I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.
Thanks
Aaron

I don't think this will be a problem. Others will no doubt disagree, but I
say just do it Aaron.

Julian


"Aaron Smith" wrote in message
...
I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.
Thanks
Aaron

im sure it will work too, but i am worried that it will put stress on the
input and if i turn it up it could damage the amps

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...
I don't think this will be a problem. Others will no doubt disagree, but I
say just do it Aaron.

Julian


"Aaron Smith" wrote in message
...
I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output
on the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a)
but the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its
+4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.
Thanks
Aaron

Aaron Smith wrote:
I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.

You won't damage anything, but now you have a cheap mixer in your monitor
signal path. Your goal is to keep the signal path as clean and free of
anything that can cause coloration as possible.

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

yes please tell me more about this, what would i be looking for?
Aaron

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Aaron Smith wrote:
I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output
on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its +4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.

You won't damage anything, but now you have a cheap mixer in your monitor
signal path. Your goal is to keep the signal path as clean and free of
anything that can cause coloration as possible.

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.
--scott

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
attenuate further?

Julian

"Aaron Smith" wrote in message
...
im sure it will work too, but i am worried that it will put stress on the
input and if i turn it up it could damage the amps

One assumes there is a buffer stage between the input and the main gain
stage in which case, it is not possible to ruin the speakers by using an
unbalanced source.

Julian

"Aaron Smith" wrote in message
...
im sure it will work too, but i am worried that it will put stress on the
input and if i turn it up it could damage the amps

Anything that would cause the amps to overload would call itself to your
attention by being so loud that you would reach immediately for the volume
knob. It's possible to damage speakers by momentary overdriving, but I
highly doubt you could do anything to damage the amps themselves, and I
suspect that the amps in the speakers are probably not going to pop the
speakers eaither.

Peace,
Paul

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.
--scott

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
attenuate further?

He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy a
minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to each
speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Peace,
Paul

multi channel stereo attenuator - passive -
http://www.smproaudio.com/MPATCH.htm

regards

e


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Aaron Smith wrote:
I am using an M-Audio 24-96 and alesis M1ActiveMKII speakers. the output
on
the card is RCA so I need to run it in to my mixer (behringer MX602a) but
the control room out put is an unbalanced jack and I don't think its
+4dbl
Do you think it will damage my speaker inputs if I run it this way. The
speakers can handle unbalanced signals. What else could I do to get the
signal from the Computer in the speakers, I also would like to be able to
control the volume outside of the DAW.

You won't damage anything, but now you have a cheap mixer in your monitor
signal path. Your goal is to keep the signal path as clean and free of
anything that can cause coloration as possible.

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Paul Stamler" wrote

He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy
a
minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to
each
speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Good suggestion and certainly the cleanest way assuming there is no need to
use the mixer for other sources.

Julian

emil wrote:
multi channel stereo attenuator - passive -
http://www.smproaudio.com/MPATCH.htm
Thats a nice little unit. $99

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to
do
what you want.
--scott

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need
ot
attenuate further?

He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is
to
buy a minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close
to
the speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of
cable to each speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Good advice as far as it goes - however just about any modern sound
card will drive far lower impedances than 10K (16 ohms is a common
number) and a lower value pot will make cable lengths less of an
issue.

I have gone with the behringer, and am very impressed with the sound. the
RCA input and then to control room out put sounds as good as going direct
from the card to speakers. the sound seems very flat. I miss the EQ on my
old set up, but the whole point is to get a flat sound.
Thanks for your help you guys.
Aaron

"david morley" wrote in message
...
emil wrote:
multi channel stereo attenuator - passive -
http://www.smproaudio.com/MPATCH.htm
Thats a nice little unit. $99

In article writes:

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
attenuate further?

Ever use a volume control? That's why.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Aaron Smith wrote:
yes please tell me more about this, what would i be looking for?

Google for attenuator on this group. I think Coleman Audio makes a little
one that is fairly inexpensive and popular.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Julian Adamaitis wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote

An attenuator box won't cost ALL that much, and will allow you to do
what you want.

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
attenuate further?

Because otherwise he is listening at full volume all the time. A signal
at full -10 level going into an amp running full out will be very loud.

An adjustable attenuator gives you a way to turn it down and have a volume
control.
--scott

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

In article writes:

Good advice as far as it goes - however just about any modern sound
card will drive far lower impedances than 10K (16 ohms is a common
number) and a lower value pot will make cable lengths less of an
issue.

Remember, he'll need a dual pot (I don't think anyone said that yet)
for stereo, and the selection of those for the DIYer is pretty slim. I
think the only one that Radio Shack has any more is 100K, which would
still work fine for "desktop-length" cables.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

AS
That's a *dual-ganged* (close-matched, if poss)10k *log* - not linear - pot.
It may even be possible to use 4k7 or 1k0 depending on sources Z. The lower
that Z, the longer you can run unbal leads (fig-8) to the pot outers.
After that, keep variable o/p unbal leads (fig-8 again) as short as poss to
your next stage i/ps.
Experimentally, start using the pot nearly closed, and turn it up gradually
till you reach a comfortable loudness level. You won't damage anything that
way.

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stamler" wrote

He wants a volume control outside the computer. The easiest way is to buy
a
minibox, four jacks and a 10k pot, and mount it fairly close to the
speakers. With 75 ohm-per-foot cable he could run maybe 8' of cable to
each
speaker, although obviously less would be preferable.

Good suggestion and certainly the cleanest way assuming there is no need
to use the mixer for other sources.

Julian

In article znr1114437304k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

Good advice as far as it goes - however just about any modern sound
card will drive far lower impedances than 10K (16 ohms is a common
number) and a lower value pot will make cable lengths less of an
issue.

Remember, he'll need a dual pot (I don't think anyone said that yet)
for stereo, and the selection of those for the DIYer is pretty slim. I
think the only one that Radio Shack has any more is 100K, which would
still work fine for "desktop-length" cables.

I think Digi-Key still has a couple dual log taper pots, although most
of them are kind of junky.
--scott

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

On 4/25/05 12:51 PM, in article , "Scott
Dorsey" wrote:

Remember, he'll need a dual pot (I don't think anyone said that yet)
for stereo, and the selection of those for the DIYer is pretty slim. I
think the only one that Radio Shack has any more is 100K, which would
still work fine for "desktop-length" cables.

I think Digi-Key still has a couple dual log taper pots, although most
of them are kind of junky.


I'd guess introducing the word 'tracking' wouldn;t be too popular...?

you sure are a smart ass Mike.


"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1114408357k@trad...

In article
writes:

I don't understand Scott. He's already at -10. Why does he need ot
attenuate further?

Ever use a volume control? That's why.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Jim Gregory" wrote

It may even be possible to use 4k7 or 1k0 depending on sources Z. The
lower that Z, the longer you can run unbal leads

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

Julian

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 4/25/05 12:51 PM, in article ,
"Scott
Dorsey" wrote:

Remember, he'll need a dual pot (I don't think anyone said that
yet)
for stereo, and the selection of those for the DIYer is pretty
slim. I think the only one that Radio Shack has any more is 100K,
which would still work fine for "desktop-length" cables.

I think Digi-Key still has a couple dual log taper pots, although
most of them are kind of junky.


I'd guess introducing the word 'tracking' wouldn't be too
popular...?

If you're serious about tracking, you either go for switches or
digital.

If one rummages around the surplus market there are still some dual
AB-type pots around.

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short,
but in the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what
is spec'd.


1. Farther than "specified?" What's the "specified" distance for an
unbalanced line?

2. Maybe where *you* are. I used to have to work in a space that was an
RF/EMI circus. In that place, unbalanced lines more than a few feet
long picked up airborne crap.

3.Everyone is concerned about keeping unbalanced lines short in THIS
case because the pot ****s with the source impedance.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

In article writes:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1114480944k@trad...

In article
writes:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but
in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)


Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
news:G2ibe.245$3V3.10@edtnps89...
"Julian Adamaitis" wrote:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short,
but in the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what
is spec'd.


1. Farther than "specified?" What's the "specified" distance for an
unbalanced line?

Somebody here specified 8 feet for this application.

I've heard other people spout pearls of wisom like "never use more than 12
feet of unbalanced audio".

2. Maybe where *you* are. I used to have to work in a space that was an
RF/EMI circus. In that place, unbalanced lines more than a few feet long
picked up airborne crap.

No doubt in a worse case environment like that it is true. I referred to
the "real world". An environment like you describe is the exception, not
the norm. Even in marginal environments you can usually easily run more
than 12 feet. I re-built some radio / TV studios at a high school where
there is an AM tower a mile away down in a swamp, and the RFI was quite bad.
The AC grounds were different in different rooms also and there were hum
problems. Using good grounding, balanced audio etc, I was able to eliminate
the problems as I re-built each studio and even as I interconnected them.
At one point for reasons I won't go into I needed to run unbalanced quite
far for 16 audio workstations with sound blaster unbalanced ins and outs.
The teacher was too cheap to buy balun boxes or sound cards with balanced
audio for this project, so I agreed to try unbalanced first. I was able to
run unbalanced even in this hostile environment up to 150 feet without hum
or RFI. I've heard other similar stories.

