active speakers ?

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

I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.
Thanks
Aaron

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

im sure it will work too, but i am worried that it will put stress on the
input and if i turn it up it could damage the amps

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:116npomsej54nc0@corp.supernews.com...
>I don't think this will be a problem. Others will no doubt disagree, but I
>say just do it Aaron.
>
> Julian
>
>
> "Aaron Smith" <aaronet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news4gn21$8ki$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output
>>on the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a)
>>but the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its
>>+4dbl
>> Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
>> speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
>> signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
>> control the volume outside of the DAW.
>> Thanks
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>
>

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

yes please tell me more about this, what would i be looking for?
Aaron

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news4h6el$kju$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Aaron Smith <aaronet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output
>>on
>>the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
>>the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
>>Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
>>speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
>>signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
>>control the volume outside of the DAW.
>
> You won't damage anything, but now you have a cheap mixer in your monitor
> signal path. Your goal is to keep the signal path as clean and free of
> anything that can cause coloration as possible.
>
> An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
> what you want.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

"Aaron Smith" <aaronet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news4gpdp$f82$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> im sure it will work too, but i am worried that it will put stress on the
> input and if i turn it up it could damage the amps

One assumes there is a buffer stage between the input and the main gain
stage in which case, it is not possible to ruin the speakers by using an
unbalanced source.

Julian

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

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:116oqqt5a2rgme5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote
>
> > An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
> > what you want.
> > --scott
>
> I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
> attenuate further?

He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy a
minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to each
speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Peace,
Paul

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

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote

> He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy
> a
> minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
> speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to
> each
> speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Good suggestion and certainly the cleanest way assuming there is no need to
use the mixer for other sources.

Julian

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

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
> news:116oqqt5a2rgme5@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote
>>
>>> An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to
do
>>> what you want.
>>> --scott
>>
>> I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need
ot
>> attenuate further?
>
> He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is
to
> buy a minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close
to
> the speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of
> cable to each speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Good advice as far as it goes - however just about any modern sound
card will drive far lower impedances than 10K (16 ohms is a common
number) and a lower value pot will make cable lengths less of an
issue.

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

In article <116oqqt5a2rgme5@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
> attenuate further?

Ever use a volume control? That's why.


--
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

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

Julian Adamaitis <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote
>
>> An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
>> what you want.
>
>I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
>attenuate further?

Because otherwise he is listening at full volume all the time. A signal
at full -10 level going into an amp running full out will be very loud.

An adjustable attenuator gives you a way to turn it down and have a volume
control.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

AS
That's a *dual-ganged* (close-matched, if poss)10k *log* - not linear - pot.
It may even be possible to use 4k7 or 1k0 depending on sources Z. The lower
that Z, the longer you can run unbal leads (fig-8) to the pot outers.
After that, keep variable o/p unbal leads (fig-8 again) as short as poss to
your next stage i/ps.
Experimentally, start using the pot nearly closed, and turn it up gradually
till you reach a comfortable loudness level. You won't damage anything that
way.

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:116pag5qvj9veac@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote
>
>> He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy
>> a
>> minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
>> speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to
>> each
>> speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.
>
> Good suggestion and certainly the cleanest way assuming there is no need
> to use the mixer for other sources.
>
> Julian
>

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

On 4/25/05 12:51 PM, in article d4j767$91t$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott
Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

>> Remember, he'll need a dual pot (I don't think anyone said that yet)
>> for stereo, and the selection of those for the DIYer is pretty slim. I
>> think the only one that Radio Shack has any more is 100K, which would
>> still work fine for "desktop-length" cables.
>
> I think Digi-Key still has a couple dual log taper pots, although most
> of them are kind of junky.


I'd guess introducing the word 'tracking' wouldn;t be too popular...?

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

"Jim Gregory" <jim.greg@ntlworld.com> wrote

> It may even be possible to use 4k7 or 1k0 depending on sources Z. The
> lower that Z, the longer you can run unbal leads

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

Julian

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

In article <116qcq6db3dvcd@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but in
> the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)


--
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

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

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:116u6h9kloacf59@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1114480944k@trad...
> >
> > In article <116qcq6db3dvcd@corp.supernews.com>
> > nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:
> >
> >> Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but
> >> in
> >> the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.
> >
> > No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
> > cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)
> >
>
> Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

That was me, and no, I didn't. I suggested that using a 10k pot (maximum
output resistance = 2.5k, assuming zero source impedance) and 75 pF/foot
cable, an 8' cable would yield a high-frequency rolloff of pretty near
100kHz, which seems like a reasonable number. Your mileage WILL vary with
different pots, different cable and a different preference for
high-frequency rolloff. Not to mention a different load impedance; for
simplicity's sake I assumed a load Z high enough to be ignored.

If you drive it with a low impedance you can drive nice long lengths,
although you may run into noise issues. At the moment there's a 75' cable
connecting the stereo system in my living room (which plays 78s) to my
computer. Works fine.

Peace,
Paul

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

"Aaron Smith" <aaronet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news4o569$ddv$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left, is
> that wrong should they be the same length?
> it seems to sound fine though.

What is the driving impedance? What is the load impedance? What is the
capacitance of the cable you're using? Without knowing those numbers it's
impossible to know whether this will cause a problem.

Peace,
Paul

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

In article <d4o569$ddv$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> aaronet@yahoo.com writes:

> ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left, is
> that wrong should they be the same length?

There are people who insist that speaker cables (and any other cables
that carry phase-related signals) should be of equal lengths. This
matters at radio frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to the
length of the cable, but given that the wavelength of 20 kHz is about
9 miles, I don't think you have anything to worry about with the
different cable lengths.




--
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

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1114612115k@trad...
>
> In article <d4o569$ddv$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
aaronet@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left,
is
> > that wrong should they be the same length?
>
> There are people who insist that speaker cables (and any other cables
> that carry phase-related signals) should be of equal lengths. This
> matters at radio frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to the
> length of the cable, but given that the wavelength of 20 kHz is about
> 9 miles, I don't think you have anything to worry about with the
> different cable lengths.

Yeah, but. For speaker cables different lengths mean different amounts of
cable resistance, which might be enough to mess with the speakers'
responses. (Depending on the thickness of the cable, the characteristics of
the speakers, etc.)

And for line-level cables the capacitances will be different, and therefore
the high-frequency rolloffs will be different. IF the sending impedance is
high enough, that could cause some amplitude phase differences at the top of
the spectrum. But without knowing the setup it's impossible to predict
whether they'll be enough to be audible.

Peace,
Paul