Daft question but someone might know.
 

I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the television,
can I get an Amp to go in between to output sound to speakers then the
tv signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.

Thanks
Alan
--

Daft question but someone might know.
 

On 29/11/2010 12:46, Alan Crowder wrote:
I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the television,
can I get an Amp to go in between to output sound to speakers then the
tv signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.

Does your TV have a pair of phono sockets for audio out?
The easiest method is to connect those to an audio amp.
If the Virgin box has separate analog audio out you will have lipsynch
problems
due to the ~100ms picture delay on a digital TV.

--
Eiron.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Alan Crowder" wrote in message
...

I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the television,
can I get an Amp to go in between to output sound to speakers then the
tv signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.


I would have thought an AV amp with HDMI in and outputs would do the trick
but do check for yourself unless anyone else can confirm?

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Alan Crowder
wrote:

I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the television, can
I get an Amp to go in between to output sound to speakers then the tv
signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.

I take it that the 'Virgin media TV box' has no output phonos?

I'm not sure as I've not needed one myself, but you may be able to get a
box that passes though HDMI whilst extracting the audio. If as spdif, you
can then use a DAC. IIRC The CYP one I've seen also provides a sync delay.

In the "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here" class, I suspect I'd
have wanted a TV and/or box with spdif output(s). The TV then might delay
this for you to maintain lip-sync. Dunno, I still happily use ye olde CRT.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article ,
Alan Crowder wrote:
I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the television,
can I get an Amp to go in between to output sound to speakers then the
tv signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.

There's bound to be a way of doing it - but have you considered that many
modern TVs have a sound delay in them to bring the sound into sync with
the display? So taking the sound off before the TV removes this. The
phonos on the TV designed to feed an external sound system include this
delay.

--
*It's not the end of the world if you can't spell armageddon.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Alan Crowder wrote:
I have a Virgin media TV box with HDMI output to the the
television, can I get an Amp to go in between to output
sound to speakers then the tv signal up to the TV?

I only have the one HDMI output on the Virgin box.

There's bound to be a way of doing it - but have you
considered that many modern TVs have a sound delay in
them to bring the sound into sync with the display? So
taking the sound off before the TV removes this. The
phonos on the TV designed to feed an external sound
system include this delay.

Good point.

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable delay for
addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the picture is digital coax
(stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper amount of
delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs of the
cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip synch problems
unless additional delay is applied.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable delay for
addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the picture is digital coax
(stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper amount of
delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs of the
cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip synch problems
unless additional delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to bring the sound
into time-alignment with the picture. If the OP wants multi-channel sound
then this is his best option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo then using
the digital audio output from the TV will do the job for a lot less dosh.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an
adjustable delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the
picture is digital coax (stereo, not multichannel),
which does indeed have the proper amount of delay for
use with a standard DAC. If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use
one of
the outputs of the cable box. I've tested some of them
and they all cause lip synch problems unless additional
delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to
bring the sound into time-alignment with the picture. If
the OP wants multi-channel sound then this is his best
option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo then using the
digital audio output from the TV will do the job for a
lot less dosh.

I've heard that A/V amplifiers exist, but most people on this side of the
pond save a lot of money by going the receiver route. On Black Friday I saw
a 100 wpc multichannel receiver for under $100. The ad didn't give much
but brand and channel count. For sure, I saw 7.1 channels and HDMI for
under $200.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an
adjustable delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the
picture is digital coax (stereo, not multichannel),
which does indeed have the proper amount of delay for
use with a standard DAC. If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use
one of
the outputs of the cable box. I've tested some of them
and they all cause lip synch problems unless additional
delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to
bring the sound into time-alignment with the picture. If
the OP wants multi-channel sound then this is his best
option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo then using the
digital audio output from the TV will do the job for a
lot less dosh.

I've heard that A/V amplifiers exist, but most people on this side of the
pond save a lot of money by going the receiver route. On Black Friday I
saw a 100 wpc multichannel receiver for under $100. The ad didn't give
much but brand and channel count. For sure, I saw 7.1 channels and HDMI
for under $200.

