TV HiFi System?

[Davy]

I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio experience. What I
have in mind is to connect the TVs RCA audio output to a simple audio
amplifier which can drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
woofer.
I dont need a DVD player so dont need a cinema system. I dont need to
listen to radio so dont need a 'receiver'.
The RCA outputs of my Panasonic TV are not controlled by the remote, so
I need an amp with a remote. (?)
I need only about 20 watts of music power.

Does such a simple amp exist?

DAvy

[William Sommerwerck]

Here's one amp, from a good company. I'm sure you can find others.

http://www.parasound.com/ParasoundZ/zampv3.php

It has more power than you asked for, but 20 watts is a bit on the low side
if you ever crank up the volume.

"Music power" is a meaningless specification that was discarded years ago.

[Richard Crowley]

Davy wrote:
> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio experience. What
> I have in mind is to connect the TVs RCA audio output to a simple
> audio amplifier which can drive a couple of stereo speakers and a
> central sub woofer.
> I dont need a DVD player so dont need a cinema system. I dont need to
> listen to radio so dont need a 'receiver'.
> The RCA outputs of my Panasonic TV are not controlled by the remote,
> so I need an amp with a remote. (?)
> I need only about 20 watts of music power.

You mean something like this?...
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-462
There are likely a dozen different brands, models, varieties of these kinds
of things.

[Keith.[_2_]]

"Davy" > wrote in message
09.145...
>I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio experience. What I
> have in mind is to connect the TVs RCA audio output to a simple audio
> amplifier which can drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
> woofer.
> I dont need a DVD player so dont need a cinema system. I dont need to
> listen to radio so dont need a 'receiver'.
> The RCA outputs of my Panasonic TV are not controlled by the remote, so
> I need an amp with a remote. (?)
> I need only about 20 watts of music power.
>
> Does such a simple amp exist?
>
> DAvy

The suggestion by Marc seems OK. Check out the sound quality before
purchase. I am not sure if you already have speakers, if not, a pair of
active monitors might give you better quality and stereo separation. There
is a stack to choose from, let your ears and your wallet be the guide.

Keith.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:15:24 +1000, "Keith." >
wrote:

>The suggestion by Marc seems OK. Check out the sound quality before
>purchase. I am not sure if you already have speakers, if not, a pair of
>active monitors might give you better quality and stereo separation. There
>is a stack to choose from, let your ears and your wallet be the guide.

I don't know why active monitors would give better stereo separation
than any other speakers?

[Arny Krueger]

"Davy" > wrote in
message
09.145
> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio
> experience. What I have in mind is to connect the TVs
> RCA audio output to a simple audio amplifier which can
> drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
> woofer.

Probably the best solution would be some of the better speakers with
amplifiers built in that are sold for use with computers.

IME, most HDTVs don't have much audio, but they do have a headphone jack
output that you could plug PC speakers into.

Beware of PC speakers with just USB inputs.

I don't know what your budget is, but here are some nice speakers for the
purpose:

http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-3179_7-32906358.html

[William Sommerwerck]

> I don't know what your budget is, but here are some nice
> speakers for the purpose:

http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-3179_7-32906358.html

You might also want to look at AudioEngine.

http://www.audioengineusa.com

[Davy]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in news:h93g77
:

> http://www.parasound.com/Parasou

William, I cant find any reference to it driving two stereo speakers and
a mono sub woofer. Nor any mention of a remote control to control the
volume?
DAvy

[Davy]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:

> Davy wrote:
>> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio experience. What
>> I have in mind is to connect the TVs RCA audio output to a simple
>> audio amplifier which can drive a couple of stereo speakers and a
>> central sub woofer.
>> I dont need a DVD player so dont need a cinema system. I dont need
>> to listen to radio so dont need a 'receiver'.
>> The RCA outputs of my Panasonic TV are not controlled by the remote,
>> so I need an amp with a remote. (?)
>> I need only about 20 watts of music power.
>
> You mean something like this?...
> http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-462
> There are likely a dozen different brands, models, varieties of these
> kinds of things.
>
>

Richard, I dont see any reference to it driving a central sub woofer in
addition to stereo speakers; nor to a remote control?
DAvy

[Davy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Davy" > wrote in
> message
> 09.145
>> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio
>> experience. What I have in mind is to connect the TVs
>> RCA audio output to a simple audio amplifier which can
>> drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
>> woofer.
>
> Probably the best solution would be some of the better speakers with
> amplifiers built in that are sold for use with computers.

