Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Cheap and Fun Audio Hacks?

An anonymous reader writes: A few years back I discovered that even a person of limited soldering skills can create a nifty surround-sound system with the magic of a passive matrix decoder system; the results pleased me and continue to, It's certainly not a big and fancy surround system, but I recommend it highly as a project with a high ratio of satisfaction to effort. (Here's one of the many, many tutorials out there on doing it yourself; it's not the long-forgotten one I actually used, but I like this one better.) I like listening to recorded music sometimes just to hear how a particular playback system sounds, not just to hear the music "as intended." I'd like to find some more audio hacks and tricks like this that are cheap, easy, and fun. Bonus points if they can be done with the assistance of a couple of smart children, without boring them too much. I have access to Goodwill and other thrift stores that are usually overflowing with cheap-and-cheerful gear, to match my toy budget. What mods or fixes would be fun to implement? Are there brands or models of turntable I should look for as the easiest with which to tinker? Are there cool easy-entry projects akin to that surround sound system that I could use to improve my radio reception? I'm not sure what's out there, but I'd like to get some cool use out of the closet-and-a-half I've got filled with speakers and other gear that I can't quite bear to toss, since "it still works."

135 comments

  1. christmas lights by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    It's fairly common, but you didn't mention it, so a simple circuit hooked up to christmas lights can be fun.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:christmas lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, look, if you want to be a puritan, you should be telling people not to bother with lights at all. And come to think of it, probably shouldn't be using a computer to do so.

  2. Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not boosted/normalized audio sliced down to a 128 kbit stream.

    Listen to a decent record from the 70s for inspiration.

    1. Re:Get real audio recordings by PRMan · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Input error. There are no decent records from the 70s...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was there. There were a lot of them.

      Deep Purple was great back then (1971?). Fast forward 30 years and people start hearing them again. I thought: "What the...?!?"

      There are others, just do a little research... a good start is "Yes".

    3. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, from an audio engineering perspective, this is quite true (at least for vinyl), since all records were run through a low cut filter in order to eliminate rumble/skipping due to low sonic frequencies distrubing the needle in a record groove.

      If we are talking a clean, complete signal, vinyl records have plenty of deficiencies of their own, despire what so-called "audiophiles" might tell you.

    4. Re:Get real audio recordings by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      So your speakers work down to 3hz?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crackle crackle crackle pop crackle crackle actually fuck that, I'll stick with CDs.

    6. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This statement from a person who proclaims that Justin Bieber is a "Genius" and a "poet", and thinks Nickelback is the best band ever.

      Yeah, we just cant trust your opinion in music.

    7. Re:Get real audio recordings by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Yes, they do. They work perfectly well. You can't hear them, but they work just fine.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Get real audio recordings by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      > Actually, from an audio engineering perspective, this is quite true (at least for vinyl), since all records were run through a low cut filter in order to eliminate rumble/skipping due to low sonic frequencies distrubing the needle in a record groove.

      sub 20 hz would be filtered by the rest of the audio chain (hello psychoacoustic filter on all compressed music), or would end up disturbing the mix anyway. Judging the excursion of the speakers in some badly mastered techno records, i think that vinyl can go sub-20hz.

      The problem with skipping is instead the low frequency phase, due to the way stereo information is encoded in the groove.

      > If we are talking a clean, complete signal, vinyl records have plenty of deficiencies of their own, despire what so-called "audiophiles" might tell you.

      Well I'd first scrap 44.1khz, cellphones, pc speakers, crappy DACs, only then I'd look at vinyl.
      The low range is good enough on vinyl, it's the upper range that suffers, plus those pops and noise.

      OTOH the sound of vinyl is not a clean signal + the noise of the needle on the groove, it's obvious that picking up the signal distorts it more than a DAC does, whether that ends up in a pleasant effect, not unlike valves, it's debatable. Personally I listen to the music, not the system.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    9. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinyl at one point, if played with the correct cartridge and stylus, could reliably produce up to 45 khz, used to multiplex 4 channels (true quad, not matrixed) in the SQ system. It did (and does) have problems with warping, the need for a better turntable/pickup system than many users had to avoid quick wearout, issues with cleaning and scratching, IOW the real world. Many vinyl recordings (if you go beyond Top-40 and similar mass-market pop) do have a wide and relatively clean frequency range.

      As a practical matter, the human ear filters everything below about 20 hz and above 10-20 khz (depending on age, noise exposure, and genetics). A carefully-produced CD at 16 bit/44.1 khz can reproduce everything that's audible, and a more than adequate dynamic range, without the pickiness of vinyl regarding setup and equipment quality. Production is the key - and generally requires higher sample rates and bit depths while working to allow for the vagaries of the process. Just as production quality was and is important for vinyl.

      There were vinyl LPs of a pipe organ in Sydney, Australia, that has a full-sized 64' stop (bottom octave: 8-16 hz). Not sure how that was accurately recorded on tape machines with odd response artifacts at low frequencies, let alone microphones that generally didn't go that low, but it got onto the record. You can't hear it, but with the right system you can feel it. Tends to cause feedback if the turntable is in the same room as the speakers, though. CDs produced from the original tapes produce a cleaner bottom end.

    10. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they really don't. The radiation efficiency is close to 0 and the power you're putting into them turns into heat.

    11. Re:Get real audio recordings by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      As a practical matter, the human ear filters everything below about 20 hz and above 10-20 khz (depending on age, noise exposure, and genetics). A carefully-produced CD at 16 bit/44.1 khz can reproduce everything that's audible...

      Except that anything at 20 kHz will be a triangular wave when sampled down to 44.1 kHz for CD-pressing. (I think CD-mastering involves a 22 kHz low-pass filter because of this.)

      Sound is more than a single pitch. It is the 'shape' of the wave — Mathematically speaking, that shape comprises a number of different frequencies, and at different phases relative to one another.

    12. Re:Get real audio recordings by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      I skip both vinyl and CDs, and simply go to hear music live. Or play it myself with friends.

      It sounds so real and faithful that way.

    13. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know which records you consider decent, just for the lulz.

    14. Re:Get real audio recordings by EricTDuckman1414 · · Score: 1

      It also makes the dust move in interesting patterns.

    15. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that anything at 20 kHz will be a triangular wave when sampled down to 44.1 kHz for CD-pressing.

      No, it won't. 20kHz will be sampled and reproduced perfectly because the signal is oversampled, a sharp low-pass filter applied, and the resulting signal will not contain any frequency content higher than 22.05 kHz - which includes any harmonics that might be part of your "triangular wave."

      Don't believe me? You can see for yourself in this video at the 5:40 mark, where Monty shows how a 20kHz frequency is reproduced perfectly using a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

      It's worth your while to watch the whole video. His signal generator and oscilloscope are both analog.

    16. Re:Get real audio recordings by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Either you're incapable of taking care of your records, or you've only heard them sampled on 90's Hip Hop CDs.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    17. Re:Get real audio recordings by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Nice understanding of RIAA equalization you have there! :eyeroll:

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    18. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overzeetop, get out of there, the AC comments are coming from inside the house.

