XLR cables or RCA,Which is better for

PolkClyde

Two channel Audio? this may have been talked about. you guys hardly ever leave out much. I type it in the search window to find threads or post on the subject,didn't find any information. I'm thinking about trying this connection between my Oppo 95 player XLR connector to my Pre-Amp XLR Connector. What you guys think,try it or just leave it alone. I appreciate it guys.

jinjuku

Neither in most situations. XLR's are better for noise rejection and longer runs but require an additional op-amp where RCA's don't.

Joe08867

I like XLR for it's locking capability, The problem I see is that Cable Manufacturers don't put as much R&D into XLR as they do with RCA and others.

That said I have done both on setups and have found very little difference in them except for when I used them in a tubed setup. I found the XLR's more balanced than the RCA's.

TNRabbit

Here's what the BobFather (Bob Carver) had to say about single-end versus balanced connections as part of the Q&A in one of his recent tube amp auctions:

Q: Hi Bob, congratulations for your hard work on these amps. You mention the word balance here and there, but the design is single ended with a RCA input instead of balance with XLR input. With some few exceptions such as Conrad Johnson and few others, the hi-end industry seems to be more into a balanced design. A balanced design would obviously almost double the whole circuit of the amplifier but, didn't you forecast any sonic advantage to go into that direction, such as noise cancellation? Some statements are: - Balanced helps with ground loops as well as EM/RF. - Balanced also runs at a higher signal level so it improves S/N Regards, Gerry Apr-21-11

A: Hi Gary, Good thinking! Still, and just the same, I like vintage RCA input jacks better. Here's why: XLR jacks are more complex and do NOT sound better. They were designed to solve a problem that has historically plagued professional sound installations with long cable runs. These long runs tend to pick up hum and static - and balanced helps reduce it to a manageable level. Hum and static have no business in a home Hi-Fidelity system, and with a good installation any hum and noise will be non-existent. And if it is not, balanced will not help one iota, as it will almost certainly be coming from the source itself, not the cable run. Stu Hegeman taught me that the ubiquitous RCA jack yielded great sound, the best sound, and all balancing would do in a home system would add complexity and the ever present danger of the added signal manipulation harming the sound. Here is the final irony: A survey of modern vacuum tube power amps reveals that many have a balanced input jack as well as the standard RCA, BUT, the balanced part is NOT even hooked up inside - it invariably uses only the positive going half of the signal. In other words, it is NOT balanced at all! It is there as a convenience for those who have balanced cables, and the negative side signal is not even hooked up. It is usually left open or it's grounded through a 620 ohm resistor. Single ended sounds better. Great, great question, and one that really needed answering, as false beliefs are so very much alive in any discipline, especially audio it seems! Hope this helps. Best wishes and Warmest regards, Bob Carver

PolkClyde

Oops!

PolkClyde

TNRabbit wrote: »

Here's what the BobFather (Bob Carver) had to say about single-end versus balanced connections as part of the Q&A in one of his recent tube amp auctions:

Q: Hi Bob, congratulations for your hard work on these amps. You mention the word balance here and there, but the design is single ended with a RCA input instead of balance with XLR input. With some few exceptions such as Conrad Johnson and few others, the hi-end industry seems to be more into a balanced design. A balanced design would obviously almost double the whole circuit of the amplifier but, didn't you forecast any sonic advantage to go into that direction, such as noise cancellation? Some statements are: - Balanced helps with ground loops as well as EM/RF. - Balanced also runs at a higher signal level so it improves S/N Regards, Gerry Apr-21-11

A: Hi Gary, Good thinking! Still, and just the same, I like vintage RCA input jacks better. Here's why: XLR jacks are more complex and do NOT sound better. They were designed to solve a problem that has historically plagued professional sound installations with long cable runs. These long runs tend to pick up hum and static - and balanced helps reduce it to a manageable level. Hum and static have no business in a home Hi-Fidelity system, and with a good installation any hum and noise will be non-existent. And if it is not, balanced will not help one iota, as it will almost certainly be coming from the source itself, not the cable run. Stu Hegeman taught me that the ubiquitous RCA jack yielded great sound, the best sound, and all balancing would do in a home system would add complexity and the ever present danger of the added signal manipulation harming the sound. Here is the final irony: A survey of modern vacuum tube power amps reveals that many have a balanced input jack as well as the standard RCA, BUT, the balanced part is NOT even hooked up inside - it invariably uses only the positive going half of the signal. In other words, it is NOT balanced at all! It is there as a convenience for those who have balanced cables, and the negative side signal is not even hooked up. It is usually left open or it's grounded through a 620 ohm resistor. Single ended sounds better. Great, great question, and one that really needed answering, as false beliefs are so very much alive in any discipline, especially audio it seems! Hope this helps. Best wishes and Warmest regards, Bob Carver

That explains it all... Being a owner of the Silver 7t Mono blocks,I respect Highly,Mr. Bob Carver Opinion. thanks

Face

If your gear is fully balanced, then use balanced cables. If not, Bob's Luddite opinion applies.

jinjuku

Face wrote: »

If not, Bob's Luddite opinion applies.

Dayuuum...

reeltrouble1

Face wrote: »

If your gear is fully balanced, then use balanced cables.

write it down an actual useful bit of information.

RT1

vc69

What he said ^^^

Joe08867

face wrote: »

if your gear is fully balanced, then use balanced cables. If not, bob's luddite opinion applies.

+100,000,000,000

PolkClyde

it's not full balanced... just the Oppo Player and pre-amp... I still Will buy an inexpensive pair just to see..I love the idea of having the noise floor drop 3db.

JimAckley

Here's a sticky off of HTS which I think could help.

heiney9

jinjuku wrote: »

Neither in most situations. XLR's are better for noise rejection and longer runs but require an additional op-amp where RCA's don't.

Not if the gear is TRULY balanced.

heiney9

TNRabbit wrote: »

Here's what the BobFather (Bob Carver) had to say about single-end versus balanced connections as part of the Q&A in one of his recent tube amp auctions:

Q: Hi Bob, congratulations for your hard work on these amps. You mention the word balance here and there, but the design is single ended with a RCA input instead of balance with XLR input. With some few exceptions such as Conrad Johnson and few others, the hi-end industry seems to be more into a balanced design. A balanced design would obviously almost double the whole circuit of the amplifier but, didn't you forecast any sonic advantage to go into that direction, such as noise cancellation? Some statements are: - Balanced helps with ground loops as well as EM/RF. - Balanced also runs at a higher signal level so it improves S/N Regards, Gerry Apr-21-11

A: Hi Gary, Good thinking! Still, and just the same, I like vintage RCA input jacks better. Here's why: XLR jacks are more complex and do NOT sound better. They were designed to solve a problem that has historically plagued professional sound installations with long cable runs. These long runs tend to pick up hum and static - and balanced helps reduce it to a manageable level. Hum and static have no business in a home Hi-Fidelity system, and with a good installation any hum and noise will be non-existent. And if it is not, balanced will not help one iota, as it will almost certainly be coming from the source itself, not the cable run. Stu Hegeman taught me that the ubiquitous RCA jack yielded great sound, the best sound, and all balancing would do in a home system would add complexity and the ever present danger of the added signal manipulation harming the sound. Here is the final irony: A survey of modern vacuum tube power amps reveals that many have a balanced input jack as well as the standard RCA, BUT, the balanced part is NOT even hooked up inside - it invariably uses only the positive going half of the signal. In other words, it is NOT balanced at all! It is there as a convenience for those who have balanced cables, and the negative side signal is not even hooked up. It is usually left open or it's grounded through a 620 ohm resistor. Single ended sounds better. Great, great question, and one that really needed answering, as false beliefs are so very much alive in any discipline, especially audio it seems! Hope this helps. Best wishes and Warmest regards, Bob Carver

If the entire input to output is truly balanced, then the above is moot. Bob is correct if he is talking about gear that is not truly balanced but the signals are summed.

Alot of higher end and even really well designed mid-tier gear IS fully balanced and it may sound better.

H9

madmax

jinjuku wrote: »

Neither in most situations. XLR's are better for noise rejection and longer runs but require an additional op-amp where RCA's don't.

That is my understanding as well.
madmax

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

That is my understanding as well.
madmax

I can assure you in a fully balanced design like say a Pass X150 there are no opamps for Balanced inputs.

There are opamps if the signals are summed, but then that's not a truly balanced connection. Think of bridging as it applies to amplifiers vs a true mono block. Same analogy for a balanced vs truly balanced input/output.

H9

heiney9

Most professional audio products (recording, public address, etc.) provide differential balanced inputs and outputs, typically via XLR or TRS connectors. However, in most cases, a differential balanced input signal is internally converted to a single-ended signal via transformer or electronic amplifier. After internal processing, the single-ended signal is converted back to a differential balanced signal and fed to an output.

This is the cheap way and uses op-amps


A small number of professional audio products have been designed as an entirely differential balanced signal path from input to output; the audio signal never unbalances. This design is achieved by providing identical (mirrored) internal signal paths for both pin 2 and pin 3 signals (AKA "hot" and "cold" audio signals).

In critical applications, a 100% differential balanced circuit design can offer better signal integrity by avoiding the extra amplifier stages or transformers required for front-end unbalancing and back-end rebalancing. Fully balanced internal circuitry has been promoted as yielding 3dB better dynamic range.[3]

This is a truly balanced circuit and is preferred and usually more expensive, but only really applies to high end audio equipment in the consumer market. I'm sure high end studio gear is this way as well.

H9

thuffman03

I am going to side with Bob Carver. I think he knows a bit more than most about home audio.

heiney9

thuffman03 wrote: »

I am going to side with Bob Carver. I think he knows a bit more than most about home audio.

His description is spot on if you are converting single ended to balanced back to single ended.

But an entirely differentially balanced signal path from input to output is better. But it adds significant cost and perhaps he feels the cost involved doesn't justify the benefits.

Another well known and pedigreed designer would disagree.