3.Everyone is concerned about keeping unbalanced lines short in THIS case
because the pot ****s with the source impedance.

That would be true, but with a 10k pot I don't think it matters much if you
use 8 feet or 20 feet of cable.

Julian

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1114480944k@trad...

In article
writes:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short, but
in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)


Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

That was me, and no, I didn't. I suggested that using a 10k pot (maximum
output resistance = 2.5k, assuming zero source impedance) and 75 pF/foot
cable, an 8' cable would yield a high-frequency rolloff of pretty near
100kHz, which seems like a reasonable number. Your mileage WILL vary with
different pots, different cable and a different preference for
high-frequency rolloff. Not to mention a different load impedance; for
simplicity's sake I assumed a load Z high enough to be ignored.

If you drive it with a low impedance you can drive nice long lengths,
although you may run into noise issues. At the moment there's a 75' cable
connecting the stereo system in my living room (which plays 78s) to my
computer. Works fine.

Peace,
Paul

"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

3.Everyone is concerned about keeping unbalanced lines short in THIS
case
because the pot ****s with the source impedance.

That would be true, but with a 10k pot I don't think it matters much if
you
use 8 feet or 20 feet of cable.

With an 8' cable you have a worst-case rolloff of 106kHz. With a 20' cable,
it drops to 42kHz. That's low enough that with a first-order rolloff (which
this would be) you'd get about a dB of droop at the top of the audio
spectrum. Whether that matters or not is of course for each user to decide.

Peace,
Paul

ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left, is
that wrong should they be the same length?
it seems to sound fine though.
Aaron

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
"Julian Adamaitis" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1114480944k@trad...

In article
writes:

Everyone seems so concerned about keeping unbalanced lengths short,
but
in
the real world, you can usually go a lot farther than what is spec'd.

No you can't, because there's no "spec'd" length for unbalanced
cables. (another wiseass answer -- you bring out the worst in me)


Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

That was me, and no, I didn't. I suggested that using a 10k pot (maximum
output resistance = 2.5k, assuming zero source impedance) and 75 pF/foot
cable, an 8' cable would yield a high-frequency rolloff of pretty near
100kHz, which seems like a reasonable number. Your mileage WILL vary with
different pots, different cable and a different preference for
high-frequency rolloff. Not to mention a different load impedance; for
simplicity's sake I assumed a load Z high enough to be ignored.

If you drive it with a low impedance you can drive nice long lengths,
although you may run into noise issues. At the moment there's a 75' cable
connecting the stereo system in my living room (which plays 78s) to my
computer. Works fine.

Peace,
Paul

"Aaron Smith" wrote in message
...
ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left, is
that wrong should they be the same length?
it seems to sound fine though.

What is the driving impedance? What is the load impedance? What is the
capacitance of the cable you're using? Without knowing those numbers it's
impossible to know whether this will cause a problem.

Peace,
Paul

In article writes:

Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

The only time I know that to be true without further qualifications is
if the devices you're trying to connect are more that five feet apart.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left, is
that wrong should they be the same length?

There are people who insist that speaker cables (and any other cables
that carry phase-related signals) should be of equal lengths. This
matters at radio frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to the
length of the cable, but given that the wavelength of 20 kHz is about
9 miles, I don't think you have anything to worry about with the
different cable lengths.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article znr1114611740k@trad (that's me!) writes:

Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

The only time I know that to be true without further qualifications is
if the devices you're trying to connect are more that five feet apart.

Of course I meant more than eight feet apart, but you get the idea.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1114612115k@trad...

In article
writes:

ok i am using a 5 meter cable for the right and 3 meter for the left,
is
that wrong should they be the same length?

There are people who insist that speaker cables (and any other cables
that carry phase-related signals) should be of equal lengths. This
matters at radio frequencies where the wavelength is comparable to the
length of the cable, but given that the wavelength of 20 kHz is about
9 miles, I don't think you have anything to worry about with the
different cable lengths.

Yeah, but. For speaker cables different lengths mean different amounts of
cable resistance, which might be enough to mess with the speakers'
responses. (Depending on the thickness of the cable, the characteristics of
the speakers, etc.)

And for line-level cables the capacitances will be different, and therefore
the high-frequency rolloffs will be different. IF the sending impedance is
high enough, that could cause some amplitude phase differences at the top of
the spectrum. But without knowing the setup it's impossible to predict
whether they'll be enough to be audible.

Peace,
Paul

Somebody here specified you could only go 8 feet with unbalanced.

It depends. If the control center and the speakers are on the same breaker, and
you don't run the cables too close to AC lines, you should be able to go much
farther with unbalanced. "Try it and see!"

The amp powering my side speakers connects to the surround processor with 12'
unbalanced cables, and I have no problems.