quality cables;
>>
>> -- it's always worth looking at second-hand audiophile gear.
>>
>> As to specific setups at each of these price points, that's too tricky.
>> It really all depends on your listening habits and musical preferences
>> (not to mention the all-important WAF, or "Wife Acceptance Factor").
>
> Otherwise known as 'the domestic authorities.'
>

SWMBO -- She Who Must Be Obeyed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2175748

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:07:28 PM UTC-7, Alex W. wrote:
> On 29/09/2016 14:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Obsessed?  With What?
> >>
> >> Truth?
> >> Freedom?
> >> Intelligence?
> >> Honesty?
> >> Integrity?
> >> Good Audio equipment?
> >>
> >
> > Oooh, I'll bite.
> >
> > Good Audio equipment?
> >
> > OK... how about this as a game?
> >
> > a) You have $100K to spend
> >
> > b) You have $15K to spend
> >
> > c) You have $2.5K to spend
> >
> > Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.
> >
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> -- active speakers are better because the amps are perfectly matched to 
> the speakers;

> And that's great if you like the sound of those speakers.  Some other nonpowered speaker might sound better.  The weakest link in the audio chain, because the electronics have distortion that if you combine if from all the components in the chain, it won't come close to typical woofer distortion of 5$

> -- half the budget should go on the speakers;
> 
Or more depending on how much gear you need.  Some folks don't care about home theatre, so they can get by with a well build amp, preamp, tuner and a CD player and be fine.  Others might wish to add a distortion generator, oh sorry, I mean a turntable.  Then you have to decide on a tone arm, a cartridge, and the assorted cleaning gear.

> -- vinyl sounds better.
> 
That depends.  If you have an LP that has never been released on CD, if the CD release was mixed by a guy with 2 tin ears, or maybe the sound created by vinyl is just wht you prefer.  A well-done LP is still better than a crappy CD, but a well-done CD mixed and engineered by good people is the most breathtaking sound you'll ever hear. There's no way you will ever get the music to sound exactly like it would if there were live musicians in your room, but the increased dynamic range and absolutely inaudible distortion make CD my main choice.  I just have duplicates of all my favorite LP's

> -- the only tweaks worth exploring are clean power supply, vibration 
> reduction and decent quality cables;
> 
Have you ever seen modern equipment with a noisy power supply in anything other than drug store stereo? Never had a problem with a noisy power supply.
Vibration reduction for the turntable I assume you will want.  It's completely unnecessary for anything else. Decent quality speaker cable can be purchased at
Home Depot for about 30 cents a foot.  The cables that come with the equipment are perfectly fine and will not audibly inferior to any other kind regardless of price.  Think about how far the electricity traveled through nonaudiophile approved wire to get to your house.  You're going to clean it all up in the last 2-3 feet with magic wire?  it's all bullshit.

> -- it's always worth looking at second-hand audiophile gear.
> 
For electronics, it's well worth considering pro audio gear as in what musicians and venues use to power their speakers.  They sound just as good and since they don't pay the outrageously high advertising bill that home audio gear does, they cost less.

Consider powering a subwoofer with one.  really good bass is what requires lots and lots of power.  If you using it for home theatre there can be low-frequency sound in the 20-25 Hz range that will sound like shit if your amp clips. To hear it the way it should sound you need something that can cleanly play 2000 watt peaks.  While that power is only needed for a very small amount of time, if it isn't there you will know it, especially once you have heard it.

> As to specific setups at each of these price points, that's too tricky. 
> It really all depends on your listening habits and musical preferences 
> (not to mention the all-important WAF, or "Wife Acceptance Factor").

For amplification and for vinyl playback yes.  For anything else it'sd just making sure you have enough power to drive your speakers to the SPL you like.

A 150 dollar CD player will most likely sound identical to every other CD player unless the unit is "tweaked" by the manufacturer to play other than flat, or the unit is broken.  It is trivial to make CD playback that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz with no distortion in the audible range.  Find one you like the look of and buy it.

I just realized how much I spent talking about CD's when they are on their way out.  Damn I'm old.

Every single word I said is true and verifiable by any decent measurement lab, or by any EE.

They figured out how to make flat power amps with inaudible distortion 50 ears ago at least.  Digital audio recorded at the proper bits per second will not have any audible distortion either.