But that doesn't give me a remote to control the sound level.

> IME, most HDTVs don't have much audio, but they do have a headphone
> jack output that you could plug PC speakers into.

The headphone out from my TV gives very poor sound with a distinct hum.
RCA audio out is much better but not controlled by the TV's remote.

cheers

DAvy

[Davy]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
:

>> I don't know what your budget is, but here are some nice
>> speakers for the purpose:
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-3179_
7-
> 32906358.html
>
> You might also want to look at AudioEngine.
>
> http://www.audioengineusa.com
>
>

I think if I went down the powered speaker route then I would probably
go for a pair of Yamaha MSP3s

DAvy

[Richard Crowley]

Davy wrote:
> Richard, I dont see any reference to it driving a central sub woofer
> in addition to stereo speakers; nor to a remote control?

Then just go to your nearest shop and buy a 2.1 stereo receiver for
crying out loud. If you don't need or want a tuner, then ignore it. The
market economics of integrated receivers make them more cost
effective even if you don;t need the tuner section. Trying to piece-
meal all your requirements together any other way will cost 2-3x
more.

[Richard Crowley]

Davy wrote:
> I like that simple idea. Prices are a bit high though; I wonder if
> that is because they have the market to themselves? Also the units are
> a bit thin - can't be much of a woofer?

I suspect that "thin" may describe more than the dimensions.

> The specs say "(5) 2" full-
> range speakers and (1) 5.25" subwoofer". Does 5 x 2" speakers equal
> on 10" speaker?

Not hardly.

> Cant help feeling that a couple of decent bookshelf speakers and a
> woofer would sound better.

I share your skepticism and your prefered solution.

[Arny Krueger]

"Davy" > wrote in
message
. 109.145
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Davy" > wrote in
>> message
>> 09.145

>>> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio
>>> experience. What I have in mind is to connect the TVs
>>> RCA audio output to a simple audio amplifier which can
>>> drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
>>> woofer.
>>
>> Probably the best solution would be some of the better
>> speakers with amplifiers built in that are sold for use
>> with computers.

> But that doesn't give me a remote to control the sound
> level.

You mean your TV remote doesn't control its volume?

>> IME, most HDTVs don't have much audio, but they do have
>> a headphone jack output that you could plug PC speakers
>> into.

> The headphone out from my TV gives very poor sound with a
> distinct hum.

???????????????

> RCA audio out is much better but not
> controlled by the TV's remote.

Beware of PC speakers with just USB inputs.

> I don't know what your budget is, but here are some nice speakers for the
purpose:

> http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-3179_7-32906358.html

The speakers mentioned above also have RCA inputs.

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileAV30.html

[Davy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Davy" > wrote in
> message
> . 109.145
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Davy" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> 09.145
>
>>>> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio
>>>> experience. What I have in mind is to connect the TVs
>>>> RCA audio output to a simple audio amplifier which can
>>>> drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
>>>> woofer.
>>>
>>> Probably the best solution would be some of the better
>>> speakers with amplifiers built in that are sold for use
>>> with computers.
>
>> But that doesn't give me a remote to control the sound
>> level.
>
> You mean your TV remote doesn't control its volume?
>
>>> IME, most HDTVs don't have much audio, but they do have
>>> a headphone jack output that you could plug PC speakers
>>> into.
>
>> The headphone out from my TV gives very poor sound with a
>> distinct hum.
>
> ???????????????
>
>> RCA audio out is much better but not
>> controlled by the TV's remote.
>
> Beware of PC speakers with just USB inputs.
>
>> I don't know what your budget is, but here are some nice speakers
for
>> the
> purpose:
>
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-
3179_7
>> -32906358.html
>
> The speakers mentioned above also have RCA inputs.
>
> http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileAV30.html
>
>
>

The key to all this is that with Panasonic LDC TV the remote does not
control the volume of the RCA audio outputs.

