Connecting sub to receiver w/no sub output

[rkilpatrick]

Hi there. I have a Sony STR-D611 reciever with no sub output. I've been told that you CAN connect a subwoofer to this system AND still have front A & B and surround speakers. Anyone know the secret?

Thanks!!

[Unregistered]

You could probably use the tape out jack. On most receivers, the record outs (tape, video1, etc) are always active. This would send a line level signal out and you would utilize the cross-over on the sub.

[markw]

Using the tape monitor output has one serious disadvantage. Aside from source selection, your receiver would not control the signal to the sub. To adjust it at all, you need to kerfutz with the sub's level control.

Let's hope your sub has speaker level in/out capabilities. If so, use that.

If you have preamp outs, you can use that to drive your sub with a line level signal.

[rkilpatrick]

Thanks for the advice. Since I don't have preamp outs, and sub connection is line level (just 1 RCA input), I guess I'll try the tape monitor. This will drive the sub even if another source (ex. DVD, CD) is selected?

[markw]

Thanks for the advice. Since I don't have preamp outs, and sub connection is line level (just 1 RCA input), I guess I'll try the tape monitor. This will drive the sub even if another source (ex. DVD, CD) is selected?

But don't expect to be able to control the sub's volume thru the receiver.

BTW, if you have just one input on the sub, you have another problem. You will need to somehow hook up both channels to the sub. By merely using a "Y" connector to combine the two channels, the signal may very well mono for the receiver as well.

Paradigm, and probably others sell devices that will combine your two channels for the sub while maintaining the two separate channels for the remainder of the signal path.

Was this sub a gimme or did you just purchase it recently?

[Unregistered]

But don't expect to be able to control the sub's volume thru the receiver.
...and why would he need to? If the receiver doesn't have a sub out, then it certainly doesn't offer bass management or individual channel trims. Just use the sub's volume control and adjust it as close as you can. Once it's set, there is no need to change it.


BTW, if you have just one input on the sub, you have another problem. You will need to somehow hook up both channels to the sub. By merely using a "Y" connector to combine the two channels, the signal may very well mono for the receiver as well.
Yes, just use a y-connector. The sub out on a receiver is mono anyway. You can use a normal l/r analog audio cable connected to a 2 to 1 Y connector if the sub has only a single input (like most).


Paradigm, and probably others sell devices that will combine your two channels for the sub while maintaining the two separate channels for the remainder of the signal path.
There is no remainder of the signal path. It ends at the sub. We are not talking about routing a signal to the sub and then back through the tape loop for recording.

The original poster just wanted ideas on a quick hack to use a sub with a line level input with a receiver that does not have a sub out. The tape out loop is his only choice, unless he decides to use speaker level inputs, which is not what he asked about.

[markw]

Just use the sub's volume control and adjust it as close as you can. Once it's set, there is no need to change it.

wanna bet? If the tape out were after the volume control you might have a valid point. ...but it's not. It's before the volume control.


Yes, just use a y-connector. The sub out on a receiver is mono anyway. You can use a normal l/r analog audio cable connected to a 2 to 1 Y connector if the sub has only a single input (like most)..

maybe, maybe not. A sub out may be mono but tape monitors are two separate channels, which may or may not be still in the circuit. You can easily split one output to two inputs w/o problems but you generally can't combine two outputs into one input.

I do know if you do this at the pre out level, the two power amps receive two idential mono signals, not two distinct channels. But hey' let him try it. "Y" connectors are cheap and he might get lucky.

The original poster just wanted ideas on a quick hack to use a sub with a line level input with a receiver that does not have a sub out. The tape out loop is his only choice, unless he decides to use speaker level inputs, which is not what he asked about.

True, but sometimes when presented with a choice, the correct answer in "none of the above".

If I may add, that's quite an arrogant tone and wrong advice from one who doesn't even bother to register

[zipper]

Good replies Mark. Sub volume does need to change with receiver volume. The drop-in poster doesn't realize that using a sub doesn't require the receiver to have bass management.

[markw]

Good replies Mark. Sub volume does need to change with receiver volume. The drop-in poster doesn't realize that using a sub doesn't require the receiver to have bass management.

I seem to have picked up at least one unregistered heckler. Another snide and totally useless "unregistered" reply was dropped on me in the beginners forum.

