Hi!
I found this trouble shooting guide. It is a very useful guide.
Now I'm translating it into Russian and have some problem with it.
I ask you to help me to understand some sentences. Here it is:
"3. With the RCA ends near the signal source use a metal object to short the outside contact to the inside contact of the inputs to the amp. No noise, proceed to the next step;"
I must take RCA's, disconnected from a head unit (deck), then to short the outside contact of RCA to wich inside contact? This is not clear to me.
Could you explain it using another words?
Thank you.
Dmitry.
"Trouble shooting amp noise" questions
They want you to connect the RCA Tip to the shield of the RCA at the head unit end. This is like shorting them together > I call it terminating them together.
This will tell you if the noise is picked up or induced into the RCA shield in its routing back to the amps... I.E. it will test to check if the RCAs are acting like a antenna and picking up noise and inducing it in the system < a pretty common problem >
Is the above good for you ???
This will tell you if the noise is picked up or induced into the RCA shield in its routing back to the amps... I.E. it will test to check if the RCAs are acting like a antenna and picking up noise and inducing it in the system < a pretty common problem >
Is the above good for you ???
I had to read it twice myself to make sure I understood the instruction also, so don't feel bad. 
The author inadvertently combined the point source of the connection to the direction of its intended final destination for the signal. I can see why this would appear poorly phrased to anyone outside the US as we tend to over elaborate in our descriptions for clarity purposes. If that statement makes any sense at all itself..... The author simply said too much trying to be clearly spoken about the task.
Procedure writing, and proof reading for clarity purposes are skills that not all of us have been taught or use on a regular basis here in the US. So when that was written I am sure it was over looked on a clarity check. Technical writing is a skill that is not usually on the job description for most of the people in the car Audio business.
Car Audio's roots here in the US have included many different levels of education, experience, and expertise so regional variations in the proper and clearly written use of the English language is to be expected by us here. We are kind of use to it, so it does not get in our way too much, and when it does we just re-read the passage till it makes sense, or we get a clear understanding of the authors intentions and point of view.
Please feel free to ask me or others for help, as your task of translating our commonly abused language is most certainly a daunting task to say the least And I and other here are gladly at your beckon call for assistance
Oppps see what I mean If I had stretched that any longer you might of thought I was running for president in this country
This has been proof read 17 times and finally approved by me ....Cecil
The author inadvertently combined the point source of the connection to the direction of its intended final destination for the signal. I can see why this would appear poorly phrased to anyone outside the US as we tend to over elaborate in our descriptions for clarity purposes. If that statement makes any sense at all itself..... The author simply said too much trying to be clearly spoken about the task.Procedure writing, and proof reading for clarity purposes are skills that not all of us have been taught or use on a regular basis here in the US. So when that was written I am sure it was over looked on a clarity check. Technical writing is a skill that is not usually on the job description for most of the people in the car Audio business.
Car Audio's roots here in the US have included many different levels of education, experience, and expertise so regional variations in the proper and clearly written use of the English language is to be expected by us here.
We are kind of use to it, so it does not get in our way too much, and when it does we just re-read the passage till it makes sense, or we get a clear understanding of the authors intentions and point of view.Please feel free to ask me or others for help, as your task of translating our commonly abused language is most certainly a daunting task to say the least And I and other here are gladly at your beckon call for assistance
Oppps see what I mean If I had stretched that any longer you might of thought I was running for president in this country This has been proof read 17 times and finally approved by me ....Cecil
Hi! It's me again!
Here's the next sentence, weird to me.
"Tweeters pointed to reflect off of glass will typically show a +3db gain"
What do they show? Are they sound louder because of reflection? Or I will have to add amp's gain? Or else?
P.S. I've read the troubleshoot and that's what I want to say. American typical installation is different to the Russian one. Suppose typical American installation is described in the troubleshoot, it includes front amp with front speakers, rear amp with rear speakers and a sub's amp with sub. Each speaker system has passive filtering. As for the Russian typical installation, usually it doesn't include rear speaker system, there are just 2- or 3-component front speaker system, and 2 or 3 two-channel amps (or one 4- or 6-channel amp), each speaker has its own amp's channel, plus one amp for the sub. Usually we use HU's cross-over, some use a special sound processor (Alpine's and Pioneer's processors are most frequently used). And there are people, having one 2-channel amp for a 2-component speaker system with its cross-overs, plus sub and its amp. All I want to say, usually we don't use rear speakers.
And there is the other part of audiophiles (suppose they exist in every country ), they vote fore pure passive system. They usually use 3-component front speaker system with its 2-channel amp and a sub with its amp. They don't like factory-made cross-overs, they make their own, with pure audiophile's components inside. It takes months for them to make true sounding cross-over.
That's what I wanted to say.
Here's the next sentence, weird to me.
"Tweeters pointed to reflect off of glass will typically show a +3db gain"
What do they show? Are they sound louder because of reflection? Or I will have to add amp's gain? Or else?
P.S. I've read the troubleshoot and that's what I want to say. American typical installation is different to the Russian one. Suppose typical American installation is described in the troubleshoot, it includes front amp with front speakers, rear amp with rear speakers and a sub's amp with sub. Each speaker system has passive filtering. As for the Russian typical installation, usually it doesn't include rear speaker system, there are just 2- or 3-component front speaker system, and 2 or 3 two-channel amps (or one 4- or 6-channel amp), each speaker has its own amp's channel, plus one amp for the sub. Usually we use HU's cross-over, some use a special sound processor (Alpine's and Pioneer's processors are most frequently used). And there are people, having one 2-channel amp for a 2-component speaker system with its cross-overs, plus sub and its amp. All I want to say, usually we don't use rear speakers.
And there is the other part of audiophiles (suppose they exist in every country
), they vote fore pure passive system. They usually use 3-component front speaker system with its 2-channel amp and a sub with its amp. They don't like factory-made cross-overs, they make their own, with pure audiophile's components inside. It takes months for them to make true sounding cross-over. That's what I wanted to say.