Tut tut, my good fellow. It seems that you are looking for the impossible for all good men know that to get any speakers that won't hurt your ears your $1500 will only get you the downpayment on speakers from Obscure Audio, a concern I became familiar with when I was chatting with some other Ferrari owners at the club. They make their loudspeakers by growing their own hardwood in their own forset, then cutting down the tree with a frozen herring. Then blind Scottish craftsmen hollow out the tree, using their heightened sense of hearing to make the most acoustically perfect sound chamber you have ever experienced.
After the carving is complete, the wood is seasoned by a team of craftspeople who use truffle oil to provide a beautiful sheen. THe drivers are powered by neonamytititanum drivers, which as you know is the rarest of rare earth magnets and it's renowned the world over by serious audiophiles.
I'm sure you would agree that these speakers are the best ever and are really worth the 20K USD each.
Now for your amplifier I would suggest contacting Der Powur Amplification of Copenhagen, who specialze in not only designing the cleanest amplified sound, but also the power supplies and generation equipment to go with them. Of course, they only run on premium fuel (naturally, of course). I have one of their amps for each one of the channels. Because that's the only way to be sure. Of course, you can probably get a deal if you talk to Karl, he might not charge you for shipping.
Now you will have the best audio experience ever, until next year rolls around and all your equipment is outdated. At which time you will have to shop again.
Seriously -- go out, audition some speakers and an amp. Go to a store that lets you return it in 30 days if you don't like it. Go for the bast price, and remember you are paying for a manufactured good (at this price range) so you should be able to bargain shop and find a good deal. I have a Sony AV reciever and Boston Acoustic / Cambridge Soundworks. I like them because they are paid for and provide decent sound. Because you can dump big $$$ into a system but then it has to compete with heating / ventiation / open windows (traffic noise, screaming children, motorcycles). This "background noise" can easily overwhelm the subtleties of your ultraexpensive system.
"Burn Hollywood Burn" by Public Enemy came up randomly from my Napster playlist when I read this discussion?
Might as well try and stop the sun from coming up in the morning -- the burden of keeping track of all this information will be a bit high, don't you think?
What someone wanting to build a new power plant in Califonia would have to do:
1. I want to generate power using coal.
Reply: Coal's too dirty, you can't use that.
2. I want to generatr power using natural gas
Reply: Natural gas ia a fossil fuel and we can't use that.
3. I want to create a nuclear plant
Reply: NO WAY!
4. I want to generate power using hydroelectric power.
Reply: No, you will hurt the fishes
5. I want to use wind (or solar) power
Reply: You will destroy the beautiful view
6. I want to use geothermal power
Reply: That's too expensive, hurts the earth
7. I want to use hamsters on treadmills
Reply: Oh, the poor hamsters!
An interesting footnote is that some of the capacity is lacking beacuse they have exceeded the pollution limit. Seems like it might be time to throw the switch and power up those (assumption) viable plants that are just sitting there, not doing a thing.
Of course, there can always be ways to save power (I power off the monitor at night, turn off lights when I leave the room, wear a sweater at home instead of turning up the heat, walk or ride a bike when possible, drive a fuel-efficient car, buy items with less packaging, etc), but it seems that if the power supply is so finite then there needs to be some new capacity built.
I work in tech support and have to deal with people like this all the time. They inevitably are lying to you about what they really know or over-analyzing a really simple issue that they overlooked while digging for an answer that isn't the problem.
I can't tell you how often I've wasted time by NOT checking the basics myself. And when it gets passed to a higher level tech (or manager) -- guess what -- the first things they are going to check are the basis.
Bottom line: be polite and courteous and you will get the best someone wants to give. People tend to respond in kind....
I've been at three jobs now, and three places were implementing these types of systems. Overall, it's a wonderful idea, it's supposed to make the workers happy, the management happy, the customer happy, you'll be dancing in the aisles and love to come to work, la la la la.
In reality, I find that these systems often become just another checkbox on the project timeline -- did we update the ISO docs to reflect this -- and just serves up another layer on top of management.
What many of these systems miss is that it is supposed to improve your processes, but they often get stuck documenting the poor management processes, which makes them hard to change. Of course, since these systems are supposed to do everything a company wants, they are the equivalent of clean water and clean air legislation -- no politician can go against a law called something like "the clean air and water purification act", even if it was chock full of harmful law. Same thing here when you try and explain why you don't want to participate in the ISO process. You'll find thousands of books explaining why the system is great, but probably none documenting that it becomes an expensive library system.
It does work well for manufacturing, however -- these very techniques were what led to the American car companies being handed their ass by the Japanese in the 80's. I'd have to believe that some aspects of the philosophy could be applied to software development, especially for a large project, to establish a framework to work within. However, I would let people within the company develop the program rather than hire a consultant who just came from the manufacturing plant down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
After the carving is complete, the wood is seasoned by a team of craftspeople who use truffle oil to provide a beautiful sheen. THe drivers are powered by neonamytititanum drivers, which as you know is the rarest of rare earth magnets and it's renowned the world over by serious audiophiles.
I'm sure you would agree that these speakers are the best ever and are really worth the 20K USD each.
Now for your amplifier I would suggest contacting Der Powur Amplification of Copenhagen, who specialze in not only designing the cleanest amplified sound, but also the power supplies and generation equipment to go with them. Of course, they only run on premium fuel (naturally, of course). I have one of their amps for each one of the channels. Because that's the only way to be sure. Of course, you can probably get a deal if you talk to Karl, he might not charge you for shipping.
Now you will have the best audio experience ever, until next year rolls around and all your equipment is outdated. At which time you will have to shop again.
Seriously -- go out, audition some speakers and an amp. Go to a store that lets you return it in 30 days if you don't like it. Go for the bast price, and remember you are paying for a manufactured good (at this price range) so you should be able to bargain shop and find a good deal. I have a Sony AV reciever and Boston Acoustic / Cambridge Soundworks. I like them because they are paid for and provide decent sound. Because you can dump big $$$ into a system but then it has to compete with heating / ventiation / open windows (traffic noise, screaming children, motorcycles). This "background noise" can easily overwhelm the subtleties of your ultraexpensive system.
Might as well try and stop the sun from coming up in the morning -- the burden of keeping track of all this information will be a bit high, don't you think?
What someone wanting to build a new power plant in Califonia would have to do:
1. I want to generate power using coal.
Reply: Coal's too dirty, you can't use that.
2. I want to generatr power using natural gas
Reply: Natural gas ia a fossil fuel and we can't use that.
3. I want to create a nuclear plant
Reply: NO WAY!
4. I want to generate power using hydroelectric power.
Reply: No, you will hurt the fishes
5. I want to use wind (or solar) power
Reply: You will destroy the beautiful view
6. I want to use geothermal power
Reply: That's too expensive, hurts the earth
7. I want to use hamsters on treadmills
Reply: Oh, the poor hamsters!
An interesting footnote is that some of the capacity is lacking beacuse they have exceeded the pollution limit. Seems like it might be time to throw the switch and power up those (assumption) viable plants that are just sitting there, not doing a thing.
Of course, there can always be ways to save power (I power off the monitor at night, turn off lights when I leave the room, wear a sweater at home instead of turning up the heat, walk or ride a bike when possible, drive a fuel-efficient car, buy items with less packaging, etc), but it seems that if the power supply is so finite then there needs to be some new capacity built.
I work in tech support and have to deal with people like this all the time. They inevitably are lying to you about what they really know or over-analyzing a really simple issue that they overlooked while digging for an answer that isn't the problem. I can't tell you how often I've wasted time by NOT checking the basics myself. And when it gets passed to a higher level tech (or manager) -- guess what -- the first things they are going to check are the basis. Bottom line: be polite and courteous and you will get the best someone wants to give. People tend to respond in kind ....
I've been at three jobs now, and three places were implementing these types of systems. Overall, it's a wonderful idea, it's supposed to make the workers happy, the management happy, the customer happy, you'll be dancing in the aisles and love to come to work, la la la la.
In reality, I find that these systems often become just another checkbox on the project timeline -- did we update the ISO docs to reflect this -- and just serves up another layer on top of management.
What many of these systems miss is that it is supposed to improve your processes, but they often get stuck documenting the poor management processes, which makes them hard to change. Of course, since these systems are supposed to do everything a company wants, they are the equivalent of clean water and clean air legislation -- no politician can go against a law called something like "the clean air and water purification act", even if it was chock full of harmful law. Same thing here when you try and explain why you don't want to participate in the ISO process. You'll find thousands of books explaining why the system is great, but probably none documenting that it becomes an expensive library system.
It does work well for manufacturing, however -- these very techniques were what led to the American car companies being handed their ass by the Japanese in the 80's. I'd have to believe that some aspects of the philosophy could be applied to software development, especially for a large project, to establish a framework to work within. However, I would let people within the company develop the program rather than hire a consultant who just came from the manufacturing plant down the road.