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in it.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an
adjustable delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the
picture is digital coax (stereo, not multichannel),
which does indeed have the proper amount of delay for
use with a standard DAC. If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use
one of
the outputs of the cable box. I've tested some of them
and they all cause lip synch problems unless additional
delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to
bring the sound into time-alignment with the picture. If
the OP wants multi-channel sound then this is his best
option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo then using the
digital audio output from the TV will do the job for a
lot less dosh.

I've heard that A/V amplifiers exist, but most people on this side of the
pond save a lot of money by going the receiver route. On Black Friday I
saw a 100 wpc multichannel receiver for under $100. The ad didn't give
much but brand and channel count. For sure, I saw 7.1 channels and HDMI
for under $200.


I checked, my AV amp (Sony STR-DG820) is a *receiver*!!

I never knew that!

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an
adjustable delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the
picture is digital coax (stereo, not multichannel),
which does indeed have the proper amount of delay for
use with a standard DAC. If I wanted multichannel,
then I'd have to use one of
the outputs of the cable box. I've tested some of them
and they all cause lip synch problems unless additional
delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature
to bring the sound into time-alignment with the
picture. If the OP wants multi-channel sound then this
is his best option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo
then using the digital audio output from the TV will do
the job for a lot less dosh.

I've heard that A/V amplifiers exist, but most people on
this side of the pond save a lot of money by going the
receiver route. On Black Friday I saw a 100 wpc
multichannel receiver for under $100. The ad didn't
give much but brand and channel count. For sure, I saw
7.1 channels and HDMI for under $200.

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in it.

Of course, but around here, a given level of power and performance is
usually cheaper with the tuner thrown in than without it. Something about
sales volumes...

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in it.

Of course, but around here, a given level of power and performance is
usually cheaper with the tuner thrown in than without it. Something about
sales volumes...

And it's the same around here, but in the context of this thread the term
"AV Amplifier" includes "AV receiver" since the later is simply the former
with an irrelevant tuner included. I didn't see the need to add "or AV
receiver" to my original post. But I do now! (some pedant is bound to make
an issue of an irrelevance).

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that virtually all AV
amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box efforts? If you want to keep the power
amps physically separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in
it.

Of course, but around here, a given level of power and
performance is usually cheaper with the tuner thrown in
than without it. Something about sales volumes...

And it's the same around here, but in the context of this
thread the term "AV Amplifier" includes "AV receiver"
since the later is simply the former with an irrelevant
tuner included. I didn't see the need to add "or AV
receiver" to my original post. But I do now! (some pedant
is bound to make an issue of an irrelevance).

If a receiver is what everyman knows and recognizes, why not call it a
receiver and not an amplifier?

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that
virtually all AV amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box
efforts?

Of course.

If you want to keep the power amps physically
separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.

Putting everything into one box cuts costs and reduces the skill level
required to make it work.

The economics of receivers that don't have amplifiers built-in is such that
it can make economic sense to buy a reciever that has separate preamp outs
and amp ins and just don't use the on-premesis amps, as opposed to doing
something stupid like buy a signal processor that lacks amps.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

If a receiver is what everyman knows and recognizes, why not call it a
receiver and not an amplifier?

Because it's the amplifier part that is relevant to this discussion. (sigh!)
The term "AV amplifier" will cover an "AV receiver" because a receiver is
simply an amplifier with a tuner (which many people don't want and won't
use) in it.

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that
virtually all AV amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box
efforts?

Of course.

If you want to keep the power amps physically
separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.

Putting everything into one box cuts costs and reduces the skill level
required to make it work.

The economics of receivers that don't have amplifiers built-in is such
that it can make economic sense to buy a reciever that has separate preamp
outs and amp ins and just don't use the on-premesis amps, as opposed to
doing something stupid like buy a signal processor that lacks amps.


