or when burning any fossil fuel or otherwise not living a carbon neutral/sustainable lifestyle? Slippery slope honing in on amps and their impact to their environment versus other activities in life that move the needle in much much bigger ways. There are things we can all do to reduce our carbon footprint that are much more meaningful than firing up big amps. With that said, keeping equipment on 24/7 does seem wasteful. I use primarily tube gear and don't turn it on anyway when I'm not using it.
41 responses Add your response
Well, this is audiophile forum, I didn't mention other activities. Not only wasteful but probably any equipment that needs it to sound best was not quite well designed. Sounds stupid to me. With my modest solid state integrated I hear no change in sound after two hours and very little after one hour. I guess, tube equipment is better in this respect too. |
I'm always thinking about the environment. Every evening I get concerned that the environment in my listening room might not be warm enough. So I go in and turn stuff on. But I don't want to create the wrong impression. My concern for the environment extends far beyond my listening room, let me assure you! I'm constantly encouraging others to turn off their unused computers and flourescent lights and everything else that pollutes the environment with RFI. Why do you think I run a power line conditioner anyway??? Most tree huggers, er I mean watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), er I mean environmentalists, most of them they are concerned about the whole planet. Pshaw! Piffle! My concern is for the whole solar system! The sun as we all know is going through another sunspot cycle minimum. We all know that right? During which solar output falls and the Earth cools. Seriously. Its a fact. You could look it up. And the last big one, called the Maunder Minimum, got so cold the Thames (that's a big famous river in the UK, btw) froze. If you are in Boston think of the BiG Muddy freezing over. Washington think Columbia. Anywhere else think seriously cold. So yeah, the Earth needs all the warmth it can get. Anything I can do, even if it means spending a little more on electricity, happy to do my part. |
Well, this is audiophile forum, I didn't mention other activities. See now this is an example of why its important to always keep an open mind. Here we have an OP clearly intended at virtue signaling. All about PC, nothing to do with audio at all. That was just the excuse. Yet it turned this up, and now maybe inna can learn and develop some listening skills. Some good may come of this yet! So here's the thing inna: no one is ever very likely going to be able to sit and listen and hear their SS gear sound better as it warms up. The changes, with well used gear anyway, are far too slow and subtle for most of us to notice. Brand new? Different story. Changes are big enough they come minute to minute. Easy to hear. But even well used SS gear does warm up and benefits greatly from being left on all the time. Bigly. The trick is learning to hear it. And you do want to learn inna, because the same changes that occur with warm-up are the same changes you want to be looking for when its time to upgrade: a lower noise floor, less grain and glare, much more inner detail and a greater sense of ease. So here's what you do: Leave your gear on all the time. If for any reason something gets turned off then do not listen to it at all until its been on a good 24 hours. Do this for several days at least. During this time try to be as consistent as possible in your listening- time of day, what you play (recording quality varies), how you listen (background not gonna be much good, sit and listen), CD or LP, etc. Or just leave it on a couple weeks. The longer the better. What this does, it gets you used to that warmed-up sound. Often times people have a hard time hearing something simply because like anything else its not automatic but takes practice, practice, practice. Now when a good week has gone by, or however long it takes for you to have gotten good and used to this sound, turn everything off. The best is to have a really good late night session playing all your favorite recordings. Then shut it all down and go to bed. Next time, which should be the same time of day as the last time, don't turn anything on until you are good and ready to listen. You will be shocked how bad it sounds. I know what you're thinking but I first noticed this with an extremely old decidedly mid-fi Kenwood amp. Like you, thought it was crazy. Until I heard it. You will hear it too. Give it a try and see. |
I have been told, here at Audiogon, that it is best to leave gear on. The Proceed HPA2 manual suggests that this be done as well and lists the energy consumed when doing so. Likewise the manual for my Audio Research LS-16 says it is okay and better for consistent SQ but at the expense of decreased tube life. So for a while I was leaving them both in standby mode. A while later I noticed that in standby mode they still both generate a fair amount of heat. While that may be fine in the winter....in which case it might even be required by the Green New Deal Doctrine and enforced diligently by the Green Police....not to be confused with the Dream Police....there is no way I'm leaving them on in the summer. |
I’ve always left my gear on until recently with the purchase of my Kinki EX-M1. The reason is it’s too tight of a fit in my media stand and it gets too hot if left on overnight. It needs proper and better ventilation. If I had it out, in the open, then I’d leave it on all the time like the rest of my gear. Besides, it sounds it’s best in about 15 minutes so it’s no biggie. That, and if you're really concerned about the environment, turn that cable box off as it's the real power hog. 👍 All the best, Nonoise |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
My thoughts are we have already caused a destructive path and there is no changing it. We can be conscious to our actions as to littering, dumping, recycling, etc., but we do need to factor in that nuclear warfare some country will eventually initiate causing much more damage to the atmosphere than we could ever change. Live your life, respect nature and the environment, as well as one another while you can. |
Well, certainly none of us are getting out of here alive. However, assuming we're all not selfish dotards, the wiser and more responsible among us understand we have a collective obligation to do whatever it takes to ensure we don't destroy our sole planetary home in the universe. We need the intelligence to understand the science of the dire consequences of global warming and the determination to evict from decision making positions all those who lack the intelligence and obligation of comprehending our critical circumstances. I'm thinking jettisoning these non-believers into outer space would be the most appropriate action while being poetic justice since human evolution dictates the survival of the fittest and extinction for the weakest members of the species(those lacking intelligence or other useful human qualities). But in the meantime, only leave your amps on 24/7 if they're class D or solar powered. Turn all other amp types off after each use. All selfish dotards should turn off their amps, say their farewells to family and friends and report to the NASA Human Waste Jettison Disposal Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Just my 2 cents, Tim |
