Entertainment desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 15[edit]

How do I connect my subwoofer?[edit]

Resolved

The end of the cable coming out of my subwoofer looks like this: but the subwoofer out port on the back of my new A/V receiver looks like this: . How do I connect it? Mike R (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Shack. They have those where you are? They will have an RCA connector which you could wire into the bare subwoofer speaker wires. Alternately, grab an old set of RCA cables (I have like ten unused ones in a box in my garage), a roll of black electrical tape, and a set of wire cutter/strippers and do it yourself. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere I can look to for guidance on how to wire it myself? I've never done something like this before. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subwoofer out is a low power output.

The wires from your subwoofer look like they might require a high power input.

If the subwoofer isn't active (ie does it have it's own power plug?) then you are screwed (sorry), and need to but an amplifier for the subwoofer.

If the subwoofer is active then you need to wire up a phono plug to those wire, which might work. In this case you just need to join up the wires - you could use a terminal block to test it, though if it works you probably should solder them. Note that the polarity is important - you need to get the wire the right way round (there are 2 ways) otherwise it will not sound right.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::The subwoofer doesn't have its own power plug. It just has the wire shown in the picture. Mike R (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

What should I look for for an amp? Mike R (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like this kind of thing? [1] Mike R (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or more like this? [2] If I had to pay any more money for an amplifier than $60 (US) or so, I'd rather buy a new Yamaha YST-SW315 which seems to be a pretty good deal at Amazon. Mike R (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more reading, and realizing that the $60 Dayton subwoofer amp is only 70-watt, and that a 240-watt Dayton subwoofer amp costs $109, and that it doesn't fit the shape of my subwoofer anyway, and that the $200 Yamaha subwoofer has rave reviews, I've decided to just buy the Yamaha. Mike R (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A movie[edit]

Does anybody know a movie about a woman who marries an Iranian immigrant, and went back to Iran with him and their baby, and after they got there he started acting different to her even abusing her and forced them to stay with him in Iran, and she wants to go back to American and she does this behind her husband's back. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Without My Daughter, starring Sally Field? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the danger of using 3-ohm speakers with 4-ohm receiver?[edit]

My A/V receiver says the minimum speaker impedance it supports is 4 ohms. You have to set it to a special setting for 4-ohm speakers which I have done. But my front left and right speakers say that their impedance is 3 ohms. What is the danger in this? Is the danger to my speakers (which would be okay), or to my receiver (which would not be okay)? Thanks, Mike R (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to do this for you because you're going to look for answers here at the Entertainment desk, but I recommend you remove this question from here, and repost it over at the Science desk, where you've got a 10x probability of getting an answer, and a 100x probability of getting a great answer. Tempshill (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted it over there on your advice, I don't want to remove it from here though, as one anon here has been very helpful with my home theater questions. Mike R (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a borderline case - plugging in speakers with lower impedance gives a greater load (call it 'strain') on the amp - as the speakers will try to draw more current - this has two effects

The amp runs hotter for a given volume setting
There's a likely hood of increased distortion (or weak base) if the amp can't actually supply the current (different amps have different overheads of power)

Both effects will be present.

In general it won't break your amp, or damage it, unless you turn the volume right up

As a rule of thumb if you try this set up I wouldn't take the volume control over ~50-60% since that is likely to damage, overheat, or just reduce the lifetime of the amp (all due to hot running)

The 50-60% is an estimate - to get a real figure would require the output impedence of the amp

Personally I'd do it, though would be looking for a different solution in the long term.

(If you run over 50% for extended periods the chances of bad things happening are real - such as fire, or the amp going ka-put)

By the way 3ohm speakers are rare - are they oddities?83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I reckon I'll be looking for some replacement speakers in the near future. In the meantime I'll follow your advice and keep the volume down. The speakers came with the Panasonic SC-PT750 out-of-the-box home theater I bought a couple of years ago. I recently bought an AV receiver as an upgrade, figuring I could use my same speakers. As we have seen with the subwoofer first (see my previous question) and now with the front L-R speakers, that is not the case. Mike R (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first answer on the sci desk reminded me that if your amp is a vacuum tube type that uses an ouput transformer ignore the above answer - you'd have to get other expert advise about that. I don't think anyone has made a vacuum tube amplifier in the last 30 years though...83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "amp" means in this context, if it is referring to my AV receiver, it is a Panasonic SA-BX500. Mike R (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a 'tube amp' - you can ignore the last paragraph.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tube amps are still made and highly prized by audiophiles. Here are a few for the iPod.[3] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some audiophiles :) 83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin song[edit]

Does anybody know a popular Mandarin song, the music video involves his girlfriend dying of some sort of disease just before they were to be married and he is playing on a piano while sing this song? I don't know the artist name or the songs name but I know its on Phoenix from the Ashes which is airing on channel 455 on directv now.

Anybody?

Songs sometimes referred to by their lyrics[edit]

I'm in a discussion @ Talk:And did those feet in ancient time/Archive 1#Requested move. The issue is that the article was originally about William Blake's poem, but has evolved into one about Hubert Parry's song "Jerusalem", set to Blake's words. There's a proposal to move it to "Jerusalem (song)", which I'm supporting.

I'm after some ammunition to support the move. I'm looking for some examples of songs whose opening lines are very well known, because they use a poem that predated the song being written, but the song itself has a different title than the poem does. I know there are various examples, but can't think of any right now. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs based on poems? Nanonic (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look through Category:Hymns to see how others are treated? They're commonly known by one line and set to a tune with a different name. Abide with me set to the tune of Eventide is pretty much the opposite to your suggestion though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example: The Swedish national anthem Du gamla du fria is at that name, despite actually being named Sång till Norden. Also, many of Carl Michael Bellman's songs are currently known (in Sweden) by their inital lines, rather than by their original names./83.185.27.73 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That seems to have the same issue as "And did those feet ...". I've asked at Talk:Du gamla, Du fria why the article is not titled "Sång till Norden". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Star-Spangled Banner Comes from the poem Defence of Fort McHenry. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did think about that, but there was less than 2 weeks between the poem being written and the tune being applied to it. That was really a case of a well-known pre-existing tune being sung to new and at that time unfamiliar words. My case is the reverse: a new tune being applied to a very-well known pre-existing poem. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about the entire musical Cats is new tunes for old poems, but I'm not sure that any of the titles have changed. APL (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for The Christmas Song has its proper name, though many folks know it as Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing I'm after; thanks, Kathryn. Any more like that? I think I was being over-specific in my question. The core of my interest is songs often referred to by their incipits, but their titles are different. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisting in American porn[edit]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Fisting_in_American_porn. It's also about Entertainments. Add your comments there. 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.55.231 (talk)