Unwanted power amps (and their power supply) add *considerable* unnecessary
size and weight to the unit. I can't see why you think it "stupid" to want
to buy a small, light unit that does what you want, rather than a large,
heavy thing that does a load of things that you don't want, don't need, and
just add size, weight and complexity.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

On 29/11/2010 22:15, David Looser wrote:
"Arny wrote in message
...
"David wrote in
message

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in it.

Of course, but around here, a given level of power and performance is
usually cheaper with the tuner thrown in than without it. Something about
sales volumes...

And it's the same around here, but in the context of this thread the term
"AV Amplifier" includes "AV receiver" since the later is simply the former
with an irrelevant tuner included. I didn't see the need to add "or AV
receiver" to my original post. But I do now! (some pedant is bound to make
an issue of an irrelevance).

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that virtually all AV
amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box efforts? If you want to keep the power
amps physically separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.



Indeed. I currently have just stereo speakers/amp. What's the best way
to bolt on rear/centre speakers to this sort of arrangement?

Thanks, Rob

Daft question but someone might know.
 

David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable
delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's only output of any kind other than the picture is digital
coax (stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper
amount of delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs
of the cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip
synch problems unless additional delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to bring the
sound into time-alignment with the picture. If the OP wants
multi-channel sound then this is his best option, if he only wants 2
channel stereo then using the digital audio output from the TV will
do the job for a lot less dosh.

David.



Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Alan

--

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

If a receiver is what everyman knows and recognizes, why not call it a
receiver and not an amplifier?

Because it's the amplifier part that is relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps also because this may be another example of two countries seperated
by a common langauge. My impression is that 'AV amplifier" is common in the
UK. Whereas the USA with its history of preferring all-in-one 'receivers'
may tend to assume/acknowledge the inclusion of tuners.

Unwanted power amps (and their power supply) add *considerable*
unnecessary size and weight to the unit. I can't see why you think it
"stupid" to want to buy a small, light unit that does what you want,
rather than a large, heavy thing that does a load of things that you
don't want, don't need, and just add size, weight and complexity.

And some of us already have a good stereo power amp we'd want to go on
using for *stereo*, not a higher number of channels.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Alan Crowder
wrote:


Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Some modern amps provide optical inputs. Alternatively you can buy a DAC
and use that to feed a more traditional amp. If you want to save cash, then
either buy something inexpensive like the CYP one from CPC, or look in the
secondhand ads at the back of magazines.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Alan Crowder" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable
delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's only output of any kind other than the picture is digital
coax (stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper
amount of delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs
of the cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip
synch problems unless additional delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to bring the
sound into time-alignment with the picture. If the OP wants
multi-channel sound then this is his best option, if he only wants 2
channel stereo then using the digital audio output from the TV will
do the job for a lot less dosh.

David.



Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Alan

--
My TV similarly has no audio outputs, but I use the headphone out to spare
input (tape) on an aging receiver. I am sure this is not a "purist"
approach, but it seems to work well enough.

Geoff

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Alan Crowder" wrote

Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.


I am, I have to say, surprised that the TV doesn't have a pair of phonos for
left and right analogue audio, the extra cost in manufacture would be small.
You can buy small DACs with an optical input for relatively little money,
but it's still going to cost you a lot more than it would have cost the TV
manufacturer to include the circuitry within the TV.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

If a receiver is what everyman knows and recognizes, why
not call it a receiver and not an amplifier?

Because it's the amplifier part that is relevant to this
discussion. (sigh!) The term "AV amplifier" will cover an
"AV receiver" because a receiver is simply an amplifier
with a tuner (which many people don't want and won't use)
in it.

I don't recall ever seeing what I recognized to be an A/V amplifier. I've
seen pictures of them and maybe I've seen them at hifi shows. I've even
owned an A/V receiver!

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that
virtually all AV amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box
efforts?

Of course.

If you want to keep the power amps physically
separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.

Putting everything into one box cuts costs and reduces
the skill level required to make it work.

The economics of receivers that don't have amplifiers
built-in is such that it can make economic sense to buy
a reciever that has separate preamp outs and amp ins and
just don't use the on-premesis amps, as opposed to doing
something stupid like buy a signal processor that lacks
amps.