I guess they are just jealous of my greatness. :D

[rkilpatrick]

Admittedly, the sub is part of a pretty cheap home theater system I just purchased that came with a reciever that DOES have a sub line level out, but DOES NOT have A & B front speaker outs like my old receiver does.

So I guess the bottom line is that I want to connect the entire surround system and two other "front" speakers in another room.

Like you said, connecting the sub to the tape out last night did not seem to be the answer.

[markw]

Is this an all-in-one system? They sometimes play by their own rules.

Most "receivers" have speaker outputs for the speakers. That's pretty much a given. You would normally simply hook up the speakers as normal.

Now, you say you have one lonely sub out on the receiver. Logic dictates that you would connect an interconnect from that to the sub's input. problem solved!

For the life of me, I cannot grok how doing this would preclude your using your other speakers.

Now, if you are saying that your old system allowed you to run two sets of speakers and your new receiver doesn't, then that's another issue entirely.

You could , perhaps, pick up a cheapo switch box from RatShack or the like that would allow you to run two sets of speakers when needed. But, and here's the big one, your receiver may not be able to safely (read - without smoking out) handle two sets of speakers simultaneously.

Some things have to be sacrificed to keep the price down and amplifiers are a good candidate for cost cutting. The fact that your amp doesn't make provisions for two sets of speakers would give me grevious cause for concern.

You might want to check out parts express or madisound for CONSTANT IMPEDANCE (very important - notice the capitals) switchboxes. This might work, but I make no promises. You might want to run this by the mfgr first.

[Unregistered]

I seem to have picked up at least one unregistered heckler. Another snide and totally useless "unregistered" reply was dropped on me in the beginners forum.

I guess they are just jealous of my greatness. :D

We are all humbled by your greatness. The fact that you are 'registered' adds immensely to your credibility.

[Unregistered]

wanna bet? If the tape out were after the volume control you might have a valid point. ...but it's not. It's before the volume control.

Every receiver I have ever seen says "The Volume Control has no effect on the output of tape-out". So true, the volume will not vary with the position of the volume control, which is why he must use the sub's volume control and that may or may not be sufficient. But again, the original poster was looking for a way to accomplish *something* that might work, not a perfect solution. The point is moot anyway because now he says the receiver does have sub-out and the question and answers no longer have any relevance.



maybe, maybe not. A sub out may be mono but tape monitors are two separate channels, which may or may not be still in the circuit. You can easily split one output to two inputs w/o problems but you generally can't combine two outputs into one input.
What are you talking about? The output jack is the end of the line, of course it is "out of the circuit". We are talking about using tape out NOT a tape monitor loop. You can do whatever you want. Whether it will have the desired outcome is a totally different topic. A Y connector is passive and will not process the signal in any way. Both channels are munged together, which won't be an issue for the sub anyway.



I do know if you do this at the pre out level, the two power amps receive two idential mono signals, not two distinct channels. But hey' let him try it. "Y" connectors are cheap and he might get lucky.

If you use the pre-outs of a receiver to feed an amp, the amp will see two distinct channels. In no way will the pre-outs process the signal so that each input receives an identical signal - that would kind of defeat the purpose of using the pre-outs in the first place, wouldn't you say?

If you were to use the l/r pre-outs connected to a Y connector to feed a single input on the sub it will be exactly the same as doing the same thing from the tape-out l/r jacks. The only difference is the pre-outs will be affected by the volume control. But again the poster was looking for any way to accomplish it.


If I may add, that's quite an arrogant tone and wrong advice from one who doesn't even bother to register
There was nothing arrogant about it, you simply took it that way. Being registered means absolutely nothing. You seem to think that because you registered, the information you provide is unimpeachable and that couldn't be further from the truth. Now that is arrogant.

[Clint DeBoer]

While it has nothing to do with authoritativeness of anyone's posts, we would prefer that people registered as it at least lends some kind of designation to the poster.

Plus then other people cannot post pretending to be you (all guests look the same).

[zipper]

Good gawd,they're everywhere. Unregistered,there is no need to cut & paste replies if your goal is to try to answer ones' questions.It's not a pissing contest,it's about trying to help someone solve an issue with their gear.

[joelincoln]

Connecting outputs with a Y connector is problematic at best and damaging at worst. The resulting signal will be unpredictable. Certain signals may cancel and others add. And then there's the potential for distortion generated by backdriving the internal buffer-amp.

This is just a bad idea.

[Shinerman]

Being registered means absolutely nothing. You seem to think that because you registered, the information you provide is unimpeachable and that couldn't be further from the truth. Now that is arrogant.


Being registered is important because it gives we members an idea of who we are dealing with in regards to their knowledge, experience, personality, system, past dealings, temperment, etc. Posters should register out of courtesy and respect for the members in general. I might respond to Markw differently than I would respond to Rob B. or Zipper on a given subject. I might also poked fun at one person and not another because I may know one of the members might not take it well.

It's all about being courteous. How hard is that?

You have taken the time to take part in these forums now take a couple of minutes and register. If you don't want to register, that's fine as well. But, don't expect to be taken very seriously when you start arguing with people. Arguing is fine, but at least be man, or women enough to register.

Shinerman, waiting for the clock to hit 5 to so I can consume some beer and wings.

[markw]

Since you are the only one of the "unregistereds" that even tried to help. I'll explain a little what I'm saying. As far as the others that had nothing to offer, well, you know..


Every receiver I have ever seen says "The Volume Control has no effect on the output of tape-out". So true, the volume will not vary with the position of the volume control, which is why he must use the sub's volume control and that may or may not be sufficient. But again, the original poster was looking for a way to accomplish *something* that might work, not a perfect solution. .

I never said it would NOT work. But, for someone not aware that the signal is fed full volume to the sub, it can be quite a disconcerting experience. Personally, I find this method of driving the sub totally unacceptable but that's just me. I like to set it once, in relation to the volume control, and pretty much leave it at that.

If he HAD to usethe moitors and was willing to live with the volume adjustment situation, then all would be well. ...but I fine it a royal PITA and would rather do without it. Again, that's just me.

The point is moot anyway because now he says the receiver does have sub-out and the question and answers no longer have any relevance.

And I'm glad it worked out that way. I thought it strange that a HT receiver lacked a sub out.



What are you talking about? The output jack is the end of the line, of course it is "out of the circuit". We are talking about using tape out NOT a tape monitor loop. You can do whatever you want. Whether it will have the desired outcome is a totally different topic. A Y connector is passive and will not process the signal in any way. Both channels are munged together, which won't be an issue for the sub anyway.

If you use the pre-outs of a receiver to feed an amp, the amp will see two distinct channels. In no way will the pre-outs process the signal so that each input receives an identical signal - that would kind of defeat the purpose of using the pre-outs in the first place, wouldn't you say?

If you were to use the l/r pre-outs connected to a Y connector to feed a single input on the sub it will be exactly the same as doing the same thing from the tape-out l/r jacks. The only difference is the pre-outs will be affected by the volume control. But again the poster was looking for any way to accomplish it..

I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Let's draw it out. don't think I'm talking qdown to you but sometimes a little visualization helps. I certainly benefit from it at times.

1) Draw two parallel lines about three inches long and about two" apart. Drawing them horizontaly would be helpful.

2) Now between theose two lines, starting somewhere in the middle, draw a third line and extend it (towards the right) to where the other lines end

3) Label one "R" and the other "L" and the one in the middle "S". These are the two channels in question, with the subwoofer in between.

Let's think of these as the hot (inner) wire and ignore the shields.

4) Label the left side of the R & L lines "source"

5) Label the right side "amp"

We now have two separate signals going from the source to the amp.

6) Now, let's add that "Y" connector by connecting the "R" and "L" to the "S" line where it starts in the middle.


Now, what we would LIKE to happen is that the R (and L, for that matter) signal would travel ONLY half way down that connecting line and go out the subwoofer line while maintaning their independence on their original R and L paths, right?

Oh, were it only that simple...

What happens in the real world is that yes, the two signals will go down the subwoofer line and out it, but they will ALSO continue along that connecting like to the OPPOSITE signal's line.

We've now combined the R & L for the subwoofer's benefit but we've also combined them for ANY signal path that connects to it as well.

Kapice?

Some companies make devices that will combine the R and L into a common signal and maintain each channel's integrity, but there's a lot more than a simple "Y" connector involved.

