+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 96

Thread: Playing with RCA vs Balanced in my setup

  1. #31
    Join Date: Jul 2011

    Location: Northamptonshire

    Posts: 1,914
    I'm Peter.

    Default

    I remember KK writing that 'in all cases, balanced is preferable to unbalanced' ... but ime, as stated above, it all depends on the implementation. Actually, Neil, I reckon my current EAR amps sound a smidge better when connected together using the balanced connectors, but my Rega cdp is clearly superior via its rca outputs (despite Rega insisting the XLR outputs are better). Might re-visit the EAR rca connections in light of your comment, but the implementation that TdP uses takes both signals through the same isolating transformers, so shouldn't be any difference really ... maybe it's differences between interconnects that are the culprit?

  2. #32
    RothwellAudio Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkless Electronics View Post
    Most op amps are short circuit proof but it is not a good idea to short the output anyway. However, in most cases there will be a resistor after the op amps output which means it's usually ok in practice. Shorting pin 3 to 1 at the receiving end but leaving pin 3 open circuit at the driving end would be best but in any of these cases you are no longer using a balanced connection and the unbalanced should be preferable.

    As an aside here, many balanced items work unbalanced internally and use a "line receiver" and "line driver" IC to convert the unbalanced to balanced at the source and then convert the balanced back to unbalanced at the receiving end. These IC's consist internally of usually a 3 op amp circuit. Sometimes in fact 3 op amps are indeed used at each end in place of the specialised chip... results are about the same.

    My point is? Well in all such equipment using the balanced input and output means in effect taking the unbalanced signal and then feeding it through 3 op amps at each end! Hardly minimising the signal path....

    DAC's tend by their nature to have true balanced outputs anyway (even if no balanced output is provided in your DAC the DAC IC usually works in balanced form) and so in nearly all cases a DAC with balanced outputs IS truly balanced, but the same is not true of pre amps and especially power amps. It is certainly possible to do both in true fully balanced form but it greatly adds to cost and complexity and makes things a bit awkward to use them unbalanced so the "cheat" method which adds the 3 extra op amps at each end is much more common.
    Yes, you would expect a piece of kit to be able to cope with a short on pin 3, but you can never be sure how something has been designed without looking at a circuit diagram and I was wondering if that op-amp working into a short was having an effect on other parts of the circuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkless Electronics View Post
    In many cases though, as I said above, you have a total of 6 op amps per channel added to the signal path when using balanced. Actual circuit diagrams would need to be consulted to see if particular models do things this way or not.
    Yes, this is a lot of guesswork without seeing circuit diagrams. It's possible that the RCA sockets are simply in parallel with pins 1 and 2 of the XLR sockets - in which case any difference is inexplicable by me - but it's equally possible that the signal from the DAC chip goes through two entirely separate bits of circuitry before reaching the RCA and XLR sockets: a simple buffer circuit for the RCA outputs and a balancing circuit for the XLR outputs.

    Quote Originally Posted by brucew268 View Post
    No one has yet offered any guesses about why the XLR out of the DAC sounds better than its RCA out, even though the IC is a 1 meter RCA.
    Attachment 20079
    No, I'm still trying to get all the facts before guessing, but that's probably impossible without knowing the specifics of what's inside each bit of kit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkless Electronics View Post
    I wonder if there is a market for a "make your system balanced" gizmo!? A pair of boxes, one sits on top of the pre and one on top of the power amp and makes an unbalanced signal balanced to send it balanced to the power amp where the other box converts it back to unbalanced... It is how many pieces of balanced kit work anyway! Cynical? Moi?
    Sadly, I think many people assume the type of XLR-RCA "adaptor" which the OP has purchased does exactly what you suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by brucew268 View Post
    So is it possible that Calyx implemented their DAC's single-ended circuit less optimally than the balanced out?
    Yes, that's a possibility.

  3. #33
    Join Date: Mar 2012

    Location: West Yorkshire

    Posts: 274
    I'm Bruce.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Yes, you would expect a piece of kit to be able to cope with a short on pin 3, but....
    Interestingly, Neutrik also shorts pin 3 to earth, so it would seem to be convention... regardless of whether it is best or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Yes, this is a lot of guesswork without seeing circuit diagrams. (Calyx doing lesser implementation of SE circuit) Yes, that's a possibility.
    Sorry that I can't provide on the Calyx as they are not available from the mfr.

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Sadly, I think many people assume the type of XLR-RCA "adaptor" which the OP has purchased does exactly what you suggest.
    Just to be clear, I was not imagining that the adaptor was giving me the benefits of balanced, not that you were saying otherwise.

