Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Cheap, Passive 'Big Knob' DIY ideas?

Tags:
  • Pro Audio
  • Do It Yourself
  • Audio
Last response: in Home Audio
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:00:09 PM

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?

More about : cheap passive big knob diy ideas

Anonymous
October 11, 2004 9:09:33 PM

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."
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 9:14:25 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 1:58:54 AM

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
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 9:26:44 AM

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
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 4:39:30 PM

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.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 4:39:31 PM

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
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 4:39:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:38:50 AM

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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:38:51 AM

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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:38:52 AM

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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 2:38:53 AM

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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:03:47 PM

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

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:o 5xcd.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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:03:48 PM

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
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 5:16:38 PM

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
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 11:45:21 AM

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
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 11:45:22 AM

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
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 8:12:50 PM

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