|
Panty Saluter posted:It's very odd to me that preamp jumpers don't need a ground path. I guess since they have the same chassis ground....? That reminds me, there's a "phono ground" thing on the back of my receiver, does that get connected to a record player if I have one or am I supposed to ground the receiver either way?
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:That reminds me, there's a "phono ground" thing on the back of my receiver, does that get connected to a record player if I have one or am I supposed to ground the receiver either way? It's only for a record player. It bonds the record player's ground to chassis ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:It's only for a record player. It bonds the record player's ground to chassis ground. thanks... does that mean I should already have the receiver's chassis grounded?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:thanks... does that mean I should already have the receiver's chassis grounded? Generally speaking it's grounded through the electrical socket. Not sure how it works on a two prong setup but that means the common is at least tied to something... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:I read it on a few forums, basically the gist was the jumpers NAD used were low-quality steel and their competitors used something closer to a really short RCA cable connection (i.e. insulated and with fancy connectors) and swapping the cheap ones out on an NAD is a quick fix. I have no idea if it's true and I'm spending $2 to find out. The real snake-oil salesmen are hawking $80 jumpers, there may be even more expensive ones. I will report back on the efficacy of my $2 experiment. Yeah, it's bullshit. If there was an audible drawback to using those jumpers, NAD wouldn't be doing it 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Generally speaking it's grounded through the electrical socket. Not sure how it works on a two prong setup but that means the common is at least tied to something... Ground can refer to a few different things. For two devices to transmit and receive information using a changing voltage (i.e. an analog audio signal), you need to have a reference voltage that you can compare to. That reference voltage is 0V and can be called common or signal ground or just ground. Another ground, 'earth ground' is actually connected to the physical soil under the building. It is the ground pin in a three-prong AC plug, and it is there for safety. It provides a current path besides your body if there is a malfunction or wiring fault. The communicating devices don't need to be connected to earth ground at all, as long as they share a 0V reference. The equipment is allowed (by UL, CSA, etc) to use a two prong plug if high voltage bits are well isolated from the outside of the device.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
taqueso posted:Ground can refer to a few different things. So in the case of, say, and audio receiver the huge input transformer (and maybe caps) would be sufficiently isolating?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:So in the case of, say, and audio receiver the huge input transformer (and maybe caps) would be sufficiently isolating? I don't know the specifics of the UL requirements, but I believe you need a transformer between the high-voltage stuff and low-voltage, plus insulation between high-voltage and the user.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Dumb question from an audio neophyte. I took over a store audio system that uses a Yamaha RS-201 to power three speakers (using the A + B function) at a relatively low volume. The speakers are Dual LU43PW 100 Watt speakers with a nominal impedance of 4-6 ohms. They are on fairly long (rough estimate 50') runs of 14 AWG speaker wire. The receiver is new and otherwise seems fine. The receiver powers off about once every other day. It can immediately be turned back on without issue. Yamaha says it's probably the length of the wiring run initiating a shutoff for some reason, but the only way to tell would be to experiment with different lengths of speaker wire until we eliminate the problem. The length of the cabling can't really be helped, although I could pull a different gauge wire if that would make a difference. Any idea as to what the issue might be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Considering the A+B is usually intended to run two pair of 8 ohm speakers I would think that you may be running a little close on what the amp is comfortable driving. I can't imagine that a 50ft length of wire makes near enough difference to matter, unless it's like 20 AWG (and it isn't). Worst case scenario maybe you've lost a small amount of power to the speakers. Can you try running just two speakers for a while and see if it changes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Considering the A+B is usually intended to run two pair of 8 ohm speakers I would think that you may be running a little close on what the amp is comfortable driving. I can't imagine that a 50ft length of wire makes near enough difference to matter, unless it's like 20 AWG (and it isn't). Worst case scenario maybe you've lost a small amount of power to the speakers. I will do that. I wanted to just make sure I wasn't barking up the wrong tree since the problem is so intermittent. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Short version: what is the best way to hook up self-powered speakers to a TV with remote control for volume? Just picked up an awesome 65" KS8000. I own a pair of Swans M200MKii self-powered computer speakers which are currently connected to the TV via optical out -> cheap DAC -> analog in to the speakers. My sources (PC, game consoles) are connected directly into the TV via HDMI. My issue is that the TV's built in volume control doesn't work with the optical out, so the only way to adjust the volume is manually on the speakers. I see two options: 1. get a DAC which has a remote (cheapest one I can find is this which is too expensive) 2. get a regular receiver which has RCA out. Somehow I can't find anything like this. Am I on the right track? Any devices y'all would recommend? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Have you tried pawn shops? I was looking for a DAC/amp a while back and after considering T-Amps and the like my local pawn had a Marantz AVR for $100. Optical in, preamp out (which is what you want). Mine didn't have a remote and it's kinda dated but since I'm just using it for computer speakers that was fine. I'm sure a few will have remotes. Just a thought. e: or maybe poke around for a preamp with optical ins? Might still be pricier, since separate components tend to be a little on the niche side Panty Saluter fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
