@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Educating myself to make sure my understanding of archive vs backup is clear.
I'm not sure about others definition but having a backup means you have a full solution of copies, on site and off site, and multiples.
I would not consider it a backup if you just have a single archive or copy
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
At the ring central breakout session currently
We were just discussing ways to beat their pricing for tiny clients last night
They have basically nothing to offer a shop over ~12 users already.
I think k they are a solid company so sorry this claim seems kind of dubious to me since your a salesman to
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller what did you come up with?
Some early ideas. Seems pretty plausible to do.
How did you arrive at the 12 user quantity?
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
At the ring central breakout session currently
We were just discussing ways to beat their pricing for tiny clients last night
They have basically nothing to offer a shop over ~12 users already.
How are they so large if they don't have anything to offer organizations with more than 12 users?
At the ring central breakout session currently
I have seen versions of those directed at me. Its a vendor trying to guilt trip you in a dumb way to schedule a meeting or just be memorable which will then hopefully get you to schedule a meeting or call.
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
How does the sound quality physically improve when the same audio is sent from an extra source,
i don't understand what your asking here. for one, you can't measure sound quality, only the resolution of the source. after that its pretty much preference. by separating the sound of voice into a different position our ears learn to recognize it and then prefer it. it is highly subjective though as many people just prefer different types of sound. there is also the amount of listening a person does. people who can not tell a difference will think one type of sound is better while others who have more refined listening tastes will prefer something else. it does not mean anything negative about either type, its just preference. i have seen lots of people i have worked with who have been designing audio setups for churches and sound venues(20-30 years) who prefer pure stereo sound but others who have just as much experience in designing systems that prefer and like other setups. i have seen and talked with several in each category and what i have learned is it is too subjective to call one right and another wrong. everyone's ears and hearing capabilities are just too complex and different.
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
how physically is the human ear aided by the additional channels that sit between the left and right speakers.
its the separation of sound. the soundstage effect
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder whether or not I'm simply kidding myself or if there truly are positions in IT that aren't primarily focused on supporting users' efforts for using Microsoft Outlook.
lol sorry can't help you there because my users all have a hard time with it too
Honestly it's not always the users. Outlook, especially how it handles images, can just be screwy.
what are some example problems so i can check?
What I think is going on is there are users for whom I apparently haven't installed this registry key; thus, even though they see pictures, recipients do not see them. Some images aren't in the signature though, they're just in the body, which I don't think really matters since and image in an E-mail is just an image in an E-mail.
No users have yet been able to articulate clearly whether the following is true: "You see images in the E-mail you compose, but the recipient doesn't see the images."
You seem to have a lot of issues I never run into with outlook.
How often are you embedding images into HTML E-mails? Also, do you have a minimum of 3 images in your E-mail signature?
yeah sorry don't have those issues either. are your users locked down enough?
If I was having these kinds of issues, I would approach management and tell them that I am spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars fixing these types of issues that aren't business related. If they told me to continue, I would, but it's likely they would ask me to kill the features instead.
Yup, communicate in dollars, people tend to understand "losing money" more than most things.
good point
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@jmoore said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
you know i have noticed you and dash really communicate differently. not good or bad, just different. then you both have trouble understanding the other. from the many threads i have read with you two, that is the common theme i have seen.
I'd assume part of it is that I am highly literal. That tends to be a root of many communications issues for me in general.
yeah i think your right you are literal. i had to adjust my communication with you. that was my fault though, i am used to having to be so unliteral with my users because i would lose them that i got into that bad habit lol. i know for me, i was not explaining my thoughts in a well laid out way and that made me harder to understand and threw you off. did i do better that time?
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder whether or not I'm simply kidding myself or if there truly are positions in IT that aren't primarily focused on supporting users' efforts for using Microsoft Outlook.
lol sorry can't help you there because my users all have a hard time with it too
Honestly it's not always the users. Outlook, especially how it handles images, can just be screwy.
what are some example problems so i can check?
What I think is going on is there are users for whom I apparently haven't installed this registry key; thus, even though they see pictures, recipients do not see them. Some images aren't in the signature though, they're just in the body, which I don't think really matters since and image in an E-mail is just an image in an E-mail.