Unwanted power amps (and their power supply) add
*considerable* unnecessary size and weight to the unit.

Ironic then that accepting power amps as part of the receiver package can
signficantly cut the cost of obtaining the desired function.

I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive. The
development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when the sales
double.

Manufacturing is now so efficient that added complexity is accepted to
obtain other benefits. Witness the disappearance of the iron core wall wart,
which is now almost universally replaced by a switchmode power supply that
is smaller, lighter, more efficient, and presumably even less costly to
make.

Ever take the base of a CFL apart? Compare the complexity what is in the
base of a CFL (might include an IC with significant active device count)
with what is in the base of a regular incadescent lamp (2 short wires).

If LED development continues at its current measured pace there could be a
market for a sequel to the CFL that is based on the kind of plasma-based
light source that is used for stage lighting. Very efficient with a
wonderful spectral balance that LEDs and CFLs can only dream about. Plasma
bulbs are fairly simple themselves. The trick is controlling their power
source.

With high-efficiency output stages and switchmode power supplies, the cost,
size and weight of power amplification can be and has been signficantly
reduced.

Basically, this is just the next logical step in the well-justified
trivialization of power amps. At one point the power amp was the largest,
heaviest, least reliable, and most expensive part of a good audio system.
Once upon a time they even sounded different! Today, power amps are well on
their way to becoming add-on, throw-away, something that is accepted
usually based on well-placed faith, in order to obtain what comes with it.

I see that even low-cost producers such as Behringer are offering heavy-duty
power amps (by consumer receiver standards) that are based on switchmode
power supplies and high-efficiency output stages. I see signs that
high-volume consumer electronics are following suit.

I don't have a surround system, but many of my friends who have surround
systems and use powered speakers and/or separate power amplfiers have for
economic reasons obtained an A/V receiver. They don't connect the power amps
to anything, they run their system off of the receivers preamp outputs. I've
even seen people use simple gadgets that reduce the voltage of a power amp
to a line-level signal. The car sound catalogs have them, but they work at
home.

I can't see why you think it "stupid" to want to buy a
small, light unit that does what you want, rather than a
large, heavy thing that does a load of things that you
don't want, don't need, and just add size, weight and
complexity.

Look at the price tags. IMO it is stupid to pay more to obtain the same or
less function and performance if the package is manageable.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com

I currently have just stereo speakers/amp. What's
the best way to bolt on rear/centre speakers to this sort
of arrangement?

Sell what you have or demote it to a less critical use. Buy an AV receiver.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive.
The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when
the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'm not sure as I've not needed one myself, but you may be able to get a
box that passes though HDMI whilst extracting the audio. If as spdif, you
can then use a DAC. IIRC The CYP one I've seen also provides a sync delay.


I've been looking for units that will extract "HD" audio from an HDMI stream
(whilst passing on the video) and found little on the market (except for
bloody great big AV receivers with all sorts of stuff I don't need and don't
want) The only such unit from CYP that I'm aware of is the CLUX-11SA, which
doesn't have a delay, so I was interested in your claim that CYP make one
*with* a sync delay.

The CLUX-11SA converts 2ch, 5.1 or 7.1 LPCM to analogue (most BD players
will convert lossless multi-channel Dolby or DTS to LPCM if set up to do
so), but has neither a sync delay, nor does it have surround delay, and
since the output is analogue it would be necessary to re-convert it to
digital in order to apply such delays. The CLUX-11SA does have an optical
SPDIF output, but that will only cope with 2ch LPCM, AC3 DD or "lossy" 5.1
DTS.

If the BD player is set-up to output multi-channel audio in the HDMI stream
as LPCM the optical output of the CLUX is just the L & R channels, which
makes for interesting viewing of films with 5.1 or 7.1 since the centre
channel which contains virtually all the dialogue is missing! On the other
hand if the BD player is set up to output multi-channel audio in it's native
format then there is no audio output (analogue or optical) at all from the
CLUX when the BD audio is lossless Dolby or DTS.

