Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:40:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: For boating purposes, I can understand the advantage of instant weather updates from whatever the source. For those equipped with radar, setting it to it's longest range is helpful also. You can often "see" thunderstorm cells. === We see them on the boat's radar all the time, and you can see the motion of the storm system also. We try to miss them if we can do so by nudging our course a little one way or another. It frequently works, surprisingly enough. |
#32
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/12/2014 4:31 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:40:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: For boating purposes, I can understand the advantage of instant weather updates from whatever the source. For those equipped with radar, setting it to it's longest range is helpful also. You can often "see" thunderstorm cells. === We see them on the boat's radar all the time, and you can see the motion of the storm system also. We try to miss them if we can do so by nudging our course a little one way or another. It frequently works, surprisingly enough. Really, different mentality... While we are not totally adverse to doing what we do (farming, biking, etc) in the rain, we do not want to do it in a rainstorm that has lightning strikes... you probably don't want to be in any storm.. |
#33
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:53:40 -0500, KC wrote:
On 1/12/2014 4:31 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:40:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: For boating purposes, I can understand the advantage of instant weather updates from whatever the source. For those equipped with radar, setting it to it's longest range is helpful also. You can often "see" thunderstorm cells. === We see them on the boat's radar all the time, and you can see the motion of the storm system also. We try to miss them if we can do so by nudging our course a little one way or another. It frequently works, surprisingly enough. Really, different mentality... While we are not totally adverse to doing what we do (farming, biking, etc) in the rain, we do not want to do it in a rainstorm that has lightning strikes... you probably don't want to be in any storm.. === Rain by itself does not bother us but no one should head into a thunderstorm if there is any way to avoid it. Rain, both here and in the tropics, comes and goes all the time. |
#35
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#36
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/13/14, 1:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine. I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam can and sound like a boom box. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg A typical Bose sound. The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-) I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that purpose. Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a notch in that area. I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with cabinets that could hold a small child. Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players manufacturers over the years. Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker "sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding. The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat de-emphasized. The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some electrostatics. I do admire the ability of Bose to market grossly overpriced gear these days to Americans...the under-TV set sound systems, radios, small stereos, earphones, etc. |
#37
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:26:00 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:25:15 -0800 (PST), wrote: Being on an inland lake, in the south, in the summer, makes you respect the weather and how quickly things can change. I always have my iPhone with me on the boat and keep an eye on the radar. The tree line limits the sight distance. It was very handy the last time we did the river trip down to Charleston.. We had thunderstorms crossing our path about halfway down. Backtracked a couple of miles and waited for them to clear, then hit an opening to make it down to the harbor. Without the weather app it would have been messy and dangerous. How far up river from Charleston can you go with a boat that draws 5 1/2 ft and has an air draft of about 20 ft? At one time the river was navigable from the fall line in Columbia all the way to the coast. I know there are folks who take jet skis down the river from Columbia, but I don’t know if they can still make it all the way to the coast. When we do the river trip, we put in at Lake Moultrie in Moncks Corner, and go down the Cooper River to Charleston. It’s about 40 or so miles, and in the main river run it’s 15 – 30 feet deep, so you would have no problem in that section. We do it from Moultrie because there’s a lock there that drops you 70 feet down to the Cooper River, and it’s a neat experience. https://www.santeecooper.com/committed-to-south-carolina/lakes/pinopolis-lock.aspx Charleston Harbor and the first few miles of the Cooper River is interesting, and of course there’s plenty to do, see and eat in Charleston. Honestly, once you get past that, the river is nothing but nature (not a bad thing) until you get close to Moultrie. There’s a section that can be a little tricky because it’s not marked well and there are flooded marshes (old rice fields?) along the river that have lured a few boats into them, getting them stuck. Oh, and I just realized there is a train crossing about halfway down the river. It is a drawbridge, but I don’t know what it takes to get it raised, as I can just fit under it. If you ever do decide to cruise up the river a bit, watch for the submarine base signs. There will be a RIB with a 50 caliber on it in the river, and they watch all traffic. No stopping, fishing, or pictures allowed. They WILL board you. Ask me how I know. :-) |
#38
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/13/2014 9:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine. I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam can and sound like a boom box. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg A typical Bose sound. The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-) I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that purpose. Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a notch in that area. I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with cabinets that could hold a small child. Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players manufacturers over the years. Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker "sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding. The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat de-emphasized. The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some electrostatics. I do admire the ability of Bose to market grossly overpriced gear these days to Americans...the under-TV set sound systems, radios, small stereos, earphones, etc. I agree. Americans are easily led and fooled. |
#39
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine. I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam can and sound like a boom box. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg A typical Bose sound. The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-) I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that purpose. Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a notch in that area. I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with cabinets that could hold a small child. Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players manufacturers over the years. Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker "sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding. The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat de-emphasized. The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some electrostatics. Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency response. I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore. I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound, very accurate. |
#40
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/13/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:12:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/13/2014 12:37 AM, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:40:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: For boating purposes, I can understand the advantage of instant weather updates from whatever the source. For those equipped with radar, setting it to it's longest range is helpful also. You can often "see" thunderstorm cells. The local NBC station has a great interactive radar on their web site that is going to be better than anything you are likely to see on a boat. My wife can link directly to that radar on her phone and the Note II has a big enough screen to make it useful. That is our boat radar but she also uses it at work. I remember during the last leg of our trip to Jupiter, FL the VHF weather channel had thunderstorm warnings near the inlet. I set the radar out to max range (I think it was 60 miles on a Raytheon radar system) and could clearly see two, serious looking thunderstorm cells in our path. The thing I like about the NBC radar is that it is a 1 hour loop. You can see the motion of the cell. I also like the google maps app. Totally interactive with traffic and weather overlays... integrated with the google navigation, etc... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updates from Kinshasa | General | |||
SCA website updates | UK Paddle | |||
More updates at my Web Home | ASA | |||
More Updates at my Web Home | General | |||
More Updates at my Web Home | Cruising |