DAvy

[Davy]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:

> Davy wrote:
>> Richard, I dont see any reference to it driving a central sub woofer
>> in addition to stereo speakers; nor to a remote control?
>
> Then just go to your nearest shop and buy a 2.1 stereo receiver for
> crying out loud. If you don't need or want a tuner, then ignore it.
The
> market economics of integrated receivers make them more cost
> effective even if you don;t need the tuner section. Trying to piece-
> meal all your requirements together any other way will cost 2-3x
> more.
>
>

For gods sake Richard what's wrong with your thinking? A receiver would
be double the height and not fit into my system. With just a little
intelligence you would realise that although a receiver might not cost
much more than an amp, these combined systems usually compete on price
by scrimping on the amp. :-)

Seriously though; if 2.1 output is what you recommend, and having
Googled '2.1' to see what '2.1' means, I have come to the conclusion
that you may well be right; but surely there must be a manufacturer
producing a slim amp with a remote that outputs 2.1?

DAvy

[William Sommerwerck]

> For gods sake Richard what's wrong with your thinking? A receiver
> would be double the height and not fit into my system. With just a
> little intelligence you would realise that although a receiver might not
> cost much more than an amp, these combined systems usually
> compete on price by scrimping on the amp. :-)

Tell that to NAD.

If you're trying to be rude, you're succeeding. And it would have been
helpful if you'd indicated that you live in GB or Canada.


> Seriously though; if 2.1 output is what you recommend, and having
> Googled '2.1' to see what '2.1' means, I have come to the conclusion
> that you may well be right; but surely there must be a manufacturer
> producing a slim amp with a remote that outputs 2.1?

There is little point to a 2.1 amplifier, because 2.1 sources are uncommon.
There might conceivably be a three-channel amplifier with an electronic
crossover feeding one of the channels (dedicated to the woofer).


Davy, you're outwearing your welcome. You've been given pretty good advice,
at no cost. Why don't you start looking into the suggestions we've made, and
start doing your own research on the Web?

[Arny Krueger]

"Davy" > wrote in
message
. 109.145
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Davy" > wrote in
>> message
>> . 109.145
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Davy" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> 09.145
>>
>>>>> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio
>>>>> experience. What I have in mind is to connect the TVs
>>>>> RCA audio output to a simple audio amplifier which can
>>>>> drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
>>>>> woofer.
>>>>
>>>> Probably the best solution would be some of the better
>>>> speakers with amplifiers built in that are sold for use
>>>> with computers.
>>
>>> But that doesn't give me a remote to control the sound
>>> level.
>>
>> You mean your TV remote doesn't control its volume?
>>
>>>> IME, most HDTVs don't have much audio, but they do have
>>>> a headphone jack output that you could plug PC speakers
>>>> into.
>>
>>> The headphone out from my TV gives very poor sound with
>>> a distinct hum.
>>
>> ???????????????
>>
>>> RCA audio out is much better but not
>>> controlled by the TV's remote.
>>
>> Beware of PC speakers with just USB inputs.
>>
>>> I don't know what your budget is, but here are some
>>> nice speakers for the
>> purpose:
>>
>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/m-audio-studiophile-av/4505-
>>> 3179_7 -32906358.html
>>
>> The speakers mentioned above also have RCA inputs.
>>
>> http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileAV30.html

> The key to all this is that with Panasonic LDC TV the
> remote does not control the volume of the RCA audio
> outputs.

