Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
stereo to mono
134 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim R
Feb 2, 2015, 8:52:06 AM2/2/15
to
I have an older Fisher stereo amp/receiver that would be convenient to drive one Pioneer tower speaker to give louder sound for a tv in the basement rec room.
There are other ways I can do it, it's just that these two pieces are currently unused for anything else and don't require any rearrangement. Eventually this tv will get a home theater setup but not right now.
The amp has no mono switch so I can't just feed off the left channel.
Can I connect the wires from two speaker terminals to one speaker using something like the circuit shown here:
http://www.rane.com/note109.html
It's not clear to me if that circuit shows before the amplifier or after.
If not, is there a better way to do this? Or better just not to do it at all?
thanks,
There are other ways I can do it, it's just that these two pieces are currently unused for anything else and don't require any rearrangement. Eventually this tv will get a home theater setup but not right now.
The amp has no mono switch so I can't just feed off the left channel.
Can I connect the wires from two speaker terminals to one speaker using something like the circuit shown here:
http://www.rane.com/note109.html
It's not clear to me if that circuit shows before the amplifier or after.
If not, is there a better way to do this? Or better just not to do it at all?
thanks,
Rheilly Phoull
Feb 2, 2015, 4:55:28 PM2/2/15
to
one channel if you desire. Depending on the amp it may be possible to
bridge the outputs.
Rheilly Phoull
Feb 2, 2015, 5:01:11 PM2/2/15
to
On 02/02/15 9:52 PM, Tim R wrote:
connect the - terminals just each + terminal) you will have the effect
you want.
Jeroni Paul
Feb 2, 2015, 6:55:40 PM2/2/15
to
Stereo to mono conversion is a dangerous process. There is a caveat: broadcasters often apply stereo wide expansion effects done by inverting one channel which do not add to mono very well. My all purpose safe solution is to take only the left channel and look in the device configuration for options to switch to mono.
I've lived that first hand. One user connected a cheap wireless headphone to a TV set. The headphones had a switch to set Normal (Stereo) mode or TV (Mono) mode, TV mode had to be used to stop a high pitch noise. The user complained that it worked fine most of the time but her favourite program would sound very faint and turning the volume up would result in very distorted sound. I found that switching the headphones to stereo would cure the problem but it resulted in the high pitched noise back. So that was it, that program was broadcast in wide stereo made by inverting one audio channel and the headphones summing of both channels resulted in almost no sound.
As a curiosity, enabling the TV builtin stereo enhacer did invert the situation: the affected program sounded good and any other had a very faint audio.
My solution: I disassembled the base station, unsoldered the right channel and connected the left channel to both inputs. Not a high tech solution but she was very happy with it.
I've lived that first hand. One user connected a cheap wireless headphone to a TV set. The headphones had a switch to set Normal (Stereo) mode or TV (Mono) mode, TV mode had to be used to stop a high pitch noise. The user complained that it worked fine most of the time but her favourite program would sound very faint and turning the volume up would result in very distorted sound. I found that switching the headphones to stereo would cure the problem but it resulted in the high pitched noise back. So that was it, that program was broadcast in wide stereo made by inverting one audio channel and the headphones summing of both channels resulted in almost no sound.
As a curiosity, enabling the TV builtin stereo enhacer did invert the situation: the affected program sounded good and any other had a very faint audio.
My solution: I disassembled the base station, unsoldered the right channel and connected the left channel to both inputs. Not a high tech solution but she was very happy with it.
dansabr...@yahoo.com
Feb 2, 2015, 7:32:54 PM2/2/15
to
The simplest way to do this is to use an RCA Y adapter and connect the single input to both the left and right channels. This is a common practice and will not harm the unit. Any attempt to combine the separate outputs could result in damage to the amp. It was not designed to have that occur.
Pick up a y-cable. Should be less than $5.00
Dan
Pick up a y-cable. Should be less than $5.00
Dan
Tim R
Feb 3, 2015, 11:56:45 AM2/3/15
to
I want to put it into a single speaker, because I happen to have a Pioneer tower speaker about 4 foot high for which I have no other use. I don't have a pair of them, I bought something at a yard sale as it was closing for $5, and the guy wouldn't sell it unless I took the speaker too.
The amplifier has output speaker terminals to which I can connect wires. For two channels, four wires.
The speaker has terminals to which I can connect wires. One speaker, two wires.
I had hoped there was some kind of simple resistive network I could put together that would take four wires in and have two wires out.
I found that circuit in the wye article but it really looked like signal level, as someone here confirmed.
There may be no good way to do this and that's okay, it's not like I'm out any money.
Anybody want half of a Pioneer speaker pair?
dansabr...@yahoo.com
Feb 3, 2015, 12:11:23 PM2/3/15
to
> That's backwards. I don't have a single input, I have two channels output from an amplifier, an amplifier that has no mono switch and will output only stereo, and also it's an amplifier not otherwise in use anywhere else.
>
Sorry, I read that backwards. As it stands, without an external circuit to allow for the use of both channels in "bridge" mode, what you seek is not possible. The amp sections were not designed ot be used in bridge mode (which is what you are asking).
>
Dan
Pat
Feb 3, 2015, 12:22:12 PM2/3/15
to
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:56:41 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:
As others have pointed out, trying to bridge the amplifier at its
output is risky. Fortuneately, you don't need to do that. Just use
one channel of the amplifier driving your single speaker. If you do
that, the only problem you have left is making sure that single
channel (mono) contains both the left and right from the TV. You can
easily bridge the low level signals that go into the amp. Now, what
does the output from the TV look like? If it is RCA connectors
(typically red and white), you can just use a "Y" cable as others have
suggested and your are done. If, however, you are trying to tap into
the speaker wires coming from the TV, you will want something like
some of those circuits you mentioned in your first post. You need to
combine the two outputs without shorting the TV amplifier's two
outputs together.
wrote:
output is risky. Fortuneately, you don't need to do that. Just use
one channel of the amplifier driving your single speaker. If you do
that, the only problem you have left is making sure that single
channel (mono) contains both the left and right from the TV. You can
easily bridge the low level signals that go into the amp. Now, what
does the output from the TV look like? If it is RCA connectors
(typically red and white), you can just use a "Y" cable as others have
suggested and your are done. If, however, you are trying to tap into
the speaker wires coming from the TV, you will want something like
some of those circuits you mentioned in your first post. You need to
combine the two outputs without shorting the TV amplifier's two
outputs together.
whit3rd
Feb 3, 2015, 2:26:29 PM2/3/15
to
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-8, Rheilly Phoull wrote:
> On 02/02/15 9:52 PM, Tim R wrote:
> > I have an older Fisher stereo amp/receiver that would be convenient to drive one...speaker
> On 02/02/15 9:52 PM, Tim R wrote:
> Very likely that if you feed the speaker from both + outputs (ie. do not
> connect the - terminals just each + terminal) you will have the effect
> you want.
zero output sound.
Tim R
Feb 3, 2015, 2:50:32 PM2/3/15
to
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:22:12 PM UTC-5, Pat wrote:
> As others have pointed out, trying to bridge the amplifier at its
> output is risky. Fortuneately, you don't need to do that. Just use
> one channel of the amplifier driving your single speaker. If you do
> that, the only problem you have left is making sure that single
> channel (mono) contains both the left and right from the TV. You can
> easily bridge the low level signals that go into the amp. Now, what
> does the output from the TV look like? If it is RCA connectors
> (typically red and white), you can just use a "Y" cable as others have
> suggested and your are done.
Ah, you are suggesting bridging the signal level inputs instead of the outputs.
> As others have pointed out, trying to bridge the amplifier at its
> output is risky. Fortuneately, you don't need to do that. Just use
> one channel of the amplifier driving your single speaker. If you do
> that, the only problem you have left is making sure that single
> channel (mono) contains both the left and right from the TV. You can
> easily bridge the low level signals that go into the amp. Now, what
> does the output from the TV look like? If it is RCA connectors
> (typically red and white), you can just use a "Y" cable as others have
> suggested and your are done.