    19. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While they're exaggerating, they point towards a good point... even if we accept that vinyl (looked after well) can sound noticeably better than CD or modern digital formats from the same source, it surely is up to the individual to decide if whether that improved sound it's worth the effort expense of an acceptable vinyl audio setup over the alternatives. It's a part of the argument that gets missed, with the most vocal pro-vinyl proponents often acting as though it's either morally wrong or objectively worse to have your audio stored digitally.

    20. Re:Get real audio recordings by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, they were cut at somewhere between 20-50 Hz so that you could have enough room for 20-35 minutes of audio per side. The RIAA eq curve was to reduce rumble (and hiss, by boosting the high end), and that was restored upon playback through the dedicated PHONO input of the amplifier. I think this flurry of antique-looking all-in-one turntables is lacking the proper equalization circuit, because they all sound raspy and weak to me.

      That's why 12" singles really do have more punch. With an entire side for under 10 minutes of audio, you could make them much hotter.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to do an A/B test with these analog fanatics to see if they can tell the difference between a CD and their vinyl.

      The trick, of course, would be that I'm really playing them CD vs. a 44.1k/16 digital recording of their vinyl... to be revealed only after they insist the "vinyl" sounds better!

    22. Re:Get real audio recordings by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I was there. There were a lot of them.

      Deep Purple was great back then (1971?). Fast forward 30 years and people start hearing them again. I thought: "What the...?!?"

      There are others, just do a little research... a good start is "Yes".

      beatles albums. mastered masterfully.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    23. Re:Get real audio recordings by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      sealed box speakers drop off 12 db per octave below the resonance. vented/ported/passive radiators drop off 24 db per octave. just what exactly do your speakers look like that they have any response at 3 hz?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    24. Re:Get real audio recordings by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      my speakers are flat down to zero hz. i'm currently listening to a 10^-9 hz signal at high sound level. it's been playing for a month or two now, and the speaker cone appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of guam. i'm looking forward to when it enters the next quadrant of the cycle.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    25. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but it is impossible for a record to sound better than a CD unless the source for the CD is fucked.

    26. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Better" is highly subjective. One study concluded that some people just like the sound of vinyl; of course it has nothing to do with actual signal fidelity.

    27. Re:Get real audio recordings by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Vinyl at one point, if played with the correct cartridge and stylus, could reliably produce up to 45 khz, used to multiplex 4 channels (true quad, not matrixed) in the SQ system. It did (and does) have problems with warping, the need for a better turntable/pickup system than many users had to avoid quick wearout, issues with cleaning and scratching, IOW the real world. Many vinyl recordings (if you go beyond Top-40 and similar mass-market pop) do have a wide and relatively clean frequency range.

      As a practical matter, the human ear filters everything below about 20 hz and above 10-20 khz (depending on age, noise exposure, and genetics). A carefully-produced CD at 16 bit/44.1 khz can reproduce everything that's audible, and a more than adequate dynamic range, without the pickiness of vinyl regarding setup and equipment quality. Production is the key - and generally requires higher sample rates and bit depths while working to allow for the vagaries of the process. Just as production quality was and is important for vinyl.

      There were vinyl LPs of a pipe organ in Sydney, Australia, that has a full-sized 64' stop (bottom octave: 8-16 hz). Not sure how that was accurately recorded on tape machines with odd response artifacts at low frequencies, let alone microphones that generally didn't go that low, but it got onto the record. You can't hear it, but with the right system you can feel it. Tends to cause feedback if the turntable is in the same room as the speakers, though. CDs produced from the original tapes produce a cleaner bottom end.

      when i was back there in high school, a friend's dad had a McIntosh system with big Wharfedale speakers, the kind that came with good quality English sand to fill the cabinet with because local sand might not be of comparable sonic purity.... anyway, when you pushed that setup, you would reliably find that the vinyl of that era contained sufficient lows to punish your guts until you barfed.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    28. Re:Get real audio recordings by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Except that anything at 20 kHz will be a triangular wave when sampled down to 44.1 kHz for CD-pressing.

      No, it won't. 20kHz will be sampled and reproduced perfectly because the signal is over-sampled, a sharp low-pass filter applied, and the resulting signal will not contain any frequency content higher than 22.05 kHz - which includes any harmonics that might be part of your "triangular wave."

      Don't believe me? You can see for yourself in this video at the 5:40 mark, where Monty shows how a 20kHz frequency is reproduced perfectly using a 44.1kHz sampling rate.

      It's worth your while to watch the whole video. His signal generator and oscilloscope are both analog.

      Do you even know how CD's work? They are digital. They provide a discrete time-based signal of audio amplitude.

      If you were in my class, I would fail you. If you were my grad student, I would cut your funding.

      Take a 44.1 kHz digital sample of a 20 kHz signal. Route that signal through a "true" D/A converter to speakers (or an oscilloscope), and you will get a triangular wave, as I said before, albeit with some 'walk' due to the introduction of false harmonics to the signal. That is, phase non-uniformity == false signals beyond the Nyquist limit of the sampling rate. A low-pass filter at 44.1 kHz might clean it up, but that would be cheating. A Fourier Transform (power spectrum of the signal) would show the false harmonics, and in far greater intensity than that shown in your video. The analog oscilloscope is set to 'lock-in' mode, to represent the resultant analog wave-form based on the signal from the D/A converter that the presenter used. (It might be performing a boxcar averaging of the signal, as the modulations of intensity are quicker than the human eye can detect. I didn't bother looking at the dial settings.) A strict D/A conversion would not yield a sinusoid.

      Your vaunted "oversampling" D/A conversion is in reality a fancy marketing term for "signal interpolation, fitting the signal to a sine-type function", done continuously based on some number of samples at any given moment (up to 12,000 data points) –a moving fit to a sinusoid. This 'error correction' is called CIRC.

      Go back to your own example video and look at the plot shown at 7:20. Do you see where the data-points are? Do you see the sine-function that is fitted to that data stream? That is your "oversampling" in action. You see, because a CD player 'knows' that it is reproducing an audio signal, it interpolates the data-stream to fit the signal to an intensity-modulating sinusoidal wave-form. More accurately, it was the engineers who designed the Red Book specs, and dictated the specs for the CODEC, meaning here the D/A conversion of the binary EFM-encoded data on a CD to an audio signal that you get when you play a 'music' CD.

      Not all signals in the world are sinusoidal, you know. This is why good scientific papers plot only data-points, or sometimes draw in a spline, while making sure to label it as "a guide to the eye." Without such notation in the caption, a paper showing a Fig. like that at 7:20 would be rejected from publication in any respectable Journal. If a manuscript's context is audio signal-processing, then there are reasonable assumptions that can be made about a wave-form that is digitally under-sampled.

      Rule of thumb: You need at minimum 10 data-points per period to be able to faithfully analyze a wave-form. This applies to audio, images with periodic features, and everything else.