Usually, there is a setup option to control whether the output jacks are
fixed or variable. This option has been around for like 20 years. I can't
believe that Panasonic blew this.

[Keith.[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:15:24 +1000, "Keith." >
> wrote:
>
>>The suggestion by Marc seems OK. Check out the sound quality before
>>purchase. I am not sure if you already have speakers, if not, a pair of
>>active monitors might give you better quality and stereo separation. There
>>is a stack to choose from, let your ears and your wallet be the guide.
>
> I don't know why active monitors would give better stereo separation
> than any other speakers?

True, I was trying to raise the standard a little.

Cheers,
Keith.

[Richard Crowley]

Davy wrote:

> Seriously though; if 2.1 output is what you recommend, and having
> Googled '2.1' to see what '2.1' means, I have come to the conclusion
> that you may well be right; but surely there must be a manufacturer
> producing a slim amp with a remote that outputs 2.1?

I said 2.1 because you said that you wanted subwoofer output.

Do you already have the subwoofer? If it is the kind that taps into
the regular L/R stereo channels, then you need only a common-as-
dirt 2-channel stereo receiver (with your requisite remote control,
etc.) Your only problem then would be chosing from the scores
of different options available.

[Richard Crowley]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> For gods sake Richard what's wrong with your thinking? A receiver
>> would be double the height and not fit into my system. With just a
>> little intelligence you would realise that although a receiver might
>> not cost much more than an amp, these combined systems usually
>> compete on price by scrimping on the amp. :-)
>
> Tell that to NAD.
>
> If you're trying to be rude, you're succeeding. And it would have been
> helpful if you'd indicated that you live in GB or Canada.

I don't think he is trying to be rude. Perhaps amusing and misunderstood.
(Unless you are equating living in GB or Canadia as being rude? :-)

>> Seriously though; if 2.1 output is what you recommend, and having
>> Googled '2.1' to see what '2.1' means, I have come to the conclusion
>> that you may well be right; but surely there must be a manufacturer
>> producing a slim amp with a remote that outputs 2.1?
>
> There is little point to a 2.1 amplifier, because 2.1 sources are
> uncommon. There might conceivably be a three-channel amplifier with
> an electronic crossover feeding one of the channels (dedicated to the
> woofer).

By 2.1, I wasn't implying that he has a 2.1 source, but that the amplifier
has a subwoofer output in addition to the main L/R channels.

> Davy, you're outwearing your welcome. You've been given pretty good
> advice, at no cost. Why don't you start looking into the suggestions
> we've made, and start doing your own research on the Web?

He does seem to be morphing his requirements into something that might
not even exist. Insisting on something with remote control AND subwoofer
output but NO tuner dramatically reduces his options (if any?) I'd
certainly
tollerate having a tuner I didn't use vs. paying much more for some botique
component.

[Davy]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:

> I don't think he is trying to be rude. Perhaps amusing and
> misunderstood. (Unless you are equating living in GB or Canadia as
> being rude? :-)

I live in UK and we have a strange sense of humour that often passes
the rest of the world by. Realising that, I tried to make it clear
that my comment was meant in jest by following my statement with a
smiley and started the next sentence with 'seriously though'.
Apologies to anyone I unintentially offended.

> By 2.1, I wasn't implying that he has a 2.1 source, but that the
> amplifier has a subwoofer output in addition to the main L/R
channels.

Richard, that is exactly right.


> Insisting on something with remote control AND
> subwoofer output but NO tuner dramatically reduces his options (if
> any?) I'd certainly
> tollerate having a tuner I didn't use vs. paying much more for some
> botique component.
>
Well I posted my OP from a point of complete ignorance, perplexed that
I could not find an amp with subwoofer output and remote and wondering
if they don't exist cos there is a better solution I am missing.
Despite all my reservations I might have to go down the receiver
route. Certainly preferable to going 'boutique'.

thanks

DAvy

[William Sommerwerck]

>> If you're trying to be rude, you're succeeding. And it would have been
>> helpful if you'd indicated that you live in GB or Canada.

