EU energy efficiency regulations

There you go. And I was about right on the date too!

I'm 100% for transparency in these things by manufacturers. 

Actually you might do.  On a track or during "spirited driving" it's always recommended that you ensure engine oil is up to temperature before using high revs.  The latest Ferraris even tell you when various items such as engine & gear box oil, brakes and tyres are up to optimal temperature.  So that's not a lot different from understanding when your Naim hifi has reached optimal performance.

oh, and to state the obvious -- these new requirements apply to only new equipment. I dont have to turn off my 135s just because they take 12.55W at idle!

Jon

Can you provide a link to a list of appliances and details of requirements that will be applied to these appliances.

I would buy replay from another company that had solved the problems of compliance, as some already have and certainly equal the sonic quality of Naim. The only reason that I have not moved away from Naim in respect of more technically advanced designs that do comply with the law as it will soon enough arrive is that my equipment is far from the end of its service life, and I'd loose a fortune to change.

I am not wedded to Naim. I am wedded to having good music well replayed, and there are many ways to do this just as well as with Naim, and to say otherwise is a nonsense or else Naim would be the size of Apple.

If Naim want to succeed and continue then they need to be compliant with whatever regulations apply. Making noises about interfering EU rule makers is a nonsense as well.

If we left the EU we would still want export to those territories. Thus compliance would be just as required whether we are in the EU or not, and given the aims of these rules as shown on the previous page, one can but hope that they are implemented with due expedition.

ATB from George

Isnt it against forum rules to post links?

No.

I think that applies to other hifi equipment manufacturers or perhaps items for sale. There are at least 3 links in this thread.

Dear ricsimas,

It interference in the same positive way that banning smoking in public and work-places is. It is interference in the same way as banning drunk driving.

That is why we have government. For the benefit of the general society and for future generations.

For once I applaud a brand new rule that carries with it moral rectitude and common sense all in one go. That is all too rare in new laws and rules.

And one thing is for sure  - this is the first of many such environmentally wise laws that will come whether certain individuals want them or not.

ATB from George

Yes according to the rules links it would appear hypertext links are ultimately at the discretion of the moderator. Also 'live' links, which usually refers to transient information in other forum or social media sites should not be copied and pasted. Specifically links to other commercial sites and sites describing modifications to Naim equipment are not premitted. 

Information hypertext links that don't breach these rules are commonly used on this forum to its benefit.

Simon

There's no interference with the consumer, they will be free to buy as many clothes, electrical appliances and houses as they wish.

The legislation effects the manufacturers of these products not the consumers.

I agree with George. When you drive around, ignoring the traffic-lights is not "an option", although lots of people don't seem convinced that they have a purpose.

here is the legislation -- scroll to the bottom to Annex1 for the full list

http://goo.gl/GaKKVb

I must say that as I grow older and become more aware of the need to reduce waste I really do not like the fact I need to leave my system on all the time. I would welcome any scheme that made the system more efficient provided it did not reduce the system's sound quality...and there's the rub.

Occasionally, we are also faced with resistance from customers when this is brought up. They are unwilling to leave their systems on, although most become more willing once we work out the quiescent power usage. For the record, the Naim manuals do contain the idling power consumption of all the devices.

Regards, and Happy New Year!
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Dear Frank,

When I home demo'ed the DAC V1 NAP 100, it was crucial to me to be able to start it from cold with good performance from the off. 

That was the one aspect I feared might drive me right away from Naim at the time, as other makers do produce similar machines that work well from cold.

As it happens I have no difficulty with starting from cold, which is more than could be said for 52 pre-amp I had for a long while. I did turn it off, but it was only really at its best over the weekend when it had long enough to recover.

Replacing the 52 [and 200] with a Nait 5i solved the problem as the Nait ran delightfully from cold.

Perhaps we may expect some trickle up from these junior models to those further up the range?

ATB from George

Doubtful as the Quad ESLs only draw about one Watt apiece once charged up. I turn mine off in any case, but in reality never for long enough for them to discharge. Even a week's holiday break in September did not stop them from being fine in only five minutes.

But it is conceivable that when quiescent they will have to go into stand-by. Peter Walker designed them to be turned off with the power amplifier, drawing their power from an outlet on the matched Quad amplifier, so I don't suppose this will be a worry for owners buying new compliant versions.

ATB from George

PS: Given that a large and highly energy consuming amplifier is not needed for the original ESL [57], then perhaps the speaker should be considered as rather energy efficient as in total two ESLs and a small amp will draw far less energy than a larger amplifier required for many if not most normal box loudspeakers!

See my earlier post on lightbulbs.

I suspect that may be wishful thinking.  Given the improved SQ, detail etc on the more senior models (to coin your terminology) I would anticipate them being more sensitive to this than less, due to the design.

Reading the regulation, Annex II Clause 2 is reasonably clear. An off mode must be supplied and not exceed 0.5 watts when activated... For all equipment with an off switch, this would seem to be compliant. If the device does not have an off switch, this would need to be provided. I suspect to comply.

Power management functions should be used where the use use would not be in appropriate. If Naim state for example to reach quiescent state say takes 24 hours or longer and I a better left on, I expect Naim to make the case that auto power management would not be appropriate for the intended operation of the device.

i don't see this as a big issue, and most (though not all) Naim equipment has a power off button. This is sensible legislation. Perhaps it's a shame it has to be legislated but there we are..

Simon

No, George, that's not why we have government, though it may be what you want from government. I prefer government to be about protecting individual rights rather than advancing some sort of agenda in the name of "greater society"- that's a loaded concept that usually carries utilitarianism with it.

As for "common sense", the only reason you think it's common sense is because you are in agreement with it. I'll give you an example using your following post:

Notice your use of "only" 1W: that's an arbitrary definition of low. They also require an amplifier. If you sum those you are orders of magnitude beyond what headphones require for replay. Why is that not waste? If you look deep down you'll see that it's only because you think so. This is much like speed, where everyone thinks that those driving faster are crazy and those driving slower are idiots.

I suggest reading up on a related topic called "tax incidence" - consumers will pay for this in the end. Besides, I don't know why you seem to care more for consumers than for manufacturers, as I thought we were all people anyway.

Why is 0.5W more sensible than 0.4 or 0.6?

Links to commercial websites are not allowed here. Only exception is in the Music Room, at moderators discretion. 

As Simon says, links to media sites are moderated. General rule; if in doubt, don't link or just ask me if its ok.

Quite apart from anything else, and not poInting at any particular member here, there's a laziness that has crept in to so many online discussions where it seems it's enough just to provide a link to make your argument. Paraphrase and summarise by all means, but please don't fall back on just a link to do your work. It generally causes more problems and greater misunderstandings than if you just explained your point clearly and consisely with references made where appropriate. Paraphrasing and summarising take more effort but do show that the author has some sort of an appreciation and understanding of the points being made.

Ok, carry on..

Richard,

How do we contact you privately, given that there appears to be no private mailing option on this forum (or has been disabled)?

Dear Ricsimas,

Firstly you suggest that my view may bring connotations of utilitariansm. Well before now I was delighted to find that an accusation of being a Malthusian was once I read round the subject a compliment in my eyes.

I find your idea that my proposition is loaded with the potential to be viewed as utilitarians is just as great a compliment:

in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.

The nature of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a man to do?” Its answer is that he ought to act so as to produce the best consequences possible.

Basic concepts

In the notion of consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the act, whether arising after the act has been performed or during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great, some Utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.

Unquote. 

I find no argument against the notion of this.

I shall replay further about common sense and your assertion that one Watt is an arbitrary figure concerning the load passing through a domestic plug small.

ATB from George

George, read up on the concept of "utility" first - that is the basis of utilitarianism, since it strives to maximise utility. This is typical "end justifies the means" absurdity, allowing some to consider the wishes and rights of others subject to their notions.

There is no such a thing as an absolute measure of utility, which is why Utilitarianism is ethically questionable. It also ignores absolute morality, something your post just hinted at.

Exactly. That's why smoking in public places is forbidden.

I prefer government to be about protecting individual rights.