Cheap, Passive 'Big Knob' DIY ideas?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
a decent stereo log taper pot. What if it's a balanced line? -10 vs.
+4 operating level? Component values?
17 answers Last reply
More about cheap passive knob ideas
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <f7d8b3cd.0410111200.4cc573c9@posting.google.com>,
    Yuri T. <tymish@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
    >powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
    >a decent stereo log taper pot. What if it's a balanced line? -10 vs.
    >+4 operating level? Component values?

    A 10K pot is fine. Anything from 1K to 50K will probably work nicely.

    If you have a balanced line, you will really want a 4-gang pot that
    tracks properly. This is expensive. Easier to just unbalance it if
    you have a short run.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Yuri T." <tymish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:f7d8b3cd.0410111200.4cc573c9@posting.google.com
    > Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
    > powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
    > a decent stereo log taper pot.

    There's the rub.

    >What if it's a balanced line?

    You have two options.

    (1) Use a single pot hooked as a variable resistor, and drive each end with
    the same value resistor, each resistor about half the resistance as the pot.
    Downside - you accept a minimum of 6 dB of loss.

    (2) Use dual pots with the bottom ends tied together. Downside - you accept
    reduced common-mode rejection and have the fun of trying to find a 4-section
    log pot for a stereo control.

    >-10 vs. +4 operating level?

    Not to worry.

    >Component values?

    5 K is acceptable if the line between the gain control and the powered
    speaker is short enough.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <f7d8b3cd.0410111200.4cc573c9@posting.google.com> tymish@hotmail.com writes:

    > Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
    > powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
    > a decent stereo log taper pot. What if it's a balanced line? -10 vs.
    > +4 operating level? Component values?

    See my article in the February 2001 issue of Recording magazine for
    all you need to design exactly what you need, whatever that is. You
    can order back issues. See the web page http://www.recordingmag.com.
    No PDFs, no free design work. Buy it. Do it. Be proud of your
    creativity.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:9d2dnZPWwZo7avfcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    > "Yuri T." <tymish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:f7d8b3cd.0410111200.4cc573c9@posting.google.com
    > > Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
    > > powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
    > > a decent stereo log taper pot.
    >
    > There's the rub.
    >
    > >What if it's a balanced line?
    >
    > You have two options.
    >
    > (1) Use a single pot hooked as a variable resistor, and drive each end
    with
    > the same value resistor, each resistor about half the resistance as the
    pot.
    > Downside - you accept a minimum of 6 dB of loss.

    And a load on the mixer that changes with the level setting. Probably not a
    big deal, but worth keeping in the back of your mind.

    > (2) Use dual pots with the bottom ends tied together. Downside - you
    accept
    > reduced common-mode rejection and have the fun of trying to find a
    4-section
    > log pot for a stereo control.

    If you're gonna do that, it's probably easier to make a switched 4-gang
    attenuator than trying to find a 4-section log pot. There are diagrams with
    suggested parts value in old issues of Audio Amateur, and probably somewhere
    on the web.

    Peace,
    Paul
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1097534948k@trad...
    >
    > In article <f7d8b3cd.0410111200.4cc573c9@posting.google.com>
    > tymish@hotmail.com writes:
    >
    >> Just looking at switchers and passive line level volume controls for
    >> powered speakers. Seems easy enough to build. I suppose you would need
    >> a decent stereo log taper pot. What if it's a balanced line? -10 vs.
    >> +4 operating level? Component values?
    >
    > See my article in the February 2001 issue of Recording magazine for
    > all you need to design exactly what you need, whatever that is. You
    > can order back issues. See the web page http://www.recordingmag.com.
    > No PDFs, no free design work. Buy it. Do it. Be proud of your
    > creativity.

    This triggered me to trying to find a (fairly) recent article for a DIY
    Headphone Amp + Phones trolley stand. You think I can find the mag ? You
    think www.recordingmag.com facilitates a search ?

    They could really do a bit of work on that ....

    geoff

    PS Grateful if somebody could point me in the right direction (I've thumbed
    though the indexii of a stack of my mags here ....) - but it could have been
    EQ or SOS too I guess.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Geoff Wood wrote:

    > This triggered me to trying to find a (fairly) recent article for a DIY
    > Headphone Amp + Phones trolley stand. You think I can find the mag ? You
    > think www.recordingmag.com facilitates a search ?

    Took a look and right, they're trying to sell back issues? I couldn't
    even find tables of contents, let alone search by author and/or title.

    --
    ha
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > Geoff Wood wrote:
    >> This triggered me to trying to find a (fairly) recent article
    >> for a DIY Headphone Amp + Phones trolley stand. You
    >> think I can find the mag ? You think www.recordingmag.com
    >> facilitates a search ?

    "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote ...
    > Took a look and right, they're trying to sell back issues?
    > I couldn't even find tables of contents, let alone search by
    > author and/or title.

    Recording magazine is still living in the 19th century of paper-
    based distribution. Their online outline (not even a complete
    index) of issues is a scandalous 18 months behind. It wouldn't
    cost them 10 minutes a month to update that and even include
    the entire index from each issue.