There was nothing arrogant about it, you simply took it that way. Being registered means absolutely nothing. You seem to think that because you registered, the information you provide is unimpeachable and that couldn't be further from the truth. Now that is arrogant.

I most certainly not impeachable, but if I give erronous advice, they know from wence it originated. Likewise, when I give good advice, which I do try to do, they also know who gave it. I try to pride myself on giving good advice. Sometimes I do make mistakes, but I'm only human. Likewise, I don't hide behind an anonymous moniker so when I screw the pooch, it's there for all to see.

Likewise, if I consistently post ka ka, people would know to avoid me like the plague. Heck, people do anyway. That's just part of the wonder that is me.

Readers Digest version. Although it's not required (yet) If you want offer advice, pick a name and stick with it. If you don't have enough pride in your answers to stand by it, then you shouldn't be posting. Asking questions is fine, but offering advice anonymously is, IMNSHO, questionsble

Now, one can offer advice that either augments or contradicts anothers without seeming to be confrontational. I tried to do that when I "augmented" the suggestion about using the tape monitors by pointing out the caveat that controling the volume might be more of an issue than he initially assumed.

No offense was meant and I tried to word it as to not offend the original poster. If one is easily offended by people either adding to an answer or, heaven forbid, even contradicting it, then perhaps these forums are not for that type of person.

If that WAS you, then I apologize. As has been pointed out, it's hard to know who you are dealing when one is not registered. I don't know if I have here one "unregistered" that sometimes overacts or more than one, some of which are dripping sphincters.

For the sake of peace, I'll assume there are more than one and the snide ones can go forth and engage in asexual reproduction for all I care.

If you will notice, when you "confronted" me I did not rile up. I tried to explain what I was saying in more detail without too much hostility. Incredulity, yes, but no hostility. I do expect the same courtsey.

Now, I see you truly mean well and seem to want to contribute. That's good. Be a mensch, register and post the BEST answers you can muster.

Be aware that there are others who know more than you (and more than me, too) and you may run into them on occasion. But, buck up and take yer lumps and you'll be a better netitizen for it. ...and learn to laugh. You'll live longer.

Pax, Markw

[Unregistered]

Markw,
Now we are getting somewhere. Good description of the signal path (I did do your exercise). I understand and agree, but it took you a hundred words to describe it - I didn't bother to do that. That is one problem with message forums vs speaking in person. Unless we all describe every little detail in every post, it takes multiple posts to see eye to eye. Your exercise makes clear what you are talking about, but your original description did not (to me).

A forum is a place to discuss issues and gather the collective knowlege of all who post. Why did you jump to the conclusion that I was being arrogant and claiming you didn't know what you were talking about when all I did was post my follow ups to your thoughts? You then did the same - that is how it goes on a forum.

We both agree there is no good solution and after many posts I think we have hashed out all the issues. The original poster can use the info or ignore it. No disrespect was intended.

As far as the 'requirement' to register to be taken seriously, I do take issue with that notion. I've only come here a few times and am not sure yet if I want to participate regularly. Dismissing a post because someone didn't choose a cute little nickname is just plain silly - the info should be evaluated for what its worth regardless of the username. Would you really take the advice of someone with a username of CRX_!!2T over an anonymous poster just because that person is registered?

[markw]

It costs nothing to register. You need not provide personal informatuin to the public. Should you choose, you can walk away at any time with no repercussions.

Do you want to be confused with the other wankers that post as unregistered?

Again, not knowing who I am dealing with, I sort of assume a bit of familarity with the subject at hand.

I've been playing with this stuff since the early 60's and try to not talk down to others while sharing what I can but it's tough to gauge another's experience in the field, particularly to every unregistered that pops up.

As far as not going into every little detail to explain something, a lot depends on the experience and knowledge of who one is speaking to.

A certain amount of knowledge is pretty much assumed when one chooses to answer questions. When exchanging thoughts about a reply, I assume a certain depth of knowledge with the subject at hand and reply as if to an equal, or even one who knows more. I never assume I know more than to other guy. You never know who is on the other keyboard.

Heck, I STILL learn stuff. But not by confronting someone in an antoginistic manner when their take on a solution doesn't match mine. I ask them to explain, not attack their post. I'm well aware that there may be more than one way to skin a cat (and a lot depends on how you 're gonna cook it :eek: ).

This co-mingling of the R & L signal is not an obscure fact and is pretty well known. It really doesn't taks a hundred words to bring it to light to someone with experience in the field. ...and, let's be honest here, you presented yourself as having quite a bit of knowledge on the subject and I simply answered a I would to one that does.

When it became clear that you could use a little coaching, I stepped it down a little. I have no problem with that, and don't hold it against anybody, but do talk to one in the manner in which they present themselves. You came off as knowledgable, but with certain misconceptions, and I responded as if I were speaking to one that was.

Now, had you a consistent moniker, I would know who I an talking to next tme we encounter each other. But, don't expect me to break everything down into bite sized little pieces for every unregistered that pops into here.

[Unregistered]

When it became clear that you could use a little coaching, I stepped it down a little. I have no problem with that, and don't hold it against anybody, but do talk to one in the manner in which they present themselves. You came off as knowledgable, but with certain misconceptions, and I responded as if I were speaking to one that was.

One that was...what? Knowledgeable or having misconceptions? It took you several posts to explain your position because the first few did not. I am well aware of the issues. Although you are trying to be gratious, the way you are speaking reminds me of a quote from the sitcom Coach. The daughter complains to Coach that he is trivializing her life and he replies "Ah, honey I'm not trivializing your little life." Kind of like your tone where you say "it became clear to me that you know a little bit but let me show you what a real expert knows".
Give me a break. You describe an issue and beat it to death like its the worst thing that could possibly happen when in reality it's just another tradeoff.


Now, had you a consistent moniker, I would know who I an talking to next tme we encounter each other. But, don't expect me to break everything down into bite sized little pieces for every unregistered that pops into here.

Again with the registration. No you still wouldn't know anything about me or anyone else for that matter. Would you break things down into little bite sized pieces for a registered user? You would and by your tone you would assume that you are the authority on the subject and you are helping the little people. I don't think I will be registering. There seems to be too much of an elitist attitude around here, like only members have anything valuable to say. That would be ok if all the members were always correct or expert on every topic but that certainly isn't the case.

Don't bother writing another long diatribe - I'm out.

[markw]

From your tone, I'll have to assume that all posts from "unregistered" are from you, so here goes.

Simply put, once you got past the initial suggestion he use the tape monitors, everything you posted was pure BS! I was trying to be subtle and give you the benefit of a doubt and allow you to save face but you blew it, man. But. even with all the opportunities I gave you to graciously save face, like the energizer bunny, you just kept on going, and going and going...

You respond to the initial query with the sugestion he use the tape moniters, whiche was not a bad idea. Merely incomplete. In my response, I don't say they won't work, but merely point out the situation with controling the volume.

Then, he says he only has one input on the sub. I say he can't use a "Y" connector.

Now, you pop in with a quoted reply to my posts with TWO, count 'em, TWO errors.

1) You say that he simply has to set the sub level once and forget about it.

2) You initiate the infamous "Y" connector debate. Rather than question me, you lecture me with wrong information.

And, if you really want to get technical, most subs have TWO inputs. I let this slide before but, what the heck, let's put it all on the table, ok?

I reply (nicely, I might add) telling you you are wrong. Someone else chimes in echoing my advice about the tape monitor/volume situation.

I respond in a fairly flip, but not threatening manner.

Now, some "unregistered" (you?) yahoo chimes in with a snide remark about my greatness.

Now, another "unregistered" (you, I assume) again has a quoted reply to my last thread, only now you say that you see in the manual where it states the volume contriol has no effect on the tape outs. He'll have to adjust it buy hand but if that's all he has, then he should use it.

Exactly what was said in the first three posts... The difference is that NOW you see the volume problem but never did say you were wrong in the fiirst place. But. it's worded in such a way as to insinuate that I didn't know what I was talking about??? ...ooookay.

And, you start in again with the "Y" connector bit. I tried to clear up what I believed was a misconception. I gave a thumbnail explanation that should have been sufficient for anyone semi-knowledgeble in these areas to grasp the concept.

but no, you basically say, in quite a few words, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

By now, it's quite obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.

I HAD to break it down into itty bitty steps so someone with NO knowledge of electronics could follow it.

The next post is where I gave you a class in Electronics 101. I did this for two reasons. First, to explain to you where you were wrong and secondly, to explain to anyone watching what the REAL facts were so they don't get confused by your BS.

At least the concept FINALLY sunk in for you.

So, here's the score so far... Two WRONG responses from an "unregistered" poster (Again, you, I assume) who, when gently disabused of the truth, was ignorant enough of the facts to not realize the truth when it was presented to him in a gentle fashion, any yet arrogant enough to want to argue them.

Your tone in this thread was that of arrogance, such as how dare I (Markw) question your information. You KNOW it's impeccable so the other guy MUST be an idiot.

I'm confident that what I say is pretty much based in fact, from experience. Even so, when dealing with others, I ASK them to explain something I don't understand and engage in an interplay. I don't try to "challange" then and try to make them look foolish. ...at least not so far, but that may change for unregistered posters.

So, yeah, ol' Markw doesn't know everything, but from our brief encounter here, it's blatently obvious I know a heckuva lot more than you! And, unless I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about, I keep out of the discussion. It's pretty easy to get caught up in the undertow if there are others that know more than you participating.

Sorry, the only "elitest "attitude seems to be from some shadows who THINK they know everything and get their panties in a knot when it's pointed out that they don't. Come to think about it, I wouldn't want my good name associated with some of the bogus "info" you posted here either.

So, tell me again exactly WHY anyone would WANT to trust an unregistered poster?

Also, tell me why I simply shouldn't bury their BS with the truth without worrying about their pride and making them look like fools?

[Unregistered]

OK, can't resist. Nothing like revisionist history to try to make your point.

Simply put, once you got past the initial suggestion he use the tape monitors, everything you posted was pure BS!
YOU said tape monitor, I said tape-out. I posted twice saying that I am NOT talking about the tape monitor loop. Remember your speculation about whether it was "in circuit or not".

In my response, I don't say they won't work, but merely point out the situation with controling the volume.
Which is why I said he would have to set the volume on the sub. I also followed up to clarify that that may not be sufficient.


1) You say that he simply has to set the sub level once and forget about it.
I said that is his only choice. Notice that someone else posted to support you saying I didn't realize that bass management features aren't required to use a sub. Another one, like you, that didn't actually read the statement and wanted to cozy up to another registered user (remember, Members Only). I said if the receiver doesn't have a sub out then it likely doesn't have bass management features, precluding the ability to affect the volume with channel trims and thus using the sub volume is the only choice.


And, if you really want to get technical, most subs have TWO inputs.
But he said it only had one input, so why would I mention the fact that most subs have two inputs?. That's like many posts I see where someone asks about the difference between receiver x and receiver y and all the replies are "You should look at receiver z".


Now, another "unregistered" (you, I assume) again has a quoted reply to my last thread, only now you say that you see in the manual where it states the volume contriol has no effect on the tape outs. He'll have to adjust it buy hand but if that's all he has, then he should use it.
I didn't say "now I see". I've known all along. I was using that to make clear that what I said at the beginning about using the sub volume as the only choice.


And, you start in again with the "Y" connector bit. I tried to clear up what I believed was a misconception. I gave a thumbnail explanation that should have been sufficient for anyone semi-knowledgeble in these areas to grasp the concept.
It is your misconception that I said a Y connector is perfectly valid. I said it would work, not that it will be ideal or yield good results. I believe I said it won't matter to the sub - and it won't. It will cause reflections and phase shift and time smearing and probably other nasties but someone just wondering if there is anything at all that might work, might be willing to give it a try anyway. Most casual audio enthusiasts wouldn't notice in the slightest.
I never said you don't know what you are talking about. Rather than help with an imperfect solution, you just want to tell the guy, forget it man.


The next post is where I gave you a class in Electronics 101. I did this for two reasons. First, to explain to you where you were wrong and secondly, to explain to anyone watching what the REAL facts were so they don't get confused by your BS. Apparantly the class did you good.

You did it because you are full of yourself. I said it was a good example and once again reiterated that it is not a good solution, but will work. You probably did help others with that little tidbit. However, you simply said that the signal will want to travel to the opposite line. If you are so knowledgeable as to be able to teach Electronics 101, why didn't you expound on exactly what will happen? Because you just want to maintain your point that it won't work, no how no way.


I'm confident that what I say is pretty much based in fact, from experience.
From experience hooking stereo equipment up or experience on the job with test equipment? I'll wager hooking up stereos.


