stereo to mono

If it's an HPM-40 I think I had its mate.

2nd !! "

Where are you, UK maybe ? I can tell you that is not how it is in the US. There is always alot of L-R material. I can't stand it really. I just don't watch it anymore

nd it >was rejected on the grounds that it was "out of phase". I was asked to check it >and found the tape seemed OK.

ement >and he explained how he used such a meter reach his conclusion. "

I wonder how his meter would read a song like Beatles - Taxman, or Swinging Medallions - Double Shot Of My Baby's Love. Both are mixed with all vocals in one channel and all instrumentation in the other I think. If not, very close.

Actually I ould not use a meter, I would use a vectorscope. Not hard actual ly. In fact I considered an OP AMP to feed the difference to the horizontal and the sum to the vertical. (this would of course be the opposite of a re cord groove but should be more illustrative) Then the graticule will tell f or sure - accurately.

But when some people make rules they have weird ass paramters to them. In t he US you can look to the body of law governing the selling of a loaf of fr iggin bread, for months. It may be that they want special frequency weighti ng or some nonsense like that. Hell, they might require you to buy a certif ied meter and keep up on the calibration as well.

However, there is another fact in eixistence here, if I am putting out audi o material, you think maybe I want it to be heard ? I mean really, your guy with the bass all in one channel, I will not say he is friggin ignorant. R eally putting the material out of phase, errr POLARITY is proper for that, is kindaa ignorant. Sure it can draw attention but people listening to thei r car radio moving through areas with a bunch of multipath is going to be q uite detrimental to the clarity of their message. Not everyone has five ant ennas on their cars. In fact, how many car FM tuners even have multiple fro nd ends anymore ? Lesse, Mazerati, Rollls Royce, yes, some others and also whatever aftermarket brands still exist now that they've combined the car r adio with the heater and quite possibly the damn transmission these days.

And I agree about mixing the bass that way. Leave the low end in both chann els. The listener will percieve the sound to be coming from the channel wit h the higher frequencies. '

Know what I am surprised I haven't seen. Phase shifting panning. I know it exists and thought by now it would be in pretty widespread use. All it take s is two MN3XXX something chips. The whole circuit to do it probably costs $10 on a mass production level. These mixers cost a ton of money. OK, that would be per channel but still. But that method would make sure the modulat ion in't all upset like having soething in one channel.

Another thing mixing bass too much to one side does is only gives the liste ner one woofer unless it is a sub sat system.

Anyway, the OP should just use a Y adapter into one channel of the amp. If some program comes on that doesn't sound right in mono maybe turn the balan ce on the TV to one side of the other.

L-R = out of phase. I think there are still monaural (1-channel) tv-sets, which would loose sound if the entire signal was L-R

Leif

--
Je suis Charlie

It's not ALL L-R like the OP's situation seems to be, but it is an objectio nalbe level as far as I am concerned. Then when they run it through that di gital delay for surround I consider it unlistenable. They even soemtimes ha ve that in the L+R so switching it to mono won't get rid of it.

TV sucks in this country. they do not have their HDTVC shit together. Half the time it is overscanned and you lose half the picture or you get a 20" p icture on a 32" screen.

Glad I don't really fix them anymore, You can't tell if they're broke ! Wit h all the special effects and the size whatever, I am to the point where if I had a lttle bit more money and soemone told me their TV was broke I woul d tell them to go find a book to read. Seriously.

It doens't bother me, I can't stand anything made in the last ten years any way. Looks like the cmaeraman was either drunk or it was shot by a school k id, and that's when they give yopu a picture with normal color even, rather than bue or red or blaxk and white with noise streaks in it on purpose. I thnink what it is is that they don't know how to write anything anymore so they are just dazzling the sheeple. Probably doesn't go over all that well in some countries.

** Nope.

L-R = the difference signal.

If it is small compared to L or R, then the signal is mono. If it is comparable with L or R, that is normal stereo.

If is it larger than either L or R, then you have an out of phase pair.

In early FM broadcast systems, this signal was sent along with a mono signal using an amplitude modulated, 38kHz sub-carrier. In the receiver, both signals were recovered and by adding and subtracting, L and R produced.

L+R + (L-R) = 2L

L+R - (L-R) = 2R

.... Phil

I also hate when they have a 16:9 source, then put it into a 4:3 frame with their station logo at the top, and dark gray bars at top and bottom. Then when it is wiewed on a 16:9 screen, there is also black bars at the sides.

Often I can't zoom to get the original 16:9 to fit the entire screen, because of subtitles burned into the video stream in the lower dark gray bar.

(

--
Je suis Charlie

I usually see that sort of thing when the original material is SD or they are sending it over a low bandwidth channel. In those cases, it makes sense to me because at least it shows the material in the correct aspect ratio. An example here (US) is the local PBS station. They run an HD main channel plus a bunch of SD subchannels. When they put an HD show on one of the subchannels, it gets displayed at a reduced size in the middle of the screen. They put logos around the edge because they are static and use almost no bandwidth, but the show itself can't be shown full size with the limited bandwidth available on the subchannel.

In SD the stream has a 4:3 16:9 indicator that should be used instead of ad ding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full av ailable resolution is used for useful video content and second the decoder makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with t he possibility to be configured.

It is common nowadays to see 4:3 programs broadcast in 16:9 with side black bars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.

Why not just go to Goodwill or on Craigslist and buy another speaker. Even if it dont match, it seems you just want louder sound anyhow, and you could still get an RCA adaptor to bridge the inputs so both speakers are getting both channels! Bridging outputs is dangerous for the amp. If your TV signal is coming from a headphone jack, it will probably need a dropping resistor ir it will overload the preamp on the amplifier.

adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the full available resolution is used for useful video content and second the decode r makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played with the possibility to be configured.

ckbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources a nd looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.

4:3 stretched to fill 16:9 makes everyone look fat.

"Black Bars are stealing my screen real estate," is the absolute funniest L uddite response to technology today.

How do you Broadcast "Wide Stereo" AND "Mono Capable" at the same time?

I'm pretty sure "Wide Stereo" is something that happens in the Receiver, not the Transmitter.

My mileage may vary...

lackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.

Luddite response to technology today.

My dad apparently thinks he's being cheated somehow whenever a program does n't fill the entire screen. He prefers to watch 1.33 content zoomed in (and cropped off top and bottom), rather than pillarboxed. When "cinemascope" m ovies wider than 1.78 are shown in original aspect (letterboxed), he zooms in to crop off the sides.

He's right. They are actually cheating us out of pixels as well. The more wide the screen, the less pixels per diagonally measured inch. At any given diagonal measurement, a square has the most surface area.

That means that at the same resolution, a 19" monitor that is 4:3 has more pixels than a 16:9, and even that has more than a 20:9 or whatever those super wide nesr are now.

Less it more, ignoran... well you all know thow thaat one goes.

f adding side bars into the picture. This has two advantages: first the ful l available resolution is used for useful video content and second the deco der makes the best fit in whatever screen size the video is being played wi th the possibility to be configured.

lackbars, I hate it, it makes an inefficient use of the available resources and looks really ugly in a 4:3 display.

Luddite response to technology today.

I think you did not understand what I was talking about. We are speaking ab out digital TV, here in europe the MPEG2 stream contains a 4:3 / 16:9 indic ator that is meant to tell the decoder / TV set wheter the final picture as pect should be 4:3 or 16:9 regardless of the actual stream resolution. So t he proper way to broadcast a 16:9 movie would be with the indicator set to

16:9 and the actual picture filling the entire available resolution, withou t black bars, even when the actual resolution of 720x576 is not 16:9. The d ecoder / player with a standard configuration will resize the picture to 16 :9 aspect and it will display properly with all available resolution effici ently used. The opposite also holds true, a 4:3 program should be broadcast with the indicator set to 4:3 and no black bars.

What I hate is when they do not follow these simple basic rules and keep ad ding artificial black bars while incorrectly signaling the 4:3 / 16:9 indic ator. The modern way is to signal always 16:9 and add side bars to 4:3 prog rams, this is incorrect and inefficient from a technological point of view as it loses resolution and does not allow the end user to choose its prefer red way to adapt a 4:3 picture inside a 16:9 screen. While some people pref er side bars not everyone does, some people prefer to crop the picture and eliminate the side bars and others prefer to distort the aspect ratio and s tretch it to fill the screen. Also people on 4:3 displays have no way to ma ke it display properly.

El martes, 10 de febrero de 2015, 3:29:27 (UTC+1), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com esc

not the Transmitter.

No, at least in the case I presented it was the broadcaster sending stereo wide sound. It was analog TV but with NICAM audio. Certainly the broadcaste r had to be handling normal analog mono audio and stereo NICAM audio throug h different paths, applying the wide effect after mixing for mono. Of course switching the TV to the mono carrier did solve the issue but for some reason that TV set did not want to store the setting and after off-on it was in stereo again.

If no other user settings are lost it was probably by design. Automatic. Shit like this is why I almost never buy anything new.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:15:42 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in sci.electronics.repair:

Not to make anything sound as easy as pie, but trying to get one "special friend" or (always remembering a certain tech's name) at each supplier/retailer probably makes things easier if you "had" to buy new.

That way, "just he/she" is responsible at that company for whatever later goes wrong. But then again, all that takes relationship cultivating You know, people sometimes come and go.