All of the things that could actually improve the sound in your room have a very low wife approval factor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2176065

On 01/10/2016 20:44, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:07:28 PM UTC-7, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 29/09/2016 14:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obsessed?  With What?
>>>>
>>>> Truth? Freedom? Intelligence? Honesty? Integrity? Good Audio
>>>> equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oooh, I'll bite.
>>>
>>> Good Audio equipment?
>>>
>>> OK... how about this as a game?
>>>
>>> a) You have $100K to spend
>>>
>>> b) You have $15K to spend
>>>
>>> c) You have $2.5K to spend
>>>
>>> Go. Justify your choices. List your assumptions first.
>>>
>>
>> Assumptions:
>>
>> -- active speakers are better because the amps are perfectly
>> matched to the speakers;
>
>> And that's great if you like the sound of those speakers.  Some
>> other nonpowered speaker might sound better.  The weakest link in
>> the audio chain, because the electronics have distortion that if
>> you combine if from all the components in the chain, it won't come
>> close to typical woofer distortion of 5$
>
>> -- half the budget should go on the speakers;
>>
> Or more depending on how much gear you need.  Some folks don't care
> about home theatre, so they can get by with a well build amp, preamp,
> tuner and a CD player and be fine.  Others might wish to add a
> distortion generator, oh sorry, I mean a turntable.  Then you have to
> decide on a tone arm, a cartridge, and the assorted cleaning gear.

Which is one reason why I do not own vinyl -- I know myself well enough 
that going down that particular rabbit hole will land me in a world of 
self-inflicted financial pain chasing down the best tone arms, needles 
etc....

:-)


>
>> -- vinyl sounds better.
>>
> That depends.  If you have an LP that has never been released on CD,
> if the CD release was mixed by a guy with 2 tin ears, or maybe the
> sound created by vinyl is just wht you prefer.  A well-done LP is
> still better than a crappy CD, but a well-done CD mixed and
> engineered by good people is the most breathtaking sound you'll ever
> hear. There's no way you will ever get the music to sound exactly
> like it would if there were live musicians in your room, but the
> increased dynamic range and absolutely inaudible distortion make CD
> my main choice.  I just have duplicates of all my favorite LP's
>
>> -- the only tweaks worth exploring are clean power supply,
>> vibration reduction and decent quality cables;
>>
> Have you ever seen modern equipment with a noisy power supply in
> anything other than drug store stereo? Never had a problem with a
> noisy power supply. Vibration reduction for the turntable I assume
> you will want.  It's completely unnecessary for anything else. Decent
> quality speaker cable can be purchased at Home Depot for about 30
> cents a foot.  The cables that come with the equipment are perfectly
> fine and will not audibly inferior to any other kind regardless of
> price.  Think about how far the electricity traveled through
> nonaudiophile approved wire to get to your house.  You're going to
> clean it all up in the last 2-3 feet with magic wire?  it's all
> bullshit.

Two different things here.

First, yes I do clean up my power supply, but that happens at the socket 
and has nothing to do with the cables (other than the power cable).

The cabling between the components and to the speakers are for as clean 
and undistorted transmission as possible from the source to the 
speakers.  That is where quality does pay (always subject to the law of 
diminishing returns, of course).


>
>> -- it's always worth looking at second-hand audiophile gear.
>>
> For electronics, it's well worth considering pro audio gear as in
> what musicians and venues use to power their speakers.  They sound
> just as good and since they don't pay the outrageously high
> advertising bill that home audio gear does, they cost less.

Pro audio gear is a good suggestion, but it is worth bearing in mind 
that they have different priorities from us "civilian" audio consumers. 
Pro speakers, for example, as used in recording studios, tend to be far 
more analytical than many people may desire when playing back their CDs 
or listening to radio.


>
> Consider powering a subwoofer with one.  really good bass is what
> requires lots and lots of power.  If you using it for home theatre
> there can be low-frequency sound in the 20-25 Hz range that will
> sound like shit if your amp clips. To hear it the way it should sound
> you need something that can cleanly play 2000 watt peaks.  While that
> power is only needed for a very small amount of time, if it isn't
> there you will know it, especially once you have heard it.

Which is why I like active speakers: with those, the amp tends to be far 
better matched to the speakers' frequency figures.


>
>> As to specific setups at each of these price points, that's too
>> tricky. It really all depends on your listening habits and musical
>> preferences (not to mention the all-important WAF, or "Wife
>> Acceptance Factor").
>
> For amplification and for vinyl playback yes.  For anything else
> it'sd just making sure you have enough power to drive your speakers
> to the SPL you like.
>
> A 150 dollar CD player will most likely sound identical to every
> other CD player unless the unit is "tweaked" by the manufacturer to
> play other than flat, or the unit is broken.  It is trivial to make
> CD playback that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz with no distortion in
> the audible range.  Find one you like the look of and buy it.

Hardware does make a difference, IME.  Not all CD transports are the 
same, and a $150 CD player is unlikely to sport a transport that will be 
anywhere near as smooth-running and silent as a $1,000 CD player.

I'd also argue that there are worlds of audible difference between a DAC 
equipped with, say, a Cirrus versus a Burr-Brown chip.  True, having 
upmarket chips is not a magic bullet by any means, but it does help.

As for the design aspect being "trivial", well, IMO that is where good 
R&D and engineering come into play.  It takes a good engineer to design 
a circuit that properly matches a chip's signal to noise specs, to have 
a decent PCB layout, proper EMI shielding, grounding and power supply. 
That takes money.  Yes, it is quite possible to acquire a perfectly 
acceptable CD player for $150, but it will in no way approach audiophile 
standards for the simple reason that building a CD player to a price 
point as low as that does not leave enough money for good engineers to 
do their stuff.


>
> I just realized how much I spent talking about CD's when they are on
> their way out.  Damn I'm old.

Don't worry.
The day before yesterday, I had to explain a "mix tape" to my SO's nieces...


>
> Every single word I said is true and verifiable by any decent
> measurement lab, or by any EE.

Sorry, but I do not believe in all those measurements.  It's like rating 
a gourmet meal according to the nutritional values posted by a lab. 
What counts is the individual *sound experience*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2173798

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:53:07 PM UTC+8, jackpinef...@gmail.com wrote:
> obsessed.   what a way to spend your life.

Unlike you, what is wrong with Cloud being obsessed with his principled life???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2174135

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <31b634a1-5e32-4ab8-a03e-0a1250683253@googlegroups.com>,
>  jackpineforeveryone@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > obsessed.   what a way to spend your life. 
> 
> What do you think he is obsessed with?




Probably with your legs.... I wish. No, he is obsessed with defending Drawin so he can feel good about his perverted life style. He is such a faggot.



> 
> -- 
> 
> JD
> 
> Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
> up a God superior to themselves. Most 
> Gods have the manners and morals of a 
> spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2174137

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 4:53:25 PM UTC-4, We'll Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <31b634a1-5e32-4ab8-a03e-0a1250683253@googlegroups.com>,
> >  jackpineforeveryone@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > obsessed.   what a way to spend your life. 
> > 
> > What do you think he is obsessed with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably with your legs.... I wish. No, he is obsessed with defending Drawin so he can feel good about his perverted life style. He is such a faggot.
> 
> 

He's not the one posting into a group dedicated to ideas he doesn't 
agree with, using repulsive handles that show him to be a pluperfect bigot.

I'll take one "obsessive' halfling over a full-fledged troll who would
make a barrow wight look good!

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2176074

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 4:56:53 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 4:53:25 PM UTC-4, We'll Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews wrote:
> > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > > In article <31b634a1-5e32-4ab8-a03e-0a1250683253@googlegroups.com>,
> > >  jackpineforeveryone@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > obsessed.   what a way to spend your life. 
> > > 
> > > What do you think he is obsessed with?

> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Probably with your legs.... I wish. No, he is obsessed with defending Drawin so he can feel good about his perverted life style. He is such a faggot.
> > 
> > 
> 
> He's not the one posting into a group dedicated to ideas he doesn't 
> agree with, using repulsive handles that show him to be a pluperfect bigot.
> 
> I'll take one "obsessive' halfling over a full-fledged troll who would
> make a barrow wight look good!
> 
I doubt that Cody ever read the Ring Trilogy. He knows nothing about
reality or mythology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2174176

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 1:53:25 PM UTC-7, We'll Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:18:57 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <31b634a1-5e32-4ab8-a03e-0a1250683253@googlegroups.com>,
> >  jackpineforeveryone@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > obsessed.   what a way to spend your life. 
> > 
> > What do you think he is obsessed with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably with your legs.... I wish.

You wish I was obsessed with her legs?  That's not nearly as much fun as reading your insanity and making fun of you for being such an idiot.

 No, he is obsessed with defending Drawin so he can feel good about his perverted life style. He is such a faggot.
> 
> 

Another homosexual reference.  So, we know what you are obsessed with.
Do you have any plans about coming out to your family?

"Mom?  You know how I am always calling people faggot and queer?
Well, it turns out I am one or is it 2?  I don't know, all I know is I am obsessed with men's asses."

I, on the other hand, have a quite normal life, no perversions of any kind, just ask your sister.



> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > JD
> > 
> > Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
> > up a God superior to themselves. Most 
> > Gods have the manners and morals of a 
> > spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2176070

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-4, jackpinef...@gmail.com wrote:
> obsessed.   what a way to spend your life.

He's a member of this newsgroup. You're a troll. Trolls don't matter. What they say matters even less.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web