How dumb is this? big: http://i.imgur.com/1hHG5cT.jpg I get the receiver tomorrow, and I'm probably going to build a riser for the TV stand so I can put the Elac C5 in the center whenever it's back in stock. Please criticize, I have zero idea what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Given what looks like a narrow space....not a lot? The sub is going to boom and bloat a lot in a corner like that, but if it sounds good there's no reason to mess with it. If you're referring to the tower being in front of it, the sub shouldn't be putting out any frequency high enough to be meaningfully occluded by the tower in front of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
This is what the other side looks like: There's a lamp right behind the tower, that's why it's so weird. I could put the sub towards the door and then it'd be aiming at my desk; only close to one wall vs two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
It's worth a try since putting in a sub in a corner will make it louder, but also really blows the frequency response to hell. I would expect the sub to be pretty boxy and boomy in a corner like that, but it's worth experimenting will you feel up to moving it around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
If I tuck a table or lamp into the corner with the speaker in front of it, it should be fine as long as there's some space between them, right? Ugh, 1 more day until I have the receiver to start messing around with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Depends on how loud the speakers are and how rattly the lamp or table is
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
My wife hates my tower speakers. We have this 1961 Magnavox TV console, the high end one with TV, record player, and FM radio. Well, the TV was busted, so we took it out and finished the hole it was in with some nice wood to match the rest of the console. The record player is busted, doesn't work at all. The stereo needs to be retubed and recapped. It kinda works but then gets all static after 5 minutes of running. The console has been a liquor cabinet since. We are going to take the liquor out and put in a shelf and use it as the TV stand. The receiver and center speaker will go in the TV hole. I was thinking about using the built in speakers as my right and left channels.  I connected them to my receiver, and they work. But they sound like you'd expect 55 year old paper cone speakers. Generally hollow and muddled to some extent, but perfectly loud and audible and functioning. I don't know if putting the back piece on the console is going to improve much as its got plenty of ventilation holes as the speakers on the other side share the space with all of the amp and tubes. Do I have options here? Replace the speakers with something new? Stick some bookshelf speakers in there that fit? These absolutely do not sound as good as my tower speakers. But is it that important for these channels?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
First step is to review the terms of your prenuptial agreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:First step is to review the terms of your prenuptial agreement. I came here to say this. It's a little bit controlling to basically tell you that you need to get rid of them. gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Now, now. I'm sure she has good reasons. I'd be more than happy to give them a good home if you can't keep them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Ha young goons. The towers are the basic Fluance set I've had for 8 years, I'm not terribly attached to them. Immersing myself in a retarded project is more entertaining. I'm thinking that since these consoles originally came with really low end components, I dont care about gutting it. Sure there's some old time radio weirdos who would cry blasphemy, but gently caress them they can buy my parts on eBay if they want to restore something to original. Building a speaker box inside might be tough as the turntable takes up about 1/4 of the one side and I do like the aesthetic even though it doesn't work. I could drop in a new unit for $50, but I don't own any records. Additionally, I'd have to cover the holes from the current speakers and make new holes for the new speakers. That is a lot of carpentry on this thing. I was also looking at replacing the existing speakers. A guitar amp speaker would cover the woofer, and car speakers would fit in the other spots. These are all designed to be open back and it could work. But it might not be that great of a result. Using in-wall speakers was another possibility. Maybe I can just fill the cavity with polyfill and close it all up and see if it improves anything? That should only cost a few dollars if it's even worth the experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:Fluance Oh, never mind then. FogHelmut posted:I'm not terribly attached to them. Get something less phlegmy and white van-y sounding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I think if I just stuck some bookshelf speakers in there, I wouldn't be able to get larger than a 6.5" driver. If I went up to 8", I'd have to build my own box to fit the space. I have about 9"x13" without removing the turntable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
A box within a box is gonna be well....boxy sounding. I guess you could stuff the cavity with polyfill and that might help. An in wall speaker would be good but i guess you would need to add some plywood to mount them in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Get new tower speakers, throw some money at this player too. Win win. Slap your wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
