From: one-if-by-land@concord.com
"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
news:13qn2jer1v2uo3a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" wrote in
> news:fofpub01mnb@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>>
>> "Kris Krieger" wrote in message
>> news:13qmhg64uhffc15@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Don" wrote in
>>> news:fof7ee02r13@news1.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Every now and then I'll grab a couple costly CFL bulbs when I'm out
>>>> in the hope that it will reduce our light bill.
>>>> Just installed 2 supposedly 75 watt bulbs to take the place of 2 3
>>>> way bulbs in our living room table lamps that were 60-75-100 watts
>>>> but the 100 watt filaments were blown.
>>>> The CFL 75 watt bulbs, GE, use 25 watts and will save $36 per year,
>>>> at 6 hrs per day use.
>>>> Ours are on for maybe 1 hour per day, er night, so they will save $6
>>>> per year, 50 cents per month. yippee! lets go to tahiti!!
>>>> I replaced the 40 watt bulbs in our bedroom nightstand lights with
>>>> 60 watt CFL's that use 15 watts.
>>>>
>>>> Here we go with the watts thing again.
>>>> Apples ain't oranges and never will be.
>>>
>>> The info below about th espeakers is intersting, tho' I'm not seeing
>>> how it
>>> related to light bulbs... What the light-bulb thing si about, is how
>>> much power one bulb draws in comparison to another.
>>
>> It was an analogy.
>
> Oh! (duuuuh...)
>
>> Audio watts back then aren't the same as audio watts now, but they are
>> all still called watts.
>> My ears tell me they are different.
>
> I can't get wround the definition of "watt"; I think they were using, and
> still use, the term simplistically. What they *should* talk about is not
> the amount of raw power that the things can take, but rather, something
> that expresses the sound-generaton range and the fidelity of sound
> reproduction.
They do.
There are things like S/N which means sound to noise ration, and THD total
harmonic distortion, and a few other things.
Some of this stuff may no longer be applicable as I am reaching back 30+
years and remembering how it was then.
> THat's part of what makes it difficult to select items.
Ultimately, it comes down to what sounds good to YOU.
I was in the army in the mid-late 70's and that was the very height of the
global audio wars amongst the big guys, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood, Marantz,
etc. and people in the military received steep discounts on the order of 50%
off of all audio equipment. It was during this period that I got caught up
in the craze and ultimately shipped 2700 lbs of stereo equipment to FL from
Germany, all Pioneer.
The friday night barracks parties would get fierce amongst the people with
their various brands of stereos.
At the time there was an undisputed champ of all the modertaely priced
speakers, the legendary JBL Century 100 1st series.
They were considered consumer based *studio monitors* and for the average
person they were still quite pricey, around $300 each with the military
discount.
They were beyond my financial grasp.
In 1977 Pioneer released their *version* of the Century 100, named, HPM-100
that featured then never heard of til then, High Polymer Super Tweeter.
That driver would exceed the human hearing range and opened up the listening
experience like never before.
It was now possible to hear the stick *coming off* the cymbal and the
guitarists squeaking in the sleeve joints. OMG!
I had to have em.
I actually own 8 pairs of those speakers right now, the HPM-100's, and 2
pairs each of their little brothers, HPM-60's and HPM-40's.
I also have Sansui's top of the line full quadraphonic set up too, from
1976, including 4 channel turntable and 4 channel auto-reverse reel to reel
recorder.
This is just one of the many things I've managed to blow boatloads of money
on over the years.
And guess what? I hardly ever listen to the stuff.
Maybe one day I'll throw all of it up for bids on ebay.
> Watts is watts. THer aren't "differnt watts". I'm not trying to sound
> snide, just trying to say that your obervations are correct but the idea
> of "different watts' is not. What differs is how the watts are used.
I'm not educated enough on this topic to argue it intelligently.
I know what I'm talking about but I don't know how to say it.
I agree with you that watts *should* be watts but I don't think thats what
the stereo manufacturers are doing.
Something is different between the analog watts of days gone by and the
digital watts of today.
I've heard terms like *sterility* and *harsh* associated with the digital
audio production of late.
I don't know the reasons why, I just know what I hear.
> OK, here's sort of an analogy. Consider a mill run by a water wheel, and
> another mill which is run by electricity cgenerated by a dam. In both
> cases, the *water* is the same, and the principle is the same: water is
> channel to flow through a narrow gap, which concentrates its kinetic
> energy, which is then used to spin a wheel.
>
> In the water-wheel-run mill, the water itself powers teh millwheel,
> whereas in the second mill, that ware spins a generator (IIRC, magnets
> ona wheel, basically, btu check me because I'm not positive) and the
> ersulting electricity is used to power the millwheel.
>
> The water is the same, just as the watts/electron flow is the same,
> regardless of the mechanism. What changes is that mechanism.
>
>
> Does that help...?
Sort of, but different. LOL
We're talking about a nontangible thing and its difficult to transmit that
through written words.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