    29. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monty is talking about band-limited signals. The sinusoid at 7:20 is NOT part of the digital signal, it is the ONLY band-limited signal that will fit those sample points - which is why the D/A conversion can reconstruct it perfectly. How is a low-pass filter "cheating" if it removes the false harmonics? All they are is distortion if they're not removed from the output.

      I can tell you didn't watch the whole video, because Monty goes on to demonstrate the perfect reproduction of a band-limited square wave, because, as you said, not all signals are sinusoids. However, all band-limited signals ARE the sum of sinusoids, and in audio they are all lower than the Nyquist frequency.

      Oversampling is not "interpolation," it's using a higher sampling frequency to get more bandwidth in the discrete domain so that you can apply your band-limiting filter with no aliasing. I'm surprised you don't know this. When it's down-sampled to 44.1kHz, you won't see any of your aliasing or false harmonics because the signal is already band-limited - with the Nyquist limit at 22.050kHz, 2 sample points per crest is enough to perfectly reproduce a 20kHz harmonic.

      You can see with your own eyes that the digital converter he's using (not even a very good one) is perfectly capable of reproducing ALL frequencies up to 20kHz without distortion or noticeable noise. So what exactly do you think you're seeing in the video? I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

    30. Re:Get real audio recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you were in my class, I would fail you. If you were my grad student, I would cut your funding.

      Just out of curiosity, what do you teach and where?

  3. Oscilloscope from a sound card by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the coolest hacks I have encountered is the use of a computer sound card's audio input(s) to create an oscilloscope.

    Google provides lots of links on the subject.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's old as shit. We had a program to do that with the voicemail cards my old company made way back in the 80s.

    2. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      The TRS-80 CoCo 2 had software to do this. It's not all that new or interesting.

    3. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      A couple of other posters have mentioned that this project is a very old one. Yes, I understand. I was thinking of it as an educational project for the OP's kids, in the context of his/her offer of "[b]onus points if [it] can be done with the assistance of a couple of smart children, without boring them too much." Of course, that could also mean he wants to employ his kids in the grunt-work for his hobby. I hope it's not just that.

      An oscilloscope can expose a young, smart kid to a whole new understanding of sound and physics.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but the title is "cheap and fun," not "new and interesting"!

    5. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can see Audio Spectrum Analyzer running on a screen behind Lewis and Gilbert in Revenge of the Nerds!

    6. Re:Oscilloscope from a sound card by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      That's old as shit. We had a program to do that with the voicemail cards my old company made way back in the 80s.

      Windows Media Player or whatever they called it had a skin that did that and one that gave the frequency spectrum.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. Surround Sound Decoder? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    What part of that is a decoder? It's adding more speakers to a 2 channel system.
    It also reduces the output impedance, which increases distortion.

    1. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by rundgong · · Score: 2

      It's like Dolby surround. Information for the additional channels is encoded into the original 2 channels.
      You won't get 4 independent channels though, but I think it still counts as an analog decoder.
      More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      It's not, it's the old David Hafler/Dynaco circuit. It has interesting effects that mimic something sort of like environmental effects.
        Note that virtually no other scheme replicates nor does the source material contain anything like true spatial effects anyway, they are always synthetic to one degree or another.

    3. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by jpellino · · Score: 1

      We were doing this back in the 70s with whatever 2 channel source would handle it plus the added speakers. It's not decoding surround but as it was explained back in the 70s it does give you some cool audio effects from the difference in the stereo channels, IIRC it was phase difference that contributed to the "new" sounds you'd hear. Note: this hack is NOT the reason I no longer have a working Pioneer SX-980,

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    4. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      You don't seem to understand the terms decode and encode. They are not unique and new to the digital realm. Audio / Analog encoders and decoders existed before computers. I assure you, this circuit functions as a simple analog decoder.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Look carefully at the polarities.

    6. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did that by simply hooking a rear speaker across the hots of the amplifier. Feeling fancy - added a L-pad for level. Moody Blues gave some really cool effects.

    7. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this is the same thing the Beach Boys touted in the 70s as a sort of poor man's quadriphonic. On one of their album jackets they showed how to hook up a second pair of speakers to reproduce any out-of-phase signals in such a way as to make it appear they were coming mainly from the rear speakers. All you had to do was to was run the positive wire for the left and right channels as you normally would, but you would wire the speakers' ground terminals together. The result could be fairly impressive, but only on a few of the recordings I tried it on. I remember a couple of songs on Elton John's Honky Chateau where some of the background vocals appeared to be coming mainly from the rear speakers. Apparently recording engineers didn't record many things out of phase, as the effect was very brief. Maybe the Beach Boys did more of that, but I didn't have any of their records at the time.

    8. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by DewDude · · Score: 1

      The effect was far more pronounced on live recordings; where the mixing of ambiance is naturally out of phase. But, yes, it's the same concept. Connect both postives to one speaker; in-phase content sums out at 180 out of phase, leaving you just the out-of-phase differences. It's also the "side" channel of a mid/side matrix.

    9. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by DewDude · · Score: 1

      Yup. Difference matrix. Been around for years.

    10. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The only difference that's going to make is put the phase of the sound waves out 180 degrees

    11. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not quite, no.The surround channel is encoded as a net differential between the left and right channels.

    12. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand the terms decode and encode. They are not unique and new to the digital realm. Audio / Analog encoders and decoders existed before computers. I assure you, this circuit functions as a simple analog decoder.

      decode is ib my node.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Yup. Difference matrix. Been around for years.

      i first encountered it in the late seventies, sony had a smallish radio (i don't recall that it had a cassette player; definitely no vinyl playback) which featured a big center speaker and two little side firing speakers that gave a really wide soundstage, and i was so intrigued I had to look at the schematic fo see how it was done; to my then childish mind, it was waaaay out of the box thinking.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    14. Re:Surround Sound Decoder? by DewDude · · Score: 1

      I don't think most people knew what a matrix was, not till the quad era. The earliest reference I can find to it is from 1931, which talked about using hybrid transformers to matrix audio. Most people encountered it in the 60s/70s in the form of FM MPX, also called FM Stereo. The mid/sum channel is used to modulate the main FM carrier; while the difference/side is contained in a dual-sideband carrier supressed amplitude modulated subcarrier at 38khz in. Of course, mid/side matrix is also used in the bulk of audio formats. It's slightly more efficient to encode one channel of everything and one channel of just the difference vs both independently and having all sorts of redundancy. Unlike the quad matrix systems that came out in the 70s; mid/side is actually a truly lossless matrix since you're only asking for two channels from two channels. They called this "joint-stereo" in the mp3 days; except joint-stereo could also include some intensity stereo frames which weren't very good. I personally first discovered this method; by accident, as a child. It was later that someone online told me about the hafler circuit for surround sound. The commercialized version of this was Dynaco's "Dynaquad", which included a "quadaptor" which provided this wiring scheme with an attenuator.

  5. Sillie American Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dee Ess Pee. Solder today for little boys. You wrong way wire you break power transistor.