> I don't think he is trying to be rude. Perhaps amusing and misunderstood.
> (Unless you are equating living in GB or Canadia as being rude? :-)

No, but it would limit the range of choices available to him. Why suggest
products he can't buy?


>> There is little point to a 2.1 amplifier, because 2.1 sources are
>> uncommon. There might conceivably be a three-channel amplifier
>> with an electronic crossover feeding one of the channels (dedicated
>> to the woofer).

> By 2.1, I wasn't implying that he has a 2.1 source, but that the amplifier
> has a subwoofer output in addition to the main L/R channels.

But there are few, if any, 2.1 amplifiers. I should have said "There is
little point to manufacturing a 2.1 amplifier, because 2.1 sources are
uncommon." I don't know of any. Audiophiles stuck on plain old stereo
usually use external crossovers.

[Davy]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:

> Davy wrote:
>
>> Seriously though; if 2.1 output is what you recommend, and having
>> Googled '2.1' to see what '2.1' means, I have come to the
conclusion
>> that you may well be right; but surely there must be a manufacturer
>> producing a slim amp with a remote that outputs 2.1?
>
> I said 2.1 because you said that you wanted subwoofer output.
>
> Do you already have the subwoofer? If it is the kind that taps into
> the regular L/R stereo channels, then you need only a common-as-
> dirt 2-channel stereo receiver (with your requisite remote control,
> etc.) Your only problem then would be chosing from the scores
> of different options available.
>
>
Richard,
I don't yet have a subwoofer and didn't realise that you can get a
subwoofer that taps into an amps regular L/R loudspeaker terminals - I
thought I would need a separate amp or a powered sub-woofer.

So presumably I need a passive subwoofer that would have two sets of
terminals, one for left and one for right, and a passive mixer inside
that doesn't upset the amp or the normal L/R speakers which would also
be connected?

The user manual for my amp (Cambridge Audio A5) does not recommend
connecting a subwoofer in that way - but maybe it depends on the
subwoofer?

thanks for that

DAvy

[Davy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

>> The key to all this is that with Panasonic LDC TV the
>> remote does not control the volume of the RCA audio
>> outputs.
>
> Usually, there is a setup option to control whether the output jacks
> are fixed or variable. This option has been around for like 20 years.
> I can't believe that Panasonic blew this.
>
Arny,
I rechecked the operating instructions for my almost one year old
Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV. Evidently I can switch to pseudo surround
sound, select music or speach optimisation, adjust the sound according
to how far the TV is from the wall and loads of other useless things but
not enable the remote to control the RCA audio output!

I can't believe it either

DAvy

[GregS[_3_]]

In article 45>, Davy > wrote:
>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:
>
>> I don't think he is trying to be rude. Perhaps amusing and
>> misunderstood. (Unless you are equating living in GB or Canadia as
>> being rude? :-)
>
>I live in UK and we have a strange sense of humour that often passes
>the rest of the world by. Realising that, I tried to make it clear
>that my comment was meant in jest by following my statement with a
>smiley and started the next sentence with 'seriously though'.
>Apologies to anyone I unintentially offended.
>
>> By 2.1, I wasn't implying that he has a 2.1 source, but that the
>> amplifier has a subwoofer output in addition to the main L/R
>channels.
>
>Richard, that is exactly right.
>
>
>> Insisting on something with remote control AND
>> subwoofer output but NO tuner dramatically reduces his options (if
>> any?) I'd certainly
>> tollerate having a tuner I didn't use vs. paying much more for some
>> botique component.
>>
>Well I posted my OP from a point of complete ignorance, perplexed that
>I could not find an amp with subwoofer output and remote and wondering
>if they don't exist cos there is a better solution I am missing.
>Despite all my reservations I might have to go down the receiver
>route. Certainly preferable to going 'boutique'.
>

Sometims you will have to seach the menue to see if
you can change the volume function. I have tapped off
the speakers on one TV with iso Xfmrs.
You can also use a headphone output
to drive an amp.

