Newbie here...question re treble and bass control for speake

[elfa]

I'm pulling my hair out trying to come up with a simple circuit that can be
placed between a speaker and its amplifier to control treble and bass.

My project is to use a portable, battery powered speaker system (like PC
speakers or the portable battery powered types), replace the small speaker with
a larger one, and add treble and bass controls between the two. I've already
got a 6 volt amplifier (4 C size batteries) attached to a 6 inch speaker (works
fine). NOW....I want to add a simple treble and bass system between the two.

I'm hearing impaired and this would help me listen to portable radios a lot
better.

any suggestions would be appreciated.

elfa

 

[Lord Garth]

"elfa" <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bncf5i02qri@drn.newsguy.com...

I'm pulling my hair out trying to come up with a simple circuit that can
be
placed between a speaker and its amplifier to control treble and bass.

My project is to use a portable, battery powered speaker system (like PC
speakers or the portable battery powered types), replace the small speaker
with
a larger one, and add treble and bass controls between the two. I've
already
got a 6 volt amplifier (4 C size batteries) attached to a 6 inch speaker
(works
fine). NOW....I want to add a simple treble and bass system between the
two.

I'm hearing impaired and this would help me listen to portable radios a
lot
better.

any suggestions would be appreciated.

elfa

http://www.aaroncake.net/circuits/tone.htm
http://amps.zugster.net/articles/tonestacks/
http://engineering.rowan.edu/~brow7784/SophClinicII/STSchem.html

 

[Byron A Jeff]

[Message snipped.]

Please don't multipost by individually posting a single message in multiple
groups one at a time. Either post to a single newsgroup or crosspost to
multiple groups with a single message. You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

BAJ

 

[elfa]

In article <bndthd$ibn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...

[Message snipped.]

Please don't multipost by individually posting a single message in multiple
groups one at a time. Either post to a single newsgroup or crosspost to
multiple groups with a single message. You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

BAJ

You worry about your bandwidth and I'll worry about mine.

elfa

 

[Rich Grise]

Please don't get all offended by a gentle netiquette reminder.
Crossposting is better, and actually, in answer to your kind
of snotty response here, we _ARE_ worrying about our bandwidth.
That's the bandwidth that your crosspost uses.

Plus, crossposting is better, because whenever anyone responds
to a crosspost, it appears in all the NGs simultaneously,
increasing your chances of getting a response, and making
it easier to catch any responses.

It's not hard to do; you can string together newsgroup
names with commas, e.g. sci.electronics.basics,sci.electonics.misc
and so on.

Then again, you might prefer to learn the hard way, when
people conveniently forget to read your posts.

Good Luck!
Rich

elfa wrote:

In article <bndthd$ibn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...

[Message snipped.]

Please don't multipost by individually posting a single message in multiple
groups one at a time. Either post to a single newsgroup or crosspost to
multiple groups with a single message. You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

BAJ


You worry about your bandwidth and I'll worry about mine.

elfa

 

[dB]

Byron A Jeff says...

You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

Bandwidth?

Bandwidth is the difference between the highest and lowest frequencies
which a system can support.

"You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages ..... by multiposting."

Bandwidth?

 

[Michael Black]

Rich Grise (spamdump@aol.com) writes:

Please don't get all offended by a gentle netiquette reminder.
Crossposting is better, and actually, in answer to your kind
of snotty response here, we _ARE_ worrying about our bandwidth.
That's the bandwidth that your crosspost uses.

Plus, crossposting is better, because whenever anyone responds
to a crosspost, it appears in all the NGs simultaneously,
increasing your chances of getting a response, and making
it easier to catch any responses.

I agree that it's better to cross-post than post to a number of

newsgroups separately. The responses won't be redundant, and
everyone will be working together rather than separately.

But, most of the time one can find one newsgroup that is most
appropriate for a post, and do without any cross- or multiple-posting.
Cross-posting is usually the mark of someone who can't be bothered to find the
best newsgroup, someone who doesn't care, or someone so full of themselves
that they think everyone wants to read their message.

So it's best to post to a a single newsgroup.

And only if there is a good reason, then cross-post rather than multiple-post.

Michael

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <bnes4a0vqf@drn.newsguy.com>, elfa <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

In article <bndthd$ibn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...

[Message snipped.]

Please don't multipost by individually posting a single message in multiple
groups one at a time. Either post to a single newsgroup or crosspost to
multiple groups with a single message. You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

BAJ

You worry about your bandwidth and I'll worry about mine.

I am worried about my bandwith. Actually I'm worring about everyone elses too.
A crossposted message only gets transmitted and stored in a news server once.
A multiposted message such as this one gets transmitted and stored on every
news server that carries those groups multiple times.

You also missed my point about the damage to yourself. Since different readers
will get the messages in different orders, you have to scrounge around all of
the groups that you post in to get all of the replies. By crossposting, all the
replies will show up in all the groups, therefore making it easier for you
to collect responses, and even more pointed, allowing a wider group of folks to
interact.

There's simply no good reason to multipost. If the message belongs in multiple
newsgroups, then crosspost it.

BAJ

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <bngjsq$h6n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
Michael Black <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
-Rich Grise (spamdump@aol.com) writes:
-> Please don't get all offended by a gentle netiquette reminder.
-> Crossposting is better, and actually, in answer to your kind
-> of snotty response here, we _ARE_ worrying about our bandwidth.
-> That's the bandwidth that your crosspost uses.
->
-> Plus, crossposting is better, because whenever anyone responds
-> to a crosspost, it appears in all the NGs simultaneously,
-> increasing your chances of getting a response, and making
-> it easier to catch any responses.
->
-I agree that it's better to cross-post than post to a number of
-newsgroups separately. The responses won't be redundant, and
-everyone will be working together rather than separately.
-
-But, most of the time one can find one newsgroup that is most
-appropriate for a post, and do without any cross- or multiple-posting.
-Cross-posting is usually the mark of someone who can't be bothered to find the
-best newsgroup, someone who doesn't care, or someone so full of themselves
-that they think everyone wants to read their message.
-
-So it's best to post to a a single newsgroup.
-
-And only if there is a good reason, then cross-post rather than multiple-post.

And let the congregation say amen.

BAJ

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <1757808.0310260243.7becdaf0@posting.google.com>,
dB <dmb06851@yahoo.com> wrote:

Byron A Jeff says...


You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.



Bandwidth?

Yes bandwidth.

Bandwidth is the difference between the highest and lowest frequencies
which a system can support.

Bandwidth is also a measure of the amount of information that a channel can
carry which is also partially defined by the difference you allude to above.
And also it represents the amount of the channel required to carry a message.

In that context, I'm right on the mark. By duplicating message you take more
of the channel capacity to carry the duplicates.

But you already knew that. Right?

BAJ

 

[Lord Garth]

"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:bngmgh$9tm@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...

In article <1757808.0310260243.7becdaf0@posting.google.com>,
dB <dmb06851@yahoo.com> wrote:
Byron A Jeff says...


You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.



Bandwidth?

Yes bandwidth.


Bandwidth is the difference between the highest and lowest frequencies
which a system can support.

Bandwidth is also a measure of the amount of information that a channel
can
carry which is also partially defined by the difference you allude to
above.
And also it represents the amount of the channel required to carry a
message.

In that context, I'm right on the mark. By duplicating message you take
more
of the channel capacity to carry the duplicates.

But you already knew that. Right?

BAJ

We used to tease one guy because he could send morse code using CW so fast
that we told him he was using more than his allocated bandwidth...40+ wpm
using a semi-automatic key and 60ish on receive...amazing!

 

[elfa]

In article <bngm73$9mg@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...

In article <bnes4a0vqf@drn.newsguy.com>, elfa <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
In article <bndthd$ibn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...

[Message snipped.]

Please don't multipost by individually posting a single message in multiple
groups one at a time. Either post to a single newsgroup or crosspost to
multiple groups with a single message. You have doubled or tripled the
bandwidth of your messages and scattered your replies by multiposting.

BAJ

You worry about your bandwidth and I'll worry about mine.

I am worried about my bandwith. Actually I'm worring about everyone elses too.
A crossposted message only gets transmitted and stored in a news server once.
A multiposted message such as this one gets transmitted and stored on every
news server that carries those groups multiple times.

You also missed my point about the damage to yourself. Since different readers
will get the messages in different orders, you have to scrounge around all of
the groups that you post in to get all of the replies. By crossposting, all the
replies will show up in all the groups, therefore making it easier for you
to collect responses, and even more pointed, allowing a wider group of folks to
interact.

There's simply no good reason to multipost. If the message belongs in multiple
newsgroups, then crosspost it.

BAJ

It was multi-posted for the simple fact that I found the second group only AFTER
I had sent the first post to this group. I just copied and pasted the same
message to the second post.

I find it amazing that you're more concerned about my posting style than my
request for help.

elfa

 

[Steve]

Jesus Christ guys, we're talking about what… 2kb/post!!?? Crap on a
stick, who cares about 2 bloody kilobytes!?!?! Meanwhile, there's
been 10 posts to and from idiots complaining about Elfas postings!
How much bandwidth did that chew up, eh?! Get over it!!

Welcome to Usenet, Elfa. People here get uptight about all sorts of
things, no use trying to appease some of them. Just ignore the people
that piss you off, that's my best advice. Anywho, notwithstanding
stupid name-calling spats (…idiot troll post thread) netiquette
technicalities (top post vs. bottom post) and petty bandwidth
arguments, here's my response;

Putting a tone control between and amp and the speakers (if that's
what you intended to say) is going to prove quite difficult and
possibly expensive. Lord Garths response contains useful tone
controls, but none of those will work between the amp and speakers.
If you are in fact using PC speakers, chances are that it is line
level coming out of your PC and the amplifier is built into the
speakers. In that case, inserting a tone control BEFORE the amplifier
is a viable option.

Double check what you need and get back to the group, or search
google.com for a myriad of conventional and simple tone controls.

nifty

 

[elfa]

In article <e28c5b43.0310261901.6ea838a5@posting.google.com>, Steve says...

Jesus Christ guys, we're talking about what… 2kb/post!!?? Crap on a
stick, who cares about 2 bloody kilobytes!?!?! Meanwhile, there's
been 10 posts to and from idiots complaining about Elfas postings!
How much bandwidth did that chew up, eh?! Get over it!!

Welcome to Usenet, Elfa. People here get uptight about all sorts of
things, no use trying to appease some of them. Just ignore the people
that piss you off, that's my best advice. Anywho, notwithstanding
stupid name-calling spats (…idiot troll post thread) netiquette
technicalities (top post vs. bottom post) and petty bandwidth
arguments, here's my response;

Putting a tone control between and amp and the speakers (if that's
what you intended to say) is going to prove quite difficult and
possibly expensive. Lord Garths response contains useful tone
controls, but none of those will work between the amp and speakers.
If you are in fact using PC speakers, chances are that it is line
level coming out of your PC and the amplifier is built into the
speakers. In that case, inserting a tone control BEFORE the amplifier
is a viable option.

Double check what you need and get back to the group, or search
google.com for a myriad of conventional and simple tone controls.

nifty

Thanks nifty for the response. Actually, the input will be coming out of the
earphone jack of a portable radio so there will be a minimum of current.

As you probably know, there's lots of battery powered amplified speakers
designed to plug into a portable radios earphone jack. I've already taken apart
one of them that has 2 speakers (2 1/2 main speaker and 1 3/8 tweeter connected
with a cap in series). I've replaced the 2 1/2 inch speaker with a 5 1/2 inch
speaker and the sound is much better for my hearing. All I wanted to do was add
an the additional ability to adjust bass and treble (or tone control) by putting
in a passive circuit, either between the amp and speaker (which you say is not
reasonable) or between the portable radios earphone jack and the input jack of
the amp.

I would have tried Lord Garth's baxandall idea but I don't have the 500K ohm
pots or right caps yet. Would the baxandall idea work between earphone jack and
amp or isn't there enough current to make it work?

thanks for the response without the multipost lecture.

elfa

 

[Lord Garth]

"elfa" <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bni5a6025bm@drn.newsguy.com...

In article <e28c5b43.0310261901.6ea838a5@posting.google.com>, Steve
says...

Jesus Christ guys, we're talking about what. 2kb/post!!?? Crap on a
stick, who cares about 2 bloody kilobytes!?!?! Meanwhile, there's
been 10 posts to and from idiots complaining about Elfas postings!
How much bandwidth did that chew up, eh?! Get over it!!

Welcome to Usenet, Elfa. People here get uptight about all sorts of
things, no use trying to appease some of them. Just ignore the people
that piss you off, that's my best advice. Anywho, notwithstanding
stupid name-calling spats (.idiot troll post thread) netiquette
technicalities (top post vs. bottom post) and petty bandwidth
arguments, here's my response;

Putting a tone control between and amp and the speakers (if that's
what you intended to say) is going to prove quite difficult and
possibly expensive. Lord Garths response contains useful tone
controls, but none of those will work between the amp and speakers.
If you are in fact using PC speakers, chances are that it is line
level coming out of your PC and the amplifier is built into the
speakers. In that case, inserting a tone control BEFORE the amplifier
is a viable option.

Double check what you need and get back to the group, or search
google.com for a myriad of conventional and simple tone controls.

nifty

Thanks nifty for the response. Actually, the input will be coming out of
the
earphone jack of a portable radio so there will be a minimum of current.

As you probably know, there's lots of battery powered amplified speakers
designed to plug into a portable radios earphone jack. I've already taken
apart
one of them that has 2 speakers (2 1/2 main speaker and 1 3/8 tweeter
connected
with a cap in series). I've replaced the 2 1/2 inch speaker with a 5 1/2
inch
speaker and the sound is much better for my hearing. All I wanted to do
was add
an the additional ability to adjust bass and treble (or tone control) by
putting
in a passive circuit, either between the amp and speaker (which you say is
not
reasonable) or between the portable radios earphone jack and the input
jack of
the amp.

I would have tried Lord Garth's baxandall idea but I don't have the 500K
ohm
pots or right caps yet. Would the baxandall idea work between earphone
jack and
amp or isn't there enough current to make it work?

thanks for the response without the multipost lecture.

elfa

Thanks to Steve for clarifing the placement of a tone control circuit...

Elfa, it is normal for tone controls to be in the preamp circuit but feel
free to try at your earphone output jack. Also, if you need a 500k pot
you can use a 1k pot or a 1k pot paralleled with a 1k fixed resistor.

 

[Rich Grise]

elfa wrote:

It was multi-posted for the simple fact that I found the second group only AFTER
I had sent the first post to this group. I just copied and pasted the same
message to the second post.

Fair enough.

I find it amazing that you're more concerned about my posting style than my
request for help.

Stick around - you'll meet more ;-)

elfa

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

Elfa, it is normal for tone controls to be in the preamp circuit but feel
free to try at your earphone output jack. Also, if you need a 500k pot
you can use a 1k pot or a 1k pot paralleled with a 1k fixed resistor.

Better check your math! ;-) You have a wrong multiplier in your text.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lord Garth]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F9D2E2E.C96AB6E9@earthlink.net...

Lord Garth wrote:

Elfa, it is normal for tone controls to be in the preamp circuit but
feel
free to try at your earphone output jack. Also, if you need a 500k pot
you can use a 1k pot or a 1k pot paralleled with a 1k fixed resistor.

Better check your math! ;-) You have a wrong multiplier in your text.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Where did that "k" go....I found it...it was on my floor!

Thanks

 

[Steve]

I would have tried Lord Garth's baxandall idea but I don't have the
500K
ohm pots or right caps yet. Would the baxandall idea work between
earphone
jack and amp or isn't there enough current to make it work?

I would think that should work ok. Just might need careful adjustment
of the earphone volume level so as not to cause distortion. Set the
earphone level as high as possible without causing distortion, then
back it off a bit just to be sure. Use the volume control on the
speakers themselves to control volume from then on.

Elfa, it is normal for tone controls to be in the preamp circuit but feel
free to try at your earphone output jack. Also, if you need a 500k pot
you can use a 1k pot or a 1k pot paralleled with a 1k fixed resistor.

er, that's 1Meg parallel with 1Meg... you shouldn't have trouble
finding 500k pots though.

nifty

 

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <bnhah802fsb@drn.newsguy.com>,
elfa <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
-In article <bngm73$9mg@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...
->
->In article <bnes4a0vqf@drn.newsguy.com>, elfa <elfa_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
->>In article <bndthd$ibn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, Byron A Jeff says...
->>>
->>>[Message snipped.]

-It was multi-posted for the simple fact that I found the second group only
- AFTER
-I had sent the first post to this group. I just copied and pasted the same
-message to the second post.
-
-I find it amazing that you're more concerned about my posting style than my
-request for help.

It's not amazing at all. Just by the fact that I brought it up, the next time
you'll probably think about it.

What you may not realize is that many folks read all of the sci.electronics
groups. So when a multipost occurs, you see the same topic over and over and
over again. I've seen folks who have multiposted in as many as 10 groups. Not
spamming per se because the selected target groups are not indiscriminate,
but seeing the same post (and different responses) over and over again.

My newsreader will only read a crossposted message once. Once I've seen it,
it disappears from the other groups that it's posted to.

But the fact that you copied and pasted shows a lack of awarness of this topic.
And it's a pet peeve of mine. So I point it out.

As for your question, I didn't answer it because I didn't have an answer for
it. All I know is that tone control is done before power amplification, not
after it. So unless the speakers themselves are amplified and line level
input is going into them, it's going to be difficult to accomplish what you're
trying to do. But frankly I didn't think that was helpful input.

BAJ