Talk:PC speaker

Untitled

Is the page still really a stub? Richard cocks 02:14, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've it Start class, Low importance. ~KvnG 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

He don't forget Access Software's Realsound for their memorable games such as Crimewave, Links, and that point and click adventure set in an asylum in Turkey. Unfortunately I forget the name of this game. (It was Countdown. --Trixter 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Meursault2004 23:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is missing information on the hardware surrounding the PC speaker, e.g. the fact that it's based on a timer etc. — Timwi 18:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This is 131.107.0.106 regarding my edits on 2 Feb 2006 (UTC). In previous versions before my edits, there were significant factual errors and inaccuracies in this article regarding the explanation of how to drive the PC speaker to produce PCM digital audio. I have taken information from the articles referenced by the external links (which has been selected, included and retained in this article long ago by others) as my basis for making the edits.

I had added some info based on my programming experiences too. On my machine, I could savely write hrxadecimal values between 0-40 (0-63) decimal directly to I/O port 61H and they would more or less play correctly, to the point that I wondered why digital PC speaker sound wasn't commonplace on commercial games :-p. On my machine again, I could actually READ the 61H I/O port, even shortly after writing and I would get back a sort of noisy reading of what I had previously written. However, the technique described in the article (which looks a lot like PWM) seems to be the most common and generic, as I don't know if all "PC speaker hardware" could work the way mine did. EpiVictor 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw your PWM edits, they are excellent, thank you (I originally wrote that part). As for reading the port, that is most definitely NOT the case on my original IBM 5150 (I get 0 every time) so I hope that's not something you want to keep in the article. Trixter 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well , I added more details to PWM (especially about filtering, which is crucial) and stressed that reading of the 61H port is implementation dependant. I could try that same old program on an Athlon-class machine and see what happens :-) Besides, the exact implementation of the PC Speaker seems to be something left to the manufacturers...some may just use a simple current-driving transistor, others use an op-amp, others a logic gate + amplifier + filter (IBM even had a monitor with built in speaker + volume knob for PC speaker).EpiVictor 12:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: according to this source, [1] reading of port 61H is not only possible, but NECESSARY since the other bits (other than bits 0 and 1) must not be modified when writing back...EpiVictor 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't generating sound, which would explain why I got 0 reading the port. However, the original notes (don't remember who original author was) state that you could read those ports to turn the speaker into a microphone... I find that extremely difficult to believe and would need to see it happening to believe it. --Trixter 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I had written those notes, but never wrote that the PC speaker is so reversible that it can work as a microphone, I know very well it cannot. At most, it can give an output-dependant reading (e.g. if you are playing back a sound and trying to "read" the 61H port, you will get a heavily correlated reading, which looks like a waveform and/or static noise), and that's about it. Anyway, most PC speaker tutorials state that the full 8 bits of port 61H must be read before writing back, so this likely means they don't all stay to 0 during playback or normal functioning of the PC. EpiVictor 12:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After checking this some more, it looks like you're referring to port C of the 8253, which has bit 5 wired as Timer 2 output read-back. Reading this from port 62h means that, yes, you'd get some random value, but it's coming from the timer and not the speaker. Also, port 62h is only wired that way on PCs and XTs and not ATs and later. So I removed the section as it was written; if you'd like to clarify and put it back, that's fine, but please note that the random value you get is from the timer and a better way to get it is just to latch the actual timer output. --Trixter 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiny PC speakers are NOT piezo.

The depicted type of small PC speaker is moving-iron, not a piezo. I.e. it functions like a traditional telephone receiver or earphone, containing a steel diaphragem attracted by a magnetic ring and a fixed solenoid (coil) in the center, which varies the intensity of the static magnetic field to make it move. While a piezo would have infinite DC resistance (like a capacitor), the standard tiny PC speaker still has 8 Ohm which proves the presence of a coil. User:CYBERYOGI =CO=Windler 92.193.120.28 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Output levels

The PC speaker is normally meant to provide only 2 levels of output .