That makes sense to me, but............isn't that what those circuits I linked do? Are you sure a Y-cable will work?
dansabr...@yahoo.com
Feb 3, 2015, 3:12:11 PM2/3/15
to
> That makes sense to me, but............isn't that what those circuits I linked do? Are you sure a Y-cable will work?
Do it all the time. Works great.
Dan
Pat
Feb 4, 2015, 6:14:18 AM2/4/15
to
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:50:29 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:
Yes. But, what outputs from the TV are you using to drive those
signal level inputs? If they are regular line level outputs, just
bridge them. Line level outputs are very forgiving. If, however, you
are using external speaker outputs, you will need one of "those
circuits" to avoid problems with the amplifier inside the TV.
wrote:
signal level inputs? If they are regular line level outputs, just
bridge them. Line level outputs are very forgiving. If, however, you
are using external speaker outputs, you will need one of "those
circuits" to avoid problems with the amplifier inside the TV.
Tim R
Feb 4, 2015, 8:06:45 AM2/4/15
to
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:14:18 AM UTC-5, Pat wrote:
> Yes. But, what outputs from the TV are you using to drive those
> signal level inputs? If they are regular line level outputs, just
> bridge them. Line level outputs are very forgiving. If, however, you
> are using external speaker outputs, you will need one of "those
> circuits" to avoid problems with the amplifier inside the TV.
Okay, I'm way above my head with this stuff. (Long ago I knew a little more, I had an Extra class amateur radio license.) But this isn't making sense to me.
> Yes. But, what outputs from the TV are you using to drive those
> signal level inputs? If they are regular line level outputs, just
> bridge them. Line level outputs are very forgiving. If, however, you
> are using external speaker outputs, you will need one of "those
> circuits" to avoid problems with the amplifier inside the TV.
When we were talking about the amplifier, the consensus was that the bridging circuits shown on the "why not wye" page were only for line level inputs and should not be used on the speaker outputs.
Now that we're talking about the tv, you're saying that the line level outputs don't need bridging but the speaker outputs do.
I'm far more wary about damaging the tv than I am this amp, which cost me only $5 and isn't used often. The tv still works though it is an older tube type, like the 3 spares in the garage I can't get rid of.
dansabr...@yahoo.com
Feb 4, 2015, 8:36:56 AM2/4/15
to
If the TV has audio output connectors, you are all set using a Y adapter to "connect" both left and right into one channel on the amp. If all you have on the TV is speaker outputs, than you cannot use a Y adapter. The problem will be the same as attempting to connect the amp's speakers together... don't do it.
Dan
Dan
Pat
Feb 4, 2015, 9:52:56 AM2/4/15
to
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:06:40 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:
One of the reasons this is confusing is that line level (or signal
level as you called it) is about 1.5 volts max. The voltage going to
small speakers is often a similar voltage. The difference is that
line level drives high impedance inputs so the current is very low and
not much power is transferred. However, with speakers, they often
have a much lower impedance (eg, 8 ohms) and therefore draw more
current and therefore more power. Outputs designed to drive speakers
can therefore be more easily damaged if shorted to ground or each
other. Since the voltages in question are similar, both can be used
to drive the input of your amplifier. We can't be sure how to answer
your question without knowing about the output of the TV. One very
simple circuit you can use if the TV only has speaker outputs is to
simply place some resistors in series with the signal. Almost any
value 1K, 10K, even 100K will do. The result is complete protection
for the amp in the TV because it is designed to drive speakers (8 ohm
or 4 ohm or similarly low values) and now you have thousands of ohms
in series with it. The signal after the resister can no longer drive
speakers but it can still drive the high impedence inputs of your
external amp.
Once again, though, if your TV has line level audio out (usually white
and red RCA connectors), you can just bridge them together and not
worry about any of this.
Good Luck,
Pat
wrote:
level as you called it) is about 1.5 volts max. The voltage going to
small speakers is often a similar voltage. The difference is that
line level drives high impedance inputs so the current is very low and
not much power is transferred. However, with speakers, they often
have a much lower impedance (eg, 8 ohms) and therefore draw more
current and therefore more power. Outputs designed to drive speakers
can therefore be more easily damaged if shorted to ground or each
other. Since the voltages in question are similar, both can be used
to drive the input of your amplifier. We can't be sure how to answer
your question without knowing about the output of the TV. One very
simple circuit you can use if the TV only has speaker outputs is to
simply place some resistors in series with the signal. Almost any
value 1K, 10K, even 100K will do. The result is complete protection
for the amp in the TV because it is designed to drive speakers (8 ohm
or 4 ohm or similarly low values) and now you have thousands of ohms
in series with it. The signal after the resister can no longer drive
speakers but it can still drive the high impedence inputs of your
external amp.
Once again, though, if your TV has line level audio out (usually white
and red RCA connectors), you can just bridge them together and not
worry about any of this.
Good Luck,
Pat
Jeroni Paul
Feb 4, 2015, 2:58:44 PM2/4/15
to
While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
Pat
Feb 4, 2015, 6:56:47 PM2/4/15
to
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:58:41 -0800 (PST), Jeroni Paul
<JERON...@terra.es> wrote:
>While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
I would think that if the problem you describe is widespread, we would
<JERON...@terra.es> wrote:
>While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
be hearing about it a lot more. But, I have no doubt it happens at
times. To the original poster, there is no risk in giving this
suggestion a try. Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
(ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
too. Try it and see if it works for you.
Rheilly Phoull
Feb 4, 2015, 7:53:13 PM2/4/15
to
Phil Allison
Feb 4, 2015, 9:02:25 PM2/4/15
to
Jeroni Paul wrote:
> While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast.
** FM broadcasters are required to produce a mono compatible signal - or at least they were in the past. Studios use a "stereo modulation monitor" that shows when the signal lacks compatibility by metering the difference signal (L-R) and this must not be greater than either L or R.
> While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast.
True story:
A customer had made a commercial (on 1/4 inch tape) for use on FM radio and it was rejected on the grounds that it was "out of phase". I was asked to check it and found the tape seemed OK.
It took some effort to get through to the "engineer" who had made the judgement and he explained how he used such a meter reach his conclusion.
The recording had a bass guitar, piano and drum kit plus vocal, none of which were out of phase. However, the bass guitar had been panned to the left side, almost completely, which made the difference meter reading unusually high. Hence the mad conclusion the whole tape was "out of phase".
I told the customer to do a re-mix and pan the bass to the centre - problem solved.
The correct way is to pan a bass guitar to the left is to split the signal into low and high frequency bands, at say 150Hz, then pan the highs to the left and the lows to the centre.
This suits most broadcasters and would be essential if cutting an LP to avoid excessive vertical modulation.
... Phil
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 4, 2015, 10:19:40 PM2/4/15
to
>"Very likely that if you feed the speaker from both + outputs (ie. do not
>connect the - terminals just each + terminal) you will have the effect
>"you want.
More likely smoke if you connect the +s togther. You can only do that to amps that asre designed for it. Some commercial amps are but I know of no consumer amps that are.
>connect the - terminals just each + terminal) you will have the effect
>"you want.
The problem is the amps won't share current well and one will be feeding the other. That is very bad because the outputs are passing current but the voltage across them is not dropping.
You can sum the channels with resistors, like 4 ohm at least. But don't cennoct them directly together.
Think also if it is a DC coupled amp and the offset is off say 250 mV and the DC damping factor is 10 @ 8 ohms load, that thing is likely to idle hot. That is on top of all the L-R material working into the emitter resistors which are probably 0.47 ohm.
Amps that you can parallel have special feedback, actually more accurate, so there is alot less imbalnce, both AC and DC. They also do not allow you to connect to or control the channels separately in that mode. Also, they aere built a hell of alot better than most consumer equipment.
I think most Crowns would be OK doing that, but look at what they cost.
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 4, 2015, 10:27:28 PM2/4/15
to
>"Pick up a y-cable. Should be less than $5.00 "
Yes, and at that point just use one of the outputs. You could turn the balanc all the way to that side if you feel like it.
