Re: Extending my speakers - problem!

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:47:34 +0100
Signal <> wrote:

> No need to compromise when stuff is so cheap these days. You can pick
> up a servicable amp and speakers for £30 these days.
>
He's talking about replacing an office radio, internet radio stations
aren't exactly hi-fi - I'd have thought a basic 2.1 system would be more
than adequate, and easier to find room for in an office.

"Rob Morley" <> wrote in message
news:20080818182056.58438175@bluemoon...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:47:34 +0100
Signal <> wrote:

> No need to compromise when stuff is so cheap these days. You can pick
> up a servicable amp and speakers for £30 these days.
>
He's talking about replacing an office radio, internet radio stations
aren't exactly hi-fi - I'd have thought a basic 2.1 system would be more
than adequate, and easier to find room for in an office.

It depends on which ones you listen to - I regularly listen to stations of
192k
That is very good quality - certainly better than the MW mono quality of
DAB.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Wagg <>
wrote:

>On Aug 18, 7:38*pm, Signal <sig...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >> No need to compromise when stuff is so cheap these days. You can pick
>> >> up a servicable amp and speakers for £30 these days.
>>
>> >He's talking about replacing an office radio, internet radio stations
>> >aren't exactly hi-fi - I'd have thought a basic 2.1 system would be more
>> >than adequate, and easier to find room for in an office.
>>
>> No, internet radio is not hifi, but you think it will be better or
>> worse on crappy speakers? Sounds good on my JM Labs. Like I say, why
>> compromise when you can pick up decent pieces for peanuts. Most "basic
>> 2.1 systems" are utter wank. [For an office, forget the sub anyway..]
>>
>> Here's an example of something sweet sounding:http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BNIB-MISSION-S...511/index.html
>> Partner with a cheap Rotel or Technics amp..
>> Or I've got Wharfedale Diamond IIIs if interested. £20. Not amazing,
>> but better than cheesy PC speakers costing ten times the price.http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...diamd1985.html
>>
>> If sound quality is of no importance, go for a crappy 2.1... *:-)
>>
>> --
>> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>Cheers. The speakers on the computer now arent powered, they just
>connect to the PC and work... no batteries in them either (some funky
>dell thing). Will give the 2.1 set a go, but I still need to push it
>over 12m or so. Ordered a set, see what happens, I may be back!
>
>-Ben

AND
If you Pc sound ever goes down in volume check the volume control in
Control Panel/Sounds and Audio Devices/Advanced . The sliders
sometimes have a life of their own

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:38:52 +0100
Signal <> wrote:

> Rob Morley <> wrote:
>
> >> No need to compromise when stuff is so cheap these days. You can
> >> pick up a servicable amp and speakers for £30 these days.
> >>
> >He's talking about replacing an office radio, internet radio stations
> >aren't exactly hi-fi - I'd have thought a basic 2.1 system would be
> >more than adequate, and easier to find room for in an office.
>
> No, internet radio is not hifi, but you think it will be better or
> worse on crappy speakers? Sounds good on my JM Labs. Like I say, why
> compromise when you can pick up decent pieces for peanuts. Most "basic
> 2.1 systems" are utter wank. [For an office, forget the sub anyway..]
>
> Here's an example of something sweet sounding:
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BNIB-MISSION-S...d=p3286.c0.m14
> http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcom...511/index.html
> Partner with a cheap Rotel or Technics amp..
> Or I've got Wharfedale Diamond IIIs if interested. £20. Not amazing,
> but better than cheesy PC speakers costing ten times the price.
> http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...diamd1985.html
>
> If sound quality is of no importance, go for a crappy 2.1... :-)
>
The Cambridge Soundworks 2.1 system I got on Freecycle works rather
well, as do the Roland micro monitors I got for not much on eBay years
ago, but the ancient no-name speakers that came with a PII 233 I once
bought still work fine even at relatively high volume, and all without
gold-on-silver interconnects and sand-filled cast iron speaker stands.
Do you think anyone in the office really cares about Janis Ian's piano
pedal?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Wagg <> wrote:

> Cheers. The speakers on the computer now arent powered, they just
> connect to the PC and work... no batteries in them either (some funky
> dell thing).

Sounds odd - some sound cards used to include a small power amplifier,
but I'm not aware of any newer ones that do because everyone uses
powered speakers these days.

> Will give the 2.1 set a go, but I still need to push it
> over 12m or so.

There are plenty of 10 metre stereo mini-jack extension leads on eBay
from around £4 delivered. Hopefully that will be enough when added to
the cable that's attached to the speakers.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Wagg <> wrote:
>
>> Cheers. The speakers on the computer now arent powered, they just
>> connect to the PC and work... no batteries in them either (some funky
>> dell thing).
>
> Sounds odd - some sound cards used to include a small power amplifier,
> but I'm not aware of any newer ones that do because everyone uses
> powered speakers these days.
>
>> Will give the 2.1 set a go, but I still need to push it
>> over 12m or so.
>
> There are plenty of 10 metre stereo mini-jack extension leads on eBay
> from around £4 delivered. Hopefully that will be enough when added to
> the cable that's attached to the speakers.

Yeah - should do it ... although 3.5mm extensio cable are a bit
notorious for "dickiness". Dunno what impedance a typical "compter
speaker set" would present - might be 10k or more - if so, it might even
be worth putting 100-200 ohms or so across the signal lines to cut down
interference on a longish cable like that (especially if the screening
ain't too great).

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:41:23 +0100
Martin Slaney <> wrote:

> Yeah - should do it ... although 3.5mm extensio cable are a bit
> notorious for "dickiness". Dunno what impedance a typical "compter
> speaker set" would present - might be 10k or more - if so, it might
> even be worth putting 100-200 ohms or so across the signal lines to
> cut down interference on a longish cable like that (especially if the
> screening ain't too great).

RCA cables are available for about the same price - they might be
better, but I'd have thought the mini-jacks were as much of a problem
as the skinny cable. My monitors have a choice of RCA or 1/4" jack
inputs, my preamp has XLR and 1/4" jack ins and outs, but my sound cards
only have mini-jack ins and outs - it seems a bit daft to use XLR and
1/4" jacks on stuff when it ends up connected to a piddly little
socket ...

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:41:23 +0100
> Martin Slaney <> wrote:
>
>> Yeah - should do it ... although 3.5mm extensio cable are a bit
>> notorious for "dickiness". Dunno what impedance a typical "compter
>> speaker set" would present - might be 10k or more - if so, it might
>> even be worth putting 100-200 ohms or so across the signal lines to
>> cut down interference on a longish cable like that (especially if the
>> screening ain't too great).
>
> RCA cables are available for about the same price - they might be
> better, but I'd have thought the mini-jacks were as much of a problem
> as the skinny cable. My monitors have a choice of RCA or 1/4" jack
> inputs, my preamp has XLR and 1/4" jack ins and outs, but my sound cards
> only have mini-jack ins and outs - it seems a bit daft to use XLR and
> 1/4" jacks on stuff when it ends up connected to a piddly little
> socket ...

Yup. I had to make up a 3.5mm jack to XLR adapter once - to connect a
serious mic up to a "domestic" camcorder IIRC. Ridiculous thing really
.... the weight of the XLR connector is enough to bugger the mini-jack
connection pretty rapidly, unless you have some pretty decent
strain-relief bodge .... we wound up gaffering the adapter cable to the
side of the bloody camera - very messy.

Wagg wrote:
> Cheers. The speakers on the computer now arent powered, they just
> connect to the PC and work... no batteries in them either (some funky
> dell thing).

HiFi speakers tend to be much less efficient.