Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3285 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Posted

 

$349, again meh, we'll see. $299 would have been nice. December.

Echo is $179. The speaker sucks, but… again… how many people really play that much music throughout their homes?

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
38 minutes ago, iacas said:

how many people really play that much music throughout their homes?

Hardly ever. My wife occasionally does when she's cooking. 

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, iacas said:

I don't know people who constantly play music in their homes. Not people who live with other people.

*Quietly raises hand*

My wife and I do...all the time.  We stream music through our Airport Express to a dedicated whole-house amp and speakers.  When we built the house I had it in mind.  We love it...and we live with each other (and two kids). :-D 

Fairways and Greens.

Dave
 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

While the entry level MBP is priced lower, pricing out my machine future proofed with bumped up memory and storage space it's the same price - so would get a processor/graphics bump if I returned and bought the new one. They didn't say anything about battery life, did they? Probably the same maybe a little better? Don't do much with graphics anyway, so rationalizing to keep the current MBP. Now if the price dropped significantly for a machine w/my specs, then that's a different story, but pretty sure that wasn't going to happen and it didn't.

1 hour ago, NCGolfer said:

*Quietly raises hand*

My wife and I do...all the time.  We stream music through our Airport Express to a dedicated whole-house amp and speakers.  When we built the house I had it in mind.  We love it...and we live with each other (and two kids). :-D 

Me three. A lot of people I know do so too (techs/creatives and such), they listen to a lot of podcasts in addition music as well. Spotify me baby. 

Amazon Echos and similar have an option to delete whatever it records, it's nested down many levels in the website, but it's there, I've done it. Who knows it they're really deleting it though.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

$349, again meh, we'll see. $299 would have been nice. December.

Echo is $179. The speaker sucks, but… again… how many people really play that much music throughout their homes?

Yeah - not exciting speaker announcement.

I play music in kitchen, bedroom, & living room sometimes. But I use Sonos, which I love. The Echo has promised to have strong integration with Sonos by year end. Can't wait!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
23 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Me three. A lot of people I know and work with do so too (techs/creatives and such), they listen to a lot of podcasts in addition music as well. Spotify me baby.

I listen to podcasts all the time in my car. That's not the same thing as a normal family with people coming and going and having different tastes in what they want to listen to.

It just feels like pitching it as a music thing justifies a higher price for the better speakers, but I don't know about the actual need - I'd rather have a $249 device that just does smart assistant stuff well - knows the difference between me, my wife, and my daughter for our calendars, knows the weather and where we'll be that day, knows my favorite sports teams, whatever… that sort of thing. The music feels like an add-on that bumps the price but that most people won't care for.

Dave, you won't care about the music, because you already built a better solution using your whole home - this is one speaker in one room. You have a better solution already, so it doesn't even fit a need for you.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
4 hours ago, iacas said:

Dave, you won't care about the music, because you already built a better solution using your whole home - this is one speaker in one room. You have a better solution already, so it doesn't even fit a need for you.

Yeah...exactly.  I don't look at this or the Amazon or Google products for Music solutions.  The assistant-type functions intrigue me but I don't find them necessary as of yet.  I think AI still has a ways to go until it becomes mainstream.  Maybe another 5-10 years.

VR/AR? Another 10 years past that before it, again, is mainstream in our lives beyond VR gear-headsets with localized apps.  VR will have a LOT of data and streaming that data to thousands or millions of people is a significant challenge...in addition to other challenges.

It will happen, I'm just waiting to understand what killer app/enabler drives it in the future.

Fairways and Greens.

Dave
 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3285 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.