I assume you are using some sort of Y cable to connect the left and right audio channels to a single mono channel. This is fine, although the impedance mismatches I mentioned earlier will start to have an effect. But at least you will not blow anything up.
But if it would result in infinitely large current, because you are connecting two voltage sources with different voltages. That’s why it’s a bad idea.
Um, right. I more-or-less explained this in my first post. In my second post, I assumed the two channels were perfectly in phase, the same amplitude, and each was a perfect voltage source. In this case, wiring 100 channels in parallel will not give you any more wattage…
I don’t know if I agree with Crafter_Man’s explanation that a drum and a guitar can’t be played through a speaker at the same time. Almost all music today has layering of many different instruments playing simultaneously in stereo.
He wasn’t saying drums and bass can’t be played simultaneously, he was using this as an example to show how diferences in the audio signal between the left and right channels could cause problems if the stereo was wired the way the OP wanted to.
I have blown the output stage on a car stereo by wiring both channels into one speaker. Be warned! Obviously, the mono solution is ruled out in your posting.
I’m assuming that tip-top sound quality isn’t the main priority here, so I would suggest a different approach that allows you to independently control the volume of the remote speakers independently of the main system:
Rather than go through your main amplifier, why not split the output from the CD player or cassette deck or whatever, and run a line out to a pair of small amplified speakers (for example a cheap pair of computer speakers) on your porch and in the small room. That way, not only can you switch them off or adjust the volume from where you are sitting, if someone in your living room turns the music down (or up, or off) it won’t change the volume level/blow the speakers where you are.
trabi, I like your idea due to the volume control ability.
However, I want to use my main receiver because then I can listen to radio, or CDs, or satellite “radio” via DirectTV. I want the flexibility, so connecting directly from an individual device won’t meet my needs.
Ah. I suspected a possible objection would be that you’d only recently bought the surround sound system, and wanted to put the speakers from your old system to good use, hence the insistence on one speaker per room.
Another thought: Doesn’t your amplifier have any direct line out, i.e. one that isn’t amplified? I think quite a few amps today actually cater for people wanting to pipe music into another room. One I found on the internet even allowed you to listen to one source (e.g. CD) in one room and a different one (e.g. radio) in another.
Another alternative could be the headphone socket. The only problem with this could arise if plugging in the headphones automatically mutes the speakers. Some amplifiers have a seperate switch for this purpose. Also, it would still be affected by volume changes, albeit not to the potentially catastrophic degree that it would if you hooked up to the main speaker outputs.
trabi, I considered wireless speakers. (I currently have a wireless headphone.) The problem, as you surmise, is that with my receiver, plugging into the headphone jack mutes the output signals to the wired speakers. So I rejected the wireless idea.
I do not know if my receiver has a direct line out.