Guest
2nd !! "
Where are you, UK maybe ? I can tell you that is not how it is in the US. There is always alot of L-R material. I can't stand it really. I just don't watch it anymore
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2nd !! "
Where are you, UK maybe ? I can tell you that is not how it is in the US. There is always alot of L-R material. I can't stand it really. I just don't watch it anymore
P
Pat
Guest
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:58:41 -0800 (PST), Jeroni Paul
<JERONI.PAUL@terra.es> wrote:
>While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
I would think that if the problem you describe is widespread, we would
be hearing about it a lot more. But, I have no doubt it happens at
times. To the original poster, there is no risk in giving this
suggestion a try. Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
(ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
too. Try it and see if it works for you.
<JERONI.PAUL@terra.es> wrote:
>While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
I would think that if the problem you describe is widespread, we would
be hearing about it a lot more. But, I have no doubt it happens at
times. To the original poster, there is no risk in giving this
suggestion a try. Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
(ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
too. Try it and see if it works for you.
Guest
"A customer had made a commercial (on 1/4 inch tape) for use on FM radio and it >was rejected on the grounds that it was "out of phase". I was asked to check it >and found the tape seemed OK.
It took some effort to get through to the "engineer" who had made the judgement >and he explained how he used such a meter reach his conclusion. "
I wonder how his meter would read a song like Beatles - Taxman, or Swinging Medallions - Double Shot Of My Baby's Love. Both are mixed with all vocals in one channel and all instrumentation in the other I think. If not, very close.
Actually I ould not use a meter, I would use a vectorscope. Not hard actually. In fact I considered an OP AMP to feed the difference to the horizontal and the sum to the vertical. (this would of course be the opposite of a record groove but should be more illustrative) Then the graticule will tell for sure - accurately.
But when some people make rules they have weird ass paramters to them. In the US you can look to the body of law governing the selling of a loaf of friggin bread, for months. It may be that they want special frequency weighting or some nonsense like that. Hell, they might require you to buy a certified meter and keep up on the calibration as well.
However, there is another fact in eixistence here, if I am putting out audio material, you think maybe I want it to be heard ? I mean really, your guy with the bass all in one channel, I will not say he is friggin ignorant. Really putting the material out of phase, errr POLARITY is proper for that, is kindaa ignorant. Sure it can draw attention but people listening to their car radio moving through areas with a bunch of multipath is going to be quite detrimental to the clarity of their message. Not everyone has five antennas on their cars. In fact, how many car FM tuners even have multiple frond ends anymore ? Lesse, Mazerati, Rollls Royce, yes, some others and also whatever aftermarket brands still exist now that they've combined the car radio with the heater and quite possibly the damn transmission these days.
Guest
And I agree about mixing the bass that way. Leave the low end in both channels. The listener will percieve the sound to be coming from the channel with the higher frequencies. '
Know what I am surprised I haven't seen. Phase shifting panning. I know it exists and thought by now it would be in pretty widespread use. All it takes is two MN3XXX something chips. The whole circuit to do it probably costs $10 on a mass production level. These mixers cost a ton of money. OK, that would be per channel but still. But that method would make sure the modulation in't all upset like having soething in one channel.
Another thing mixing bass too much to one side does is only gives the listener one woofer unless it is a sub sat system.
Anyway, the OP should just use a Y adapter into one channel of the amp. If some program comes on that doesn't sound right in mono maybe turn the balance on the TV to one side of the other.
Know what I am surprised I haven't seen. Phase shifting panning. I know it exists and thought by now it would be in pretty widespread use. All it takes is two MN3XXX something chips. The whole circuit to do it probably costs $10 on a mass production level. These mixers cost a ton of money. OK, that would be per channel but still. But that method would make sure the modulation in't all upset like having soething in one channel.
Another thing mixing bass too much to one side does is only gives the listener one woofer unless it is a sub sat system.
Anyway, the OP should just use a Y adapter into one channel of the amp. If some program comes on that doesn't sound right in mono maybe turn the balance on the TV to one side of the other.
R
Rheilly Phoull
Guest
On 05/02/15 7:56 AM, Pat wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:58:41 -0800 (PST), Jeroni Paul
JERONI.PAUL@terra.es> wrote:
While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast. I find that using only the left channel is safer.
I would think that if the problem you describe is widespread, we would
be hearing about it a lot more. But, I have no doubt it happens at
times. To the original poster, there is no risk in giving this
suggestion a try. Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
(ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
too. Try it and see if it works for you.
