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

[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]

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]

[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

[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...


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]

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]

[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]

-> 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]

Byron A Jeff says...



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]

Yes bandwidth.


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]

[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

 

[Dane Brickman]

[crosspost restored, and top posted because, of course, my
response is more important than the question. ;-) ]

Personally, I think of it as conceptuallly similar to
"casting a wide net." If there are people who have a
small subset of favorite groups, there's a (possibly)
better chance of someone who has an answer will read
the question. Or at least the header. ;-)

Shall we start another flame fest? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

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.

That's not true. I often find it pays to fish several different groups on
some topics.
I've had many cases where a question one group won't draw a single response,
and yet will draw several in another group. You can't always predict.

As far as cross posting vs. multiple posting, it really doesn't matter (thou
gh I always go the multiple post route to avoid the inevitable flame war
that cross-posting seems to generate).

 

[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]

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]

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]

[crosspost restored, and top posted because, of course, my
response is more important than the question. ;-) ]

Personally, I think of it as conceptuallly similar to
"casting a wide net." If there are people who have a
small subset of favorite groups, there's a (possibly)
better chance of someone who has an answer will read
the question. Or at least the header. ;-)

Shall we start another flame fest? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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 ;-)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

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.

 

[Lord Garth]

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