To XLR or not to XLR

anhchungdoan

I run across a few threats here and there and I have heard some comments such as " This CDP by xyz at $399.00 has balanced ouput....that power amp by ABC manufacture has balanced input " .

My understand about electronics limited to real-life experience since I do not have a technical or electrical education however I believe quite a few new people who enter the audio world has been mis-informed abt the real value of balanced input/ balanced ouput VS single-ended in/ ouput.

Please chime in the reason that you feel the XLR connections are better or superior to single-ended connections.

sTiLlLeArNiNg

IIRC XLR have a higher gain as compared to RCA and are better suited for LONG cable run's

lanion

They are more fun to plug in than regular ICs.

danz1906

lanion wrote: »

They are more fun to plug in than regular ICs.

Thats a good-1!

anhchungdoan

lanion wrote: »

They are more fun to plug in than regular ICs.

I agree that they are more fun and "may" reduce" Electromagnetic Interference for a long cable run. Question is does it reduce that E-I within 1 or 2 meter ICs ?

anhchungdoan

sTiLlLeArNiNg wrote: »

IIRC XLR have a higher gain as compared to RCA and are better suited for LONG cable run's

A TRUE balanced connection will run about 3 to 6 db hotter than single-ended connection. So it sounds louder. If we keep the SLP the same, is there a definite better in SQ?

Secondly, not too many end-users keep their pre-amp or their CDP 15 feet or longer from their amp. So within 1/ 2 meter, the Electromagnetic Interference is a moot ?

dorokusai

I've never heard a difference, true balanced or not.

anhchungdoan

dorokusai wrote: »

I've never heard a difference, true balanced or not.

That's what I am trying to get to. There is a true balanced toplogy designed such as BAT or higher model of Krell as well as Classe. Pass is 100% true balance.

Some other just to name a few, Rotel, Adcom(?), B & K , Emotiva, Anthem...the list goes on offers balance connection while it's not a TRUE balance connections but more like Pseudo balance connections.

To mix these true balance and Pseudo balance connection will requires a process of conversion within the circuit, therfore in some case there is no differences in SQ or even worse.

dorokusai

Yea, heard them as well...sorry, no support here.

anhchungdoan

dorokusai wrote: »

Yea, heard them as well...sorry, no support here.

So why manufactures stick the balance in/ouput on their products but did not disclosure that it's a TRUE balance circuit or not. Comsumers look at these impressive XLR connectors and spend a bunch of money for what?

I own the Bryston 4 Bsst once and most of the brsyton owners cannot even know they are true balance or just a gimmick Pseudo balance connectors. James Tanner did address but still no straight answer that Bryston products are balance designed .

dorokusai

I have no idea....aside from standard marketing theory. I don't really give it much thought overall. If I have gear that CAN use balanced connections and I have the spares in my goody box, I'll use them. If not, I still enjoy my rig and think about the next track.

anhchungdoan

dorokusai wrote: »

I have no idea....aside from standard marketing theory. I don't really give it much thought overall. If I have gear that CAN use balanced connections and I have the spares in my goody box, I'll use them. If not, I still enjoy my rig and think about the next track.

You are lucky, you. A guy I know bought some nice pre-amp/porcessor and a multi channel amps. He also bought as recommended buy sellers to spend a bunch of money on these XLR cables to replace his single-ended cables. I bought his old cables at dirt cheap but I feel bad for the guys that he had to spend money for something he does not need to. He was sold under the pretense that he will get superior peformance with these XLR connectors.

That' s to me is a bunch of horse crap.

I going to Adio Asylum since John Curl normally show up once in a while. I will ask him about his Parasound Halo lines with XLR ( Psuedo balance connection)

If I get the straight answer I will share with you guys. I hate "HYPE".

Systems

anhchungdoan wrote: »

I own the Bryston 4 Bsst once and most of the brsyton owners cannot even know they are true balance or just a gimmick Pseudo balance connectors. James Tanner did address but still no straight answer that Bryston products are balance designed .

The 28B and new versions of the 14B and 7BSST are "true fully balanced" designs.All versions of the 4B have an inverter at the balanced input to sum the inveerted and non inverted halves of the differential signal into one that is single ended.

dorokusai

You won't get a straight answer at AA and honestly I don't even care personally. I've spoken with John a handful of times regarding my amp and met him at CES...brilliant designer but not the friendliest dude in the world.

In regards to cables and really anything audio, an individual makes decisions based on a variety of factors. Not everything you own or try is going to be universally accepted amongst the crazy people who call themselves audiophiles. Who cares? Seriously? Pick your battles and enjoy what you want. The only justification I need is my own satisfaction with what I've assembled. I've spent ridiculous amounts of money while enjoying this hobby over the years, some winners, some losers but its always been a good ride.

heiney9

anhchungdoan wrote: »

That's what I am trying to get to. There is a true balanced toplogy designed such as BAT or higher model of Krell as well as Classe. Pass is 100% true balance.

Some other just to name a few, Rotel, Adcom(?), B & K , Emotiva, Anthem...the list goes on offers balance connection while it's not a TRUE balance connections but more like Pseudo balance connections.

To mix these true balance and Pseudo balance connection will requires a process of conversion within the circuit, therfore in some case there is no differences in SQ or even worse.

I have a Pass Aleph 30 and at one point I had a full balanced system (Dac, Pre, Amp). I've listened both ways, single ended and balanced. I never heard a difference and decided to go single ended because I already had pricey MIT rca's and in the end the output as balanced was too hot for my liking.

For long runs, I'd say that's where the best advantage is. HOWEVER, I wouldn't pass on a piece simply because it's balanced. Most if not all amps, preamps include both single ended and balanced connections.

My brother has BAT pieces and a Musical Fidelity dac and he runs fully balanced and loves it. For no other reason than he has the balanced MIT cables and all his components can run true balanced.

So after all my explanation..................all I'm saying is don't eliminate a piece simply on the single criteria of whether it's balanced or not. There is no downside to balanced (other than the hotter signal) and single ended doesn't give up anything until the runs of cable become longer.

YMMV

H9

P.s. Adcom units offer "true" balanced connections like in the GFA 5802, GFP 750, GDA 700, GCD 750.

dorokusai

Absolutely.

Ricardo

The problem with you guys is that you need to start buying good stuff. True balanced does make a huge improvement in sound, but you have to get out of the Adcoms and such.

heiney9

Ricardo wrote: »

but you have to get out of the Adcoms and such.

Yeah, whatever Ricardo :rolleyes:;). The GFP-750 IS a fully balanced pre.

H9

Ricardo

heiney9 wrote: »

Yeah, whatever Ricardo :rolleyes:;). The GFP-750 IS a fully balanced pre.

H9

And I think that one has an Adcom plate in it. And don't start with "N. Pass Designed it", or "my brother gave it to me"...

CoolJazz

You are continuing your well meaning but unintentionally misinformed mission to "expose" the balanced connection as "hype". I tried to shed some light on this for you previously but it must not have been worthy of consideration. So let's try again.

A big part of what your missing is that it isn't necessarily a necessity to be fully balanced topology electronically all the way through to be an advantage. Two really big reasons why... 1-Don't have to pass audio return as a ground. 2-common mode rejection.

First point, the ground. Separating the equipments grounds is a big deal. The RCA (which wasn't originally designed for the equipment interconnect duty) requires the grounds to be tied together carrying ground currents between equipment and therefore any trash that's on the ground. It's convenient, but not correct to think of ground as this absolutely quiet, flat line, zero volt entity. In unbalanced audio, this less than perfect reference becomes the conterpoise to the audio. It becomes part of the audio! Carrying this between equipment with the unbalanced connection can be a huge flaw. Also...all this trouble with buzzes from grounding issues...lay it solely at the feet of the RCA interconnection! Properly done the balanced connection avoids all this.

Second point, common mode rejection. It isn't about EMI...or EMP either. :rolleyes: EMI is talking about magnetic radiation. What your really trying to say, I think, is noise. While personally I think it's pretty rare to have much real noise problems from wiring, it's sure that if there is any that you have unbalanced connections! That's because that's what the balanced is all about! The input rejects any and all noise impressed upon the external wiring. And that's done with the very style of equipment that your trying so hard to present as a fraud! At the output of the common mode rejection "summing point", then the designer can choose whether to double up the cost and component count and go back to apposing circuitry or within the components controlled situation, use the single ended style of design that your focused on as an external wiring advantage. When he goes single ended, he avoids the necessity of extremely tight component matching. When your trying to stay "balanced" internally, any difference in any single component will show up as a distortion! Have you ever set down with a pile of resistors and a VOM and tried measuring their values? How close is good enough for you? 5%...1%? How much distortion is ok to you? And that's in addition to any "normal" distortions!

Paragraphs could be written on the physical advantages of the XLR over the RCA, but hopefully that's not needed! Maybe you will read and understand some of the points that I'm trying to make and we could talk more about it. I'd like to! But I really dislike the idea of people skipping through all the posts on the web coming across information that presents the balanced connection as a money wasting fraud when nothing could be further from the truth!

BTW, there are three differences between the implementation of the RCA unbalanced and the XLR balanced connection. Impedance, level and...hmm...drawing a blank on the 3rd at the moment. Sorry, not old enough for a senior moment. But the point is the problem with balanced and unbalanced isn't the use of either really. It's the attempt to mix them that can get you in trouble!

CoolJazz

anhchungdoan

CoolJazz wrote: »

You are continuing your well meaning but unintentionally misinformed mission to "expose" the balanced connection as "hype". I tried to shed some light on this for you previously but it must not have been worthy of consideration. So let's try again.

A big part of what your missing is that it isn't necessarily a necessity to be fully balanced topology electronically all the way through to be an advantage. Two really big reasons why... 1-Don't have to pass audio return as a ground. 2-common mode rejection.

First point, the ground. Separating the equipments grounds is a big deal. The RCA (which wasn't originally designed for the equipment interconnect duty) requires the grounds to be tied together carrying ground currents between equipment and therefore any trash that's on the ground. It's convenient, but not correct to think of ground as this absolutely quiet, flat line, zero volt entity. In unbalanced audio, this less than perfect reference becomes the conterpoise to the audio. It becomes part of the audio! Carrying this between equipment with the unbalanced connection can be a huge flaw. Also...all this trouble with buzzes from grounding issues...lay it solely at the feet of the RCA interconnection! Properly done the balanced connection avoids all this.

Second point, common mode rejection. It isn't about EMI...or EMP either. :rolleyes: EMI is talking about magnetic radiation. What your really trying to say, I think, is noise. While personally I think it's pretty rare to have much real noise problems from wiring, it's sure that if there is any that you have unbalanced connections! That's because that's what the balanced is all about! The input rejects any and all noise impressed upon the external wiring. And that's done with the very style of equipment that your trying so hard to present as a fraud! At the output of the common mode rejection "summing point", then the designer can choose whether to double up the cost and component count and go back to apposing circuitry or within the components controlled situation, use the single ended style of design that your focused on as an external wiring advantage. When he goes single ended, he avoids the necessity of extremely tight component matching. When your trying to stay "balanced" internally, any difference in any single component will show up as a distortion! Have you ever set down with a pile of resistors and a VOM and tried measuring their values? How close is good enough for you? 5%...1%? How much distortion is ok to you? And that's in addition to any "normal" distortions!

Paragraphs could be written on the physical advantages of the XLR over the RCA, but hopefully that's not needed! Maybe you will read and understand some of the points that I'm trying to make and we could talk more about it. I'd like to! But I really dislike the idea of people skipping through all the posts on the web coming across information that presents the balanced connection as a money wasting fraud when nothing could be further from the truth!

BTW, there are three differences between the implementation of the RCA unbalanced and the XLR balanced connection. Impedance, level and...hmm...drawing a blank on the 3rd at the moment. Sorry, not old enough for a senior moment. But the point is the problem with balanced and unbalanced isn't the use of either really. It's the attempt to mix them that can get you in trouble!

CoolJazz

Good post. I could not remember that we have discussed this before. WE may have. Blame it on senior memory loss, I admit.

I have no problem with the TRUE balance VS. " not real" balance connection.
A man at your caliber properly knows what I meant.

The problem is some of these marketing tool called their products " balance design " that is misleading to the end-users. Just like a phone company selling U-verse claiming it's fiber optic transmittion. Hell, if the ADSL ( not SDSL) along with other network stream into your computer or your TVs thru a regular pair of copper cable wires( existing phone lines) , it ain't fiber optic too me.

For a convenience, yes they can throw in these balance adaptor input and output on the back of their products but please do not use the term balance design since most of them ain't designed balanced.

anhchungdoan

GV#27 wrote: »

The 28B and new versions of the 14B and 7BSST are "true fully balanced" designs.All versions of the 4B have an inverter at the balanced input to sum the inveerted and non inverted halves of the differential signal into one that is single ended.

Exactly.

CoolJazz

anhchungdoan wrote: »

For a convenience, yes they can throw in these balance adaptor input and output on the back of their products but please do not use the term balance design since most of them ain't designed balanced.

Thanks for understanding that I'm trying to expand the knowledge and not trying to be arguementative!

I think you're asking a bit much for an ad to say "balanced input and output interfaces" instead of just mentioning balanced. Because it is much more than just a connector! The "adapter" that you're refering to does give a circuit all of what I talk about above. Common mode reject and seperation of grounding and audio return.

You can build a really, really good piece of equipment either with or without carrying balanced all the way through the circuitry. In my experience, that's rather irrelevant whereas the externally cabling and interfacing is much more likely to be very relevant!

CoolJazz

anhchungdoan

CoolJazz wrote: »

Thanks for understanding that I'm trying to expand the knowledge and not trying to be arguementative!

I think you're asking a bit much for an ad to say "balanced input and output interfaces" instead of just mentioning balanced. Because it is much more than just a connector! The "adapter" that you're refering to does give a circuit all of what I talk about above. Common mode reject and seperation of grounding and audio return.

You can build a really, really good piece of equipment either with or without carrying balanced all the way through the circuitry. In my experience, that's rather irrelevant whereas the externally cabling and interfacing is much more likely to be very relevant!

CoolJazz

Well, from the consumers' standpoint, I have to beg to differ.

It's either fully balanced design or it ain't. There should not be a shady area. A lot of NEW guys "WOW" at these mediocre CDP with balanced ouput and to some of them, it could be a plus in their mind to compare with another CDP with single-ended output. Marketing strategy is at the state of art.

Well, one day maybe we can talk about these fiber optic VS copper wires from some of these giants satelltite providers but it's going to be in another thread.

tcrossma

anhchungdoan wrote: »

Well, from the consumers' standpoint, I have to beg to differ.

It's either fully balanced design or it ain't. There should not be a shady area. A lot of NEW guys "WOW" at these mediocre CDP with balanced ouput and to some of them, it could be a plus in their mind to compare with another CDP with single-ended output. Marketing strategy is at the state of art.

Well, one day maybe we can talk about these fiber optic VS copper wires from some of these giants satelltite providers but it's going to be in another thread.

Yeah, but you could have a true balanced design in a poor sounding CD player, and you could have an outstanding CD player that is not truly a balanced design (or even RCA). They are going to hype their product in the best way possible regardless. Whether or not it's a truly balanced topology is somewhat irrelevant to the end result.

But I do understand what you're saying. A standardized spec for the type of balanced implementation would not be a bad thing. But I doubt it'll happen, nor do I think that most consumers would know/care what it meant.

KG Audio

Can someone define "true balanced" for those in the audience that are less informed so that we can be informed for this discussion? There must be a point for various companies putting both on the back of their components. Can't just be for making the back look expensive?

Thanks,
KG

Toolfan66

I am running XLR's with my ADCOM GFP 750, GFA 5802 and GCD 750. yes you get more gain but I listen in passive most of the time so it's not that noticeable. in active mode you turn the volume up very little for it to be loud and I mean very little.

Going XLR took all the hissing noise away in my speakers and it sounds very clean and tight. I am leaving my setup as is for awhile and just going to enjoy it.

tcrossma

KG Audio wrote: »

Can someone define "true balanced" for those in the audience that are less informed so that we can be informed for this discussion? There must be a point for various companies putting both on the back of their components. Can't just be for making the back look expensive?

Thanks,
KG

From my lamen's point of view, non true balanced would be simply converting an RCA => Balanced connection inside the unit and providing a balanced plug on the back of the unit. A true balanced topography would be balanced circuitry right all the way from Input=>Output.

lanion

I have balance because the 7900 requires you to use a wire ground instead... and still hums a bit if you don't tie the ground very well. using balanced ICs shuts it up.

Systems

KG Audio wrote: »

Can someone define "true balanced"

As has been pointed out just having balanced inputs does not make it a balanced amp.The vast majority of amps with balanced inputs use an invertor/summer circuit that converts the balanced signal into one that is a single ended before amplification.

True balanced designs are a rare and expensive beast because they require two separate but identically matched gain paths, one for the inverted and one for the noninverted halves of the balanced signal.In this way the signal is kept in it's balanced form from input to output.The complete duplication required increases complexity and cost so you will only find this approach on very hi end products.The designers of which will laud the distortion and noise cancelling advantages of these designs but that only applies if they are fed from a balanced input.

Aswell as the three Bryston unit's I mentioned previously,Krell's FPB series and Pass's Super Symetrical X series are examples of balanced designs.

anhchungdoan

GV#27 wrote: »

As has been pointed out just having balanced inputs does not make it a balanced amp.The vast majority of amps with balanced inputs use an invertor/summer circuit that converts the balanced signal into one that is a single ended before amplification.

True balanced designs are a rare and expensive beast because they require two separate but identically matched gain paths, one for the inverted and one for the noninverted halves of the balanced signal.In this way the signal is kept in it's balanced form from input to output.The complete duplication required increases complexity and cost so you will only find this approach on very hi end products.The designers of which will laud the distortion and noise cancelling advantages of these designs but that only applies if they are fed from a balanced input.

Aswell as the three Bryston unit's I mentioned previously,Krell's FPB series and Pass's Super Symetrical X series are examples of balanced designs.

I would like to add BAT to the list. I would recommend the follow-up readings:

1. Balance Vs. singled-ended- Walrus sytems web-site www.walrus.co.uk/tech/bal.htm)
2. Balance line technology ( www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/balanced/balanced.htm)

I hope this help.