So, tell me again exactly WHY anyone would WANT to trust an unregistered poster?
Your only defense and one that you return to time and again. If someone with a creative nickname posted, you would probably actually read what they said.

The original poster really wasn't sure what he had or what he wanted to do. I gave him the one and only option based on his initial query. You gave him and me your thesis on why it can't be done, no how no way. By the way, I had the same question many many years ago with a Sony receiver and I just wanted anything that would work for awhile until I could upgrade, just like we were led to believe was the original poster's intent. Guess what Sony told me. (See the very first response).

[markw]

You just keep on going and going and going...

The posts speak for themselves.

The real pity is that you were more concerned with being "right" than solving his problems and, in the end, you neither solved his problems nor were you right.

you really ought to check that ego at the door, man. You learn more by listening than talking.

chow.

[Unregistered]

The problem was solved on the first post.

[markw]

The poster's reply to one of my posts, from post 10, on the first page of this thread. We're now well into the third page and this is post 26...

Like you said, connecting the sub to the tape out last night did not seem to be the answer.

I believe the problems this guy had were finally put to rest after my next post, # 11. After that, he was not heard from again.

Now, post 12 was a snide remark from you, post 13 was a quoted "response" (read "attack") of my previous posts from you and, ever since then it's been you and me, baby. You proving your ignorance and arrogance and me politely trying to correct your misconceptions. Well, politely up to a point anyway.

You just keep on going, and going, and going...

Are you in any way at all related to the Black Knight in Monty Python's "In Search of the Holy Grail"?

[Unregistered]

He said it didn't seem to be the answer, no elaboration. Was it that he was dissatisfied with lack of volume control, no sound whatsoever, muffled sound, what?

Tell us professor, what EXACTLY will happen if you were to use a Y-connector connected to either tape out or the pre-outs to a single subwoofer input.

[markw]

Maybe you should show all of us what you know. If what you've posted so far is any indication of your depth of knowledge, I'm sure we all will have a good laugh.

Why should I waste my breath when you've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt you have no idea what you're talking about.

Heck, you couldn't even grasp the simple concepts of combining of the two signals, and the tape monitor/volume situation, why should I think you could understand anything else?

...and you want to test me? Grow up, kid.

Even moreso, why should I bother to answer someone who doesn't even have the cojones to identifty himself? ...particularly one who didn't even bother to read my initial answer.

You have already proven yourself a petulant child who priovides bogus advice hiding behind an anonymous name, so why should I bother any more. I've already proved my point that unregistereds info cannot be relied upon, even though that was not my origional intent.

Tell ya what. Either stick to a consistent name, in which case I'll consider having a serious discussion with you, or else let your big brother have the computer back so he can finish his homework.

So, if you want to view this as a victory for you, go celebrate and have a few drinks, assuming you're old enough to.

Merhinks they just might be starting to rethink this allowing non registereds to post idea.

...run into the killer rabbit yet. :D

[Unregistered]

Exactly what I thought. You can't explain it because you really have no idea what actually happens.

[markw]

Exactly what I thought. You can't explain it because you really have no idea what actually happens.

Yeah, like thought is a strong point with you.

I already did, many posts ago.

I tried to learn ya but you already know too much. You ain't worthy of my knowledge.

I may bat ya around like a cat does to a mouse, but that's about all.

Is this where we start the "yo momma" insults? :D

[Unregistered]

The only thing you said was that the signal will want to travel to the opposite line as well. If I have a poorly shielded cable or an impedance mismatch the same type of thing will occur with an otherwise proper connection.

So, does the amp blow up or produce no sound?

I want to learn from you.

[markw]

got it, kid? Then I'll think about it.

[Registered]

Please mister please explain it to me. I promise to listen real good and then help others to see the light for I am blinded.

[markw]

You put the rax on with your right hand, using a counter-clockwise motion.

Then, you take it off with your left hand, using a clockwise motion.

When this is done, get back to me.

Rax on... rax off... rax on... rax off... got it, kid? :D

oh, and while you're at it, you might consider becoming a member.

nice try, kid. ...but not good enough. ;)

[Registered]

DONE
I used a Y connector to connect both waxing pads and it worked just fine. I'm sure my professor will tell me it didn't really work, but he just wants me to accept that what he says goes without any explanation.