Out of 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlumpBuster

F it! I'll say it... I've been all over this here "internets" (to quote W) and this thread is the best thing ever written anywhere at anytime on any subject. It tears at the fabric of my reality. It is literary, yet banal. It is surreal, yet familiar.

I was first reminded of Sartre's "No Exit." But, then I realized it was Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." Last line of the play: "Let's go." "Yes, let's go." (Stage direction: They do not move.)

All I can say is I'm copying this ***** to my clipboard and shopping it to publishers.

---

This has always been one of my favorite AR quotes of all times. Welcome back oh, sleeping beauty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlumpBuster

Flo may not be around but the renewal of this thread is rousing me from my slumber. My inbox suddenly started getting hit with these updates. All I can do is quote myself from several years ago. The words remain true.

Joe_Carr = "Joker"? This SVI nerd isn't even subtle anymore.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL....hehehehehehe.....heee heee I gotta peeee!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

All true. I prefer the bookshelf speakers myself. More flexability.

---

Although I said that having a receiver and speakers is more louder and clear but I still like PC speakers too since they are compact and don't have many wires and also they do sound really good if you don't turn them up too loud like a concert. PC speakers aren't bad as you think they are they do have very clear sound too. Just wish that they could go louder without distortion but I guess since it's a smaller amp built in the speakers they are not as powerful as a receiver. But sure that PC speakers does take less space forsure. I still even use my Cyber Acoustics CA-3602 and they sound great at low or mid volume just if I turn them up too much they start to distort. I think the main reason is how compact they are and without soo much wires is what I like about PC speakers. It's just more convenient. Plus really I just use these speakers for my PC and my iPod so really they look nice having just a compact system. Maybe in the way future PC speakers will have more power and can play louder without distortin. That would be a nice thing I would be looking forward to in the future. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Carr

Maybe in the way future PC speakers will have more power and can play louder without distortin. That would be a nice thing I would be looking forward to in the future. :)

---

They do exist right now, but they are not under $100.

Well eather way if you don't turn them up super loud then you should be fine with PC speakers. I don't really have the need to turn them up soo loud since if I do it annoys my mom and her friend Tom when Toms over that is. Well eather way having a 30 watt RMS is good enough for me since I don't listen to it that loud.

Too bad that the Total system peak power is nothin that is useable since even if it really goes 62 watts that's if it's in a perfect condition and for a micro sec it can play at that volume and if I did continue to play it it will damage the speakers since music has ups and downs. So really the Cyber Acoustics CA-3602 is 30 watts total with the sub and two small speakers. I kinda have done more research on the total system peak power thing and it seems like it's nothin you really need to know. But I guess in a way it is a spec on paper for the speakers so maybe it's good to give the most infos about the speakers as possible. At least now you would learn more about how your speakers perform. But it did misslead me about the total system peak power at first since I thought my other Philips speakers was 80 watts but really they are 40 watts total and 20 watts each.


Basicly I hope in the future they will start making more powerful speakers that are actualy 62 watts RMS and around 122 watts total system peak power then it will play 62 watts RMS of power and that is affordable like around $100 or so would be nice. As of right now for under $100 it seems like around 30 or 32 watts is the actualy power speakers can get on a 2.1 system.


Just a thought from me.

I noticed that most speakers that say total peak music power say about twice the amount of the RMS watts. Example if speakers are rated 60 watts RMS then it's 120 watts total peak music power. I have never seem in person a speaker that says they are rated only 10watts RMS and have 200 watts total system peak power. I did see some pics that showed some powered speakers that have specs like that but never seem them sold anywhere. I wonder if this was long time agao when speakers use to say like only 10 watts and they have 200 watts total system peak power. Todays speakers that have the peak power spec uses just double the RMS watts that's all pretty much. I did see a nice 18" car subwoofer that was rated 600 watts RMS and 1200 total peak music power. So again those are just double the RMS.