My wife likes the tower speakers better than the front bookshelf sized speakers we used to have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
88h88 posted:Get new tower speakers, throw some money at this player too. Win win. Slap your wife. Ew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Short of the one Dayton Audio set, with bookshelf speakers I'd be at 5.25". The 6.5" sets all have boxes that will not fit in my space. If I were to build my own, I could easily go 6.5" by making a narrower but deeper box, but I don't know if it would be worth the effort. I'd want to go 3-way, but I'm not sure if that's worth it because the majority of 3-way bookshelf speakers start with an 8" driver. I could fit a 6.5", a 4", and a tweeter, but no one else seems to do it. So basically, it's either these http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-air-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-with-amt-tweeter-pair--300-651 which is actually less than I was planning on spending, but that's not always an indicator of quality Or I figure out how to build my own, which sounds annoying once you get into crossovers and all that. Or I just buy a decent 5.25" set. I do have a sub, but I'm concerned about a gap between the lower end of the 5.25" and the higher end of the sub. Or I could just say screw it and do in-wall and in-ceiling. Are they really that bad? I was actually planning on doing in-ceiling for my rear channel because my room doesn't really allow anything on the wall (there's a sliding door there.) FogHelmut fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
gently caress all of that. I'm either getting Polk Audio RTi4 or Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Andrew Jones Leaning towards the Polks. I have a subwoofer, so I'm not hugely concerned with low end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Go to best buy and listen to a bunch of speakers. Pick the ones you like best in your budget. Remember that good speakers can last a decade or more, but don't spend so much money you can't afford to eat that month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Yeah I got the eBay Polks. I was setting up a cheap system for my garage a few months ago and ended up with all of these Craigslist garbage speakers and some decent Sonys but those are on my PC. So I'm gonna use the Sony center channel I got with the two Polks, get some in-ceiling rear channels eventually. I'll sell my 5 speaker Fluance set which should cover the Polks, and then sell the other big Sony speakers or the Yamahas, not sure, and the other receiver. Or maybe I'll set them up in another room and synch my whole house with some audio Chromecasts, which seems pointless because the house isn't that big and it's a mostly open floorplan so you can hear everything everywhere. I did want some speakers outside. I was going to power them off of the B channel of my main receiver. I don't think I could really waterproof some MDF speakers, that sounds like a hilariously dumb project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I'm confused by the different compression levels of FLAC files, specifically I don't understand why some people insist in low- to no-compression FLAC files. If they're lossless then what's the difference anyway? The only thing I could find on the subject was an article from 2011 which said that if you have a really weak processor (by 2011 standards) then your source could struggle to fully decode the file in real-time so lower compression was easier in that situation. Are no-compression FLACs just audiophile bullshit? Also I read somewhere that audiophiles think they get better sound if they convert FLAC or a CD to wav64... how could that possibly improve the sound? The data's the same, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
The only benefit to low or no compression FLAC is easier encode and decode. Given how fast they can be decoded even on mediocre modern equipment, I'd say that benefit is basically nil. Oversampling did provide some benefit for CDs way back when by allowing much gentler filter slopes in the DAC. The real data was not changed. I don't know if oversampling is still a thing or if filters have gotten that much better so it's not necessary. To answer your question, converting 16/44.1 to 24/192 would at best accomplish nothing, and at worst add notable amounts of HF IM distortion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Basically it's all bullshit on the whole FLAC vs WAV etc. thing. Lossless is lossless. All FLAC compression levels are lossless, the main difference is the encode time and CPU load. The decode load is within a few percent of each other on the different levels. There really aren't any devices available today that struggle with decoding FLAC, so you may as well just use the highest compression level all the time. Oversampling is still a thing, although you can do appropriately steep filters very easily with DSPs today that it isn't strictly necessary. However, steep filters cause more ringing, which is another audiophile bogeyman. So an oversampling DAC and a less steep filter is still a good idea. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with corner loading a subwoofer if you can EQ it (which any decent auto eq system can). I have 4 corner loaded subs and the extra efficiency helps me keep from blowing 15a breakers. Also need the room gain to help extend my low frequency since switching from ported to sealed. jonathan fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, dudes. I will try to further compress the lower-compression FLACs I have and see if there's a difference. Also I looked up wav64 and it's only for files larger than 4GB, since that's the limit of the wav format. I think anyone converting their music to files that size is a loon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:Thanks for the info, dudes. I will try to further compress the lower-compression FLACs I have and see if there's a difference. Unless you're playing back your music on something slower than a 200MHz Pentium II, it won't make difference to anything other than storage space, and probably only single-digit percentages at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:19
|
|