Speakerplans.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > Advanced Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - END of conventional Amps in the EU?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

END of conventional Amps in the EU?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
snowflake View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 29 December 2004
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Points: 3118
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote snowflake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: END of conventional Amps in the EU?
    Posted: 19 March 2013 at 4:15pm
shameless plug Smile

there will be plenty of debate on the environment, energy sustainability, capitalism, government, the EU and lots more at

http://www.bristolanarchistbookfair.org/

if anyone one here is up for helping set up and engineer the sound in our main meeting room that would free others up to do all the other stewarding roles on the day. also looking to hire/borrow four lapel mics. PM if you can help.

Capitalism is chaos - organise for Anarchy!
Back to Top
Saturnus View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 13 July 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saturnus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 2:47pm

Originally posted by jagoreedjones jagoreedjones wrote:

Are there not enough amps already in circulation to suit needs should the embargo come into place?

Given that it took 10 years to implement the ban on light bulbs, I'd say it'd take at least 4-5 years for this as well so there's going to be plenty of time for those that want to buy these products. I have no idea why anyone would not prefer an equivalent or better performing lower energy product though.

Back to Top
jagoreedjones View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 31 January 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jagoreedjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by darkmatter darkmatter wrote:

 I think you've only thought of one side of it - by increasing taxes on inefficient energy production, you'd:
 
- Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services
- Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan)
- Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts
- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this
 
And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.
 
The idea is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of the wealth already, so can afford it.
 
Not very speaker relatedEmbarrassed
 
Staying non speaker related the energy providers in the uk, to be blunt, have the government's balls in a vice.  Almost proven to be price fixing yet can wriggle it off claiming 'high costs are caused by green energy quotas'. The suppliers aren't going to voluntarily increase R&D into green energy any time soon.

(I agree with the rest.)


Speaker related:

Are there not enough amps already in circulation to suit needs should the embargo come into place? Resitrictions shouldn't be tight enough that we'll be ringing up the shady neighbourhood amp dealer.
Back to Top
Battered View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 19 January 2013
Location: S.W. LONDON
Status: Offline
Points: 461
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Battered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 9:59am
FFS, double posts galore

Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 10:00am
Back to Top
Battered View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 19 January 2013
Location: S.W. LONDON
Status: Offline
Points: 461
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Battered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 9:59am
Yes mate, we don't figure that high on their list of priorities






e2a pi$$ poor speeling yet again

Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 10:01am
Back to Top
darkmatter View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: LDN
Status: Offline
Points: 2425
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkmatter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 9:53am
wayward and battered - sounds like we have very similar views on this. I'm saying it would only work if taxes for the poorer were reduced in paralle. you're saying  it wouldnt work at the moment as redistribution of wealth is at the bottom of the priority list for the current government - I agree!
Back to Top
wayward91 View Drop Down
Young Croc
Young Croc


Joined: 15 July 2010
Location: Leeds/Mancester
Status: Offline
Points: 676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wayward91 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 9:32am

Originally posted by darkmatter darkmatter wrote:

 

I think you've only thought of one side of it - by increasing taxes on inefficient energy production, you'd:

 

- Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services

- Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan)

- Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts

- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this

 

And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.

 

The idea is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of the wealth already, so can afford it.

 

Not very speaker relatedEmbarrassed

I quite like it when threads go off topic (sometimes) ... but I’m not so sure about the above.

 - Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services

--at the minute id say any increase in government revenue would go straight to deficit reduction (back to the banks or abroad/ to wealthy people who can afford to buy lots of government debt)with little benefit to the public. It may be able to slightly offset the severity of cuts elsewhere but would be passed on through a higher energy bill to customers.

- Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan)

--perhaps so but they would pass on the cost rather than absorbing any cost. I think the cost to consumers passed on from higher a loss in profit by higher taxes would be greater than the benefit of increased tax revenue for the public , energy bills are a necessity for people to pay, warmth is one of the needs for human survival. The wealthier you are as an individual it is reasonable to presume you would spend a lesser proportion of your income in heating / energy costs, so energy cost increases effect the majority more than the minority, so a small increase in bills would be like taxing the poor.. . Pluss big mulit nationals only pay tax if they feel like it . look at google starbucks ect, they all have very low tax rates well below 5%, not the 27%? That corporation tax should be .  

- Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts.

 

- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this

 

And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.

.. i do however think that we should invest more in greener energy , and inevitably there will be some cost to us, wherever the money comes from it will be from our taxes or our energy bills in some form or another, even if the government “magic” some fiat currency for investment ;)  .. im no expert in the area im looking at things from a fairly general point of view. 

 

Edited by wayward91 - 19 March 2013 at 9:45am
Back to Top
Battered View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 19 January 2013
Location: S.W. LONDON
Status: Offline
Points: 461
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Battered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2013 at 6:50am
Darkmatter, the energy companies aren't in it to make things cheaper for us, and those that can afford to pay more, actually pay less. We've got no chance of anybody cutting us some slack, and doing the right thing regarding the heavy users paying more.

It's the way of the world, all the little people running round like headless chickens whille those at the top and their cronies, are sitting pretty and milking it.

We need to.........





But seriously, mate, those at the top pulling the strings have no intention of making things better for us. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me to find some of those people on the Board of the companies providing new technology that everybody will be forced to use.



rm -f -r {tinfoil-hat}





e2a bad speeling

Edited by Battered - 19 March 2013 at 6:51am
Back to Top
darkmatter View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: LDN
Status: Offline
Points: 2425
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darkmatter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 March 2013 at 11:57pm
Originally posted by Battered Battered wrote:

Originally posted by darkmatter darkmatter wrote:

p.s. I think taxing energy suppliers more heavily is a better route for regulation as it's fair, covers the eventualities people haven't thought of yet, and requires far less administrative overhead



pmsl, really?

And what exactly do you think they'll do if they become 'more heavily' taxed, who will really end up paying for it?

Us!! We're the ones who'll carry on getting shafted, because the energy suppliers will just raise their prices even further to maintain their 'higher than inflation' profits while being 'more heavily' taxed
 
I think you've only thought of one side of it - by increasing taxes on inefficient energy production, you'd:
 
- Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services
- Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan)
- Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts
- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this
 
And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.
 
The idea is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of the wealth already, so can afford it.
 
Not very speaker relatedEmbarrassed


Edited by darkmatter - 18 March 2013 at 11:59pm
Back to Top
Plaguesguitarist View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 30 April 2009
Location: Lincoln, Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 2238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Plaguesguitarist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2013 at 7:14pm
Well, this should do something to put the Prosound end of the market out...

They blow up after one use. How inefficient is that?
Why did the lampy cross the road?

To steal MY sharpie.
Back to Top
_djk_ View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 23 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote _djk_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2013 at 11:38am
"Only large part of professional amplifiers remained energy wasting linear, Maybe this is what the regulators want to change."

The three-rail Carver designs were 87.5% efficient. The PM2.0 was a four-rail design with a switching supply, weighed about 10 lbs.

The B&O ICEpower amplifiers claim 90% at full power.
djk
Back to Top
Earplug View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 03 January 2012
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 7199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Earplug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 March 2013 at 9:35am
Originally posted by Peter Papp [PKN Peter Papp [PKN wrote:

]

Hi-End and top HiFI stuff, valve amps are just like the number of Bugatti and Ferrari on the roads.

Not really significant.



Maybe - but all the Illuminati use them, so not likely to be banned... 


LOL Wink LOL



Earplugs Are For Wimps!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.