2nd !!
L
Leif Neland
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com formulerede spørgsmület:
L-R = out of phase.
I think there are still monaural (1-channel) tv-sets, which would loose
sound if the entire signal was L-R
Leif
--
Je suis Charlie
"Most "main dialog" in today's show is in the center
(ie, equal in both channels). So, the only thing you might miss by
using only the left channel is an ocassional door closing sound effect
that is only in the right channel. Music shows might be a problem,
too. Try it and see if it works for you.
2nd !! "
Where are you, UK maybe ? I can tell you that is not how it is in the US.
There is always alot of L-R material. I can't stand it really. I just don't
watch it anymore
L-R = out of phase.
I think there are still monaural (1-channel) tv-sets, which would loose
sound if the entire signal was L-R
Leif
--
Je suis Charlie
Guest
It's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20" picture on a 32" screen.
Glad I don't really fix them anymore, You can't tell if they're broke ! With all the special effects and the size whatever, I am to the point where if I had a lttle bit more money and soemone told me their TV was broke I would tell them to go find a book to read. Seriously.
It doens't bother me, I can't stand anything made in the last ten years anyway. Looks like the cmaeraman was either drunk or it was shot by a school kid, and that's when they give yopu a picture with normal color even, rather than bue or red or blaxk and white with noise streaks in it on purpose. I thnink what it is is that they don't know how to write anything anymore so they are just dazzling the sheeple. Probably doesn't go over all that well in some countries.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20" picture on a 32" screen.
Glad I don't really fix them anymore, You can't tell if they're broke ! With all the special effects and the size whatever, I am to the point where if I had a lttle bit more money and soemone told me their TV was broke I would tell them to go find a book to read. Seriously.
It doens't bother me, I can't stand anything made in the last ten years anyway. Looks like the cmaeraman was either drunk or it was shot by a school kid, and that's when they give yopu a picture with normal color even, rather than bue or red or blaxk and white with noise streaks in it on purpose. I thnink what it is is that they don't know how to write anything anymore so they are just dazzling the sheeple. Probably doesn't go over all that well in some countries.
P
Phil Allison
Guest
Leif Neland wrote:
** Nope.
L-R = the difference signal.
If it is small compared to L or R, then the signal is mono.
If it is comparable with L or R, that is normal stereo.
If is it larger than either L or R, then you have an out of phase pair.
In early FM broadcast systems, this signal was sent along with a mono signal using an amplitude modulated, 38kHz sub-carrier. In the receiver, both signals were recovered and by adding and subtracting, L and R produced.
L+R + (L-R) = 2L
L+R - (L-R) = 2R
..... Phil
L-R = out of phase.
** Nope.
L-R = the difference signal.
If it is small compared to L or R, then the signal is mono.
If it is comparable with L or R, that is normal stereo.
If is it larger than either L or R, then you have an out of phase pair.
In early FM broadcast systems, this signal was sent along with a mono signal using an amplitude modulated, 38kHz sub-carrier. In the receiver, both signals were recovered and by adding and subtracting, L and R produced.
L+R + (L-R) = 2L
L+R - (L-R) = 2R
..... Phil
L
Leif Neland
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com kom med følgende:
with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and
bottom.
Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at
the sides.
Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen,
because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark
gray bar.
(
--
Je suis Charlie
I also hate when they have a 16:9 source, then put it into a 4:3 frameIt's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an
objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through
that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even
soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half
the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20"
picture on a 32" screen.
with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and
bottom.
Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at
the sides.
Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen,
because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark
gray bar.
(
--
Je suis Charlie
P
Pat
Guest
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:52:52 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>
wrote:
they are sending it over a low bandwidth channel. In those cases, it
makes sense to me because at least it shows the material in the
correct aspect ratio. An example here (US) is the local PBS station.
They run an HD main channel plus a bunch of SD subchannels. When they
put an HD show on one of the subchannels, it gets displayed at a
reduced size in the middle of the screen. They put logos around the
edge because they are static and use almost no bandwidth, but the show
itself can't be shown full size with the limited bandwidth available
on the subchannel.
wrote:
I usually see that sort of thing when the original material is SD orjurb6006@gmail.com kom med fřlgende:
It's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an
objectionalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through
that digital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even
soemtimes have that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.
TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half
the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20"
picture on a 32" screen.
I also hate when they have a 16:9 source, then put it into a 4:3 frame
with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and
bottom.
Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at
the sides.
Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen,
because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark
gray bar.
(
they are sending it over a low bandwidth channel. In those cases, it
makes sense to me because at least it shows the material in the
correct aspect ratio. An example here (US) is the local PBS station.
They run an HD main channel plus a bunch of SD subchannels. When they
put an HD show on one of the subchannels, it gets displayed at a
reduced size in the middle of the screen. They put logos around the
edge because they are static and use almost no bandwidth, but the show
itself can't be shown full size with the limited bandwidth available
on the subchannel.
J
Jeroni Paul
Guest
In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
Guest
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:49:21 PM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.
"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest Luddite response to technology today.
In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.
"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest Luddite response to technology today.
Guest
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:58:44 AM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
How do you Broadcast "Wide Stereo" AND "Mono Capable" at the same time?
I'm pretty sure "Wide Stereo" is something that happens in the Receiver, not the Transmitter.
My mileage may vary...
While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I
wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant
to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint
or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast.
I find that using only the left channel is safer.
How do you Broadcast "Wide Stereo" AND "Mono Capable" at the same time?
I'm pretty sure "Wide Stereo" is something that happens in the Receiver, not the Transmitter.
My mileage may vary...
Guest
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 05:52:02 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>
wrote:
Why not just go to Goodwill or on Craigslist and buy another speaker.
Even if it dont match, it seems you just want louder sound anyhow, and
you could still get an RCA adaptor to bridge the inputs so both speakers
are getting both channels! Bridging outputs is dangerous for the amp.
If your TV signal is coming from a headphone jack, it will probably need
a dropping resistor ir it will overload the preamp on the amplifier.
wrote:
It's not clear to me if that circuit shows before the amplifier or after.
If not, is there a better way to do this? Or better just not to do it at all?
thanks,
Why not just go to Goodwill or on Craigslist and buy another speaker.
Even if it dont match, it seems you just want louder sound anyhow, and
you could still get an RCA adaptor to bridge the inputs so both speakers
are getting both channels! Bridging outputs is dangerous for the amp.
If your TV signal is coming from a headphone jack, it will probably need
a dropping resistor ir it will overload the preamp on the amplifier.
S
Scotophor
Guest
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:15:08 PM UTC-8, rev.11...@gmail.com wrote:
My dad apparently thinks he's being cheated somehow whenever a program doesn't fill the entire screen. He prefers to watch 1.33 content zoomed in (and cropped off top and bottom), rather than pillarboxed. When "cinemascope" movies wider than 1.78 are shown in original aspect (letterboxed), he zooms in to crop off the sides.
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:49:21 PM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.
"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest Luddite response to technology today.
My dad apparently thinks he's being cheated somehow whenever a program doesn't fill the entire screen. He prefers to watch 1.33 content zoomed in (and cropped off top and bottom), rather than pillarboxed. When "cinemascope" movies wider than 1.78 are shown in original aspect (letterboxed), he zooms in to crop off the sides.
Guest
>"My dad apparently thinks he's being cheated somehow whenever a program doesn't >fill the entire screen"
He's right. They are actually cheating us out of pixels as well. The more wide the screen, the less pixels per diagonally measured inch. At any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area.
That means that at the same resolution, a 19" monitor that is 4:3 has more pixels than a 16:9, and even that has more than a 20:9 or whatever those super wide nesr are now.
Less it more, ignoran... well you all know thow thaat one goes.
He's right. They are actually cheating us out of pixels as well. The more wide the screen, the less pixels per diagonally measured inch. At any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area.
That means that at the same resolution, a 19" monitor that is 4:3 has more pixels than a 16:9, and even that has more than a 20:9 or whatever those super wide nesr are now.
Less it more, ignoran... well you all know thow thaat one goes.
J
Jeroni Paul
Guest
rev.11...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you did not understand what I was talking about. We are speaking about digital TV, here in europe the MPEG2 stream contains a 4:3 / 16:9 indicator that is meant to tell the decoder / TV set wheter the final picture aspect should be 4:3 or 16:9 regardless of the actual stream resolution. So the proper way to broadcast a 16:9 movie would be with the indicator set to 16:9 and the actual picture filling the entire available resolution, without black bars, even when the actual resolution of 720x576 is not 16:9. The decoder / player with a standard configuration will resize the picture to 16:9 aspect and it will display properly with all available resolution efficiently used. The opposite also holds true, a 4:3 program should be broadcast with the indicator set to 4:3 and no black bars.