Your saying you need 20 watts means you already have speakers and know their efficiency.


greg

[William Sommerwerck]

> So presumably I need a passive subwoofer that would have two
> sets of terminals, one for left and one for right, and a passive
> mixer inside that doesn't upset the amp or the normal L/R
> speakers which would also be connected?

That's one way of doing it.


> The user manual for my amp (Cambridge Audio A5) does not
> recommend connecting a subwoofer in that way -- but maybe
> it depends on the subwoofer?

It's no big deal to make a woofer with dual voice coils, which would keep
the amplifier channels electrically isolated. So I don't understand
Cambridge's objection.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I rechecked the operating instructions for my almost one year old
> Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV. Evidently I can switch to pseudo surround
> sound, select music or speach optimisation, adjust the sound according
> to how far the TV is from the wall and loads of other useless things but
> not enable the remote to control the RCA audio output!

> I can't believe it either.

It's a useful feature, but that doesn't mean every TV has it. It would add a
few dollars to the parts cost.

[Richard Crowley]

"Davy" wrote ...
> I don't yet have a subwoofer and didn't realise that you can get a
> subwoofer that taps into an amps regular L/R loudspeaker terminals - I
> thought I would need a separate amp or a powered sub-woofer.
>
> So presumably I need a passive subwoofer that would have two sets of
> terminals, one for left and one for right, and a passive mixer inside
> that doesn't upset the amp or the normal L/R speakers which would also
> be connected?

Perhaps you should window-shop for subwoofers before deciding
what kind of an amplifier you want. From what I have seen available
over here, there are both passive subwoofers that tap into the speaker
cables to the main L/R speakers; and there are active subwoofers that
connect between the preamp and the power amp (they provide the
LF rolloff in the main L/R channels so that the LF comes through the
subwoofer and not the main L/R.) Of course passive sub-woofers
may require higher power from the main stereo amplifier. But active
subwoofers are easier to adjust both the crossover/rolloff point AND
the relative sensitivity between the subwoofer and the main L/R spkrs.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> I rechecked the operating instructions for my almost one
>> year old Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV. Evidently I can switch
>> to pseudo surround sound, select music or speach
>> optimisation, adjust the sound according to how far the
>> TV is from the wall and loads of other useless things
>> but not enable the remote to control the RCA audio
>> output!
>
>> I can't believe it either.
>
> It's a useful feature, but that doesn't mean every TV has
> it. It would add a few dollars to the parts cost.

I think it can often be done completely within the TV's firmware. Cost = 0.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

>>> I rechecked the operating instructions for my almost one
>>> year old Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV. Evidently I can switch
>>> to pseudo surround sound, select music or speach
>>> optimisation, adjust the sound according to how far the
>>> TV is from the wall and loads of other useless things
>>> but not enable the remote to control the RCA audio
>>> output!

>> It's a useful feature, but that doesn't mean every TV has
>> it. It would add a few dollars to the parts cost.

> I think it can often be done completely within the TV's firmware.

There is a practical problem to doing it that way. Think about the sound
detector / volume control / audio power amp chain. In a set with separate
fixed and controlled outputs (I think my Sony WEGA has both), the fixed set
would precede the volume control, the variable would follow it. (The latter
would require two jacks and buffer amp, which would add a bit to the set's
cost.)

Now imagine a set in which everything is controlled digitally, including the
volume attenuator. The variable output would, of course, follow the
attenuator. If you wanted that output to be switchable to fixed, you'd have
to put a "mute" ahead of the audio power amp, because switching the audio
output to fixed (by turning the attenuator all the way up to 11) would
"blast" the speakers.

It's not that it isn't doable, it's just that you can't do it (safely) at
zero-added-parts.