  6. SONAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its rather simple to make a basic SONAR system with Matlab/Octave. If you can get enough identical speakers/microphones, you can start building phased arrays and directional microphones.

    USB sound cards generally have less electrical noise, and rather good effective number of bits and sample rates.

  7. Ultrasonic microphone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... I had fun building an ultrasonic microphone to listen to laughing rats, bats etc from a cheap microphone capsule. I think that a lot of small electrets (such as those in hearing aids) have a good response to high frequencies. But there is an investment required in that you need a DA converter with a high sampling response to digitise your recordings. If you have a soundcard with 192kHz inputs, then the rest is pretty cheap, and the circuits can be pretty simple.

    With a bit more investment of time in the electronics, there are a bunch of "make your own bat detector" schemes with frequency dividers - http://bertrik.sikken.nl/bat/index.html

  8. Audio? Kinda by Traciatim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try a singing Tesla coil. Kids will love making music with lightning.

  9. Lots of ideas with sound waves by guruevi · · Score: 1

    There is a lot you can do beyond just audio. Put a low freq wave in a horizontally oriented speaker cone and see how it interacts with eg slimes/liquids. Or a high powered speaker with glass or other solids to see how/when it breaks. Noise cancellation techniques etc are also great and useful to explore at every level of the system. Compounding waves, masking and the idea of when tones become 'information'. Visualizing electric wave forms or even making a lung system in speakers is really cool too.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  10. LOL what is this? The 1980s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Audio is a signal with information, computers process information. That's the end of 1980s closets full of electronics.

  11. Broken smart phone by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    One of those cracked screen phones could be set up to get audio streams off wifi. The Bluegrass radio app gets a bunch of eclectic stations.

    1. Re:Broken smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use my old smartphone as my web server.

    2. Re:Broken smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use my old smartphone as my web server.

      That is awesome

  12. Theremin by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    As you seem to turn your kids into geeks anyway, you could build a cheap Theremin with them and teach them to play the Startrek theme song.

    http://www.instructables.com/i...
    http://www.thereminworld.com/s...

    1. Re:Theremin by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      Plus you get to tell them, nobody touches my theremin!

  13. Build your own O2 headphone amp by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

    The O2 headphone amplifier is an extremely clean amp that can drive almost any headphones. It sounds great. Pair it with a clean DAC, rip all your CDs to FLAC, and you can listen to your music from your computer with the very highest in fidelity.

    If you can solder, you can build the O2 amp for $30 to $40 worth of parts.

    http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/o2-summary.html

    The guy who designed the O2 also designed a really good DAC. He wanted to release it as a DIY project but the realities of the DAC chip business mean that it was only practical to sell a complete DAC board. But you could make a project out of building an O2 amp in an enclosure with the DAC board built-in. (I have such a device but I can't solder; I bought mine from JDS Labs, pre-built.)

    http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/odac-released.html

    I am friends with a world-class audio expert, and he agrees that the O2+ODAC is the best way to spend your money. It's as clean as $1000+ solutions.

    P.S. Article about the guy who designed the O2 and ODAC: "the audio genius who vanished"

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/nwavguy-the-audio-genius-who-vanished

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Build your own O2 headphone amp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about as good as most hobbyists can get, for sure. Assuming the ultimate audio quality is their one and only goal. There's plenty of things that aren't quite perfect about it, like the use of shitty 9V NiCAD batteries or the damn slow trickle charger.

      As for the ODAC, well, buying it is your one and only option. There is no public schematic, and you can't actually buy the DAC chip (Tenor TE7022) used in the design anyway.

      I definitely agree that nwavguy knows his stuff (having the expensive specialized equipment helps a lot too!)

      Either ways, that combo would be wasted on my set of 40yo ears. I couldn't really tell the end result from onboard audio apart from the noise floor (and I happily listen to lossy music as well!)

      I made my own device mainly because it's aimed towards a completely different set of users (people with hearing problems, not audiophiles).

    2. Re:Build your own O2 headphone amp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can spend more money but you can't get cleaner audio. You can spend 1000+ dollars, or get this, but you won't hear a difference. Or get something cheaper that won't be nearly as good

    3. Re:Build your own O2 headphone amp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you missed the point entirely. I never said it doesn't sound good nor that it isn't a good value.

    4. Re:Build your own O2 headphone amp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it could be argued that the amp measured well, the design and results of the dac were less that stellar and the designer had stepped out of his comfort zone.

    5. Re:Build your own O2 headphone amp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the design and results of the dac were less that stellar

      [citation needed]

      I'm not qualified to comment on the design, but NWAVGuy published numbers showing the performance. See the section with the heading "THE REAL NUMBERS" in this page:

      http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/odac-released.html

      Are you saying that these numbers are not correct... i.e. that he was lying?

      Or are you saying that -102.8 dB noise and 0.1% THD are "less than stellar"?

      By those numbers, the O2+ODAC is very close to a $1000+ DAC1 Pre. And about $700 less expensive.

      I'm honestly curious... if the O2+ODAC isn't good enough for you, then what do you use to listen to music?

  14. Aural bypass by jeillah · · Score: 1

    Make something that will somehow bypass the eardrum/nerve interface so that people like me that have had severe never damage in the inner ear canal can enjoy music again. Who knows where it could go from there but I know I would be eternally grateful!!! Oh yeah, no wires in my brain please!!!

    1. Re:Aural bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would bone conduction work for you?

    2. Re: Aural bypass by jeillah · · Score: 1

      I don't think so because that still use the nerve hookup from the inner ear to the brain. My nerves in my left ear were completely severed so I would need a different approach. I wonder if some sort of haptic interface would produce aural cues that my brain could use to compensate. I can still hear in my ight ear so for now it is mono for me...

    3. Re: Aural bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, for 2 reasons. The first is that the bone conduction only bypasses damage to the acoustic system from outside to the cilia in the ear. The second is that a very Importent part of audio processing happens in that nerve. I've got some measurable hearing loss from damage to the cilia, and a very hard to measure loss in understanding from the damage to the nerve.

    4. Re:Aural bypass by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I think a cochlear implant will do the job, provided that you still have enough nerve function to hook the device to. It's not cheap, requires professional adjustment after an operation, and the quality is poor. At most you get 22 narrow frequency bands and have to interpolate for intermediate frequencies.

      The technology is improving, but progress isn't particularly rapid.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Aural bypass by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      There are brainstem auditory implants that are for people with actual nerve deafness (damage to the 8th cranial nerve, not the cochlea as is the case for most types of deafness)... Since this type of deafness is quite rare (they would only consider something like this for bilateral losses), very few people have them. They are only available via clinical trial in the US for children, but they are approved in Europe.

    6. Re: Aural bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally layman here, but I've been reading about spine nerve growth stimulation with electricity. I believe we're years from understanding what voltage, wave frequency, apply-rest cycle, etc. give the best results, but let's say I see a light at the end of the tunnel.

      I hope we can witness that kind of cure!

    7. Re:Aural bypass by sudon't · · Score: 1

      "...no wires in my brain please!!!

      Really? I'd love to be able to muck around with wires in my brain, stimulating this part, and that, just to see what happens. I would certainly do it to regain music! But from a practical point of view, I can understand your objection.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  15. I don't know if this counts or not... by lord_mike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but, back in high school, one of my science teachers glued a tiny mirror to the center of a speaker cone. He then reflected a laser off of it onto the wall. When he played music though it, the vibrations made a very cool low cost laser show! Now that lasers are cheap and plentiful, I've always meant to recreate that laser show. One of these decades, I'll get around to it! ;-)

    1. Re:I don't know if this counts or not... by Alcemenes · · Score: 1

      Mr. Grantner's physics class?

    2. Re:I don't know if this counts or not... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can get both mirrors and laser pointers at dollar stores now.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. Dynamic range compression by michael_cain · · Score: 2

    Dynamic range compression is one of the audio effects I use most often.

    1. Re:Dynamic range compression by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Dynamic range compression is one of the audio effects I use most often.

      You, and every producer/engineer lately.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    2. Re:Dynamic range compression by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what their reasons are. Mine used to be that I had to deal with various non-trivial levels of background noise -- turn the volume up loud enough to hear the quiet parts over that noise and the loud parts were enough to knock you over. These days, it's more that aging ears have greatly narrowed the spread between loud enough to understand and loud enough to hurt.

    3. Re:Dynamic range compression by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what their reasons are. Mine used to be that I had to deal with various non-trivial levels of background noise -- turn the volume up loud enough to hear the quiet parts over that noise and the loud parts were enough to knock you over. These days, it's more that aging ears have greatly narrowed the spread between loud enough to understand and loud enough to hurt.

      just add a little high freq distortion and gated white noise. http://www.aphex.com/products/... in the initial days of solid state audio, everybody was so thrilled with how much better the highs sounded compared to tube amps. then people noticed listener fatigue setting in. then the observations of high freq distortion. then the next generation of much improved amps. then repeat when digital audio becomes a thing.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  17. Laser speaker by wooferhound · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Glue a Front Surface mirror to a woofer
    Point a Laser at the mirror
    Play music with lots of bass through that speaker
    Add a second speaker at an opposing angle to get X Y control

    --
    We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
  18. Vacuum tubes. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Not a hack, per se -- but to do tubes and wrench on 'em yourself pretty much means you're a hacker.

    Hook 'em up to horn speakers and you can get very good sound for not much dosh. Depending on many factors ridiculously good sound is possible, actually, for not much dosh.

    It teaches about electronics. And also teaches basic mechanical skills, what with the screwdriver, wrenches, soldering iron, etc etc -- it's more than just audio.

    No, really -- but be safe, triple-digit VDC will really @#!% you up and there's plenty in your typical power amp.

    Just be careful you don't step in the quite deep quicksand of hardcore audiophilia. There's a balance.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:Vacuum tubes. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Vacuum tubes are the best. They saturate with only even-n harmonics, making them sound 'warm' or 'natural', unlike the random things you can do with digital audio streams.

      It's the same idea as the harmonics of a guitar string.

      Look up "Fourier Decomposition of a Wave" on Wikipedia for more details.

    2. Re:Vacuum tubes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, that old wives' tale. Now I know you're a troll. :-P

    3. Re:Vacuum tubes. by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Not a hack, per se -- but to do tubes and wrench on 'em yourself pretty much means you're a hacker.

      Beat me to it. I built a GainClone amp a few years back, and while it was impressive, something was missing. On the pure hunch that the single ended triode (SET) zealots were actually onto something, I decided to build a Tubelab SSE. Best thing I have ever built, bar none. The side-by-side comparison with my chip amp was astounding, even with the cheap Chinese 6L6VG tubes I used while shaking down the new build. The typical SET tube amp is not the best fit for ballz-to-the-wall rock or full symphony material, but Steely Dan, Diana Krall, Nora Jones, or Cowboy Junkies? Yeah, way worth the time.

    4. Re:Vacuum tubes. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Not a hack, per se -- but to do tubes and wrench on 'em yourself pretty much means you're a hacker.

      Beat me to it. I built a GainClone amp a few years back, and while it was impressive, something was missing. On the pure hunch that the single ended triode (SET) zealots were actually onto something, I decided to build a Tubelab SSE. Best thing I have ever built, bar none. The side-by-side comparison with my chip amp was astounding, even with the cheap Chinese 6L6VG tubes I used while shaking down the new build. The typical SET tube amp is not the best fit for ballz-to-the-wall rock or full symphony material, but Steely Dan, Diana Krall, Nora Jones, or Cowboy Junkies? Yeah, way worth the time.

      you can build fine IC amps, or fine discrete transistor amps, or fine tube amps, or fine digital amps. however, the kinds of errors that occur in imperfect tube amps are less irritating than the kind of errors that occur in imperfect solid state amps, which are less irritating than the kind of errors which occur in imperfect digital amps, as a generalization. which seems to correlate with the prevalence of similar kinds of distortion in "natural" sound, as my halfbaked observation.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    5. Re:Vacuum tubes. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Ah, that old wives' tale. Now I know you're a troll. :-P

      I'm not an audiophile, but do know some. They are idiots. Wooden knobs, pyramids, and so on...

      But really, what I said is true, based on basic audio engineering a& the physics signal-processing. Saturation of a vacuum tube (over-driving) produces a different set of harmonics than does saturation of a digital signal (which simply clips, introducing ALL harmonics). Go to Wikipedia like I told you.

      That said: If you have both a high bit-rate A/D converter with a high sampling rate, when you can process the signal in any way you choose for that track of the composition. NOTE that I wrote the comment with song-making in mind – audio engineering of a track for a song to be mixed-down later, not playing-back a CD at home. There at home (in your Mom's basement), your amp & speakers just need to have a linear response — Someone else has already put the effects they want on each track, and mixed it all down wearing headphones. To reproduce that sound, you simply hit 'PLAY'.

  19. Flame speaker by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

    One of the hacks I always wanted to do ( and still looking for parts for) is a flame speaker. I plan to do it outside maybe even in a bonfire if I can keep the wires from melting.

    --
    Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    1. Re:Flame speaker by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      One of the hacks I always wanted to do ( and still looking for parts for) is a flame speaker. I plan to do it outside maybe even in a bonfire if I can keep the wires from melting.

      you can get plenty of flame speakers on the /. comments.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  20. Just curious by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that the quadraphonic decoder you built was some version of the Dynaquad - am I correct? (I actually have a Dynaquad-encoded copy of The Beach Boys album 'Surf's Up'). And I think the link you provided is David Hafler's version of the same basic concept. Either one of these decoders could do fascinating things with even normal stereo recordings. I did a LOT of playing around with passive decoding in the early-to-mid-70's when I was a teenager - I just loved playing Dark Side of the Moon...

    I also did some satisfying work on active versions of Hafler/Dynaquad decoders. The sound is both better and more amenable to adjustment. All you need are one or two decent quad op-amps, some capacitors and resistors, a solderless breadboard, a power supply of 18 volts or so, and an extra power amp or receiver with accompanying speakers. The op-amps are configured to provide the sum of the two stereo channels, (mono), and the difference between the two stereo channels, (L-R or R-L depending on your phasing). The two stereo channels are fed to one stereo amp and speakers, and the sum and difference outputs from the breadboard are fed to the other stereo amp and speakers. This setup prevents electrical interaction and impedance irregularities which occur in a fully passive setup like that in the link you provided, so the speakers sound better. And with separate volume, balance, and tone controls, you can more easily tailor the sound to your liking. Also, with extra op-amps it's easy to have both L-R and R-L. (On some recordings, having both of these can produce some interesting results). It's cheap, it's pretty easy, it uses 'junk' amps and speakers to good advantage, and it's lots of fun. At least, it's lots of fun for people like you and me... :) Plus, hooking everything up, troubleshooting any errors or other problems, tweaking the sound, and listening to the differences should keep the 'smart kids' interested for a while.

    I got some new Polk bookshelf speakers just before Christmas, and I have several amps and additional pairs of speakers. It might just be time to start playing with passive 'quad' decoding again!

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  21. Elekit TU-879s by Camembert · · Score: 2

    My suggestion is not super cheap at $589 yet very satisfying: an Elekit tube amplifier kit. Elekit is a good japanese kit brand and their tube amp kits are very well regarded. In fact a similar quality ready made product would cost a lot more.
    Here is the link to the importer in Canada who delivers to the Americas. He supplies the construction manual in English, this is I think not the case if you buy straight from the japanese Elekit website: http://www.vkmusic.ca/TU-879S....

  22. three is best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For passive surround and goofing around, noting beats a single speaker hooked to the positive terminal of the left and right. Four speakers as in the article doesnt work well enough due to loss of power.

    OK, so now that you set it up with three speakers in a triangle, put on beasty boys 'cheack your head'. Yes, a digital/CD version. You're welcome!

    After that, play live music recordings off of lp's

  23. Amazing cheap loudspeakers by russbutton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got a friend who's a cabinet maker and loudspeaker designer. For years he crafted full-range curved diaphram electrostatic loudspeakers. Nowadays he's into horns. One day I dropped by his shop and he blew me away with something he'd been doing with Dayton Audio Sound Exciters (well, that's what they're called today on Amazon's web site). They're transducers.

    Get yourself two 2' x 3' pieces of 1/2" thick piece of foam core from an art supply store. Attach two of these Dayton Audio Sound Exciters to each of them. Wire them in parallel and connect them to an amplifier. The tricky part is that you have to suspend them in mid-air. Hang them from your ceiling or something. The sound you'll get out of them is very, very good - especially considering you'll have less than $75 in the whole project. I'd put it equal stuff you'd spend about $1000 to $1500 at Best Buy.

    They aren't what I'd call extreme hi-end, but they sound much, much better than anyone would think. Would make for a great garage or shop system.

    1. Re:Amazing cheap loudspeakers by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, electrostatic is the holy grail of audiophiles yet it's a pretty accessible hobby if you have the tools, take a look into DIY Electrostatic Headphones:

      http://www.head-fi.org/t/49829...

      Where entry level orthos/isos are in the range of $100 they can get as high as $3000 so not only your kids can wear what they have created, maybe they can start a local "business" Are they worth that much money? IDK I have some vintage Fostex monitors and yes the electrostatic technology is as good as it gets for audio reproduction, almost everything is subjective in audio IMO. This is more a crafts and acoustics work rather than a pure electrical one tho.

    2. Re:Amazing cheap loudspeakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen half inch thick foam core. The stuff is typically 4-5mm thick, not 12mm.

    3. Re:Amazing cheap loudspeakers by russbutton · · Score: 1

      My buddy was running 1/2" thick foam core. It really is available, though your local art supply store may not have it in stock. http://www.uline.com/ has 1/2" foam core at their website. The point of 1/2" thickness is to get as much rigidity as possible in your diaphram. You could also probably get away with gluing up two 1/4" pieces. As a 2 ply laminate, that might provide even greater rigidity.

    4. Re:Amazing cheap loudspeakers by russbutton · · Score: 1
      I've been an audiophile since Nixon was president. At one time or another I've owned most all of the different technologies in loudspeakers - horns, dome diaphrams, satellite/sub-woofer combo, magnetic planar, electrostatics and now, open baffle. Stats are wonderful, but have their issues. Flat panet stats and magnetics both have awful high frequency dispersion. You have to sit in the sweet spot. Stand up and the high end disappears and they sound like an AM radio. Walk around the room and you have the same problem. I solved that problem with my Magnepan loudspeakers by adding a ribbon tweeter crossed over at 10khz.

      The stats I had were full-range curved diaphram loudspeakers made by my buddy in the San Francisco area. He's the same one who did the thing with the Sound Exciters and foam core. The stats had wonderful clarity and detail, but just didn't image well in my room. I also had to add some DIY sub-woofers to get some low-end. My buddy is also the guy who introduced me to the open baffle designs of Siegfried Linkwitz, a retired HP audio engineer. Visit his website at:

      Linkwitz Lab

      There's a ton of information there about loudspeaker design that will take you days and weeks to plow through. This guy is the real deal audio engineer, not the usual hi-end snake-oil salesman.

      I now run Siegfried's Orion design which has a similar tonal balance to my old stats, but also image much, much better. I made that switch about 9 years ago. Siegfried's latest designs are even better and are well worth consideration for anyone who wants incredibly great sound at a price we mere mortals can afford. I've always been a guy with champagne taste and a beer budget. Many of my projects have been DIY.

      His LX521 design is the successor to my Orions and is extraordinary. They perform as well as any speaker at any price. You can build them for about $3000 and then have to add in the cost of 10 channels of amplification at 60 wpc. There are 12 channel amps from B&K and ATI that cover this quite well for a reasonable amount of money. You could also build 10 channels of chip amp for a modest amount of money.

      Oh. One other thing. My speaker cables are 14 gauge zip cord I got from Parts Express. And I still consider myself to be an audiophile...

  24. standing waves experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In physics class, I fondly remembered a teacher setting up a fixed rate oscillator, around 500hz, placing speakers a few metres apart, and getting us to walk between them.

    The resulting effect is a pleasing and distinctive phase superposition and cancellation effect. The audio will ripple in volume depending on where you are in the room.

    Physics in motion!

  25. A project? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Sorry to go slightly off-topic; I sometimes envy those that can enjoy music for sustained periods of time. Listening, even to my favourite music (renaissance and baroque lute), makes my feel stressed out after a short while. However, there is one project I would like to accomplish - but it's hardly for beginners, I suspect.

    I have a large conservatory in which I grow orchids, mostly. One of the problems you get in a space enclosed in glass is that important parameters like temperature, humidity and air movements can vary enormously in different locations, and it would be interesting - useful even - to have a simple network of cheap sensors, that would measure these and report them to a computer (which could be a RaspberryPi). Unfortunately, I don't have enough practical knowledge about electronics to know where to begin. I know what I could do with the data - I could have hours of fun analysing them.

  26. Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Hacking" sounds illegal and in this day and age, if something just sounds illegal it probably is, and it's best to err on the safe of caution. You should not alter equipment or modify it, you can only use as specified in the contract. Buy something that meets your criteria and be content with it. If nothing in the market can meet your criteria, then probably there's something wrong with you.

    1. Re:Don't do it. by sh00z · · Score: 1

      "Hacking" sounds illegal and in this day and age, if something just sounds illegal it probably is, and it's best to err on the safe of caution. You should not alter equipment or modify it, you can only use as specified in the contract. Buy something that meets your criteria and be content with it. If nothing in the market can meet your criteria, then probably there's something wrong with you.

      Seriously? Wow. One egregious error per sentence.

      1. 1. I can pretty much guarantee that any "hacking" that the OP undertakes will be in the analog domain, and not subject to the DMCA.
      2. 2. I've never seen a EULA on a piece of audio equipment, even a Blu-Ray player with HDMI. You're not signing a contract.
      3. 3. The OP is looking for a project, a hobby. His hobby is apparently *not* shopping.
      4. 4. If you think Audio is a "one size fits all" proposition, then there's something wrong with YOU,

      So, back to the original question. Here's a fun one, that will help reduce noise on mono LP's played using "modern" (since 1965) stereo equipment: Passive Stereo to Mono Resistive Mixer.

    2. Re:Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh?

    3. Re:Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Seriously?

      Nope.

    4. Re:Don't do it. by gzuckier · · Score: 1
      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  27. Spike Mic Project by drkim · · Score: 1

    You can make a fun spike mic to listen to people in another room with old parts.

    Take an old phono cartridge and carefully attach a metal nail to the tiny stylus end (where the diamond is).
    Then plug it into an old phono amp as usual, and listen with headphones.
    If you drill a hole on your side of the wall, big enough so the nail doesn't touch the edges, but lightly presses against the wall of the next room, you might be able to hear what's going on.
    (Don't use this illegally!)

  28. Sea shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you hold a big sea shell over your ear, you can hear the sea.

  29. Bootlegmic by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    http://www.openmusiclabs.com/p...
    Useful and you couldn't get simpler.

    Whether you want to bring your kids to loud concerts is another story though.

  30. Flame speakers!!! by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    you can use a flame as a speaker. Cool thing is you can't burn it out by overdriving it!

    1) create a large wide flame. e.g. for gas flatten a tube into a long thin jet.
    2) put two electrodes in the flame
    3) boost your audio into the high voltage range. a high voltage transformer can do this.

    Now say "I am the great and powerful oz!" into the microphone.

    4) get really excited and build a redonkulously large version with 6 foot tall pulsating glames and a a kilowatt amplifier.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Flame speakers!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell whoever is building one in Porter Ranch (N.W. of Los Angeles) that it must have a shutoff. The gas plume is so big that it's a no-fly zone.

  31. psycho Acoustic imaging headphones by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I've never done it but I've always wanted to play with acoustic imaging in heaphones. Clearly a two speaker system has 2 degrees of freedom and therefore cannot have any 3D effects. Yet we know that our ears can tell sounds that come from behind from those that come from ahead. This is because our brains process the sound for a reverb or delayed echo. So you cread the 3D effect by delaying the left ear's sound slightly and feeding it to the right ear.

    that of course is just fake spacial assignment. THere's some way to be more clever about what you delay based on the dolby encoding to assign the delayed sound correctly. I don't know what that is but it can't be a lot more complex than your matrix decoding of the sum and difference channel. The difference is that instead of sending it to the rear speakers, you now have to delay it. Here's a websearch with a couple leads on this:

    http://www.headphone.com/pages...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:psycho Acoustic imaging headphones by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I've never done it but I've always wanted to play with acoustic imaging in heaphones. Clearly a two speaker system has 2 degrees of freedom and therefore cannot have any 3D effects. Yet we know that our ears can tell sounds that come from behind from those that come from ahead. This is because our brains process the sound for a reverb or delayed echo. So you cread the 3D effect by delaying the left ear's sound slightly and feeding it to the right ear.

      that of course is just fake spacial assignment. THere's some way to be more clever about what you delay based on the dolby encoding to assign the delayed sound correctly. I don't know what that is but it can't be a lot more complex than your matrix decoding of the sum and difference channel. The difference is that instead of sending it to the rear speakers, you now have to delay it. Here's a websearch with a couple leads on this:

      The technical term is actually "head related transfer function" which takes a signal and transforms it into what the ears would actually hear.

      And on a basic level, you can do this with some software a loud sound source and a couple of microphones, and some code cleverness.

      Basically what you want to do is in your desired room, set up the microphones as if they were ears. Then start recording and set off your loud sound (clap, starter pistol, etc). This will record the impulse response of the room, from your source location to your pickup location. From there, you can take the two impulse reponses and convolve it with a signal. Play the resulting sound through headphones and it'll sound exactly like the sound was coming from that spot in the room, and you were sitting where the microphones were.

      If you do this 6 times, you can simulate a 5.1 surround sound system. There are at least several surround virtualization methods that use this impulse method to generate a virtual surround sound for headphones.

    2. Re:psycho Acoustic imaging headphones by muridae · · Score: 1

      That last degree of freedom is the combination phase and volume. Louder on the right than the left? Must be to the right of the listener. The brain then processes the phase of the soundwave to determine the angle forward or backward, up and down.

      Now, the brain can't use that information alone to determine if some sound came from 45 in front or 45 behind (vision helps that), but height above ground can be approximated by echo and interference. Truthfully, the subconcious 'sound map' of the place you are at also informs the brain where a sound came from. A large soft object behind you means a loud sound roughly 30 off axis with no echo or distortion probably came from in front of you. A hard object behind you would instead cause an echo of sounds from the front, but the brain just does that processing without you even taking note.

      As for implementing it on the cheap? Only if research time is free; that's a very deep rabbit hole.

    3. Re:psycho Acoustic imaging headphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stating that two ears can't produce a "3D effect" for whatever that means is not quite accurate. The brain cannot process altitude, the only limitation lies there. our brains compensate that through learning and forming habits, like knowing that the booms upstairs actually come from the neighbours music. You do not hear that per-se, this is something your brain has learned in the early stages of childhood. As an example some 3D panoramic movie theaters sometimes have additional speakers hanging from the ceiling. 100% of those experiencing it the first time look up in sync to see where the speakers are hanging when they start shouting out sound effects. On another note, some small dance clubs are fitted with "soundshowers", speakers pointing to the ground and hanging from the ceiling. Many people tend to look around for the speakers before they notice or get told to look up.

