[C]

I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes, the sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.

[James Lehman]

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
...
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes, the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.

[C]

Regular incandescent. Yes, they are on a dimmer, but I took the dimmer out
of the wall to take that out of the loop. Same problem.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:59:36 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
.. .
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes, the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:40:35 -0400, C wrote:


Regular incandescent. Yes, they are on a dimmer, but I took the dimmer out
of the wall to take that out of the loop. Same problem.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:59:36 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
. ..
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes, the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.



Please quit top posting. It's really a pain in the ass to follow
the thread you've created.

Unplug the audio input to the sub. Take a multimeter, put in on the AC
range, and measure the voltage difference between the ground on the sub
and the ground on the sub.

You have some poor connection on your house's wiring. When there's current
flowing in the lighting circuit, the voltage drop on the return neutral is
putting the voltage at the sub at a higher than desirable level. Instead of
being grounded, the sub is at some voltage like 1vac. Connect that to another
circuit (the receiver) that is properly tied to neutral and you end up with the
signal cable carrying current it shouldn't. This gets superimposed on your
audio signal and you have some lovely hum.

You need to isolate the subwoofer from the poor electrical system. Isolation
transformer? Isolate the signal instead through a transformer?

But first things first: make the measurement between the sub's ground
and the ground on the signal cable. It shouldn't be more than a volt.

[James Lehman]

OP did not top post. The thread shows up correctly in my reader.

James. )


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:40:35 -0400, C wrote:


Regular incandescent. Yes, they are on a dimmer, but I took the dimmer
out
of the wall to take that out of the loop. Same problem.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:59:36 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
. ..
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does
actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've
checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem
before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as
the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes,
the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that
may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.



Please quit top posting. It's really a pain in the ass to follow
the thread you've created.

Unplug the audio input to the sub. Take a multimeter, put in on the AC
range, and measure the voltage difference between the ground on the sub
and the ground on the sub.

You have some poor connection on your house's wiring. When there's
current
flowing in the lighting circuit, the voltage drop on the return neutral is
putting the voltage at the sub at a higher than desirable level. Instead
of
being grounded, the sub is at some voltage like 1vac. Connect that to
another
circuit (the receiver) that is properly tied to neutral and you end up
with the
signal cable carrying current it shouldn't. This gets superimposed on
your
audio signal and you have some lovely hum.

You need to isolate the subwoofer from the poor electrical system.
Isolation
transformer? Isolate the signal instead through a transformer?

But first things first: make the measurement between the sub's ground
and the ground on the signal cable. It shouldn't be more than a volt.

[AZ Nomad]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:59:53 GMT, James Lehman james wrote:


OP did not top post. The thread shows up correctly in my reader.

James. )


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:40:35 -0400, C wrote:


Regular incandescent. Yes, they are on a dimmer, but I took the dimmer
out
of the wall to take that out of the loop. Same problem.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:59:36 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
. ..
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does
actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've
checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem
before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as
the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes,
the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that
may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.



Please quit top posting. It's really a pain in the ass to follow
the thread you've created.

Unplug the audio input to the sub. Take a multimeter, put in on the AC
range, and measure the voltage difference between the ground on the sub
and the ground on the sub.

You have some poor connection on your house's wiring. When there's
current
flowing in the lighting circuit, the voltage drop on the return neutral is
putting the voltage at the sub at a higher than desirable level. Instead
of
being grounded, the sub is at some voltage like 1vac. Connect that to
another
circuit (the receiver) that is properly tied to neutral and you end up
with the
signal cable carrying current it shouldn't. This gets superimposed on
your
audio signal and you have some lovely hum.

You need to isolate the subwoofer from the poor electrical system.
Isolation
transformer? Isolate the signal instead through a transformer?

But first things first: make the measurement between the sub's ground
and the ground on the signal cable. It shouldn't be more than a volt.


I give up.

[[email protected]]

James Lehman wrote:
OP did not top post. The thread shows up correctly in my reader.

The original poster can NEVER top post. Only people responding
can top post, which is what you did, twice.

"Top posting" means putting your reply BEFORE what the
person you're responding said. Essentially, it's putting the
answer to a question before the question. For example:

It's 11:30.

OP said:
What time is it?

That's what top posting means. It has nothing to do with
"the thread." It simply has to do with having the questions
and answers in the right order in any given post in a
thread.

When you get a lot of people who refuse to stop top-
posting, you end up with most of the articles in a thread
upside down, with the beginning at the bottom where
you'll find it last and the end at the top where you'll find
it first. It makes reading any given article in a thread
difficult.

It's like watching a movie backwards.

For decades, pretty much every USENET reader forced
proper bottom posting, where you'd put an answer,
strangely enough, AFTER the question. With the proliferation
of web-browser based news services, this preferred practice
was, unfortunately, quite literally turned on its head, NOT
because anyone decided it was better, but because the
developers of such were too damned lazy or stupid to follow
well-established conventions. This has been further
exacerbated by Microsoft's idiotic mail client like Outlook.

Top posting means something that's very simple: putting
replies BEFORE what you're replying to in an article.

[James Lehman]

Oh, I see! I guess I'm just smart enough to know how to read a news group.




wrote in message
ups.com...

James Lehman wrote:
OP did not top post. The thread shows up correctly in my reader.

The original poster can NEVER top post. Only people responding
can top post, which is what you did, twice.

"Top posting" means putting your reply BEFORE what the
person you're responding said. Essentially, it's putting the
answer to a question before the question. For example:

It's 11:30.

OP said:
What time is it?

That's what top posting means. It has nothing to do with
"the thread." It simply has to do with having the questions
and answers in the right order in any given post in a
thread.