I looked at the manual for my Pioneer. It has one set of analog audio jacks,
which appear to be fixed-level.

[Davy]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
:

> Think about the
> sound detector / volume control / audio power amp chain.

William, if you can keep that line of thought...

If I connect a powered speaker to the headphone output of my Panasonic
TX-32LZD80 TV when tuned to a digital channel, whilst the TV speaker
sound on, then I get a very unpleasant hollowness/ringing in the
combined sound - like a short period echo. Is it possible that there
could be a time delay in the two audio outputs?
I cant see how there could be in such a short path. Very curious.

DAvy

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> "William Sommerwerck" wrote
>>> I rechecked the operating instructions for my almost one
>>> year old Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV. Evidently I can switch
>>> to pseudo surround sound, select music or speach
>>> optimisation, adjust the sound according to how far the
>>> TV is from the wall and loads of other useless things
>>> but not enable the remote to control the RCA audio
>>> output!
>>
>>> I can't believe it either.
>>
>> It's a useful feature, but that doesn't mean every TV has
>> it. It would add a few dollars to the parts cost.
>
> I think it can often be done completely within the TV's firmware. Cost =
> 0.

As someone who earns a living writing software, I would have
to take exception to the notion that firmware is free. :-)
But it very likely costs a fraction of what any kind of hardware
costs, especially in consumer assembly-line quantities.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Is it possible that there could be a time delay
> between the two audio outputs?

Yes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Davy" > wrote in
message
09.145
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
> in :
>
>> Think about the
>> sound detector / volume control / audio power amp chain.
>
> William, if you can keep that line of thought...
>
> If I connect a powered speaker to the headphone output of
> my Panasonic TX-32LZD80 TV when tuned to a digital
> channel, whilst the TV speaker sound on, then I get a
> very unpleasant hollowness/ringing in the combined sound
> - like a short period echo. Is it possible that there
> could be a time delay in the two audio outputs?

Yes. Digital TV is infamous for problems with random delays in the sound.

> I cant see how there could be in such a short path. Very
> curious.

It's all in the digital domain.

[Richard Crowley]

>> - like a short period echo. Is it possible that there
>> could be a time delay in the two audio outputs?
>
> Yes. Digital TV is infamous for problems with random delays in the sound.
>
>> I cant see how there could be in such a short path. Very
>> curious.
>
> It's all in the digital domain.

And the audio is practically in a different domain than video.
Which is why many (most?) screens feature a user-adjustable
delay to re-sync audio with video.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message

>>> - like a short period echo. Is it possible that there
>>> could be a time delay in the two audio outputs?
>>
>> Yes. Digital TV is infamous for problems with random
>> delays in the sound.
>>> I cant see how there could be in such a short path. Very
>>> curious.
>>
>> It's all in the digital domain.
>
> And the audio is practically in a different domain than
> video.

Right. There has never been any standard for delays ("latency") through DSPs
and converters. Delay through the former can change as the nature of
processing (e.g. tone controls and equalization) itself changes.

> Which is why many (most?) screens feature a
> user-adjustable delay to re-sync audio with video.

A sad state of affairs. They need to program the system controller to keep
track of the delays in the audio and video processors and automagically plug
in the right delays to keep sound and vision together. The offsets can get
so bad that lip synch is affected.

[Badmuts[_2_]]

"Davy" > wrote in message
09.145...
> I have a LCD TV and would like to improve the audio experience. What I
> have in mind is to connect the TVs RCA audio output to a simple audio
> amplifier which can drive a couple of stereo speakers and a central sub
> woofer.
> I dont need a DVD player so dont need a cinema system. I dont need to
> listen to radio so dont need a 'receiver'.
> The RCA outputs of my Panasonic TV are not controlled by the remote, so
> I need an amp with a remote. (?)

Just use the headphone out of the TV, that is controlled by the tv's remote.
That way, you can use any old amp.

Works like a charm here with my Samsung flat screen and an old Sony amp.

Bm