    Thanks for the contributions. This convo may well have runs its course.
    Bruce

    Theories are not so much answers as questions, to be supported or undermined by experience & testing.

    Source: Audiolab 6000CDT > Calyx 24/192 DAC
    Amplification: Pass-design B1rev2 pre-amplifier > Neurochrome Modulus 686.
    Loudspeakers: Proac Response 1SC
    Cables/stands: spkr: MIT MH-750 biwire; IC: HT Truthlink; Target stands, sand-filled; Excel Cat6A 23AWG UFTP & 1attack.de Cat.7 SFTP.
    Other: Balanced AC transformer to hydra mains distr; Bass traps & Acoustic panels; Isolation: Inner tube & roller bearings; 3xZyxel ES104A switches in series w/Vreg upgrades.

  4. #34
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: North Down /Northern Ireland/ UK

    Posts: 19,484
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petrat View Post
    I remember KK writing that 'in all cases, balanced is preferable to unbalanced' ... but ime, as stated above, it all depends on the implementation. Actually, Neil, I reckon my current EAR amps sound a smidge better when connected together using the balanced connectors, but my Rega cdp is clearly superior via its rca outputs (despite Rega insisting the XLR outputs are better). Might re-visit the EAR rca connections in light of your comment, but the implementation that TdP uses takes both signals through the same isolating transformers, so shouldn't be any difference really ... maybe it's differences between interconnects that are the culprit?
    There were transformers in this one as well, as far as I can remember, pre was an EAR 864. Definitely felt that the RCAs offered better sound. I was using the same cable make/type at the time, XLR and RCA - Audience AU24.

    Its definitely worth a listen, free to do and you might feel differently now.
    Regards Neil

  5. #35
    Join Date: Oct 2012

    Location: NE England

    Posts: 4,173
    I'm Jez.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petrat View Post
    I remember KK writing that 'in all cases, balanced is preferable to unbalanced' ... but ime, as stated above, it all depends on the implementation. Actually, Neil, I reckon my current EAR amps sound a smidge better when connected together using the balanced connectors, but my Rega cdp is clearly superior via its rca outputs (despite Rega insisting the XLR outputs are better). Might re-visit the EAR rca connections in light of your comment, but the implementation that TdP uses takes both signals through the same isolating transformers, so shouldn't be any difference really ... maybe it's differences between interconnects that are the culprit?
    There is no reason to presume balanced should be better than unbalanced.. it's just yet another hi fi myth.... Much of the time balanced means a more complicated signal path with more active devices in the path, or a passive transformer with all the ills of transformers.
    If there is no mains hum or other interference present when using unbalanced then there isn't even the advantage in noisy environments to be gained from going balanced.

    The whole point of balanced is that in pro environments when many dozens of microphones, mic pre amps, effects units, etc etc may need setting up quickly and may well need very long leads (like 50 yards or more) from a stage or studio then everything may be just plugged in with little worry of mains hum, earth loops etc.

    In a domestic setting we can take care to position equipment sensibly, avoiding putting a phono stage on top of a power amp for example, where the hum field from the power amps transformer will reach beyond the casework and could cause hum to be picked up by the phono stage. We also can, most of the time, get away with interconnects of a meter or two and take care not to run them alongside a mains lead etc. Under these domestic conditions there is simply no need for or advantage to balanced. As I said it is often a disadvantage in as much as there can be considerably more gubbins in the signal path!

    It strikes me as odd, or at least inconsistent, that folks will one minute be all "oh we can't have nasty op amps in the signal path.. it must be discrete, or better still valved.." and then not give a fig if the balanced interface involves adding six op amps per channel...

    The main potential advantage of balanced, to me anyway, is the potential to avoid all earth signal current issues, but if the unbalanced circuitry is well designed it is not an issue anyway. If one looks up "pin 1 problem" it can be seen that even balancing is not without issues here!!

    The best and most pure balanced circuitry IMHO is where the circuitry is intrinsically balanced by design throughout... This can maximise advantages such as cancellation of even order distortion and increasing headroom. Even this though will often mean a much more complicated signal path and in fact will often mean the duplication of circuitry ie often there will be an amp for the "hot" signal and another amp for the "cold" signal for each channel... Circuitry such as this is is the most likely to really resent being used unbalanced though!!