Have you guys seen speakers that really say like 10 watts RMS but have 200 watts total system peak power? Or maybe even a speaker that is like 40 watts and have 500 watt total system peak power? I really think this is funny that speaker companies would put such a spec but just wondering if they really exsist. I kinda even actualy wonder if those speakers that says 200 watts total system peak power can actualy go that loud in a perfect condition for just a mico sec. Since how can a 10 watt RMS go 200 watts even just for a very fast sec. Todays that just double the RMS makes more sence that it is possible that it can go like 62 watts for just a micro sec. Like mine is 30 watts RMS and 62 watts PMPO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Carr

I kinda even actualy wonder if those speakers that says 200 watts total system peak power can actualy go that loud in a perfect condition for just a mico sec.

---

You are wondering because you are equating power with loudness which is not correct. If you imagine that 200 watt is there for momentary music spikes rather than loudness, then everything fall into place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

equating

---

Do you know this word, Joe Carr?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Carr

I noticed that most speakers that say total peak music power say about twice the amount of the RMS watts. Example if speakers are rated 60 watts RMS then it's 120 watts total peak music power. I have never seem in person a speaker that says they are rated only 10watts RMS and have 200 watts total system peak power. I did see some pics that showed some powered speakers that have specs like that but never seem them sold anywhere. I wonder if this was long time agao when speakers use to say like only 10 watts and they have 200 watts total system peak power. Todays speakers that have the peak power spec uses just double the RMS watts that's all pretty much. I did see a nice 18" car subwoofer that was rated 600 watts RMS and 1200 total peak music power. So again those are just double the RMS.


Have you guys seen speakers that really say like 10 watts RMS but have 200 watts total system peak power? Or maybe even a speaker that is like 40 watts and have 500 watt total system peak power? I really think this is funny that speaker companies would put such a spec but just wondering if they really exsist. I kinda even actualy wonder if those speakers that says 200 watts total system peak power can actualy go that loud in a perfect condition for just a mico sec. Since how can a 10 watt RMS go 200 watts even just for a very fast sec. Todays that just double the RMS makes more sence that it is possible that it can go like 62 watts for just a micro sec. Like mine is 30 watts RMS and 62 watts PMPO.

---

If you still want computer speakers, I would suggest trying these. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B1031A.aspx

Although not really “computer speakers”, they would do the trick, and I’m sure that you would be blown away by the sound these can give you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Carr

I don't really have the need to turn them up soo loud since if I do it annoys my mom and her friend Tom when Toms over that is.

---

In my mind's eye, Tom is Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet.

Forgive me, Baby Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlumpBuster

In my mind's eye, Tom is Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet.

Forgive me, Baby Jesus.

---

Candy-colored clown.

Bump.

God I love this thread. It should be a sticky and mandatory reading for all those who join the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

Bump.

God I love this thread. It should be a sticky and mandatory reading for all those who join the club.

---

It was in my signature for a couple years as a fav. Gotta love the classics.

This is such a classic. I never get tired of reading it. :lol:

Worth another read?

I miss Spanky, at least he generated a barrage of responses.

That avatar . . . "Suspended" . . . that's some funny ****e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dean_martin

That avatar . . . "Suspended" . . . that's some funny ****e.

---

I think that's just because he choose a new name. Dusty Trails or something now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

I think that's just because he choose a new name. Dusty Trails or something now.

---

It's very tidy of you to clean that up. Thanks so much.

I wasssssssss enjoying the symbolism.

yup yup yup........timeless!!!

Gotta love it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlumpBuster

F it! I'll say it... I've been all over this here "internets" (to quote W) and this thread is the best thing ever written anywhere at anytime on any subject. It tears at the fabric of my reality. It is literary, yet banal. It is surreal, yet familiar.

I was first reminded of Sartre's "No Exit." But, then I realized it was Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." Last line of the play: "Let's go." "Yes, let's go." (Stage direction: They do not move.)

All I can say is I'm copying this ***** to my clipboard and shopping it to publishers.

---

I haven't been to these forums in about a decade and was having my morning coffee when I thought of this classic quote/post completely out of nowhere. I figured I had to search it and see if I could find it. Well I did and it made my day.
Anyway, I thought I would post this (well worth reading this whole thread if you weren't around in 2005, utterly hilarious exchanges) and see if any of the old guys that used to post here are still around (Blackraven, e-Stat, TopSpeed, Poppachubby, GMichael, RichnTexas, Bert, Auricauracle and a million others whose usernames I can't recall). Anyway, these forums were a second home to me during my college studies in the late 2000s and I really enjoyed interacting with you guys. Time truly flies