Better would be a Y cable witrh built in resistors. I have seen them for sale for this purpose but finding one now ?
The reason for that is summoing them directly can cause distortion when there is a high L-R content. It probsably won't destroy the output amps like an output stage, but alot of equipment is made to have a relatively low output impedance. This keeps the noise down from the cables and who knows what is near them. So if you get the actual adapter, use it at the amp end.
Personally, I can't stansd alot of TV audio. It is overdone, some things even if you turn it up you can't hear what they're saying because the sound Man seems to have a fetish for the sound of falling rain or some shit. Drowns everythng out, anf then a car explodes and it wakes the neighbors up.
Aggravating. Frikken TV which should be compressed has too much dynamic rang while music on FM is compressed to within a dB of its life.
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 4, 2015, 10:29:10 PM2/4/15
to
>"Anybody want half of a Pioneer speaker pair? "
If it's an HPM-40 I think I had its mate.
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 4, 2015, 10:32:21 PM2/4/15
to
>"Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
> (ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
> using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
> that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
> too. Try it and see if it works for you.
>
>
2nd !! "
Where are you, UK maybe ? I can tell you that is not how it is in the US. There is always alot of L-R material. I can't stand it really. I just don't watch it anymore
> (ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
> using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
> that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
> too. Try it and see if it works for you.
>
>
2nd !! "
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2015, 12:36:21 AM2/5/15
to
>"A customer had made a commercial (on 1/4 inch tape) for use on FM radio and it >was rejected on the grounds that it was "out of phase". I was asked to check it >and found the tape seemed OK.
>
>It took some effort to get through to the "engineer" who had made the judgement >and he explained how he used such a meter reach his conclusion. "
I wonder how his meter would read a song like Beatles - Taxman, or Swinging Medallions - Double Shot Of My Baby's Love. Both are mixed with all vocals in one channel and all instrumentation in the other I think. If not, very close.
>
>It took some effort to get through to the "engineer" who had made the judgement >and he explained how he used such a meter reach his conclusion. "
Actually I ould not use a meter, I would use a vectorscope. Not hard actually. In fact I considered an OP AMP to feed the difference to the horizontal and the sum to the vertical. (this would of course be the opposite of a record groove but should be more illustrative) Then the graticule will tell for sure - accurately.
But when some people make rules they have weird ass paramters to them. In the US you can look to the body of law governing the selling of a loaf of friggin bread, for months. It may be that they want special frequency weighting or some nonsense like that. Hell, they might require you to buy a certified meter and keep up on the calibration as well.
However, there is another fact in eixistence here, if I am putting out audio material, you think maybe I want it to be heard ? I mean really, your guy with the bass all in one channel, I will not say he is friggin ignorant. Really putting the material out of phase, errr POLARITY is proper for that, is kindaa ignorant. Sure it can draw attention but people listening to their car radio moving through areas with a bunch of multipath is going to be quite detrimental to the clarity of their message. Not everyone has five antennas on their cars. In fact, how many car FM tuners even have multiple frond ends anymore ? Lesse, Mazerati, Rollls Royce, yes, some others and also whatever aftermarket brands still exist now that they've combined the car radio with the heater and quite possibly the damn transmission these days.
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2015, 12:45:43 AM2/5/15
to
And I agree about mixing the bass that way. Leave the low end in both channels. The listener will percieve the sound to be coming from the channel with the higher frequencies. '
Know what I am surprised I haven't seen. Phase shifting panning. I know it exists and thought by now it would be in pretty widespread use. All it takes is two MN3XXX something chips. The whole circuit to do it probably costs $10 on a mass production level. These mixers cost a ton of money. OK, that would be per channel but still. But that method would make sure the modulation in't all upset like having soething in one channel.
Another thing mixing bass too much to one side does is only gives the listener one woofer unless it is a sub sat system.
Anyway, the OP should just use a Y adapter into one channel of the amp. If some program comes on that doesn't sound right in mono maybe turn the balance on the TV to one side of the other.
Know what I am surprised I haven't seen. Phase shifting panning. I know it exists and thought by now it would be in pretty widespread use. All it takes is two MN3XXX something chips. The whole circuit to do it probably costs $10 on a mass production level. These mixers cost a ton of money. OK, that would be per channel but still. But that method would make sure the modulation in't all upset like having soething in one channel.
Another thing mixing bass too much to one side does is only gives the listener one woofer unless it is a sub sat system.
Anyway, the OP should just use a Y adapter into one channel of the amp. If some program comes on that doesn't sound right in mono maybe turn the balance on the TV to one side of the other.
Leif Neland
Feb 5, 2015, 2:17:08 PM2/5/15
to
jurb...@gmail.com formulerede spørgsmålet:
L-R = out of phase.
I think there are still monaural (1-channel) tv-sets, which would loose
sound if the entire signal was L-R
Leif
--
Je suis Charlie
I think there are still monaural (1-channel) tv-sets, which would loose
sound if the entire signal was L-R
Leif
--
Je suis Charlie
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 6, 2015, 5:51:45 PM2/6/15
to
It's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20" picture on a 32" screen.
Glad I don't really fix them anymore, You can't tell if they're broke ! With all the special effects and the size whatever, I am to the point where if I had a lttle bit more money and soemone told me their TV was broke I would tell them to go find a book to read. Seriously.
It doens't bother me, I can't stand anything made in the last ten years anyway. Looks like the cmaeraman was either drunk or it was shot by a school kid, and that's when they give yopu a picture with normal color even, rather than bue or red or blaxk and white with noise streaks in it on purpose. I thnink what it is is that they don't know how to write anything anymore so they are just dazzling the sheeple. Probably doesn't go over all that well in some countries.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20" picture on a 32" screen.
Glad I don't really fix them anymore, You can't tell if they're broke ! With all the special effects and the size whatever, I am to the point where if I had a lttle bit more money and soemone told me their TV was broke I would tell them to go find a book to read. Seriously.
It doens't bother me, I can't stand anything made in the last ten years anyway. Looks like the cmaeraman was either drunk or it was shot by a school kid, and that's when they give yopu a picture with normal color even, rather than bue or red or blaxk and white with noise streaks in it on purpose. I thnink what it is is that they don't know how to write anything anymore so they are just dazzling the sheeple. Probably doesn't go over all that well in some countries.
Phil Allison
Feb 6, 2015, 7:26:02 PM2/6/15
to
Leif Neland wrote:
>
> L-R = out of phase.
** Nope.
>
> L-R = out of phase.
L-R = the difference signal.
If it is small compared to L or R, then the signal is mono.
If it is comparable with L or R, that is normal stereo.
If is it larger than either L or R, then you have an out of phase pair.
In early FM broadcast systems, this signal was sent along with a mono signal using an amplitude modulated, 38kHz sub-carrier. In the receiver, both signals were recovered and by adding and subtracting, L and R produced.
L+R + (L-R) = 2L
L+R - (L-R) = 2R
.... Phil
Leif Neland
Feb 8, 2015, 7:53:23 AM2/8/15
to
jurb...@gmail.com kom med følgende:
with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and
bottom.
Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at
the sides.
Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen,
because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark
gray bar.
(
--
Je suis Charlie
> It's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an
> objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through
> that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even
> soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
>
> TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half
> the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20"
> picture on a 32" screen.
>
I also hate when they have a 16:9 source, then put it into a 4:3 frame
> objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through
> that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even
> soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
>
> TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half
> the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20"
> picture on a 32" screen.
>
with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and
bottom.
Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at
the sides.
Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen,
because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark
gray bar.
(
--
Je suis Charlie
Pat
Feb 8, 2015, 8:49:29 AM2/8/15
to
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:52:52 +0100, Leif Neland <le...@neland.dk>
wrote:
I usually see that sort of thing when the original material is SD or
they are sending it over a low bandwidth channel. In those cases, it
makes sense to me because at least it shows the material in the
correct aspect ratio. An example here (US) is the local PBS station.