When you get a lot of people who refuse to stop top-
posting, you end up with most of the articles in a thread
upside down, with the beginning at the bottom where
you'll find it last and the end at the top where you'll find
it first. It makes reading any given article in a thread
difficult.

It's like watching a movie backwards.

For decades, pretty much every USENET reader forced
proper bottom posting, where you'd put an answer,
strangely enough, AFTER the question. With the proliferation
of web-browser based news services, this preferred practice
was, unfortunately, quite literally turned on its head, NOT
because anyone decided it was better, but because the
developers of such were too damned lazy or stupid to follow
well-established conventions. This has been further
exacerbated by Microsoft's idiotic mail client like Outlook.

Top posting means something that's very simple: putting
replies BEFORE what you're replying to in an article.

[AZ Nomad]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:59:53 GMT, James Lehman james wrote:


OP did not top post. The thread shows up correctly in my reader.

James. )


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:40:35 -0400, C wrote:


Regular incandescent. Yes, they are on a dimmer, but I took the dimmer
out
of the wall to take that out of the loop. Same problem.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:59:36 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Are your lights fluorescent or do they have dimmers on them?




"C" wrote in message
. ..
I never had this problem before on my sub (Velodyne), but it appeared
after
I upgraded my Yamaha receiver.

The hum appears when the receiver is turned off. The sub does
actually
turn itself off after awhile (hasn an auto on/off feature). I've
checked
all the outlets in the house for proper wiring. The sub itself has a
two-prong cord, so no 2-3 converter trick to be had here.

And, even more weird (and remember, I =never= had this problem
before),
when the amp is off and I turn on the lights on the same circuit as
the
amp, the hum appears. Turn off the lights and after a few minutes,
the
sub
will turn itself off.

I have also disconnected the coax coming into the house, thinking that
may
have been the culprit. No luck.

Any one got any insight?

Thanks, all.



Please quit top posting. It's really a pain in the ass to follow
the thread you've created.

Unplug the audio input to the sub. Take a multimeter, put in on the AC
range, and measure the voltage difference between the ground on the sub
and the ground on the sub.

You have some poor connection on your house's wiring. When there's
current
flowing in the lighting circuit, the voltage drop on the return neutral is
putting the voltage at the sub at a higher than desirable level. Instead
of
being grounded, the sub is at some voltage like 1vac. Connect that to
another
circuit (the receiver) that is properly tied to neutral and you end up
with the
signal cable carrying current it shouldn't. This gets superimposed on
your
audio signal and you have some lovely hum.

You need to isolate the subwoofer from the poor electrical system.
Isolation
transformer? Isolate the signal instead through a transformer?

But first things first: make the measurement between the sub's ground
and the ground on the signal cable. It shouldn't be more than a volt.


You just don't get it.

[Bob Quintal]

"James Lehman" wrote in
:

I guess it's really a matter of style. I post that way because
I want to and because I prefer reading replies from others
that way too. If it bothers a few pin heads... well... all the
better.

Trying to impose rules in an environment that was specifically
created to allow for free expression is obnoxious at best.

James. )



It's more that style, James, it's common courtesy. Not everybody
sits on their brains all day reading responses as soon as they
get posted. If a thread is properly bottom-posted, someone can
com in once a day, or even every few days, and go to the most
recent post, and get a clear synopsis of what has been written.

There are also issues of people who suffer from visual
impairment, who use text to sound converters. They need the
references from the previous post to be ahead of the new
material in order to situate themselves within the context of
the thread.

As for style, any comic who gives the punchline first and the
joke after has no style.

Thank you in advance for understanding.
--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[James Lehman]

I guess it's really a matter of style. I post that way because I want to and
because I prefer reading replies from others that way too. If it bothers a
few pin heads... well... all the better.

Trying to impose rules in an environment that was specifically created to
allow for free expression is obnoxious at best.

James. )



"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:32:24 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Oh, I see! I guess I'm just smart enough to know how to read a news
group.


Give it another couple of years and you'll be just smart enough to
know how to post to one.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[James Lehman]

Well now that some of you have taken the time to explain the situation in
sufficient detail, and after I have given it substantial consideration, I
have finally come to the conclusion that I still don't care. I still prefer
to top post because it makes more sense to me. And, there is nothing that
anyone of you can do about it. Isn't life wonderful? If you don't like it,
ignore my posts. Adapt and survive.

James. )


"Bob Quintal" wrote in message
...
"James Lehman" wrote in
:

I guess it's really a matter of style. I post that way because
I want to and because I prefer reading replies from others
that way too. If it bothers a few pin heads... well... all the
better.

Trying to impose rules in an environment that was specifically
created to allow for free expression is obnoxious at best.

James. )



It's more that style, James, it's common courtesy. Not everybody
sits on their brains all day reading responses as soon as they
get posted. If a thread is properly bottom-posted, someone can
com in once a day, or even every few days, and go to the most
recent post, and get a clear synopsis of what has been written.

There are also issues of people who suffer from visual
impairment, who use text to sound converters. They need the
references from the previous post to be ahead of the new
material in order to situate themselves within the context of
the thread.

As for style, any comic who gives the punchline first and the
joke after has no style.

Thank you in advance for understanding.
--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bob Quintal]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:


"James Lehman" wrote in message
. ..
Well now that some of you have taken the time to explain the
situation in sufficient detail, and after I have given it
substantial consideration, I have finally come to the
conclusion that I still don't care. I still prefer
to top post because it makes more sense to me. And, there is
nothing that anyone of you can do about it. Isn't life
wonderful? If you don't like it, ignore my posts. Adapt and
survive.

Thank goodness for killfiles.

Plonk!

Jeff

My sentiments exactly.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com