@noble100 : "I'm thinking jettisoning these non-believers......." All in jest, I hope. But that is what it always boils down to, no? One cult vs the next? The 'Believers', 'The Knowledgeable Ones', 'The Elite' verses the 'Non-Believers', 'The Deniers', 'The Low Brows'. If we could just silence those 'other ones' or better yet be rid of them altogether then we'd all be better off. And we don't have to wonder all that hard about how to do it......so many 'famous' leaders before us have blazed that trail........... ************************* If you have to ask yourself one question about the science of global warming it should be this: How is it possible that a net global temperature change of several degrees can cause only harmful outcomes? The answer is that it is not possible. Not even remotely possible. And no science, no math, no statistics, no models that are untainted by political ideology could ever even suggest such a preposterous notion. And yet, have you ever heard of one single prognostication about global warming that was not bad? Why? |
Hello n80, You're correct that a net global temperature change of several degrees Fahrenheit would not likely cause the extinction of the entire human population on earth. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase. The problem is the IPCC, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country, the world or over time. You stated: " If you have to ask yourself one question about the science of global warming it should be this: How is it possible that a net global temperature change of several degrees can cause only harmful outcomes? Because it's not true. Most outcomes will be bad in the short term but not all of them. The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen. Considered over the long term, however, the outcomes of continued global warming are predominately negative and become increasingly more severe and negative as the earth warms. The negative outcomes of continued global warming are too numerous and varied for me to list them all here. The only good news is that negative outcomes will be considerably smaller if heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced. All measures reducing heat-trapping gas emissions are cumulative and will, at a minimum, slow the rate of gas emissions and, therefore, the rate of global warming. There is also the prospect that new future technology could be developed that could both reduce heat-trapping gas emissions into the atmosphere and reduce the already existing heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. So I'm saying it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and a battle between human caused global warming believers and deniers. The IPCC determined we've still got a chance to reverse, or at least slow the rate of, global warming and the sooner we begin, the better. There's also my Bright Idea I recently submitted to Dairy and Beef cattle associations suggesting all overly flatulent cattle have Beano or Gas-X added to their cuds. What? Every little bit helps, right? My opinion is that each individual needs to decide whether they'd prefer helping the rest of us in reducing the heat-trapping gas emissions into earth's atmosphere or do they prefer taking a one way jettisoned rocket trip off it? I believe we can love each other, love our planet while still raising cattle that are more polite and have a bit more decorum. Tim |
Tim, all of these models are based on the assumption that we are in a state of beneficial equilibrium _now_ or at least recently. Such prognostications also invariably fail to account for the adaptability of human innovation and resilience and always fail to give nature credit for adaptability as well. This has always been a weak link in the environmentalist world view. It always fixes on a certain state of being and seeks to preserve it at that chosen point. In other words, in the 1770s during the mini ice age a prediction of higher temperatures would have been greeted as salvation. As it turns out, due to unknowns which they (western Europe, North America) could not foresee (and even with our tech, neither could we) the mini ice age was directly responsible for hugely beneficial events and changes for the world at large. The problem with so much of the global warming models is that they are derived by people, scientists, our modern day priests, who openly hold political ideologies that are anti-capitalist and pro wealth re-distribution. Their models invariably support their ideological dreams. And since models are not pure science they are easily shaped. This conflict of interest, failure to account for beneficial outcomes and the polarized way in which this science is reported on have greatly damaged the credibility of climate science whether you are a ’believer’ or a ’skeptic’. Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW. |
n80 Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW.This is where your reasoning falls apart. First, climate and weather are really two different things. Second: Short-term weather forecasts are remarkably accurate. Accurately forecasting tomorrow’s weather is a trivial task today. Of course, television forecasters are typically focused on showbiz and ratings; they’re not to be entirely trusted. But real meteorologists - such as the ones who work for the National Weather Service - have an outstanding record of accuracy. |
@cleeds First off, the reference to short term forecasts was in jest. Second, the accuracy of short term forecasts depends on how you define 'short term' and how you define accurate. And while you might describe it as 'remarkably accurate' it is rather common, around here, for it to be utterly wrong. A prediction of 10% chance of rain and an actual occurrence of two hours of heavy rain might be considered 'accurate'....unless you are planning an outdoor wedding.The point being that you can be accurate most of the time and utterly inaccurate the rest. And these forecasts are based on computer models. The question is how much do you put at stake with computer models? For tomorrow or the next decade? Longer term forecasting (6-12 months) has proven to be if-y at best. Hurricane season predictions have been a joke for the last 10 years. When I was in the Air Force at a coastal base there was a large glass window looking over the flight line in the flight-ops area. Someone had used masking tape to frame a box on the window. Below it was written "Accu-View Weather window.....as a joke about how variable the forecasting accuracy was. |