What I hate is when they do not follow these simple basic rules and keep adding artificial black bars while incorrectly signaling the 4:3 / 16:9 indicator. The modern way is to signal always 16:9 and add side bars to 4:3 programs, this is incorrect and inefficient from a technological point of view as it loses resolution and does not allow the end user to choose its preferred way to adapt a 4:3 picture inside a 16:9 screen. While some people prefer side bars not everyone does, some people prefer to crop the picture and eliminate the side bars and others prefer to distort the aspect ratio and stretch it to fill the screen. Also people on 4:3 displays have no way to make it display properly.
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:49:21 PM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.
It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side blackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.
4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.
"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest Luddite response to technology today.
I think you did not understand what I was talking about. We are speaking about digital TV, here in europe the MPEG2 stream contains a 4:3 / 16:9 indicator that is meant to tell the decoder / TV set wheter the final picture aspect should be 4:3 or 16:9 regardless of the actual stream resolution. So the proper way to broadcast a 16:9 movie would be with the indicator set to 16:9 and the actual picture filling the entire available resolution, without black bars, even when the actual resolution of 720x576 is not 16:9. The decoder / player with a standard configuration will resize the picture to 16:9 aspect and it will display properly with all available resolution efficiently used. The opposite also holds true, a 4:3 program should be broadcast with the indicator set to 4:3 and no black bars.
What I hate is when they do not follow these simple basic rules and keep adding artificial black bars while incorrectly signaling the 4:3 / 16:9 indicator. The modern way is to signal always 16:9 and add side bars to 4:3 programs, this is incorrect and inefficient from a technological point of view as it loses resolution and does not allow the end user to choose its preferred way to adapt a 4:3 picture inside a 16:9 screen. While some people prefer side bars not everyone does, some people prefer to crop the picture and eliminate the side bars and others prefer to distort the aspect ratio and stretch it to fill the screen. Also people on 4:3 displays have no way to make it display properly.
J
Jeroni Paul
Guest
El martes, 10 de febrero de 2015, 3:29:27 (UTC+1), rev.11...@gmail.com escribió:
No, at least in the case I presented it was the broadcaster sending stereo wide sound. It was analog TV but with NICAM audio. Certainly the broadcaster had to be handling normal analog mono audio and stereo NICAM audio through different paths, applying the wide effect after mixing for mono.
Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in stereo again.
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:58:44 AM UTC-8, Jeroni Paul wrote:
While the hints and arguments provided in these posts are correct I
wonder if anyone did read my previous post which I think is relevant
to all this. Mixing the two channels with a Y cord may produce a faint
or no sound if wide stereo techniques are applied in the broadcast.
I find that using only the left channel is safer.
How do you Broadcast "Wide Stereo" AND "Mono Capable" at the same time?
I'm pretty sure "Wide Stereo" is something that happens in the Receiver, not the Transmitter.
My mileage may vary...
No, at least in the case I presented it was the broadcaster sending stereo wide sound. It was analog TV but with NICAM audio. Certainly the broadcaster had to be handling normal analog mono audio and stereo NICAM audio through different paths, applying the wide effect after mixing for mono.
Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in stereo again.
Guest
>"Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some >reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in >stereo again. "
If no other user settings are lost it was probably by design. Automatic. Shit like this is why I almost never buy anything new.
If no other user settings are lost it was probably by design. Automatic. Shit like this is why I almost never buy anything new.
Guest
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:15:42 PM UTC-5, jurb...@gmail.com wrote in sci.electronics.repair:
Not to make anything sound as easy as pie, but trying to get one "special friend" or (always remembering a certain tech's name) at each supplier/retailer probably makes things easier if you "had" to buy new.
That way, "just he/she" is responsible at that company for whatever later goes wrong. But then again, all that takes relationship cultivating You know, people sometimes come and go.
"Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the
issue but for some >reason that TV set did not want to store
the setting and after off-on it was in >stereo again. "
If no other user settings are lost it was probably by
design. Automatic. Shit like this is why I almost never
buy anything new.
Not to make anything sound as easy as pie, but trying to get one "special friend" or (always remembering a certain tech's name) at each supplier/retailer probably makes things easier if you "had" to buy new.
That way, "just he/she" is responsible at that company for whatever later goes wrong. But then again, all that takes relationship cultivating You know, people sometimes come and go.