They run an HD main channel plus a bunch of SD subchannels. When they
put an HD show on one of the subchannels, it gets displayed at a
reduced size in the middle of the screen. They put logos around the
edge because they are static and use almost no bandwidth, but the show
itself can't be shown full size with the limited bandwidth available
on the subchannel.
wrote:
they are sending it over a low bandwidth channel. In those cases, it
makes sense to me because at least it shows the material in the
correct aspect ratio. An example here (US) is the local PBS station.
They run an HD main channel plus a bunch of SD subchannels. When they
put an HD show on one of the subchannels, it gets displayed at a
reduced size in the middle of the screen. They put logos around the
edge because they are static and use almost no bandwidth, but the show
itself can't be shown full size with the limited bandwidth available
on the subchannel.
Jeroni Paul
Feb 9, 2015, 3:49:21 PM2/9/15
to
In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
anon...@myhome.com
Feb 9, 2015, 5:43:47 PM2/9/15
to
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 05:52:02 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>It's not clear to me if that circuit shows before the amplifier or after.
>
>If not, is there a better way to do this? Or better just not to do it at all?
>
>thanks,
>
Why not just go to Goodwill or on Craigslist and buy another speaker.
Even if it dont match, it seems you just want louder sound anyhow, and
you could still get an RCA adaptor to bridge the inputs so both speakers
are getting both channels! Bridging outputs is dangerous for the amp.
If your TV signal is coming from a headphone jack, it will probably need
a dropping resistor ir it will overload the preamp on the amplifier.
wrote:
>
>It's not clear to me if that circuit shows before the amplifier or after.
>
>If not, is there a better way to do this? Or better just not to do it at all?
>
>thanks,
>
Why not just go to Goodwill or on Craigslist and buy another speaker.
Even if it dont match, it seems you just want louder sound anyhow, and
you could still get an RCA adaptor to bridge the inputs so both speakers
are getting both channels! Bridging outputs is dangerous for the amp.
If your TV signal is coming from a headphone jack, it will probably need
a dropping resistor ir it will overload the preamp on the amplifier.
rev.11...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 9:15:08 PM2/9/15
to
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:49:21 PM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
> In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
>
> It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.
> In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
>
> It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest Luddite response to technology today.
rev.11...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 9:29:27 PM2/9/15
to
I'm pretty sure "Wide Stereo" is something that happens in the Receiver, not the Transmitter.
My mileage may vary...
Scotophor
Feb 10, 2015, 3:49:26 PM2/10/15
to
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2015, 6:38:47 PM2/10/15
to
>"My dad apparently thinks he's being cheated somehow whenever a program doesn't >fill the entire screen"
He's right. They are actually cheating us out of pixels as well. The more wide the screen, the less pixels per diagonally measured inch. At any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area.
That means that at the same resolution, a 19" monitor that is 4:3 has more pixels than a 16:9, and even that has more than a 20:9 or whatever those super wide nesr are now.
Less it more, ignoran... well you all know thow thaat one goes.
Jeroni Paul
Feb 10, 2015, 6:52:12 PM2/10/15
to
What I hate is when they do not follow these simple basic rules and keep adding artificial black bars while incorrectly signaling the 4:3 / 16:9 indicator. The modern way is to signal always 16:9 and add side bars to 4:3 programs, this is incorrect and inefficient from a technological point of view as it loses resolution and does not allow the end user to choose its preferred way to adapt a 4:3 picture inside a 16:9 screen. While some people prefer side bars not everyone does, some people prefer to crop the picture and eliminate the side bars and others prefer to distort the aspect ratio and stretch it to fill the screen. Also people on 4:3 displays have no way to make it display properly.
Jeroni Paul
Feb 10, 2015, 7:07:08 PM2/10/15
to
Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in stereo again.
jurb...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2015, 9:15:42 PM2/10/15
to
>"Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some >reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in >stereo again. "
If no other user settings are lost it was probably by design. Automatic. Shit like this is why I almost never buy anything new.
mog...@hotmail.com
Feb 11, 2015, 6:30:03 PM2/11/15
to
That way, "just he/she" is responsible at that company for whatever later goes wrong. But then again, all that takes relationship cultivating You know, people sometimes come and go.
0 new messages