      This being said, there are many, many VST / AudioUnit (or other formats) plug-ins for audio editors out there that let you play with a full 3D field over just two speakers or headphones. The reason we use more than two audio sources (like using 5.1 etc.) is, amongst others, that you'll find that these effects tend to twist the audio signal's phase - not problematic in a movie soundtrack, tricky to deal with in an audio production environment. Some commercial music players support inserting plug-ins in the digital audio chain as well.

      If you plan to play with this just for fun i recommend you take a look at the vast ocean of audio plug-ins on the market (some are free) and get yourself a player that supports plug-ins in the aforementioned formats.

    4. Re:psycho Acoustic imaging headphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you stopped reading the original post after the second sentence.

  32. Couch subwoofer by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    take apart your couch, get a giant subwoofer coil, remove the paper cone, and bolt a large weight to the center instead, and mount the speaker on the couch frame. make sure the cross-over is sub 20Hz so you can't hear it in the audio range (otherwise it will be distracting). for more kicks mount three, one for left, one for right and one for the matrix-center channel. drive it with a lot of amps.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Couch subwoofer by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      For people who don't want to destroy a subwoofer, you can get a shaker.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about adding a cheap spring reverb to your existing audio system. There are a number of other effects that you can do pretty cheaply that maybe fun to play with, but that one seems like a good cheap start with minimal technical skills required for the build.

    You can also expand upon your existing system and work in a cheap karaoke system. If your kids want to sing or play instruments along with the music add extra inputs and a mixer, maybe add the reverb effect in for extra coolness and have family fun night in the living room.

    The added lighting effects are cool ideas also, if you bring an arduino into the mix you can level up your project complexity and have lights that pulse and move with the rhythm all over the room. Or you can add a voice activated component so that you don't need the TV remote anymore. Have it turn on your devices and change channels for you.
    Many of these projects have been done before multiple times and you can find easy guides on instructables.com

  34. Cheap Bluetooth 4.0 module by northernboy · · Score: 1

    Around Thanksgiving, the Linux Voice podcast had a "find of the fortnight" about a small, cheap Bluetooth 4.0 module that can easily be added to an existing system. The card is designated KRC 86B, and a raw board is about $10. As a raw board, there is programming in place that handles everything you need to send audio from your phone and the board has audio in and out all configured. I think they are the same ones that are used for Bluetooth connections in new cars these days.

    Bare boards have soldering pads, but no connectors. I paid a bit more for one ($14) that already had all the connectors attached - all I did was provide micro-USB power, and connect to my receiver with a standard audio miniplug. Pair and play!

    There are tutorials all over the place on how to gracefully integrate these things into your existing box, but mine's just dangling out front. Despite the simplicity and low cost, the sound is excellent! Don't take my word for it, they're about $10, just do it!

  35. Crosstalk Cancellation by RayHs · · Score: 1

    I recall there was an article many years ago that mentioned how to use an extra set of speakers adjacent to the main speakers to eliminate audio crosstalk similar to vintage Polk SDA speakers and Carver Sonic Holography, I don't remember the wiring diagram but it used the same amplifier as the main speakers with the additional speakers wired in series and out of phase. The ideal listening position was fairly narrow and the results were hit and miss depending on the recording. Maybe an old Polk SDA review can help: http://www.polksda.com/srsrevi...

  36. Use measurements to EQ your stereo better by AdamThor · · Score: 1

    Lots of people do equalization, but mostly just by ear. Tools to use SCIENCE to do it are now cheaply available.

    1) play music out of your computer with an equalizer. I use Foobar2000. There is a free 31-band stereo equalizer plug in available for it. http://www.foobar2000.org/comp...

    2) play some Pink Noise through it. Pink Noise is equal energy per octave, so on a log frequency graph of SPL it should be flat. Of course, it won't be b/c speakers and rooms are imperfect, but now you have a goal. Download a pink noise sample, or make one with something like Audacity. Probably use a non-lossy file format.

    3) get a smartphone app with a Real Time Equalizer. iphones have consistent mic performance, so the software can usually correct for it well, but I have had some bits of software behave oddly. I paid a few bucks for this one ( http://www.studiosixdigital.co... ) I understand there are android apps also. You can buy a measurement mic for your phone cheaply ( http://www.parts-express.com/d... ) if you want.

    4) The RTA will measure your SPL vs Frequency, and your pink noise sample is sound that should have flat response. So use your equalizer software to twiddle the sliders until things are flat. Microphone location makes a difference!

    So if you have a smartphone and a computer this can be done for somewhere between free and $50. Some people are good at equalizing by ear, but bringing some tech to the table will help most people get better results.

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
    1. Re:Use measurements to EQ your stereo better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 2) play some Pink Noise through it.

      What band is that? Did David Gilmour join Art of Noise? :)

  37. Gainclone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a Gainclone amp. Relatively easy, and the components don't cost a fortune (unless you get fancy)

    http://diyaudioprojects.com/Chip/chip.htm

  38. Play any instruments with Line Out? by muridae · · Score: 1

    Guitar distortion pedals can be a cheap and easy thing to build. The simplest form is just an amp (either op-amp or single transistor) followed by clipping diodes. One potentiometer to control the voltage out of the amp stage (higher voltage means the diodes clip more, means more distortion) and another controls the output volume by dropping the signal to ground. And if the kids are the ones playing the instruments, they might enjoy the different effects that can be gained by just using one diode, or mismatching them (silicon one way, germanium the other). Any instrument can be run through a homemade one, even a microphone if someone plays non-electric instruments.

    1. Re:Play any instruments with Line Out? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Guitar distortion pedals can be a cheap and easy thing to build. The simplest form is just an amp (either op-amp or single transistor) followed by clipping diodes. One potentiometer to control the voltage out of the amp stage (higher voltage means the diodes clip more, means more distortion) and another controls the output volume by dropping the signal to ground. And if the kids are the ones playing the instruments, they might enjoy the different effects that can be gained by just using one diode, or mismatching them (silicon one way, germanium the other). Any instrument can be run through a homemade one, even a microphone if someone plays non-electric instruments.

      i used to fool around with that stuff, more from the electronic standpoint than the musician, so caveats. anyway, you could do some fun effects by using an opamp with a power supply that supplied too low a voltage. and/or for an amp that required positive and negative supplies relative to ground, providing asymmetric voltages.
      fun with clipping!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    2. Re: Play any instruments with Line Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the designs I built used a voltage source in front of the amp stage, because amplifying a negative voltage with a single transistor isn't fun. That meant a cap between output and distortion/regulation back to line voltage, which got rid of any asymmetry in the peak to peak.

      I'll have to borrow your idea, throw it through a spice similar and see what it sounds like. I loved the asymmetric sound, but I got it by using (made up example) a 1.1v diode one way and a 0.8 the other, or resistors in series with diodes to soften their edges.

      Anon because my phone can't remember my /. password.

  39. dangerous fun with ac by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    with a simple ac power cord from an old lamp, you can demonstrate that pickles fluoresce when 110 volts is applied to the ends. and as a bonus, the same setup cooks hot dogs efficiently.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.