David.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'm not sure as I've not needed one myself, but you may be able to get
a box that passes though HDMI whilst extracting the audio. If as
spdif, you can then use a DAC. IIRC The CYP one I've seen also
provides a sync delay.


I've been looking for units that will extract "HD" audio from an HDMI
stream (whilst passing on the video) and found little on the market
(except for bloody great big AV receivers with all sorts of stuff I
don't need and don't want) The only such unit from CYP that I'm aware
of is the CLUX-11SA, which doesn't have a delay, so I was interested in
your claim that CYP make one *with* a sync delay.

My "claim" wrt CYP was that they make a DAC with a delay. I think I've seen
it listed in the CPC catalogues.

I also said that you *may* be able to get a HDMI-audio extractor. Since I
don't use HDMI I've not bothered to note any. I'd assume that these would
follow the source - so spdif for stereo and 'bitsteam' (or whatever the
term) for multichannel. The DVD players/recorders I use all let you set the
output to 'all spdif' or allow bistream for multichannel. I just set to
spdif.

No idea who (if anyone) makes an spdif extractor from HDMI with a delay.
And my comment was for stereo since that is normal for UK SD TV. Plus TBH I
have no interest personally in 'surround sound'. Hard enough to get good
stereo!

If the BD player i

FWIW I have no personal interest in BD or HD video at present. So have no
idea what is available in that area. I also (as I think I wrote) use a CRT
so don't have problems with synch.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article ,
Alan Crowder wrote:
Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Many TV sets will have an audio output on their SCART sockets. Some even
allow this to be selected in the menu - for dubbing purposes, say between
a PVR and DVD recorder. Or just be the TV audio out. You'd need to modify
a SCART lead, though, if all yours are in use.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive.
The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when
the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.


Not much help but..

There is one around seem to remember he's out near Colchester if a come
across the name I'll mail it over;!..
Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be
quite impressive. The development, tooling and sales
costs don't increase that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who
will sell small quantities of items like Toko-type
low-pass filters! Countless similar filters are in all
kinds of tuners, etc.

Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have many
coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest weakness - no
dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM (firmware), two
banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color display, pushbuttons
and a battery in less than a cubic inch.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite
impressive. The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase
that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.

Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have
many coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest weakness -
no dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM
(firmware), two banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color
display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the remains of the
38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite
impressive. The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase
that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.


Not much help but..

There is one around seem to remember he's out near Colchester if a come
across the name I'll mail it over;!..

Thanks. :-)

FWIW I did find a "tokouk" email address on the Toko webpages. But when I
tried sending an email it gave an automated "this address is not in use".
So much for them keeping their contact info up to date!

I'd have no problem finding someone if I'm willing to buy, say, 5000. The
snag is how anyone would buy one or two...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be
quite impressive. The development, tooling and sales
costs don't increase that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who
will sell small quantities of items like Toko-type
low-pass filters! Countless similar filters are in all
kinds of tuners, etc.

Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa
Clip+ can't have many coils, given that they fit the FM
stereo tuner (biggest weakness - no dedicated antenna
terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM (firmware), two
banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color
display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic
inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and
the remains of the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Good question. Obviously, it could be done with active filters. I direct you
to the data sheets for the relevant chips which are online. I'd study it
myself right now but I'm off to a gig this morning.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have
many coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest weakness -
no dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM
(firmware), two banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color
display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the remains of
the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Maybe like my old Quad FM3 tuner - don't bother to?

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be
quite impressive. The development, tooling and sales
costs don't increase that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who
will sell small quantities of items like Toko-type
low-pass filters! Countless similar filters are in all
kinds of tuners, etc.

Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa
Clip+ can't have many coils, given that they fit the FM
stereo tuner (biggest weakness - no dedicated antenna
terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM (firmware), two
banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color
display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic
inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and
the remains of the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

It appears that all audio signal processing is done in the digital domain:

http://read.pudn.com/downloads159/doc/710424/Si4706.pdf

Please see page 15 for listing of external components required (a bypass
cap on the power supply).

