[OT] Adding volume control to electronic device

[Tobiah[_6_]]

I acquired an electronic dart board. It barks out
information about each shot in a loud voice that
would bother other people in the house. There doesn't
seem to be a way to control the volume. I was wondering
whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
get a volume control. I was thinking the signal could
go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
the other side of the speaker. Would that be the
correct way to do it?

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

Tobiah > wrote:
> I acquired an electronic dart board. It barks out
> information about each shot in a loud voice that
> would bother other people in the house. There doesn't
> seem to be a way to control the volume. I was wondering
> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
> get a volume control. I was thinking the signal could
> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
> the other side of the speaker. Would that be the
> correct way to do it?
>

Duct tape over the speaker works well too, from my experience with kids
toys and a colleague’s speakerphone.

[geoff]

On 3/01/2021 3:51 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Tobiah > wrote:
>> I acquired an electronic dart board. It barks out
>> information about each shot in a loud voice that
>> would bother other people in the house. There doesn't
>> seem to be a way to control the volume. I was wondering
>> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
>> get a volume control. I was thinking the signal could
>> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
>> the other side of the speaker. Would that be the
>> correct way to do it?
>>
>
> Duct tape over the speaker works well too, from my experience with kids
> toys and a colleague’s speakerphone.
>

I've used the tape-over approach on a simple piezo buzzer test box.
Works well.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/2/2021 9:46 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> I acquired an electronic dart board.Â* It barks out
> information about each shot in a loud voice that
> would bother other people in the house.Â* There doesn't
> seem to be a way to control the volume.Â* I was wondering
> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
> get a volume control.

Certainly. Have you opened it up already to see what possibilities there
are to connect it?


> I was thinking the signal could
> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
> the other side of the speaker.Â* Would that be the
> correct way to do it?

Depends on what you consider pins 1 and 2 (I assume you're talking about
the pot here), but I don't think you have it right anyway. The usual
hookup is as a voltage divider

-------------+
|
|||
|||<--------------
Guts |||
||| Speaker
|||
|
--------------+----------------

Depending on the impedance of the loudspeaker, you'd probably want a
fairly low value pot, 1000 ohms or so. Or if you have an electronics
parts drawer or junk box, you could just try a fixed resistor in series
with either speaker lead. Start with 100 ohms. If it's still too loud,
use a higher value, if it's too quiet try a lower value. But if you want
it to be adjustable, then a pot is the way to go.



---------------------------------

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>I acquired an electronic dart board. It barks out
>information about each shot in a loud voice that
>would bother other people in the house. There doesn't
>seem to be a way to control the volume. I was wondering
>whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
>get a volume control. I was thinking the signal could
>go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
>the other side of the speaker. Would that be the
>correct way to do it?

Yes. You can do this with a 1/4 watt 50 ohm wirewound pot and it will be
just fine.

Some people will tell you that you shouldn't do this because the speaker will
see a higher impedance and consequently the frequently response will be
affected. That's true, and even worse the low end will likely drop off faster
as you turn the volume down, which is the exact opposite of what you'd want
since your ears do the same thing.

These people would tell you that the smart thing to do would be to intercept
the audio before it gets to the final amplifier stage so you can put a pot
on the input to the amplifier. They would be right; this is a much more
elegant solution.

But hell, this is a dart board, this is not hi-fi stuff. Use a 50 ohm pot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah]

So how would I wire it? Would I just use pins 1 and 2 to put
the pot inline on one of the speaker leads? Does it matter
which side of the speaker? I seems that I could also short both
leads through pins 2 and 3 so that the signal tends to bypass
the speaker completely. Or maybe there is a way to use all three
pins to somehow make the signal path a more constant resistance.

On 1/4/2021 4:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>> I acquired an electronic dart board. It barks out
>> information about each shot in a loud voice that
>> would bother other people in the house. There doesn't
>> seem to be a way to control the volume. I was wondering
>> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
>> get a volume control. I was thinking the signal could
>> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
>> the other side of the speaker. Would that be the
>> correct way to do it?
>
> Yes. You can do this with a 1/4 watt 50 ohm wirewound pot and it will be
> just fine.
>
> Some people will tell you that you shouldn't do this because the speaker will
> see a higher impedance and consequently the frequently response will be
> affected. That's true, and even worse the low end will likely drop off faster
> as you turn the volume down, which is the exact opposite of what you'd want
> since your ears do the same thing.
>
> These people would tell you that the smart thing to do would be to intercept
> the audio before it gets to the final amplifier stage so you can put a pot
> on the input to the amplifier. They would be right; this is a much more
> elegant solution.
>
> But hell, this is a dart board, this is not hi-fi stuff. Use a 50 ohm pot.
> --scott
>

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/11/2021 1:04 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> So how would I wire it?Â* Would I just use pins 1 and 2 to put
> the pot inline on one of the speaker leads?Â* Does it matter
> which side of the speaker?Â* I seems that I could also short both
> leads through pins 2 and 3 so that the signal tends to bypass
> the speaker completely.Â* Or maybe there is a way to use all three
> pins to somehow make the signal path a more constant resistance.

I thought I wrote a reply to this a few days ago. Maybe you're just
ignoring me, or it was my attempt at drawing a schematic using the
keyboard that didn't look right.

Depends on what you consider pins 1 and 2 (I assume you're talking about
the pot here), but I don't think you have it right anyway. The usual
hookup is as a voltage divider, with the two ends of the pot (pins 1 and
3 in your language) connected across the output that feeds the speaker,
and the speaker connected between the wiper ( pin 2 - the one in the
center) and pin 1.

Depending on the impedance of the loudspeaker, you'd probably want a
fairly low value pot, 1000 ohms or so. Or if you have an electronics
parts drawer or junk box, you could just try a fixed resistor in series
with either speaker lead. Start with 100 ohms. If it's still too loud,
use a higher value, if it's too quiet try a lower value. But if you want
it to be adjustable, then a pot is the way to go.

[1]-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\------[3]
^
[2]

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Tobiah]

> Depends on what you consider pins 1 and 2 (I assume you're talking
> about the pot here), but I don't think you have it right anyway. The
> usual hookup is as a voltage divider, with the two ends of the pot
> (pins 1 and 3 in your language) connected across the output that
> feeds the speaker, and the speaker connected between the wiper ( pin
> 2 - the one in the center) and pin 1.
>
> Depending on the impedance of the loudspeaker, you'd probably want a
> fairly low value pot, 1000 ohms or so. Or if you have an electronics
> parts drawer or junk box, you could just try a fixed resistor in
> series with either speaker lead. Start with 100 ohms. If it's still
> too loud, use a higher value, if it's too quiet try a lower value.
> But if you want it to be adjustable, then a pot is the way to go.
>
> [1]-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\------[3]
> ^ [2]
>

Yeah, I failed to understand your previous ASCII art. It
makes sense now. I clip the two leads going to the speaker,
and connect the ones coming out of the device to pins
1 and 3, and connect the ones going to the speaker on pins
2 and 3 (or whichever way means clockwise will be louder).

So it's like a little mixer between speaker and ground.
Is this better than just clipping one speaker lead and
hooking up the ends to pin 1 and 2, like a single
variable value resistor?

[gray_wolf]

On 11/01/2021 12:04 pm, Tobiah wrote:
> So how would I wire it?Â* Would I just use pins 1 and 2 to put
> the pot inline on one of the speaker leads?Â* Does it matter
> which side of the speaker?Â* I seems that I could also short both
> leads through pins 2 and 3 so that the signal tends to bypass
> the speaker completely.Â* Or maybe there is a way to use all three
> pins to somehow make the signal path a more constant resistance.
>
> On 1/4/2021 4:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, TobiahÂ* > wrote:
>>> I acquired an electronic dart board.Â* It barks out
>>> information about each shot in a loud voice that
>>> would bother other people in the house.Â* There doesn't
>>> seem to be a way to control the volume.Â* I was wondering
>>> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
>>> get a volume control.Â* I was thinking the signal could
>>> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
>>> the other side of the speaker.Â* Would that be the
>>> correct way to do it?
>>
>> Yes.Â* You can do this with a 1/4 watt 50 ohm wirewound pot and it will be
>> just fine.
>>
>> Some people will tell you that you shouldn't do this because the speaker will
>> see a higher impedance and consequently the frequently response will be
>> affected.Â* That's true, and even worse the low end will likely drop off faster
>> as you turn the volume down, which is the exact opposite of what you'd want
>> since your ears do the same thing.
>>
>> These people would tell you that the smart thing to do would be to intercept
>> the audio before it gets to the final amplifier stage so you can put a pot
>> on the input to the amplifier.Â* They would be right; this is a much more
>> elegant solution.
>>
>> But hell, this is a dart board, this is not hi-fi stuff.Â* Use a 50 ohm pot.
>> --scott
>>

Stuff a rag in it? ;-) Google "Adding volume control to electronic device"

HTH

[gray_wolf]

On 13/01/2021 12:18 am, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 11/01/2021 12:04 pm, Tobiah wrote:
>> So how would I wire it?Â* Would I just use pins 1 and 2 to put
>> the pot inline on one of the speaker leads?Â* Does it matter
>> which side of the speaker?Â* I seems that I could also short both
>> leads through pins 2 and 3 so that the signal tends to bypass
>> the speaker completely.Â* Or maybe there is a way to use all three
>> pins to somehow make the signal path a more constant resistance.
>>
>> On 1/4/2021 4:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article >, TobiahÂ* > wrote:
>>>> I acquired an electronic dart board.Â* It barks out
>>>> information about each shot in a loud voice that
>>>> would bother other people in the house.Â* There doesn't
>>>> seem to be a way to control the volume.Â* I was wondering
>>>> whether I could just put a potentiometer in there to
>>>> get a volume control.Â* I was thinking the signal could
>>>> go through pin one and two, with the third attached to
>>>> the other side of the speaker.Â* Would that be the
>>>> correct way to do it?
>>>
>>> Yes.Â* You can do this with a 1/4 watt 50 ohm wirewound pot and it will be
>>> just fine.
>>>
>>> Some people will tell you that you shouldn't do this because the speaker will
>>> see a higher impedance and consequently the frequently response will be
>>> affected.Â* That's true, and even worse the low end will likely drop off faster
>>> as you turn the volume down, which is the exact opposite of what you'd want
>>> since your ears do the same thing.
>>>
>>> These people would tell you that the smart thing to do would be to intercept
>>> the audio before it gets to the final amplifier stage so you can put a pot
>>> on the input to the amplifier.Â* They would be right; this is a much more
>>> elegant solution.
>>>
>>> But hell, this is a dart board, this is not hi-fi stuff.Â* Use a 50 ohm pot.
>>> --scott
>>>
>
> Stuff a rag in it? ;-) Google "Adding volume control to electronic device"
>
> HTH
>
>


Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?

[Scott Dorsey]

gray_wolf > wrote:
>
>Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?=

Those were 70V system. 70V constant power going down the cable, each tap
has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load) and a crappy
speaker. Because they were all parallel loads, if the main cable was shorted
by someone driving away without removing the speaker, it would take all of
them down.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

"gray_wolf" wrote in message ...

<snip>

>Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?

Sure do! I had a um....habit....of driving off without putting them back on
their stand.
At one point I had about 20 of them. Now that's what I call Hi Fidelity ;-)

Poly


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Phil W]

2021-01-13 / 19:52:40 (UTC +0100) / polymod:
>
>
> "gray_wolf"Â* wrote in message ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?
>
> Sure do! I had a um....habit....of driving off without putting them back
> on their stand.
> At one point I had about 20 of them. Now that's what I call Hi Fidelity ;-)

Due to the height of the stand? ;-)

[geoff]

On 14/01/2021 4:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> gray_wolf > wrote:
>>
>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?=
>
> Those were 70V system. 70V constant power going down the cable, each tap
> has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
> element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load) and a crappy
> speaker.
>

Not switched tapped transformers ?

>Because they were all parallel loads, if the main cable was shorted
> by someone driving away without removing the speaker, it would take
> all of them down.

A bit like any singel speaker cable system in that regard !

geoff

[gray_wolf]

On 13/01/2021 5:43 pm, geoff wrote:
> On 14/01/2021 4:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> gray_wolfÂ* > wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?=
>>
>> Those were 70V system.Â* 70V constant power going down the cable, each tap
>> has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
>> element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load) and a crappy
>> speaker.
>
> Not switched tapped transformers ?
>
> >Because they were all parallel loads, if the main cable was shorted
> > by someone driving away without removing the speaker, it would take
> > all of them down.
>
> A bit like any singel speaker cable system in that regard !
>
> geoff

I ran the snack bar at the local drive-in when I was a kid. I don't recall any real
speaker loss. I heard that driving off with the window rolled up and speaker inside
would break the glass. I remember the tube power amp ran four 807s

[polymod]

"Phil W" wrote in message ...

2021-01-13 / 19:52:40 (UTC +0100) / polymod:
>
>
> "gray_wolf" wrote in message ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?
>
> Sure do! I had a um....habit....of driving off without putting them back
> on their stand.
> At one point I had about 20 of them. Now that's what I call Hi Fidelity
> ;-)

Due to the height of the stand? ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, the driver :-)

Poly


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 14/01/2021 2:39 pm, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 13/01/2021 5:43 pm, geoff wrote:
>> On 14/01/2021 4:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> gray_wolfÂ* > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume
>>>> control?=
>>>
>>> Those were 70V system.Â* 70V constant power going down the cable, each
>>> tap
>>> has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
>>> element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load) and a crappy
>>> speaker.
>>
>> Not switched tapped transformers ?
>>
>> Â*>Because they were all parallel loads, if the main cable was shorted
>> Â*> by someone driving away without removing the speaker, it would take
>> Â*> all of them down.
>>
>> A bit like any singel speaker cable system in that regard !
>>
>> geoff
>
> I ran the snack bar at the local drive-in when I was a kid. I don't
> recall any real
> speaker loss.Â* I heard that driving off with the window rolled up and
> speaker inside
> would break the glass. I remember the tube power amp ran four 807s
>


The cable wasn't shorted then.

geoff

[geoff]

On 14/01/2021 4:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> gray_wolf > wrote:
>>
>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume control?=
>
> Those were 70V system. 70V constant power going down the cable, each tap
> has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
> element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load)

"3 element pad" - wouldn't that be a T-Pad ?

geoff

[Paul Dorman]

On 1/14/2021 10:02 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 14/01/2021 4:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> gray_wolfÂ* > wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume
>>> control?=
>>
>> Those were 70V system.Â* 70V constant power going down the cable, each tap
>> has a step-down transformer, then an L-pad (not a simple pot but a three
>> element pad so the transformer always sees an 8 ohm load)
>
> "3 element pad" - wouldn't that be a T-Pad ?
>

Yes, or a "Pi"-pad.

[Trevor]

> "Phil W"Â* wrote in message ...
>
> 2021-01-13 / 19:52:40 (UTC +0100) / polymod:
>>
>> "gray_wolf"Â* wrote in message ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume
>>> control?
>>
>> Sure do! I had a um....habit....of driving off without putting them
>> back on their stand.
>> At one point I had about 20 of them.

And 20 broken windows? :-)

[polymod]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> "Phil W" wrote in message ...
>
> 2021-01-13 / 19:52:40 (UTC +0100) / polymod:
>>
>> "gray_wolf" wrote in message ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Remember the old drive in movie theater speakers with the volume
>>> control?
>>
>> Sure do! I had a um....habit....of driving off without putting them
>> back on their stand.
>> At one point I had about 20 of them.

And 20 broken windows? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL!!!
Windows must have been made stronger back in the 70s ;-)

Poly


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus