To balance or not to balance . . .

I'm considering building a fully balanced system (well working backwards from the pre/power amp which are balanced).
My question is where exactly I may start to hear benefits from having the balanced signal, as it may require me to replace less of the system.

Starting with digital, the chain will potentially look like this:


Streamer - SMSL DP-3 (new) --- AES/EBU output to:

Digital EQ - Behringer DEQ 2496 (already own) --- AES/EBU output to:

DAC - Topping DX7s (new) --- Balanced XLR outputs to pre/power amp.


If I can skip replacing the streamer and get the same results using spdif (Toslink) out from my current streamer into the DEQ and "start" the balanced signal from there, that would be more appealing (at least financially!).

Even better if I could skip replacing anything and get (as near as makes no difference) the same result having an unbalanced signal up until the pre-amp then I will stick with that as I fear the point of diminishing returns may well have been reached!

Interested to hear thoughts and opinions.

Of course there are further benefits to replacing my current setup with the kit mentioned, not least the ability to play 32/bit and DSD files so a bit of future proofing is also part of the equation.

Cheers,

Chris

To be be blunt, I don’t think you’ll hear any real benefit at all unless you are running lots of very long cables (as may be found in a studio).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

To be be blunt, I don’t think you’ll hear any real benefit at all unless you are running lots of very long cables (as may be found in a studio).

---

Thanks Mark, the thought had occurred to me but I'm a sucker for a tweak (even when things are sounding very nice).

Plus I don't think my listening room is particularly susceptible to enough RFI interference etc to justify the change. I think I just like the idea of nice chunky plugs and using the balanced inputs on my pre, but if the performance jump is low to nil I know there's better areas to spend (waste!) money on!

Now, my schuko plugs should turn up any minute now along with my new half filtered half unfiltered power strip . . . .

I run a fully balanced system, because I have power monoblock amplifiers located directly behind each speaker, in order to minimise the length of the speaker cable (< 1m). The power amplifiers, which have a balanced input, are fed by balanced-line cables running back to the preamplifier, itself having dual differential inputs and outputs. The cables are 15m long, running underneath the floorboards.

On a technical level, balanced line connections have the advantage that the signal return is completely separate from the shielding and safety earth. IMO with unbalanced connections, the combination of signal return with the 0V rail and the equipment safety earth, means that minute earth currents can interfere with the signal; which is why, again IMO, some unbalanced cables can sound different to one another.

For the vast majority of installations, I doubt if moving to balanced interconnects would make much of a difference.

If you want to try out using a balanced-line cable, the best place to would be between the source (phonostage, if it has a balanced output, and CDP or DAC). I am in the middle of trying out a number of balanced-line cables between my CDP and preamp, both of which have true dual differential connections, but so far I cannot hear any real and repeatable difference between them; which is what I would expect.

Balanced is a PITA

Now, I know people think I'm mad but I hate the connections. There is no helping me here but I loath the cheap shit brass pins and sockets.

I am a disciple of the merits of copper and its use in connections especially. Trouble is with balanced gear, its all gold plated brass unless you're willing to drop serious cheddar on plugs and sockets, which I am, if I had the money available.

I thought I'd found a really good plug recently only to discover its £100 to get a set of plugs here now, as the supplier id just found dropped them from their stock.

Theres no doubt its a better connection imo and that's all that we should worry about.......right?

A friend runs a fully balanced system (in fact it may be two friends), the move from non, to semi, to fully balanced had no benefits I could detect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry

I run a fully balanced system, because I have power monoblock amplifiers located directly behind each speaker, in order to minimise the length of the speaker cable (< 1m). The power amplifiers, which have a balanced input, are fed by balanced-line cables running back to the preamplifier, itself having dual differential inputs and outputs. The cables are 15m long, running underneath the floorboards.

---

Given your setup here Barry, I can certainly appreciate why balanced might be beneficial. My runs are not that long (yet). Looks like my "need" for balanced connections is not as great as those with technical requirements (such as length of signal run).

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigman80

Balanced is a PITA

Now, I know people think I'm mad but I hate the connections. There is no helping me here but I loath the cheap shit brass pins and sockets.

I am a disciple of the merits of copper and its use in connections especially. Trouble is with balanced gear, its all gold plated brass unless you're willing to drop serious cheddar on plugs and sockets, which I am, if I had the money available.

I thought I'd found a really good plug recently only to discover its £100 to get a set of plugs here now, as the supplier id just found dropped them from their stock.

Theres no doubt its a better connection imo and that's all that we should worry about.......right?

---

Hmmm . . . I hadn't really considered the inferiority of the "cheaper" connections vs good RCA's.

As we know though Oliver, it ALL matters (to a greater or lesser degree).

Thanks for the reply's so far chaps, interesting stuff and more to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

Hmmm . . . I hadn't really considered the inferiority of the "cheaper" connections vs good RCA's.

As we know though Oliver, it ALL matters (to a greater or lesser degree).

Thanks for the reply's so far chaps, interesting stuff and more to think about.

---

Well, according to those with education, it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Me, a bona-fide numpty, just can't accept brass connections.

As I say, the connections on a balanced plug are better and have more surface area than rca so that's a bonus but I want copper!!!!

I don't really have a choice as Conrad Johnson don't believe there is any advantage in using balanced circuitry/connections, so my CJ preamp and power amp are single-ended only! The specification of my CJ preamp (using valves and mosfets) specifically states that it can drive long cable lengths. I certainly have no problem with 3m interconnects between pre and power amp!

I can see that in Barry's specific application, that balanced connects with long cable runs would be appropriate.

I run a lot of actual balanced, dual differential designs and I feel that despite there being extra cost in having separate left and right channels, this duplication does bring sonic benefits. Having an xlr out or input does not mean its actually a balanced design.

If the products have both rca and xlr outs and ins and are not true balanced designs, there might be a small improvement over rca if where you live is a noisy place re rfi and interference, but if not rca, single ended might sound as good, or better, depending on how the xlr connections have been implemented.

Many years ago I worked in the theatre and, in my spare time, dabbled in live music.
In that context XLR, or simply Cannon, plugs were ubiquitous and fairly early on I got plenty of explanations as to why; very long cable runs and very secure (usually locking) connectors. If you worked in that environment you found out pretty quickly why the secure connections were paramount (usually the hard way :( ) as well as the godsend that is gaffer tape....

Outside of that , XLR connections in the vast majority of domestic settings are IMHO just another way of chucking money down the drain ... along with pointlessly fancy and exotic RCA plug materials.

I would be more concerned with the limitations of the Toslink connection (if optical) than the questionable benefits balancing might bring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikmas

I would be more concerned with the limitations of the Toslink connection (if optical) than the questionable benefits balancing might bring.

---

Thanks Mike, interesting. I'm getting the impression it is both slight overkill in my situation as well as a potential money pit (like most things!).

Could you elaborate on the "limitations" of the Toslink connection at all? (It is optical).

I have a good cable with solid connections at all ends (over 1.5m so no reflection issues). I do have to run the X 2 of them, one from streamer to digital EQ and one from the digital EQ to the DAC. As I mention in the first post I wonder if there are benefits to be had by effectively replacing the Toslink (unbalanced?) cables with AES/EBU (balanced?) cables?

Cheers for your input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

Thanks Mike, interesting. I'm getting the impression it is both slight overkill in my situation as well as a potential money pit (like most things!).

Could you elaborate on the "limitations" of the Toslink connection at all? (It is optical).

I have a good cable with solid connections at all ends (over 1.5m so no reflection issues). I do have to run the X 2 of them, one from streamer to digital EQ and one from the digital EQ to the DAC. As I mention in the first post I wonder if there are benefits to be had by effectively replacing the Toslink (unbalanced?) cables with AES/EBU (balanced?) cables?

Cheers for your input.

---

TBK optical are generally more restricted in terms of bandwidth compared to coaxial SPDIF (or USB) although I use both and find little to choose between them in my set up .. although I don't bother with DSD etc. so YMMV.
My biggest gripe with optical is the distinctly shoddy connector standard that has caused me grief on many occasions - either not fitting at all or even falling out when a heavy lorry passes the house :steam:
Worse is before I realised how bad it is and put intermittent dropouts down to all sorts of other factors ... causing pointless hours of wasted sleuthing chasing after the wrong culprits :(

Incidentally, I can't really see how an optical digital signal could be either balanced or unbalance so don't quite follow your train of thought on that one - also not versed at all on AES/EBU (I'm sure someone with the nous will pop along soon though ... :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikmas

Incidentally, I can't really see how an optical digital signal could be either balanced or unbalance so don't quite follow your train of thought on that one - also not versed at all on AES/EBU (I'm sure someone with the nous will pop along soon though ... :) )

---

It was literally news to me (this morning!) hence a lot of the musings . . . I don't quite understand it either but I'm furiously trying to find where I read it . . . . sifting through 300 pages of search history as I type . . .

I usually hate linking to slightly generic sites and neither of these were where I read about the digital signals being balanced this morning, but both mention the fact that the signals are designed to run over "balanced" cables. I'm sure the site/thread I can't find right now, did say something about Toslink/Coax being unbalanced in some situations.

As I say it was very recent news to me as I was of the mindset that digital is digital and the balancing of cables was only applicable in the analogue domain.


https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/aud...-and-st-glass/

http://www.lavryengineering.com/wiki/index.php/S-PDIF

Just to clarify here I wasn't talking about an optical cable specifically being balanced or unbalanced, just reading back it does sound like I was grouping all digital cables in the same category. Confused myself a bit as I have the option of coax from my streamer but can only use Toslink if going through the digital EQ. Unless I use the AES/EBU input of said digital EQ. As my current streamer does not have AES/EBU output I'm stuck with Toslink for now at least.

I also didn't realise how the digital signal of AES/EBU, Coax etc could be balanced or unbalanced but it seems they can be.

Updating this thread as I read up so probably going to read on a bit more before posing uneducated musings and guesswork!

All contributions very welcome.

Cheers

Quite enjoyed the, albeit highly subjective, experimentation by the guy in the first article Chris - until I realised he was talking in the context of 25 meter runs ... at which point I lost interest .... :scratch:

If Barry pops back at any point he always has a lot of knowledge about the specific electrical properties of a whole host of interconnect types (including digital) ... maybe even pester him for clarification :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikmas

Quite enjoyed the, albeit highly subjective, experimentation by the guy in the first article Chris - until I realised he was talking in the context of 25 meter runs ... at which point I lost interest .... :scratch:

---

Precisely why I loath linking to that kind of stuff . . . except to occasionally prove I wasn't imagining it or going mad!

So many variables, cable aside. Almost makes you just want to stick a TT on the end of some unbalanced RCA's . . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

So many variables, cable aside. Almost makes you just want to stick a TT on the end of some unbalanced RCA's . . . .

---

With you on that ....

Kind of makes you long for the days when digital was just 'no-fuss' 0s and 1s ..... I remember the first time I foolishly read an in-depth article about why digital coax has to be longer than 1.5 m

.... almost made me weep for the lost innocence :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikmas

With you on that ....

Kind of makes you long for the days when digital was just 'no-fuss' 0s and 1s ..... I remember the first time I foolishly read an in-depth article about why digital coax has to be longer than 1.5 m

.... almost made me weep for the lost innocence :rofl:

---

it can be if you dont fuss :ner: Ive got music streaming from roon through an hd dongle to my nuraphones... sound is magical..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by struth

it can be if you dont fuss :ner:

---

I don't .... just got two RCA adapters at £1.59 each ... cheap rubbish made with nickel and low grade brass, sound is fcuking great :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikmas

I don't .... just got two RCA adapters at £1.59 each ... cheap rubbish made with nickel and low grade brass, sound is fcuking great :lol:

---

good.. chopping the top end a bit can be beneficial . us oldies do it naturally:)

Balanced is used in professional situations because it relatively reliably eliminates earthing problems, and in those situations frequent reconfiguring of equipment is the norm, especially with patch bays. In bid studios there are often long runs, and these tend to induce noise more with single ended ccts.

The distortion produced in balanced circuits is roughly double that of single ended ccts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by struth

good.. chopping the top end a bit can be beneficial .

---

They are RCA to jack plug adapters - if I chop the top end off I'll get nowt :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharos

Balanced is used in professional situations because it relatively reliably eliminates earthing problems,

---

Not entirely though ... :eek:

As this list of electrocuted pop singers will attest:

https://www.ranker.com/list/musician...jessica-defino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opti-cal

As I mention in the first post I wonder if there are benefits to be had by effectively replacing the Toslink (unbalanced?) cables with AES/EBU (balanced?) cables?

---

AES is a balanced digital signal, I believe one of the benefits of this usually is galvanic isolation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firebottle

AES is a balanced digital signal, I believe one of the benefits of this usually is galvanic isolation.

---

Another layer to the cake Alan!

Mmmmmm . . . galvanicy . . .