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have
many coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest
weakness - no dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP),
EPROM (firmware), two banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps,
jacks, color display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic
inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the remains of
the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Maybe like my old Quad FM3 tuner - don't bother to?

The diagram I have for the FM3 shows it using an MC1310 followed by a pair
of active LP filters. (The FM4 seems to use the Toko type '21 filter
modules. But I don't know the filter shapes for these as they don't give a
part number I could trace to any of the Toko sheets I have.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have
many coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest weakness
- no dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM
(firmware), two banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks,
color display, pushbuttons and a battery in less than a cubic inch.

So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the remains of
the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

It appears that all audio signal processing is done in the digital
domain:

http://read.pudn.com/downloads159/doc/710424/Si4706.pdf

Please see page 15 for listing of external components required (a
bypass cap on the power supply).

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the remains
of the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Maybe like my old Quad FM3 tuner - don't bother to?

The diagram I have for the FM3 shows it using an MC1310 followed by a
pair of active LP filters. (The FM4 seems to use the Toko type '21
filter modules. But I don't know the filter shapes for these as they
don't give a part number I could trace to any of the Toko sheets I have.)

My early FM3 caused real problems when recording to my A77. Had to fit a
filter to it.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
So how does it filter/suppress the 19kHz pilot tone and the
remains of the 38kHz DSBSC after stereo demodulation?

Maybe like my old Quad FM3 tuner - don't bother to?

The diagram I have for the FM3 shows it using an MC1310 followed by a
pair of active LP filters. (The FM4 seems to use the Toko type '21
filter modules. But I don't know the filter shapes for these as they
don't give a part number I could trace to any of the Toko sheets I
have.)

My early FM3 caused real problems when recording to my A77. Had to fit a
filter to it.

I haven't analysed the filter but it doesn't have an obvious 19k 'trap'.
Just looks like a standard 3rd order LC design for a low pass. I'd expect
the 1310 to leak fair amounts of 19k, etc. That's why the 600s used a Toko
filter, and perhaps why the FM4 does as well!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
My early FM3 caused real problems when recording to my A77. Had to fit
a filter to it.

I haven't analysed the filter but it doesn't have an obvious 19k 'trap'.
Just looks like a standard 3rd order LC design for a low pass. I'd
expect the 1310 to leak fair amounts of 19k, etc. That's why the 600s
used a Toko filter, and perhaps why the FM4 does as well!


ISTR it being said the recorder should have the filtering - perhaps
switchable - rather than restricting the tuner audio output? For say mono?

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daft question but someone might know.
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
My early FM3 caused real problems when recording to my A77. Had to
fit a filter to it.

I haven't analysed the filter but it doesn't have an obvious 19k
'trap'. Just looks like a standard 3rd order LC design for a low pass.
I'd expect the 1310 to leak fair amounts of 19k, etc. That's why the
600s used a Toko filter, and perhaps why the FM4 does as well!


ISTR it being said the recorder should have the filtering - perhaps
switchable - rather than restricting the tuner audio output? For say
mono?

Clearly some makers/designers have thought that. :-) However my own view
is that it should be the tuner that suppresses anything that isn't intended
as audio from appearing the outputs. If nothing else, some people can hear
19kHz. And having a lot of ultrasonics isn't very kind to following
amplifiers, etc.

Personally I liked the Yamaha method. Have an active null to cancel out the
19k pilot, then use a Toko filter flat to about 17kHz to ensure good
behaviour up to 15k but still cut down the ultrasonic hash.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Daft question but someone might know.
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

ISTR it being said the recorder should have the filtering - perhaps
switchable - rather than restricting the tuner audio output? For say mono?


It was a licensing requirement for recorders fitted with Dolby B noise
reduction that they include a 19kHz notch filter and a low-pass filter to
remove the 38kHz sub-carrier and sidebands. Some high-end domestic
recorders, reel-to-reel and cassette, made the notch filter switchable,
though most domestic cassette decks didn't bother.

David.