No users have yet been able to articulate clearly whether the following is true: "You see images in the E-mail you compose, but the recipient doesn't see the images."
You seem to have a lot of issues I never run into with outlook.
How often are you embedding images into HTML E-mails? Also, do you have a minimum of 3 images in your E-mail signature?
yeah sorry don't have those issues either. are your users locked down enough?
If I was having these kinds of issues, I would approach management and tell them that I am spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars fixing these types of issues that aren't business related. If they told me to continue, I would, but it's likely they would ask me to kill the features instead.
excellent point
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
you know i have noticed you and dash really communicate differently. not good or bad, just different. then you both have trouble understanding the other. from the many threads i have read with you two, that is the common theme i have seen.
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
you have a false assumption and that X will not happen. Then you tell me that that is not helpful. Then we go round and round
/sigh - ok my assumption was that the audio has to be blended into the mains.
OK sir - please, inform me where the speech track will come from so we can hear it if there is no center channel?
The fronts, of course. The things that produce all of the sound. The ones pointed at your ears instead of at your face. The ones that, in theory, have equal placement so that they have matching colour.
i hate to disagree with you here but this is the same argument as having separate vm's, separate audio components. you want separate audio channels too. Having the center speaker separates the voice channel from the channels that go to the left and right fronts. separating them makes everything sound better in my opinion
It's a totally different animal and the human ear does not work that way. It's literally physically impossible for extra channels to improve sound quality. Four is the max that the human ear can gain benefit from in a plane. If you wanted to argue for above and below, that would be different.
The center does NOT separate the voice, it plays a channel in the center. In the analogue surround world, it filtered OUT mono sound to play at lower quality.
Basic acoustic physics in play here. The center is impossible to add audio benefits if the placement of listeners is good.
we have to be talking about the same thing here. as dash first mentioned this is about surround sound setup. when using surround sound it is better to use a center channel. i have heard many setups with and without a center channel. i worked for an av company for ten years and we had a dedicated sound room. i always thought this sounded better and i have heard a lot of setups from different high end brands. so again its my opinion and your certainly allowed to have yours. i know what physics is btw i have the degree. there is a lot more to it than what your stating but thats ok. the thing to remember is that from the physics standpoint you can't really meausure what is better. you can measure sound characteristics and rooms but every person will like something different. you can't call one person wrong if he likes a dead room versus a person who likes a bit livelier or warm. its just room characteristics. doesn't make it right or wrong
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
you have a false assumption and that X will not happen. Then you tell me that that is not helpful. Then we go round and round
/sigh - ok my assumption was that the audio has to be blended into the mains.
OK sir - please, inform me where the speech track will come from so we can hear it if there is no center channel?
The fronts, of course. The things that produce all of the sound. The ones pointed at your ears instead of at your face. The ones that, in theory, have equal placement so that they have matching colour.
i hate to disagree with you here but this is the same argument as having separate vm's, separate audio components. you want separate audio channels too. Having the center speaker separates the voice channel from the channels that go to the left and right fronts. separating them makes everything sound better in my opinion
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
yeah wives never like subs for some reason
Mine sure likes having them. She wants the windows to rattle.
Lucky bum!
geez if my wife hears it she just leaves
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
So your wife hates the idea of having a true cinematic experience at home? Surround sound is all wrong when you leave out the .1 part.
My wife couldn't see any difference when we upgraded to HD TV.. she finally admitted a noticeable difference going to 4K.
That makes no sense and implies she thinks that she can just lie to you. The jump from SD to HD was massively more visible to the eye than the jump from 1080p to 4K.
yep your absolutely right, it will proabbaly be the largest jump we will ever see
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
yeah wives never like subs for some reason
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
Same company. It's expensive, but not super high end. It's often used in AV shops to demo "higher than normal" quality gear. It's like a gateway drug, mostly. It's high end gear that creeps down into more normal commodity shops.
yes expensive but not crazy. we are talking 5-10k a piece. super expensive stuff can be several times that but not sound any noticeably better. I have a higher opinion of them than you do and thats fine. every listener is different
