View Full Version : Playing with RCA vs Balanced in my setup
brucew268
22-04-2017, 14:05
So here is something I did not expect: the difference I hear between and single ended (RCA) connections through my source and amplifier does NOT seem to be primarily due to either the balanced circuit in my amplifier nor to the XLR interconnects. It seems to be due to the balanced outs on my DAC. Not sure why exactly.
I prefer the sound when connected through balanced, as the RCA connection is a little too warm, slightly more dynamic, slightly more congested in complex passages, a little less sense of clarity which seems to be due to slightly less well defined leading edge and trailing transients. By comparison, my balanced connections correct all those issues and have a more natural balance and sense of rightness t the music presentation.
My baseline is all XLR from source, through preamp, to amplifier which requires an internal jumper setting in the amp. For last two rounds of the test I used the same RCA cable (RFC Pluto) from DAC to Amp, and then added an XLR-RCA adapter from MicroXpress and changed to the DAC's balanced output. For volume control I used the 64bit digital controls in JRiver's media player. The sound returned pretty close to what I hear when using all XLR and the amp's balanced circuitry.
I can't put this down to the Amp's balanced circuitry, since my connection to the amp was RCA in both of the last two cases.
I can't put this down to RFI, since my cable was an RCA cable.
I can't put it down to the lossy nature of digital volume control, because if the digital attenuation is lossy, it will be worse not better when the volume control setting is lower. And I had to raise the volume 10% when using the Balanced DAC output.
I can't put it down to the corrupting nature of an extra adaptor, because the better wound was with the adaptor.
The only significant change was which DAC output I used.
So that was unexpected. The only think I can think of is the fact that the Balanced out on the DAC is 6.8Vrms and the RCA out is only 2.2Vrms. Either something about the DAC's balanced out circuit is better than their RCA circuit, or the Amplifier liked something about the higher voltage source, or.... BTW: the amp's sensitivity is 900mV and input impedance is 70k.
Sherwood
22-04-2017, 14:46
I have found a balanced XLR connection to be superior to the RCA phono connection between my DAC and monoblocks.
I originally made the switch to XLR because of the purchase of monoblocks which are now located in a plinth underneath my Magneplanar 1.7 speakers. I was not expecting the change in sound. With XLRs the volume was significantly higher than with the RCA interconnects (for the same volume settings). However, dynamics and detail also improved as did the solidity of the image.
The longer XLR cables were modestly priced and cost much less than the 1m RCA interconnects they replaced. This change was evident even before I replaced my 3m speaker cables with 0.5m cables (just long enough to span the gap between amps and speakers) and before the introduction of the plinth which has improved speaker stability (an issue with Maggies resting on carpet I have found).
I cannot explain the difference and did not expect it. My motivation was to accommodate having the monoblocks as close to the speakers as possible.
Geoff
RothwellAudio
22-04-2017, 14:51
I'm a bit confused by that explanation. Are you saying you normally use a pre-amp but for these tests you went straight from DAC to power amp?
Also, there's a nystery element to the setup - the "XLR-RCA adapter from MicroXpress". What is that? More precisely, what happens to pin 3? These details are important.
brucew268
22-04-2017, 15:20
Yes, I normally use an active preamp in between source and amp. Since it failed last week, I've been trying alternatives. Since one of the loaners i was going to receive was single ended only, in anticipation I switched the Amp to the 'Regular' single ended circuit, via jumper. I used a 1 meter IC directly between DAC and Amp. Volume control is digital using the 64bit in JRiver's player on my server. Then played to see if my 'baseline' sound had changed from the XLR setup. It had. So I had to get used to that sound before auditioning a new preamp. Then out of curiosity I used the adaptor and plugged the RCA into my DAC's XLR out. And the sound went back nearly to what I hear when using the Balanced setup. I've switched back and forth several times, leveling the volume each time, and it's consistent and repeatable.
The adapator is http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111803097651. Pin 3 is jumpered to Pin 1 and chassis.
I have found a balanced XLR connection to be superior to the RCA phono connection between my DAC and monoblocks.
I originally made the switch to XLR because of the purchase of monoblocks which are now located in a plinth underneath my Magneplanar 1.7 speakers. I was not expecting the change in sound. With XLRs the volume was significantly higher than with the RCA interconnects (for the same volume settings). However, dynamics and detail also improved as did the solidity of the image.
The longer XLR cables were modestly priced and cost much less than the 1m RCA interconnects they replaced. This change was evident even before I replaced my 3m speaker cables with 0.5m cables (just long enough to span the gap between amps and speakers) and before the introduction of the plinth which has improved speaker stability (an issue with Maggies resting on carpet I have found).
I cannot explain the difference and did not expect it. My motivation was to accommodate having the monoblocks as close to the speakers as possible.
Geoff
That is what I have done: replaced 1 metre of coaxial interconnects and 10 metres of speaker cable, with 10 metres of balanced-line interconnect and < 1 metre of speaker cable.
Dynamics
22-04-2017, 17:22
Yes, I normally use an active preamp in between source and amp. Since it failed last week, I've been trying alternatives. Since one of the loaners i was going to receive was single ended only, in anticipation I switched the Amp to the 'Regular' single ended circuit, via jumper. I used a 1 meter IC directly between DAC and Amp. Volume control is digital using the 64bit in JRiver's player on my server. Then played to see if my 'baseline' sound had changed from the XLR setup. It had. So I had to get used to that sound before auditioning a new preamp. Then out of curiosity I used the adaptor and plugged the RCA into my DAC's XLR out. And the sound went back nearly to what I hear when using the Balanced setup. I've switched back and forth several times, leveling the volume each time, and it's consistent and repeatable.
The adapator is http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111803097651. Pin 3 is jumpered to Pin 1 and chassis.
If I'm honest I was struggling to work out what tests you did and connections you have Bruce. Sorry.
Your experience is similar to mine. I swapped rca for xlr cables between my cyrus pre/dac and monoblocks which are both balanced designs. I swapped from chord signature tuned array rca to chord signature tuned array xlr and had both these cables on loan and was switching between the two. It was obvious the xlr had more detail, dynamics and just a better airiness and naturalness with the xlr. Bass was tighter too. So I bought the xlr variant of the cable in the end.
But what I think you are describing is that I think it's not often easy to predict if xlr cables will get benefits because it depends, in different make components, how the xlr circuits talk to each other and how well they intergrate. So you could use one brand pre amp and another brand power amp and get no decent discernible differences between xlr and rca, and then have a different pre and power combo of different makes, and it does make a good difference. I haven't heard many people say that the rca connection is the same as the balanced xlr connection on same make components that are true balanced designs. If the circuits aren't balanced too between components but have xlr connections for the sake of connectivity, from what I've read I don't think it makes a jot of difference connecting up a unbalanced component to a true balanced one using Xlr. The same with sources too.
Also isn't it conceivably the case that even if the xlr connection has a more direct path to the amps circuits the sound could potentially be better too, so it may strike out what I've said. The bottom line is I don't think you can predict if it makes a sq difference, other than the try and see.
Sherwood
22-04-2017, 20:12
That is what I have done: replaced 1 metre of coaxial interconnects and 10 metres of speaker cable, with 10 metres of balanced-line interconnect and < 1 metre of speaker cable.
and did you find this an improvement as I did?
brucew268
22-04-2017, 20:42
Sorry for all the details. The surprising upshot is that an XLR connection sounded better than the RCA in my system, and it does not seem to be for any of the reasons that are usually given for using Balanced setups. I never would ave predicted that.
and did you find this an improvement as I did?
Not a noticable improvement as such. I just like the idea of balanced circuitry and thus balanced-line interconnects; so it is a satisfying completion of an ambition.
It is my aim to have my system completely balanced from source to speaker. At the moment my CD player has balanced outputs, and my pre- has balanced inputs as well as outputs, as do my monoblock power amps. Since pick-up cartridge are essentially balanced components, I'm looking for a balanced phonostage.
Arkless Electronics
22-04-2017, 20:47
Not a noticable improvement as such. I just like the idea of balanced circuitry and thus balanced-line interconnects; so it is a satisfying completion of an ambition.
It is my aim to have my system completely balanced from source to speaker. At the moment my CD player has balanced outputs, and my pre- has balanced inputs as well as outputs, as do my monoblock power amps. Since pick-up cartridge are essentially balanced components, I'm looking for a balanced phonostage.
I can make you one... Balanced in and out is I presume what you want?
Sherwood
23-04-2017, 06:41
On a related note I am planning to get one of these when they are back in stock and a second Raspberry Pi (3)
http://iqaudio.co.uk/audio/47-pi-dac-pro.html
This will allow me to bypass another component (my standalone DAC) and stream music directly to my monoblocks via XLR cables.
I am hopeful that this will further improve the sound of my system.
Geoff
RothwellAudio
23-04-2017, 10:22
Since one of the loaners i was going to receive was single ended only, in anticipation I switched the Amp to the 'Regular' single ended circuit, via jumper. I used a 1 meter IC directly between DAC and Amp. Volume control is digital using the 64bit in JRiver's player on my server. Then played to see if my 'baseline' sound had changed from the XLR setup. It had.
Is that a 1m RCA interconnect between DAC and power amp? Does the DAC have an RCA output as well as an XLR output? What is the DAC?
When you refer to "the XLR setup", is that the previous setup using a balanced pre-amp in the system?
The adapator is http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111803097651. Pin 3 is jumpered to Pin 1 and chassis.
There are different ways to create a balanced output but I think most won't take kindly to having pin 3 connected to pin one. Basically, the op-amp (or whatever it is) driving pin 3 is being short circuited, which is not a great idea. Pin 3 being left open circuit would be preferable.
brucew268
23-04-2017, 10:52
There are different ways to create a balanced output but I think most won't take kindly to having pin 3 connected to pin one. Basically, the op-amp (or whatever it is) driving pin 3 is being short circuited, which is not a great idea. Pin 3 being left open circuit would be preferable.
Are you saying that it could be dangerous to the DAC's opamp? My primary point in the OP and Post #8 (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?51090-Playing-with-RCA-vs-Balanced-in-my-setup&p=857333#post857333) was that it sounded better than just using the RCA out with the same cable.
Is that a 1m RCA interconnect between DAC and power amp? Does the DAC have an RCA output as well as an XLR output? What is the DAC?
When you refer to "the XLR setup", is that the previous setup using a balanced pre-amp in the system?
Yes, 1m RCA.
Yes, as I said, I tried both DAC outputs. Calyx 24/192 DAC.
Yes, well a preamp seemingly meant by Classe Audio to be the partner to the amp. It has both balanced and single ended inputs and outputs, though the jumper change is only on the amp, not the preamp.
Dauntless
23-04-2017, 12:32
I can make you one... Balanced in and out is I presume what you want?
Sounds like a good offer to me:) Balanced phono stages must be pretty rare.
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 12:47
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.
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 12:50
Sounds like a good offer to me:) Balanced phono stages must be pretty rare.
Pretty rare yes but there are a few around. It was just me thinking out loud and seeing if there was any interest really...
hifinutt
23-04-2017, 12:52
i find that it totally depends on the equipment I am using whether rca or xlr is best . I have 2 very high amps here at the moment and prefer the rca connection [using eichman rfc mercury rca ] as opposed to my rfc hyperion furutech xlr
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 13:16
i find that it totally depends on the equipment I am using whether rca or xlr is best . I have 2 very high amps here at the moment and prefer the rca connection [using eichman rfc mercury rca ] as opposed to my rfc hyperion furutech xlr
The cables themselves make no difference whatsoever (bizarrely some disagree here apparently:D). In fact, for cable believers, balanced should theoretically cancel out any "cable sound" as it is the difference between the + & - ("hot and cold") inputs that is amplified by a balanced amplifier and in theory it should be deaf to anything applied identically to the "hot and cold" inputs. 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.
Spectral Morn
23-04-2017, 13:33
Problem here is not all kit with XLR outs and ins is actually balanced. Balanced kit is dual differential. Using XLR outs may not sound better than RCA, but much depends on the circuit topology and the way the XLR outs and ins have been implemented.
brucew268
23-04-2017, 14:23
What was said about Balanced circuit design issues in DAC's, preamps, and amps agrees with what I've heard before, and I take it on board. In fact, y preamp's Balanced input does use 3 more opamps than the Single Ended input... but the result still sounds better.
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.
20079
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 14:35
EH? Am I to take it here that people are thinking there's a difference between XLR and phono sockets? The entire point is balanced OR unbalanced. The type of socket has feck all to do with it! You could use two phono sockets per channel to send a balanced signal!! You could even use a 5 pin DIN plug to send both channels of balanced audio....
Spectral Morn
23-04-2017, 14:46
EH? Am I to take it here that people are thinking there's a difference between XLR and phono sockets? The entire point is balanced OR unbalanced[/U]. The type of socket has feck all to do with it! You could use two phono sockets per channel to send a balanced signal!! You could even use a 5 pin DIN plug to send both channels of balanced audio....
Indeed Chord Electronics had a phono stage that had balanced in implemented that very way.
brucew268
23-04-2017, 14:51
So just to spin possibilities with no knowledge of whether they could make any difference...
Could it be that the 6.8Vrms output to the amp's input (900mV sensitivity) is handled better than a 2.2Vrms output to the amp?
Could it be that the Balanced DAC output has a different impedance than the single-ended output?
BTW: Don't get too hung up on the terms. I was just using RCA as a shorthand for single-ended. That's not the point!
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 15:15
So just to spin possibilities with no knowledge of whether they could make any difference...
Could it be that the 6.8Vrms output to the amp's input (900mV sensitivity) is handled better than a 2.2Vrms output to the amp?
Could it be that the Balanced DAC output has a different impedance than the single-ended output?
BTW: Don't get too hung up on the terms. I was just using RCA as a shorthand for single-ended. That's not the point!
Output impedance has nothing to do with balanced or unbalanced. It could be different yes but as both are likely less than 1K it's irrelevant...
Again the output level is irrelevant. It will have to go through attenuation whether it's 2V or 7V.
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 15:23
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? :D
brucew268
23-04-2017, 15:32
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)....
So is it possible that Calyx implemented their DAC's single-ended circuit less optimally than the balanced out?
BTW: they've laid things out in such a way that one has to take the DAC completely apart in order to see the circuits. Opening the case just shows the underside of the PCB.
Arkless Electronics
23-04-2017, 16:00
So is it possible that Calyx implemented their DAC's single-ended circuit less optimally than the balanced out?
BTW: they've laid things out in such a way that one has to take the DAC completely apart in order to see the circuits. Opening the case just shows the underside of the PCB.
Most DAC IC's are intrinsically balanced output whether or not balanced outputs to the outside world are provided on any given model of a complete DAC.
I don't really know what you're driving at with that question though I'm afraid...
brucew268
23-04-2017, 16:06
Maybe you forgot the purpose of the OP, concisely restated in #8 & #20.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Problem here is not all kit with XLR outs and ins is actually balanced. Balanced kit is dual differential. Using XLR outs may not sound better than RCA, but much depends on the circuit topology and the way the XLR outs and ins have been implemented.
In my case, the Levinson gear uses dual differential circuitry throughout. The Quad 510s use an input transformer as well as an output transformer (similar to the Quad 50E), but between the two the circuitry is not dual differential.
Spectral Morn
23-04-2017, 23:21
In my case, the Levinson gear uses dual differential circuitry throughout. The Quad 510s use an input transformer as well as an output transformer (similar to the Quad 50E), but between the two the circuitry is not dual differential.
As I would expect of ML gear. My BAT kit is dual differential as well. It sounds best hooked up via XLRs. However not all kit with XLR outs and ins sounds best this way, often if its not dual differential then the RCA outs and ins sound better.
Calyx DAC I listened to one back in 2012 and I preferred the XLR outputs to the RCA ones. It was more open and detailed, had a wider deeper soundstage, with more weight and scale. The bass and mid was also better via the XLR outputs than RCA(http://www.adventuresinhifiaudio.com/22/03/2012/calyx-dac-24192-digital-to-analogue-converter/) I was using a Chapter Audio pre-power and that was as far as I can recall dual differential.
As an aside an EAR pre I had had XLR ins and outs and the RCA sounded better. This was not a proper balanced design but single ended with XLRs in and out.
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?
RothwellAudio
24-04-2017, 09:05
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? :D
Sadly, I think many people assume the type of XLR-RCA "adaptor" which the OP has purchased does exactly what you suggest.
So is it possible that Calyx implemented their DAC's single-ended circuit less optimally than the balanced out?
Yes, that's a possibility.
brucew268
24-04-2017, 09:48
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 (http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/circular-adapters/na2fpmf), so it would seem to be convention... regardless of whether it is best or not.
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.
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.
Spectral Morn
24-04-2017, 10:10
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.
Arkless Electronics
24-04-2017, 12:06
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...
RothwellAudio
24-04-2017, 12:28
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.
Spectral Morn
24-04-2017, 12:48
Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez :doh:
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.
RothwellAudio
24-04-2017, 12:58
Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez :doh:
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.
Spectral Morn
24-04-2017, 13:12
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.
Arkless Electronics
24-04-2017, 13:16
Overly dogmatic and dismissive Jez :doh:
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.
Spectral Morn
24-04-2017, 13:23
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
24-04-2017, 13:38
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
24-04-2017, 14:30
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
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
24-04-2017, 14:51
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
24-04-2017, 15:41
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
24-04-2017, 15:46
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?
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
24-04-2017, 16:36
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!
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.
The Black Adder
24-04-2017, 16:57
When I had a Chord setup I prefered balanced, it was blatantly obvious to me which was best.
anthonyTD
24-04-2017, 17:24
I have to say that I do accept, and agree with you on the technical side of this one Jez,
However; as usual, we are not comparing figures, we are dealing with a person's perception of what they feel sounds best to them, and in this case, and dare I say it, many others, it seems to be that Balanced set up is prefered over Single ended, I have to say though on a personal level' I have never found the need to use a balanced line set up at home, however, some of my amps were designed to be single ended, or balanced input.
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...
Problem here is not all kit with XLR outs and ins is actually balanced. Balanced kit is dual differential. Using XLR outs may not sound better than RCA, but much depends on the circuit topology and the way the XLR outs and ins have been implemented.
Exactly!
Take the Cambridge Dacmagic as an example.
The XLR output sounds better than the Phono (From experience).
This is because the output is a balanced circuit.
The single ended output uses an additional op amp per channel to combine the two parts of the balanced signal.
So what you hear is an improvement due to avoiding a pair of additional op amps not needed on the balanced outputs.
OP's DAC may be similar. :)
Not withstanding Jez's comment that if designed as a single ended in the first place, it may have fewer op amps any way.
*So my experience is that one form of output will sound better than the other, dependant on circuit topology, the type of cable/connector type makes sod all difference.
However; as usual, we are not comparing figures, we are dealing with a person's perception of what they feel sounds best to them, and in this case, and dare I say it, many others, it seems to be that Balanced set up is preferred over Single ended.
Spot on. That's what I've (hopefully) just explained on the phone to Jez. Ultimately, to the listener concerned, what's preferred is preferred, regardless of what is technically correct. In that respect, therefore, there are no "myths", simply because a listener's preference is just as real to him or her, as what is technically wrong to Jez.
However, solely in terms of listening experience, I have to agree with Jez and Anthony, in that so far I've not considered it as sonically necessary to use balanced connections. I don't think there's any definitive answer to this issue though, in terms of which is best, than there is with pretty much any other aspect of hi-fi.
Marco.
The trouble I have with the subjective side of things Marco is there is quite often an objective reason why one sounds better than the other. As in my Dacmagic example, also in a similar way, when I commented on your RPi thread. Where its not a subjective opinion, about it sounding good, its because of the use of the I2s bus to mount the DAC very close to the processor without cabling or other traffic. This way of doing things is a very real physical difference, so there is usually some reason other than personal preference involved, in most cases anyway, there will always be a Beatles or Stones element. :D
I don't disagree at all, Ken. However, for me, if what is stated as technically wrong still sounds better than what is technically right - I'll go with "technically wrong" every time! :D
Marco.
brucew268
24-04-2017, 18:50
I don't mind objective information as long as:
Don't cherry pick the details of a post that miss the intent of the discussion and thus serve to subjectively crap on the discussion. Participate in the discussion being had, not the discussion you want to derail it into. That is an issue regardless of objective/subjective questions.
Don't assume your facts are the only facts relevant and use them as a club against others. Barry's thoughts at 42, Qwin's at 45, and those that mentioned that it all depends on implementation, were all examples of additional relevant data. The tone of the presentor should not imply his/her data and his/her grasp of them is the only thing that is important.
Don't mix in opinions along with your facts and then claim you are only presenting irrefutable facts.
Don't arbitrarily drop into a conversation in a way that effectively disrupts it to "set others straight" but refuse to engage in the terms of the conversation being had. So, I join your convo and don't have to argue "on your terms" but if you disagree, you have to argue "on my terms".
Don't demean others by entering their conversation and then saying you have zero interest in their experience.
We need to value people, not just data.
Good post, Bruce! I'm especially with you on 2) and 6), which are both spot on and highly relevant as to why things kicked off earlier, because they outline, in that respect, what didn't happen.
Don't assume your facts are the only facts relevant and use them as a club against others. Barry's thoughts at 42, Qwin's at 45, and those that mentioned that it all depends on implementation, were all examples of additional relevant data. The tone of the presentor should not imply his/her data and his/her grasp of them is the only thing that is important.
We need to value people, not just data.
:thumbsup:
Marco.
I know where your coming from Marco, but when have you ever truly preferred something technically wrong?
Valves offer a distorted view of things from a pure frequency point of view, but the type of distortion is pleasant to our senses, so it depends what your criterion is for the measurements. If 3rd harmonics are to be considered technically good, from a sensory pleasure point of view, is a serious and technical question.
Whether we value something that sounds pleasurable over pure accuracy is another can of worms.
It's all shades of Grey with respect to what we consider relevant technically, once you get away from the basic electrical and acoustic theory.
It's like knitting Fog trying to establish what it is that we actually like about one thing over another, and even harder to articulate it.
The attempts make for good reading though. :)
Good post Bruce
I know where your coming from Marco, but when have you ever truly preferred something technically wrong?
Difficult to answer that one, Ken, because it's not something I've ever really considered, as what's technically right or wrong doesn't concern me. I leave that to the engineers. Ultimately all that matters is whether something sounds right to me, or not, using MY judgement criteria.
However, I've heard equipment and systems that measure impeccably, yet sound rather disappointing (as in sonically adequate, but musically bland/inept).
Whether we value something that sounds pleasurable over pure accuracy is another can of worms.
Indeed it does,. Firstly we have to define (and agree upon) what is considered as "pure accuracy" ;)
It's all shades of Grey with respect to what we consider relevant technically, once you get away from the basic electrical and acoustic theory.
Now *that* I really do agree with! :)
Marco.
Personally I found the (now deleted) Jez post very informative and appreciate the time and effort, firstly involved in gaining the knowledge, and secondly typing it up. I didn't realise that balanced equipment may mean single ended internally until the point of connection and then employ transformers or a multi op amp circuit to give a balanced output/input.
With the deepest respect I felt he was misconstrued in this case.
Don't get me wrong Jez, it would be nice if you could appreciate a *little* deeper that 99% of us don't have, and never will have, the technical knowledge you have so can only report our experiences. But I guess if I had your knowledge I'd possibly feel the same and FWIW I think you have been much improved of late in this area.
I also appreciate the difficulty the mods and in particularly Marco has keeping things on an even keel and think they do a great job and feel people *should* be pulled up when required.
But, and it's a big but, this would be a significantly duller, less useful and enjoyable place without guys like Jez taking time to share. I notice Paul from RFC hasn't been seen in a couple of weeks following a similar incident which is a massive pity.
We're all different characters and we're all entitled to the odd bad day :) and it's really not my style to stick my nose in but I just wanted to say let's not lose good people by falling out, pleeease.
We NEED guys like Jez here!
Good post too, John, which I'm sure Jez will appreciate, and as far as I understand he's not going anywhere :)
Essentially, it's all about communication. Having knowledge without also the ability to communicate it in a non-confrontational way, which others can accept and learn from, ultimately is of little use, if the goal is to successfully impart that knowledge to the target audience.
None of us are perfect, and I've discussed the above with Jez, who's taken on board what I've said to him, as he knows that I value his input here, and have not only his best interests at heart, but those of AoS in general.
I thought that I'd restored all of Jez's deleted posts, so will attend to the one remaining you've mentioned. As for Paul, he's currently left the forum, but I'll be speaking with him as soon as possible to try and resolve the issues we're currently in disagreement about.
Marco.
Good post too, John, which I'm sure Jez will appreciate, and as far as I understand he's not going anywhere :)
Essentially, it's all about communication. Having knowledge without also the ability to communicate it in a non-confrontational way, which others can accept and learn from, ultimately is of little use, if the goal is to successfully impart that knowledge to the target audience.
None of us are perfect, and I've discussed the above with Jez, who's taken on board what I've said to him, as he knows that I value his input here, and have not only his best interests at heart, but those of AoS in general.
I thought that I'd restored all of Jez's deleted posts, so will attend to the one remaining you've mentioned. As for Paul, he's currently left the forum, but I'll be speaking with him as soon as possible to try and resolve the issues we're currently in disagreement about.
Marco.
Good stuff Marco, thanks.
Arkless Electronics
24-04-2017, 21:09
Personally I found the (now deleted) Jez post very informative and appreciate the time and effort, firstly involved in gaining the knowledge, and secondly typing it up. I didn't realise that balanced equipment may mean single ended internally until the point of connection and then employ transformers or a multi op amp circuit to give a balanced output/input.
With the deepest respect I felt he was misconstrued in this case.
Don't get me wrong Jez, it would be nice if you could appreciate a *little* deeper that 99% of us don't have, and never will have, the technical knowledge you have so can only report our experiences. But I guess if I had your knowledge I'd possibly feel the same and FWIW I think you have been much improved of late in this area.
I also appreciate the difficulty the mods and in particularly Marco has keeping things on an even keel and think they do a great job and feel people *should* be pulled up when required.
But, and it's a big but, this would be a significantly duller, less useful and enjoyable place without guys like Jez taking time to share. I notice Paul from RFC hasn't been seen in a couple of weeks following a similar incident which is a massive pity.
We're all different characters and we're all entitled to the odd bad day :) and it's really not my style to stick my nose in but I just wanted to say let's not lose good people by falling out, pleeease.
We NEED guys like Jez here!
Thanks for that John:) Most appreciated.
Jez, I've restored all your deleted posts, both because there was lots of good information contained therein, and also to preserve the continuity of the discussion. Please leave them now 'as is'. Ta :)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
24-04-2017, 21:19
Good post too, John, which I'm sure Jez will appreciate, and as far as I understand he's not going anywhere :)
Essentially, it's all about communication. Having knowledge without also the ability to communicate it in a non-confrontational way, which others can accept and learn from, ultimately is of little use, if the goal is to successfully impart that knowledge to the target audience.
None of us are perfect, and I've discussed the above with Jez, who's taken on board what I've said to him, as he knows that I value his input here, and have not only his best interests at heart, but those of AoS in general.
I thought that I'd restored all of Jez's deleted posts, so will attend to the one remaining you've mentioned. As for Paul, he's currently left the forum, but I'll be speaking with him as soon as possible to try and resolve the issues we're currently in disagreement about.
Marco.
I re-deleted the posts. Although we had a long chat on the matter, and agreed on some things, I made it clear on the phone, and will do so again publicly now, that I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. I know where Paul is coming from and personally will hesitate in offering any more help or advice to anyone but paying customers after this.
Yes, but ultimately I decide which posts stay or go, Jez, so that's what will happen. The contents of what any member posts here ultimately belongs to the forum, not to the member concerned (it is not their intellectual property), which is why whenever someone chooses to leave the forum, we don't delete their contributions to date.
You're of course free to disagree with me on any matter relating to hi-fi, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're right, especially in terms of how you're imparting that information, and whether it's conducive to what is expected here.
In that respect, I would ask you to read what Bruce wrote earlier, which incidentally has now formed part of 'Our Ethos' [see relevant section of the forum for details].
The fact is, I know what's overall best for AoS (and would ask you to respect that), and therefore what's best for AoS will always be more important and come first before what's best for ANY one individual here, including you, Paul, or even me.
You are also of course free to offer help or advice here as and when you see fit :)
Marco.
Marco - "The contents of what any member posts here ultimately belongs to the forum"
As a professional designer I find this worrying, are you saying intellectual property rights for anything shared on the forum, belongs to the forum?
I haven't read the small print in the forum rules, but would be concerned if this was true?
It is, mate. Ultimately *all content* here is the property of the forum, but that doesn't mean it's ok for us pinch your designs and produce them to sell! Which of course won't happen - and that also applies to all other designers here :)
Marco.
A bit like Facebook. If you post something then it's there and you can't demand it back as a post etc. You can of course ask
Indeed, and since we're talking about what's relevant to the forum's ethos, it's worth copying this bit from Paul Stewart, in reference to scientific endeavour:
When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects perceived was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on.
So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approach is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
....which is why ears are ultimately more important than measurements, and why 'scientific facts' are sometimes only ever as good as our currently established learning dictates.
Therefore, such 'facts' [one could also say 'truths'] are movable objects, thus may require updating, whenever new information becomes available which, after rigorous testing as proving conclusive, renders them as obsolete.
Marco.
brucew268
25-04-2017, 06:51
That last example should be pinned somewhere sticky!
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
It's all in the Our Ethos section, Bruce (post #9), along with your earlier erudite contribution, here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?17-The-basics-of-Ethos&p=857999#post857999
:)
Marco.
brucew268
25-04-2017, 07:04
My earlier 'contribution' could probably use some tidying work, but thanks for the nod!
BTW: It is said sometimes that engineering is applied science. Yet, some engineers can fall into a foreclosed attitude that loses the scientific spirit of discovering knowledge and says that all scientific knowledge has already been discovered. In fact, the scientist finds patterns for which existing knowledge does not yet cover and then devises theories and experiments to test those theories and new correlations between measurement and experience. It is helpful if an engineer does not live in a world of foreclosed knowledge but keeps a bit of the scientific spirit and method, and the humility and discovery that go with them!
My earlier 'contribution' could probably use some tidying work, but thanks for the nod!
No problem, feel free to PM me any adjustments you'd like made and I'll sort it.
BTW: It is said sometimes that engineering is applied science. Yet, some engineers can fall into a foreclosed attitude that loses the scientific spirit of discovering knowledge and says that all scientific knowledge has already been discovered. In fact, the scientist finds patterns for which existing knowledge does not yet cover and then devises theories and experiments to test those theories and new correlations between measurement and experience. It is helpful if an engineer does not live in a world of foreclosed knowledge but keeps a bit of the scientific spirit and method, and the humility and discovery that go with them!
We are 100% on the same page :)
As Paul wrote earlier:
So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured.
For me, there's precious too little of that approach coming from those on forums purporting to be 'scientifically minded', and WAY too much of the opposite!
Not *every* existing scientific fact is a conclusive 'done deal', especially when applied to a subject, such as audio, and more specifically, how we as humans listen, in terms of the ear/brain relationship, when processing how music sounds when reproduced by a hi-fi system, as it contains so many 'grey areas', some of which I believe call into question the validity of certain supposed 'facts' that many of us are often guilty of taking for granted.
Being an electronics engineer means that you're professionally trained and qualified to build electronic equipment. It doesn't, however, entitle you to judge what someone hears with whatever you've built, which may or may not align what you've been trained to consider as fact.
Marco.
I understand your good intentions guys, but the fact remains and has certain commercial and legal implications, for me and more importantly people who have used any of my ideas in their commercial products or published literature. I don't think anyone would be concerned about the ownership of the actual text document in a general conversation. But describing how to do, or achieve or even what something looks like, is a designers bread and butter and what he is selling on to his clients. If they were to be faced with a scenario where the property was not mine to sell, or even give permission to use for free, due to a change of ownership, prior to our agreement, it could get messy.
This is the very reason I don't use any of the on line Photo/storage services, but instead hot link to images/info stored on my own website.
Most of what I post is general hobby stuff, but several things I have put forward here are, with my permission, in commercial products/literature now.
That leaves me and them in a legally vulnerable position, regardless of what you say you would or would not do.
It will effect which things I choose to share in the future. :)
Most of what I post is general hobby stuff, but several things I have put forward here are, with my permission, in commercial products/literature now.
That leaves me and them in a legally vulnerable position, regardless of what you say you would or would not do.
It will effect which things I choose to share in the future. :)
No problem, Ken. That's just basic common sense/common knowledge though, on Internet content, and so I'm surprised you hadn't realised that.
Similar circumstances arise, on an a somewhat less important level, when you see some folk refer to a discussion they've started as "my thread", and proceed to insist that what's subsequently posted there aligns with their original wishes.
It's of course no such thing: the thread belongs to the forum, and therefore it 'owns' the content, which simply becomes what the subsequent posts of the collective membership make it.
The only time that doesn't apply is with adverts posted in the classifieds section, where threads are strictly moderated to remain on-topic and in the best interests of the OP.
Marco.
On any forum, you are essentially at the mercy of the owner/moderators. They will always have the last word. The point is not to be too precious about what you post. If you find the idea of your posts being deleted too terrible to bear, set up your own forum, because that's the only way to guarantee they won't be.
On any forum, you are essentially at the mercy of the owner/moderators. They will always have the last word.
And rightly so, as they're often paying handsomely for providing YOU with the privilege of posting there!
It's amazing how some don't seem to 'get' that fact, and bizarrely consider instead that they're entitled to behave how they want, whilst causing owners and moderators as much aggro as possible.
Btw, that's just a general point and not aimed at anyone specific.
However, if you want to have the last word, then you have to EARN that right - and the only way of achieving that, is to start your own forum. If anyone here thinks that they're entitled to the last word, then please send me your Paypal details, so I can bill you for the site's (ever-increasing) running costs! ;)
The point is not to be too precious about what you post. If you find the idea of your posts being deleted too terrible to bear, set up your own forum, because that's the only way to guarantee they won't be.
Very true.
Marco.
RothwellAudio
25-04-2017, 08:56
Take the Cambridge Dacmagic as an example.
The XLR output sounds better than the Phono (From experience).
This is because the output is a balanced circuit.
The single ended output uses an additional op amp per channel to combine the two parts of the balanced signal.
So what you hear is an improvement due to avoiding a pair of additional op amps not needed on the balanced outputs.
OP's DAC may be similar. :)
Not withstanding Jez's comment that if designed as a single ended in the first place, it may have fewer op amps any way.
*So my experience is that one form of output will sound better than the other, dependant on circuit topology, the type of cable/connector type makes sod all difference.
Are you sure about that Cambridge Dacmagic? Do you have a circuit diagram? It would be very unusual to use more op-amps on the single-ended outputs than the balanced outputs.
I didn't realise that balanced equipment may mean single ended internally until the point of connection and then employ transformers or a multi op amp circuit to give a balanced output/input.
With the deepest respect I felt he was misconstrued in this case.
We NEED guys like Jez here!
Not so much "may mean single-ended internally until the point of connection...", more like "nearly always...".
Yes, I think Jez was misconstrued in this case too. I don't think Jez was making any comment on what anyone has heard with balanced or unbalanced connections, more taking issue with the conclusions drawn. I have similar feelings about drawing conclusions from such non-rigorous tests. Consider this analogy:
I state that "air conditioning in cars makes them go faster". Most people say I'm talking nonsense and it can't be true. Turns out that all the cars I've driven that do have air conditioning go faster than the cars I've driven that don't have air conditioning. That may be true, but the conclusions I'm drawing are invalid.
Anyway, I don't take issue with people's subjective observations and don't instantly deny their observations have any validity, but I am a lot more sceptical if they draw sweeping conclusions without any more rigorous tests or analyses.
Lodgesound
25-04-2017, 09:15
The BBC - when developing the legendary LS 5/8 monitoring loudspeaker first of all built the prototypes and measured and corrected scientifically etc.
THEN they got 120 of the country's most respected sound engineers to subjectively listen to the end result and importantly made adjustments as per the comments they recieved from the evaluation.
How do I know this? One of my lecturers at the BBC's training colledge was the head of the design team for that particular loudspeaker.
Subjective evaluation by potential end users of critical machine designs during development is and has been proven throughout history to be vital.
The application of the "Hive Mind" can yield incredible and surprising results.
When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects perceived was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on.
So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approach is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back.
That's a cracking post from Paul. It has always seemed to me that different people *must* have different perceptions. If some say they can't hear differences in cables I believe them. But, for me, I can't help but hear differences. In fact I've never heard two cables that sound the same so there's something going on whether people quote science at me or not and I agree that keeping an open mind to these phenomena is imperative to aiding our understanding of what's going on here.
"Are you sure about that Cambridge Dacmagic? Do you have a circuit diagram? It would be very unusual to use more op-amps on the single-ended outputs than the balanced outputs."
I looked at the diagram a few years ago but didn't keep it. The subject was discussed on Diyaudio which is what drew it to my attention.
As I understand things, it depends on how the circuit is designed, if it is designed as fully balanced, you have to combine the two elements to achieve the additional single ended output at the end.
If it was designed as single ended, with just a balanced output conversion tacked on at the end, you would be correct that the single ended would use fewer op amps.
It's all down to which system the thing was designed around, it will have additional circuitry to achieve the other and may sound different/inferior through it.
Yes, I think Jez was misconstrued in this case too. I don't think Jez was making any comment on what anyone has heard with balanced or unbalanced connections, more taking issue with the conclusions drawn. I have similar feelings about drawing conclusions from such non-rigorous tests.
The problem was, Andrew, Jez was stating that the superiority some claim exists with balanced connections couldn't have arisen as a result of any bonafide technical reason.
Now, I cannot dispute that, because I'm technically unqualified to do so. Furthermore, I suspect he's almost certainly right, in so far as the existence of any technical explanation, which he considers is relevant to the subjective claims made to the contrary.
*However*, in stating what he did, referring to legitimate opposing views as a "myth", he's subsequently implying (albeit indirectly and perhaps unintentionally) that all those who disagree, as a result of it being contrary to their listening experience, have 'imagined' it - or otherwise what else explains the apparent dichotomy?
And, I'm sorry, there is *nothing* more insulting for some people (count me in) as when someone (a complete stranger on forum, regardless of his technical expertise) judges you in that way, when the fact is, whilst they may be qualified to make statements of electrical fact, they are NOT qualified to act as arbiter for what you hear (or don't), or demean your valid listening experience in the process, simply because it appears to contradict the scientific facts.
And as I said, INDIRECTLY that's what Jez was doing, which is why both Bruce and Neil were entitled to feel aggrieved. Having spoken with Jez, I fully accept he didn't mean it that way, but nevertheless that's why he got the reaction he did!
Furthermore, how "rigorous" should folk be on a hi-fi forum, when simply relating their SUBJECTIVE experiences, for the consideration of others? After all, they're having an informal chat, amongst mainly likeminded people, not sitting a physics exam or submitting a thesis for formal appraisal! ;)
Marco.
Scientific knowledge has been, and is gained by a few people doing a lot of hard and often sustained work.
When a new discovery is made, it is usually verified with empirical repeated testing and by peers.
If it then seems to be valid it is regarded as a truth, but it is usually only a model, one which complies (and 'explains'), with the evidence available at the time.
Further work and evidence derived may increase the model complexity, and as a result we get nearer to a deeper understanding of the area concerned.
It is by no means a full account of all that is happening in the area concerned, and I think we have to - to all intents and purposes regard reality as infinitely complex.
If we dismiss any perceptions which do not comply with, or are not explained by this knowledge, isn't it surely better to question the knowledge base's validity than dismiss the perception? But both are open to questioning, analysis, and validation.
The basis of all science is in perceptions which arouse curiosity and investigation, and it is unscientific to dismiss any perceptions, the same ones we use when we are being 'scientific'.
Engineering uses scientifically gained knowledge, and applies this in its art to attempt to improve the human condition, but we have to live, 'balanced' in the/tittering/quandry point between using established theories, and their border with the unknown.
We must not compromise the integrity of our thought processes in this position because of lack of ability to be in this not fully resolved position, and the feeling of insecurity which it may instill.
Marco, I think that there is a great deal of rigour shown here, and that is great, the more the better.
Stewart, was that Mr C. D. Mathers?
RothwellAudio
25-04-2017, 09:43
The problem was, Andrew, that Jez was stating that the superiority some claim exists with balanced connections couldn't have arisen as a result of any bonafide technical reason.
Well, that's where me and Jez differ, despite me agreeing with much of what he says. In situations like that my default position is not that any perceived differences must be imaginary (though that's a possibility), but that my understanding is insufficient to explain it.
we of course dont just listen with our ears. We listen with other senses too and the brain collates all this in real time. Sometimes because the default medium of a forum is typed, then we dont hear what we read correctly.
a bit like tasting without a nose. we only really get sweet of sour initially.
Well, that's where me and Jez differ, despite me agreeing with much of what he says. In situations like that my default position is not that any perceived differences must be imaginary (though that's a possibility), but that my understanding is insufficient to explain it.
Indeed. Of course it's a possibility, and most likely a very real and distinct one, given the suggestive nature of the human mind.
However, I simply don't buy the notion that it's *automatically* the case EVERY TIME someone hears something, which apparently contradicts the 'facts' contained inside some engineer's favourite text books [read as self-appointed 'indisputable fact bibles']! ;)
And when that's the case, we need to delve into the matter further, with sufficient RIGOUR, and apply some lateral thinking, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand as 'imagined', due to expectation bias, placebo or whatever. That is fundamentally NOT the way for us to genuinely learn.
In terms of the rest, we are in agreement :)
Marco.
Scientific knowledge has been, and is gained by a few people doing a lot of hard and often sustained work.
When a new discovery is made, it is usually verified with empirical repeated testing and by peers.
If it then seems to be valid it is regarded as a truth, but it is usually only a model, one which complies (and 'explains'), with the evidence available at the time.
Further work and evidence derived may increase the model complexity, and as a result we get nearer to a deeper understanding of the area concerned.
It is by no means a full account of all that is happening in the area concerned, and I think we have to - to all intents and purposes regard reality as infinitely complex.
If we dismiss any perceptions which do not comply with, or are not explained by this knowledge, isn't it surely better to question the knowledge base's validity than dismiss the perception? But both are open to questioning, analysis, and validation.
The basis of all science is in perceptions which arouse curiosity and investigation, and it is unscientific to dismiss any perceptions, the same ones we use when we are being 'scientific'.
Engineering uses scientifically gained knowledge, and applies this in its art to attempt to improve the human condition, but we have to live, 'balanced' in the/tittering/quandry point between using established theories, and their border with the unknown.
We must not compromise the integrity of our thought processes in this position because of lack of ability to be in this not fully resolved position, and the feeling of insecurity which it may instill.
Brilliant post, Dennis... The emboldened parts above are highly relevant and so true! :clap:
In terms of the second highlighted section, there simply isn't enough of that taking place from the supposedly scientifically-minded fraternity. Instead, they mostly dismiss the perception, simply to pacify their belief system, and perhaps not force themselves into the discomfort of re-evaluating the validity of their long-held conclusions.
That's certainly the behaviour I mostly witness from them. After all, it's much easier to bury your head in the sand, than potentially face something that calls into question everything you previously considered was true...
Marco.
There has also ben a lot of work recently on the contextuality of perceptions, dispelling the idea that they are all separate and do not influence each other, eg. colour of ambient lighting on the taste of wine.
Stryder5
25-04-2017, 12:28
Quote Originally Posted by Paul Stewart
"When I was doing research into "Infra bass and perceptions of reality in sound staging", which followed on from something Graham Holiman started. We found that a lot of what we did was indeed measurable, but a lot of what the large group of test subjects perceived was not, both they and us the crew could hear the effect, without going into the full details of something thing that is a large corporations Intellectual property, I will say it took almost three years to work out what was actually going on.
So when someone says they can hear what I can't measure, or I can hear it myself, my approach is to accept that people very probably, can detect the effect, then look for a new way in which this can be measured. That for me is proper exploring science. The closed minded "if I can't measure it, it isn't there" approach is not the attitude that made scientific advances, it's what has held science back."
That's a cracking post from Paul. It has always seemed to me that different people *must* have different perceptions. If some say they can't hear differences in cables I believe them. But, for me, I can't help but hear differences. In fact I've never heard two cables that sound the same so there's something going on whether people quote science at me or not and I agree that keeping an open mind to these phenomena is imperative to aiding our understanding of what's going on here.
Totally agree!
RothwellAudio
25-04-2017, 12:54
However, I simply don't buy the notion that it's *automatically* the case EVERY TIME someone hears something, which apparently contradicts the 'facts' contained inside some engineer's favourite text books [read as self-appointed 'indisputable fact bibles']! ;)
Neither do I. I thought I'd made that clear.
And when that's the case, we need to delve into the matter further, with sufficient RIGOUR, and apply some lateral thinking, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand as 'imagined', due to expectation bias, placebo or whatever. That is fundamentally NOT the way for us to genuinely learn.
I agree entirely. I thought I'd made that clear too.
Furthermore, how "rigorous" should folk be on a hi-fi forum, when simply relating their SUBJECTIVE experiences, for the consideration of others?
Maybe about as rigorous as you're suggesting in the quote above?
I have no idea what we're disagreeing about :scratch:
Lol - who says we're necessarily disagreeing? All I see is the sharing of confidently expressed opinions! :)
In terms of the 'rigorous' bit though, what I'm getting at there is that *no-one* is duty bound to 'prove' anything that they've merely reported as a subjective experience. Only stuff being portrayed as FACT needs 'proving'.
Otherwise one simply shares views and experiences, informally, for others to consider or dismiss as they see fit. There's no onus on people to do otherwise, as indeed some wrongly insist upon on, on other forums.
Level-matched, double-blind testing, before anything heard is considered as real, is NOT the norm, and simply the domain of obsessive 'measurists', keen to skew otherwise potentially valid observations to conform with their belief system.
Marco.
RothwellAudio
25-04-2017, 13:42
In terms of the 'rigorous' bit though, what I'm getting at there is that *no-one* is duty bound to 'prove' anything that they've merely reported as a subjective experience. Only stuff being portrayed as FACT needs 'proving'.
Fair enough - I won't disagree with that :)
Cheers :thumbsup:
Now, I'm off to do some work for a change! L8trs :cool:
Marco.
Not a noticable improvement as such. I just like the idea of balanced circuitry and thus balanced-line interconnects; so it is a satisfying completion of an ambition.
It is my aim to have my system completely balanced from source to speaker. At the moment my CD player has balanced outputs, and my pre- has balanced inputs as well as outputs, as do my monoblock power amps. Since pick-up cartridge are essentially balanced components, I'm looking for a balanced phonostage.
The Pro-Ject Phono Box RS has both XLR and Phono inputs/outputs for convenience, but is a full dual differential circuit and works best on the balanced XLR's.
It has lots of adjustment, including on the fly cartridge loading from 10 to 1200 ohm, plus multiple gain settings, so will work with virtually any cartridge from MM to LOMC.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.