Again, Bob's statement is 100% correct if one is taking the cheap way out and converting a single ended signal............but the point he fails to mention is that it's not an entirely balanced method of doing it. There is a better alternative.

H9

jinjuku

heiney9 wrote: »

Not if the gear is TRULY balanced.

I know, if the entire amp is truly balanced than you are good to go. A lot of manufacturers for what ever reasons don't do this and just put in op-amps.

Emotiva is an example. Not sure about something like the Parasound HCA 3500

BlueFox

jinjuku wrote: »

I know, if the entire amp is truly balanced than you are good to go. A lot of manufacturers for what ever reasons don't do this and just put in op-amps.

I keep hearing this, but never see any evidence. Can we start posting manufacturer, model, and schematics to verify these statements. If we know which ones are doing this we can avoid buying that gear. Thanks.

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

I keep hearing this, but never see any evidence. Can we start posting manufacturer, model, and schematics to verify these statements. If we know which ones are doing this we can avoid buying that gear. Thanks.

Here's an article on why it's beneficial. Think high end products and companies, like Pass, BAT, top end Parasound, etc.

http://www.passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/susy.pdf

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

If we know which ones are doing this we can avoid buying that gear. Thanks.

Most do it with op-amps because it's a whole lot cheaper, plus if they didn't then everything they sold (pre-amps, cdp's, dac's, etc) would have to entirely differentially balanced.

Companies like BAT and Pass Labs do it the correct way (as in entirely balanced), but if you look at the cost of their gear compared to what most buy here, it's prohibitive for many who are even on a modest budget.

So your statement about avoiding buying isn't a reality unless you are ready to pony up some serious $$$ to get the entire chain truly balanced.

H9

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

Most do it with op-amps because it's a whole lot cheaper, plus if they didn't then everything they sold (pre-amps, cdp's, dac's, etc) would have to entirely differentially balanced.

Companies like BAT and Pass Labs do it the correct way (as in entirely balanced), but if you look at the cost of their gear compared to what most buy here, it's prohibitive for many who are even on a modest budget.

So your statement about avoiding buying isn't a reality unless you are ready to pony up some serious $$$ to get the entire chain truly balanced.

H9

While I do not plan on changing anything in the near future I do like to have accurate information for future upgrade. I am assuming my gear is balanced, but maybe it isn't, and it would be nice if there was some way to determine it. I am using all balanced connections, and at least they make solid connections between pieces.

The chain is Sony XA-5400ES SACD to Cambridge-Audio 840E pre-amp to two Cambridge-Audio 840W amps. And the Bryston BDA-1 DAC to the pre-amp.

jinjuku

BlueFox wrote: »

I keep hearing this, but never see any evidence. Can we start posting manufacturer, model, and schematics to verify these statements. If we know which ones are doing this we can avoid buying that gear. Thanks.

++ That. I would expect that most companies would tell you but you have to ask. There is good, less expensive, unbalanced (end to end) gear out there.

heiney9

I would agree not to get bent around the axel between balanced and unbalanced gear. I run my balanced stuff unbalanced because I prefer the sound and because the gain is too high for my liking when I run balanced.

There are benefits to truly balanced gear, but it's usually with much more expensive, higher end gear.

Do whatever works for you or makes you feel good. If using XLR's makes you warm and fuzzy, use them even if it's not truly balanced.

H9

madmax

heiney9 wrote: »

Companies like BAT and Pass Labs do it the correct way (as in entirely balanced)

So they purchased rights to this patent?

What I see is twice the circuitry (in the patent) than through an unbalanced circuit. I would have to weigh unbalanced (vs) balanced with an op-amp (vs) twice the circuitly as in this patent. The minimalist would probably head towards unbalanced unless there is a high noise situation such as long cables picking up 60hz or high frequency noise.

Hawkeye

My two channel rig is balanced from end to end and there is an obvious difference to me when using XLR or RCA. The noise with XLR is nonexistant while using an RCA, there is a noticable noise. Not bad, but there non the less.

To me, the XLR has a richer, deeper soundstage. There are companies that charge very high dollars for their XLR designs. I've found that the Mogami Gold brand available at The Guitar Center is an all around great cable that can compete very closely with the higher end pieces for a substantially less money. My Mogami's are in rotation with the WireWorlds and both bring something a bit different to the table.

Gordon

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

So they purchased rights to this patent?

What I see is twice the circuitry (in the patent) than through an unbalanced circuit. I would have to weigh unbalanced (vs) balanced with an op-amp (vs) twice the circuitly as in this patent. The minimalist would probably head towards unbalanced unless there is a high noise situation such as long cables picking up 60hz or high frequency noise.

You got it all wrong MM, all wrong.

Who purchased what rights to what patent? Pass' Super Symmentry is a furthur enhancement of a fully differentially balanced circuit from input to output which is always better than a unbalanced input and output.

H9

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

The minimalist would probably head towards unbalanced.

It doesn't get more minimalist than Nelson Pass, period. So his patent certainly is a simplification of a truly balanced circuit.

H9