    They apparently don't believe there is any business to be done
    online. You can't even order paper back-issues online, you
    must call their telephone number during their business hours.
    Of course with a pathetic online showing like that it is a self-
    fulfilling assumption.

    Maybe Mr. Dorsey can clue them in? Other publications
    will sell you PDFs of individual articles available for
    online download. An income stream with low overhead
    and zero incremental cost to support.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:10n47v3h6s0u6b5@corp.supernews.com...
    >> Geoff Wood wrote:
    >>> This triggered me to trying to find a (fairly) recent article
    >>> for a DIY Headphone Amp + Phones trolley stand. You
    >>> think I can find the mag ? You think www.recordingmag.com
    >>> facilitates a search ?
    >
    > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote ...
    >> Took a look and right, they're trying to sell back issues?
    >> I couldn't even find tables of contents, let alone search by
    >> author and/or title.
    >
    > Recording magazine is still living in the 19th century of paper-
    > based distribution. Their online outline (not even a complete
    > index) of issues is a scandalous 18 months behind. It wouldn't
    > cost them 10 minutes a month to update that and even include
    > the entire index from each issue.

    Hey, just because they are a little conservative ...

    ;-)

    geoff
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Geoff Wood wrote:

    > Hey, just because they are a little conservative ...

    Right, they don't want those back issues to get away from them!

    --
    ha
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
    news:1glskly.16vtu747ftt50N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
    > Geoff Wood wrote:
    >
    > > Hey, just because they are a little conservative ...
    >
    > Right, they don't want those back issues to get away from them!

    What's weird is that, four or five years ago, there was an excellent online
    index. You still had to order the magazines by phoning the office or sending
    in a check, but you could find the articles. Then they got new web people
    and it all disappeared, and it hasn't come back. I don't know why.

    Peace,
    Paul
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Paul Stamler wrote:

    > What's weird is that, four or five years ago, there was an excellent online
    > index. You still had to order the magazines by phoning the office or sending
    > in a check, but you could find the articles. Then they got new web people
    > and it all disappeared, and it hasn't come back. I don't know why.

    It's progress! Up is down! Forward is back! War is peace!
    Neopetroleocapitalism: just go ahead and _try_ to buy something, pal.

    --
    ha
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
    news:O5xcd.710949$Gx4.589128@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
    > news:1glskly.16vtu747ftt50N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
    >> Geoff Wood wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hey, just because they are a little conservative ...
    >>
    >> Right, they don't want those back issues to get away from them!
    >
    > What's weird is that, four or five years ago, there was an excellent
    > online
    > index. You still had to order the magazines by phoning the office or
    > sending
    > in a check, but you could find the articles. Then they got new web people
    > and it all disappeared, and it hasn't come back. I don't know why.


    Paul / Mike , does that heaphone trolley article ring any bells ?

    geoff
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
    news:Jmzcd.12110$mZ2.742926@news02.tsnz.net...
    >
    > Paul / Mike , does that heaphone trolley article ring any bells ?

    Yeah, but heck if I remember who wrote it. I'll do some digging, though.

    Peace,
    Paul
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <Jmzcd.12110$mZ2.742926@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam writes:

    > Paul / Mike , does that heaphone trolley article ring any bells ?

    I've heard a trolley bell, but I can't imagine what a "headphone
    trolley" might be. An scheme for bringing headphone cables down from
    overhead?


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1098100348k@trad...
    >
    > In article <Jmzcd.12110$mZ2.742926@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam
    > writes:
    >
    >> Paul / Mike , does that heaphone trolley article ring any bells ?
    >
    > I've heard a trolley bell, but I can't imagine what a "headphone
    > trolley" might be. An scheme for bringing headphone cables down from
    > overhead?

    No, a frame on wheels holding a headphone amp and with hangers for (say) 6
    pairs of
    headphones.

    geoff
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <pbUcd.12266$mZ2.754143@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam writes:

    > > I've heard a trolley bell, but I can't imagine what a "headphone
    > > trolley" might be.

    > No, a frame on wheels holding a headphone amp and with hangers for (say) 6
    > pairs of headphones.

    Geez, someone had to write an ARTICLE about that? I'd think that a
    suggestion of an idea would be all that's necessary. Or have we lost
    all of our mechanical imagination and creativity, too?

    Surely you don't need a schematic diagram?


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1098134943k@trad...
    >
    > In article <pbUcd.12266$mZ2.754143@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam
    > writes:
    >
    >> > I've heard a trolley bell, but I can't imagine what a "headphone
    >> > trolley" might be.
    >
    >> No, a frame on wheels holding a headphone amp and with hangers for (say)
    >> 6
    >> pairs of headphones.
    >
    > Geez, someone had to write an ARTICLE about that? I'd think that a
    > suggestion of an idea would be all that's necessary. Or have we lost
    > all of our mechanical imagination and creativity, too?
    >
    > Surely you don't need a schematic diagram?

    I have drawn up a draft of what fits my gear. I would like to check my
    thoughts against the article, in case there is something obvious (or not so
    obvious) that he has thought of and I haven't.

    I'm not totally clueless......

    geoff
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Do It Yourself Audio