That is, on and off, right? --Abdull 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it can only be either activated by TTL voltage (+5 V) or not (0V). Claims of it having accuracy comparable to 6 bits DAC are only indicative of the sound quality, not of the way it actually works, as digitized sound output on the PC-SPEAKER relies on PWM techniques instead of a true multiple level wave. EpiVictor 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regular speakers

I was looking for information on the difference between regular speakers for audio equipment, and speakers for home computers, as I have heard the former emit magnetic fields which if used nearby might harm my computer.--Darrelljon 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Computer Speakers" are usually no different than speakers meant to be used with other audio equipment, other than these details:

• They are usually "active", e.g. have their own built-in amplifier, even if for a couple of watts. This sets them apart e.g. from "passive" speakers such as those used with walkmans or portable CD players, which only use headphone-level output.
• The cheapest products usually claim delivering "100 W" or "200 W" of "PMPO Watts" or "Music Power" but that's a scam at best, real powers range from 1-2 Watts for the cheapest models, and expect anything with over 10 Watt per channel and a subwoofer to come with a separate amplifier module or really bulky speakers.
• Also, the really cheap ones do not have a true line-level input, but work better with a pre-amplified headphone output.
• Luckily, most speakers specifically designed for "computer" or "multimedia" use are also magnetically shielded and quite safe to keep near a CRT. Beware: speakers meant for use with portable audio equipment is usually *not* shielded, and even a tiny 0.5 Watt "walkman" speaker set can cause visible distortion on most CRT's, if placed close enough.

Anyway, this talk page is about the PC Speaker sound system, not about "Speakers for PCs" :-( EpiVictor 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PC Speaker not on new computers?

I'm no expert on the matter, but I've noticed that the beeping internal speaker (which I'm pretty sure is the PC speaker) often doesn't work on newer computers (such as mine). For example, if I try to print ASCII 07 (Bell) on my computer, nothing will happen. Does anyone have any information on this? (Or am I perhaps crazy?) 65.188.254.26 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If your computer is a laptop or a "brand" desktop machine, it might just be that the PC speaker is hardwired to the audio card sound output, instead of using its own speaker. You should still hear a beeping when it boots, the very least. When the OS is loaded however, the sound mixer settings take effect, and the PC speaker may be effectively cut off. Try checking these for volume/enabled lines. EpiVictor 08:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems here, will check it out. I'm sure almost every computer still has them but you can indeed control them using the mixer settings in Microsoft Windows. Towel401 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I built my PC from individual components purchased separatedly, but later while assembling it i found out that neither the motherboard nor the case came with the internal speaker; luckly they are cheap enough that the guys at the store just handed me a spare one for free when i came back to buy it. --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PWM edits

I removed the parts of the PWM section that claimed the technique was flawed due to interrupt noise; you can disable all hardware and software interrupts (I've done it) during playback so that's not a good reason to claim the method is flawed. There are other, perfectly legit reasons why it is flawed :-) but background interrupt noise is not one of them. --Trixter 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed all of your edits...they seem alright, although I'm not sure if the bit about having to store the status of port 61h should have been removed...well, that's the definitive time I'm going to try it on an oldskool machine as possible :-p Also there's that external link saying that you must read and store whatever is in that port before writing back. EpiVictor 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Please add reference citation as footnotes, it doesn't look like all of the article is based on the External links alone. That would become worse after translation. --AVRS 10:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

citation required on Programmable Interval Timer

There is a [citation needed] on the following sentence:

 "A PC speaker generates waveforms using the Programmable Interval Timer."

I don't think we really need a citation for this. I have one, but before I add it I want to understand why that is necessary.

Someone humor me here, and please try this: From that sentence: click "Programmable Interval Timer" then go to "Well Known PITs" then "Intel 8253" then "Mode 3 (X11): Square Wave Generator" then scroll down to the last external link which is to the Intel 8253 overview which shows the square wave generator that was used in the IBM PC Speaker.

Is it really worth adding a link to that document just to satisfy this citation? It's already linked from Wikipedia under much more relevant conditions. Do we need a tree of links on every sentence in Wikipedia just so that someone doesn't have to follow the links to the real data? This isn't a political debate or something.

I've added a citation. Totsugeki (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing highest possible PWM carrier frequency

Before my 24 November 2007 edit, there was misinformation regarding the audio fidelity of PWM with the PC speaker.

The article contained:

"Getting a high fidelity sound output out of this technique requires the switching frequency between the minimum and maximum sound levels to be much higher than the audio frequencies meant to be reproduced (typically with a ratio of 10:1 or more), and the output voltage to be bipolar in order to make better use the output devices' dynamic range and power (e.g. by making a loudspeaker vibrate in both directions)."

Which is fine so far. But:

"On the PC speaker, however, most of these conditions don't hold; for example, the physical properties of the speaker lacks the response time for such high rates, and the output voltage is either zero or TTL level (unipolar)."

I had removed the first part of that sentence. As I explained already:

The physical speaker doesn't need to have extremely good response time and/or ability to reproduce high frequencies for PWM to work... in fact it better not because it serves as a natural low-pass filter.

Still, we need to address the switching frequency not being high enough problem. In other words, the problem is not the response time of the physical speaker itself, but more how many samples per second can be sent to the speaker, which will limit the PWM switching frequency. If someone can find a source for the maximal sampling frequency, please add this missing information. Then, one could add my comment on the speaker serving as a natural low-pass filter, partially filtering out the carrier frequency.

74.56.90.14, now 206.248.158.111 (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Drastic changes

As per WP:BOLD no discussion is required for drastic changes. I believe my edits improved the article and I have restored them. If the article is still not where it needs to be, please feel free to improve further upon my edits. One does not WP:OWN an article on WP. --Kvng (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Playback quality / technical info

I've added (and referenced) some technical info regarding playback quality of digital audio using the PWM method, with a comparison of effective bitrates.

It would be nice to have more information here (especially regarding the difference between the original magnetic PC speaker and the piezo buzzers present in more modern machines), if someone can find it. 109.64.185.243 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any error in your calculations but I've marked this as original research. Aside from that, I feel it the new content goes beyond what an encyclopedia should cover (WP:HOWTO, WP:UNDUE...). A few months ago, I removed a bunch of similar content that I felt got in the way of understaning the topic. Please state your case for including it. --Kvng (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how this would be original research: you will find that those same calculations do appear in the references cited - specifically the second source - and are thus verifiable; the context is the same, and my usage of this data does not attempt to advance any new or original position outside that of the source. The only thing I've really added is the comparison to PCM bitrates - simple routine calculations relevant to the topic at hand (playback quality).

As for why I think this content belongs here - it clarifies the technical limitations of audio playback, which is relevant information for any sound device. FWIW, I agree that the older content you removed wasn't really fit for inclusion, as it was badly worded, poorly referenced, and too long and dense to be informative within the scope of the article. I took a different approach though - hopefully we can enhance this article with informative facts, while keeping concise and adhering to standards. 109.64.185.243 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading the Schlunder reference carefully. It is in there. I have done some work on the section. Let me know what you think. --Kvng (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That does 'flow' better. The exact calculations don't really need to be there, but I think it would be helpful to include the comparison to PCM bitrates (giving readers a point of reference, so they can get an idea of what the limitation means, quality-wise). Just not sure how to convey that part without the calculations being there, but that was the informative point I intended with my edit. 79.176.185.170 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Those details are available in the ref and in some of the linked articles (e.g. Pulse-width modulation). This article is about the PC speaker, not PWM theory. --Kvng (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PC speaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://computermuseum.usask.ca/articles/IBM-5150-Specifications.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/stssppnn/pcsp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)