Playing with RCA vs Balanced in my setup

[Spectral Morn]

I take great offence at that I'm afraid. IF I had said "unbalanced always sounds subjectively better and only an idiot would disagree" then you would be quite right. My post is a TECHNICAL critique. It is 100% technically accurate and unless you are in a similar position of technical knowledge you are really in no position to argue I would say.... I avoid as far as possible any subjective comment these days and have zero interest in your subjective experience or any one else's for that matter. I am merely reporting the technical facts of balanced V unbalanced for the benefit of those who have an interest in such things. If your personal subjective experience differs from that which science predicts then that's fine with me. I literally couldn't care less. You get on with it and don't let me stop you...

"'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' Neil deGrasse Tyson.

it's just yet another hi fi myth. and other highlighted words.

Enough said, typical Jez.

[Arkless Electronics]

it's just yet another hi fi myth. and other highlighted words.

Enough said, typical Jez.

Indeed it is yet another hi fi myth. Typical Jez in pointing out the facts and truth. Research the subject and then provide any evidence for the alleged superiority of balanced audio in a domestic setting..... In my post i outlined both pros and cons of balanced V unbalanced and gave some context. I did not discuss subjective matters and indeed would avoid doing so.
There are so many variables at play in practice that once subjectivity is brought into it we may as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

[Sherwood]

As I indicated in an earlier post, I found a switch to balanced interconnects in my system to be an improvement. I cannot offer a technical explanation. I was not expecting an improvement as the change was merely for convenience and to allow me to place monoblocks close to my speakers. I must confess to being sceptical in general about the benefits of "audiophile" speaker and interconnect cables and would certainly not spend the amounts being asked for these products. Same applies to fancy mains cables and plugs.

I too am put off when discussions become overly heated and personal but would suggest an experiment to validate my own findings. At the next AoS hifi event set up a blind listening test, preferable with more than one system where rca phono and xlr connections are switched around and performance scored by a blind listening panel.

Geoff

[Marco]

Indeed it is yet another hi fi myth. Typical Jez in pointing out the facts and truth.

The problem is, Jez [and this is the key here], that in doing so you're automatically dismissing everyone who hasn't signed up to what you consider are "the facts and truth", and perhaps, more significantly, whose listening experiences contradict what you consider as such - and that's going to piss folk off, mate, even if you are right and they are wrong.

I would suggest that adding a simple "For me", before "indeed", within the emboldened sentence above, would be a good thing to do, as it makes what you're saying to those I've referred to above, a little more, shall we say, 'palatable'.

If you could do that for me in future, when discussing these matters, I'd appreciate it

Marco.

[RothwellAudio]

At the next AoS hifi event set up a blind listening test, preferable with more than one system where rca phono and xlr connections are switched around and performance scored by a blind listening panel.

It might be interesting to do some tests where all variables were eliminated other than balanced/unbalanced. However, those other variables have a nasty habit of creeping in. Even where a pre/power setup has both XLR and RCA inputs and outputs it's most likely a matter of guesswork as to what's going on inside the equipment. Douglas Self's book on small signal audio has page after page of analysis of the different possibilities for designing balanced input and output circuits - you can't really assume anything.

[Arkless Electronics]

The problem is, Jez [and this is the key here], that in doing so you're automatically dismissing everyone who hasn't signed up to what you consider are "the facts and truth", and perhaps, more significantly, whose listening experiences contradict what you consider as such - and that's going to piss folk off, mate, even if you are right and they are wrong.

I would suggest that adding a simple "For me", before "indeed", within the emboldened sentence above, would be a good thing to do, as it makes what you're saying to those I've referred to above, a little more, shall we say, 'palatable'.

If you could do that for me in future, when discussing these matters, I'd appreciate it

Marco.

Sorry Marco but no. I am at no point even hinting at what anyone's subjective experience may be or not be, nor am I dismissing anyone's subjective experience and, as I've made clear, nor do I care or wish to get involved in any subjective discussion. I also would have not thought for even a nanosecond that there could be any comeback to what I said and was and am VERY offended by Neil's comments (I nearly reported his post to you!) and not exactly happy that you seem to have an issue EVEN WHEN I AM NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE. I'm merely reporting THE FACTS. If you don't believe the veracity of anything I said I welcome any one to consult relevant technical handbooks and or internet articles and then come back and discuss the technical points I have made.

Whether or not any individual prefers the sound of balanced or unbalanced is very definitely not what I'm discussing and to make it clear yet again, I'm not interested either. I repeat that it is a hi fi myth that there is anything intrinsically technically superior to balanced in a domestic setting. Whether or not some prefer the sound of balanced is a completely different matter and one I will have no participation in.

At this rate I'll be required to say "in my opinion Ohm's Law is correct"..... and hell will freeze over first. I'm drawing a line in the sand here. I've agreed to avoid any subjective speculation on any matter and to keep my views on those who believe in such things as hi fi fuses to myself, and have indeed done just that recently.
I consider that I'm doing this site a MASSIVE favour in being willing to give a technical write up on such matters as balanced V unbalanced and have provided both the pros and cons plus some context to the subject such as the reasons for balanced being universally used in the pro world. If people don't like the facts that's their problem. I refer you to the quote I used earlier ""The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".

[Arkless Electronics]

It might be interesting to do some tests where all variables were eliminated other than balanced/unbalanced. However, those other variables have a nasty habit of creeping in. Even where a pre/power setup has both XLR and RCA inputs and outputs it's most likely a matter of guesswork as to what's going on inside the equipment. Douglas Self's book on small signal audio has page after page of analysis of the different possibilities for designing balanced input and output circuits - you can't really assume anything.

Very true. Apart from the multiple methods of designing and different topologies of balanced audio there are such things as how is the power supplied to each circuit? How well has the ground layout been designed?, are the components of equal quality in both balanced and unbalanced? Has the balanced been added as an afterthought to an unbalanced design?

[Marco]

Jez, let me put this another way... You consider that you're just as right about 'audiophile mains leads' as you are about balanced connections, correct?

Well, if you'd written what you've just did about mains leads, as you have about balanced connections, and given it the 'I'm right because science says so' thing, then you'd have pissed me off in exactly the same way as you have Neil [and incidentally the OP who's also complained about your stance], simply because my listening experiences to date, for me (there's that key word again) contradict the 'scientific facts'.

And it's exactly the same for Neil, in terms of balanced connections.

Therefore, you cannot simply just dismiss (albeit indirectly) people's valid listening experiences like that, simply because they don't conform to your scientific training. Indeed, you've been here long enough to know that, which is why I asked you to do what I outlined in my last post, and now for the sake of ensuring harmony on this thread, I have to insist on it. You must remember that this is first and foremost a subjectivist forum, so I must ask you to respect that.

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Jez, let me put this another way... You consider that you're just as right about 'audiophile mains leads' as you are about balanced connections, correct?

Well, if you'd written what you've just did about mains leads, as you have about balanced connections, and given it the 'I'm right because science says so' thing, then you'd have pissed me off in exactly the same way as you have Neil [and incidentally the OP who's also complained about your stance], simply because my listening experiences to date, for me (there's that key word again) contradict the 'scientific facts'.

And it's exactly the same with him, in terms of balanced connections.

Therefore, you cannot simply just dismiss (albeit indirectly) people's valid listening experiences like that, simply because they don't conform to your scientific training. Indeed, you've been here long enough to know that, which is why I asked you to do what I outlined in my last post, and now for the sake of ensuring harmony on this thread, I have to insist on it. You must remember that this is first and foremost a subjectivist forum, so I must ask you to respect that.

Marco.

How many times do I have to point out that I at no point mentioned anyone's listening experiences, have no interest in anyone's listening experiences, and that I'm discussing this from a purely technical standpoint and without dismissing anyone's experience? I genuinely couldn't give a flying fuck whether anyone prefers balanced or unbalanced! That there is no technical advantage to balanced in a domestic setting is another matter entirely.

I will now delete all my posts in this thread and the next time ANYONE wants any technical advice they can go whistle dixie!

[Barry]

All I will say is that I would much prefer to use 10 metre of balanced-line interconnects between my dual differential preamp and power amplifier and use short speaker leads, than to use short interconnects and 10 metres of speaker cable.

I don't agree that balanced topology makes the signal path longer, in fact it can make it shorter, as there is no need for a phase splitter stage to drive the output devices of a push-pull amplifier. Of course the component count will be be doubled: one set for the +ve going part of the signal and a second set for the -ve going part, but the number of components in each signal path will be unchanged. Many of the components in each 'half' will have to be matched which will add to the already doubled costs of dual differential circuit topology, so much so that some might think it not worthwhile the endevour.

Many power amplifiers already use an op-amp at the input. It is thus capable of being configured as a balanced input. Obviously there is little point in introducing extra circuitry to convert an un-balanced output to a balanced one, only for it to be neccessary to use more circuitry at the far end to convert the balanced-line back to an unbalanced one. I don't think anyone suggested that do so would result in improved SQ.