    It's a big subject when you really look into it. In many ways transformers are best ie maximum CMRR over widest frequency range, greatest tolerance to overload and maintaining certain behaviour when used unbalanced and one input is either left open or shorted. They also greatly simplify things! BUT, personally I would never put a transformer in the signal path as they have too many imperfections!
    In pro audio certain pieces of equipment have legendary status mainly because of the colouration they add to the signal! "nice", euphonic colouration is what we're talking here of course. Much of this colouration comes from the transformers used in the balanced outputs and inputs. A producer or engineer may well choose a mic pre known to sound especially warm and a bit rolled off at the top end if recording an artist with a really harsh voice... and that's an "artistic choice" I guess...
    Arkless Electronics-Engineered to be better. Tel. 01670 530674 (after 1pm)

    Modded Thorens TD150, Audio Technica AT-1005 MkII, Technics EPC-300MC, Arkless Hybrid MC phono stage, Arkless passive pre, Arkless 50WPC Class A SS power amp, (or) Arkless modded Leak Stereo 20, Modded Kef Reference 105/3's
    ReVox PR99, Studer B62, Ferrograph Series 7, Tandberg TCD440, Hitachi FT-5500MkI, also FT-5500MkII
    Digital: Yamaha CDR-HD1500 (Digital Swiss army knife-CD recorder, player, hard drive, DAC and ADC in one), PC files via 24/96 sound card and SPDIF, modded Philips CD850, modded Philips CD104, modded DPA Little Bit DAC. Sennheiser HD580 cans with Arkless Headphone amp.
    Cables- free interconnects that come with CD players, mains leads from B&Q, dead kettles etc, extension leads from Tesco

  6. #36
    RothwellAudio Guest

    Default

    Ken Kessler has a lot of experience playing with lots of different bits of hi-fi and he's an entertaining writer - but doesn't know anything about electronics.
    I agree with what Jez says above, ie that balanced connections simplify things in studios and on-stage but aren't inherently superior to single-ended connections from a sound quality point of view.

  7. #37
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: North Down /Northern Ireland/ UK

    Posts: 19,484
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez

    I don't agree with you, but I am not going to get drawn into an exchange where you dismiss my listening experiences or that of others, and it ends unpleasant.
    Regards Neil

  8. #38
    RothwellAudio Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L View Post
    Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez

    I don't agree with you, but I am not going to get drawn into an exchange where you dismiss my listening experiences or that of others, and it ends unpleasant.
    Which bit is dogmatic?
    I wouldn't deny your listening experiences, or that of others, but I might look very carefully at any generalisations you made if you were to claim that balanced connections sound better than single-ended. It would be very difficult for anyone who is only plugging-in different bits of kit through different types of connectors to eliminate all other variables, and the logic that balanced connections merely add a lot of extra circuitry at the output only to be undone by another lot of extra circuitry at the next input is pretty much irrefutable.

  9. #39
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: North Down /Northern Ireland/ UK

    Posts: 19,484
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    Which bit is dogmatic?
    I wouldn't deny your listening experiences, or that of others, but I might look very carefully at any generalisations you made if you were to claim that balanced connections sound better than single-ended. It would be very difficult for anyone who is only plugging-in different bits of kit through different types of connectors to eliminate all other variables, and the logic that balanced connections merely add a lot of extra circuitry at the output only to be undone by another lot of extra circuitry at the next input is pretty much irrefutable.
    Andrew the tone, the words used. Frankly it for me is increasingly an unpleasant experience commenting on topics where Jez will come marching in in his size 20 hob nail boots and dismiss everything subjectavist. He has form for this and while the post I refer to isn't as bad as other examples I am not going to be drawn further into what will be a waste of time.
    Regards Neil

  10. #40
    Join Date: Oct 2012

    Location: NE England

    Posts: 4,173
    I'm Jez.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L View Post
    Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez

    I don't agree with you, but I am not going to get drawn into an exchange where you dismiss my listening experiences or that of others, and it ends unpleasant.
    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.
    Arkless Electronics-Engineered to be better. Tel. 01670 530674 (after 1pm)

    Modded Thorens TD150, Audio Technica AT-1005 MkII, Technics EPC-300MC, Arkless Hybrid MC phono stage, Arkless passive pre, Arkless 50WPC Class A SS power amp, (or) Arkless modded Leak Stereo 20, Modded Kef Reference 105/3's
    ReVox PR99, Studer B62, Ferrograph Series 7, Tandberg TCD440, Hitachi FT-5500MkI, also FT-5500MkII
    Digital: Yamaha CDR-HD1500 (Digital Swiss army knife-CD recorder, player, hard drive, DAC and ADC in one), PC files via 24/96 sound card and SPDIF, modded Philips CD850, modded Philips CD104, modded DPA Little Bit DAC. Sennheiser HD580 cans with Arkless Headphone amp.
    Cables- free interconnects that come with CD players, mains leads from B&Q, dead kettles etc, extension leads from Tesco

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •