To imply that the manner of detecting the logic state of the laser sensor in a CD player is in any way, shape, or form related to a discussion about balanced sources is laughable, and even though I may be the largest source of mis-information on this forum, you are embarrassing yourself with this one.
Your information about Mercury recordings in 1958 was also very interesting, too bad it has nothing to do with how the system at my house reproduces that recording.
And it is most definitely about opinion. There is no quantifiable way to determine what sounds better even if you do have a half deaf girlfriend :>) If there was, Julian Hirsch would be an audiophile god.
I have given it a straight shot. I've owned and/or listened to some of the most highly regarded balanced systems out there, I hope to hear yours some day. |
Lets explore your reasons why audiophiles benefit from balanced designs:
"Lower noise
Lower distortion
cable immunity
wider bandwidth"
If lower noise and distortion are the holy grail that you make them out to be, why are you using tubes when they are inherently noisy? You can achieve even better noise and distortion figures with transistors. We went down the "lower distortion is better" road in the 70's until the end result was a bunch of high powered amplifiers with .00001% distortion that sounded like crap. I won't disagree that tubes can sound very pleasing and I would use them if I had the patience to deal with them, but you have to attribute that pleasing sound to some kind of inherent distortion, which sort of contradicts your lower distortion is better arguement.
If immune to cable differences and "sounded excellent no matter what cable you used", why do I and thousands of others hear significant differences when switching cables?
Wider bandwidth than what? The 100 kHz that your amps do is easily achieved by single ended designs. |
Hi Herman
I see that you do not understand how balanced signals works. That's OK. Here's a short primer:
Any signal source (transducer: either electromechanical, inductive or light) that does not use ground as a reference is a balanced source. What this means is that as long as one of the output leads of the device will work as well as the other, and switching them only means that phase has been reversed, then the device is a balanced source.
Phono cartridges are like this, tape heads are like this, microphones are like this, light sensing pickups are like this. So *IF* you wanted to, you could use the output of a laser pickup in the balanced domain. There are CD drives that do this out in the field and in service; I read about a company doing this over ten years ago! I don't keep up on digital technology as much as analog so I don't know of current (no pun intended) examples. Now the fact that this is the case is probably not really very important, since the analog signal that comes off the light pickup is interpreted as a digital signal fairly close to the pickup itself.
Herman, to say that what happened with Mercury in 1958 has nothing to do with how your system operates is flat wrong. Here's how I know: What does you stereo sound like with nothing playing on it? Hopefully, silence, or very near that. Where does the recording come from that you play? A: The record labels, unless *ALL* the recordings you play are made by you or your friends. IF not, then the effects of balanced line technology are all around you, in every commercial recording you play. Its inescapable. Therefore it is impossible that this has no effect on your stereo, unless you just plain and simple do not play recordings on it.
That we are not talking about opinion is very simple as the benefits of balanced line are one of the few areas of audio that are both audible and quantifiable. There are plenty of ways to 'determine what sounds better', and they can be quantified as long as there is enough experience to detirmine what measurements correllate with the sounds that we hear (poor Julian...).
If this is not obvious from the equipment that you have heard, it might be that that gear has its own weaknesses that have nothing to do with blanced operation. The reason I say this is that the legacy of 45 some odd years of hifi recordings is a rather massive testemony to the success of the technology. A few high-end audio failures are not suficient to be its defeat.
My advice is to listen to balanced gear that is done right, as I am sure you will agree that it is importanat to listen to single-ended gear that is done right for the same reason!
At least we both agree about Mr. Hirsch! |
Herman- Sounds like you have a nice system. Do you ever listen to it? And one more time, being that you are a Naim owner, Naim uses DIN connectors "to eliminate earthing problems and improve CMR" (go to their website or give them a call). As you have stated "Naim is not fully balanced", but conceptually the use of balanced (DIN) connectors provides much the same result. Give it up already; as I said above "no one is twisting your arm". |
OK- good questions. Here we go:
I use tubes because the distortion they generate is less annoying to the human ear then the distortion of transistors. This has to do with odd-ordered generation that transistors do. Even in vanishingly small amounts, the ear is sensitive to this. Tubes don't make nearly as much of this distortion.
To get rid of the noise of tubes, I use balanced differential circuits, and acheive noise figures 5-5.5db less per stage of gain then I would have if operated SE with the same topology. In a preamp with 3 stages of gain, this is close to 18 db less noise as compared to the same topology in a single-ended embodiment. Don't tell me you can't hear that! Reducing the noise floor means more detail, and detail is a highly desirable characteristic of a good system.
You hear differences in cables due to several factors:
1) termination impedance
2) characteristic impedance of the cable.
The two are related. Since most SE cables are terminated with 100K or more in most cases, the capacitance of the cable can easily interact with the input impedance of the amplifier to result in a high frequency rolloff that is quite measureable and audible. This introduces measureable and audible phase shift. Since different cables have different capacitances, the roll-off and phase shift is different from cable to cable. You also have termination losses due to the connectors themselves, and reflections due to the characteristic impedance of the cable being poorly terminated by the input of the amp.
With balanced lines, the cable issues are swamped by the impedance of the driver circuit and also by the input impedance of the amp, which if done properly, are both quite low. With low impedances, the capacitances and other cable issues are pushed out to frequencies well outside the audio band (and the propogation delay in the cable is improved too- up to 8X better). This is easily heard and measured.
You may get 100KHz out of SE designs, although most tube based SE power amps will not do anywhere near that, but the real issue is can you get that signal *into* the amp from a distance. You might be able to over a meter or two, but not if the cable is ten meters long. Over that length, the high frequency roll-offs will be too severe. You need balanced lines to do better.
If you wonder why I brought up Mercury, the point was that a *microphone* signal went over 150 feet to get to the tape recorders. Just go ahead and see of you can get a hifi signal out of a single-ended cable that is 150 feet long! You can't. Now I know that no-one uses cables that long at home, but what happens if you are interested in that last degree of nuance that is possible? Well I can tell you quite simply that the better your cable is, even if its only 3 feet, the more nuance you will transmit. And audiophiles are all over that nuance stuff. That's what makes good things happen in good systems. If you want that last degree of nuance, you have to use a balanced sytem to get it, particularly if you have any real length in the cables. |
Atmasphere, I find it hard to believe that you are still beating your head against the wall on thi issue. I have to credit you for your tanacity. I responded to this thread several times with what I considered useful information, fully encompassing all aspects of balanced designs, obviously to no avail. If one was to read, evaluate, and retain the information previously provided, there would be no requirement for this redundancy.
If the personal factors were removed from this thread, it would have ended 27 responses ago.
For those of you who agree or disagree, at the very least, take the time to acknowledge the provided information in this thread and be willing to understand the technology. Stop thinking that all information by manufacturers is only being provided to sell you something. A lot of that is also a matter of interpretation.
Your mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open. |
Two things Ralph.
"Not that I'm saying that SE is bad, just that balanced (done right, which is not that hard) is better and *any* audiophile can hear it. I had a girlfriend who was deaf in one ear, and half deaf in the other, and *she* could hear it, so I am confident you can too if it give it a straight shot."
Someone that is highly respected, both within the Audiogon forums and audio industry on the whole, publicly commented that they did not like your preamps at ALL. On top of that, the preamp that they ended up running is being utilized in single ended mode. Given that they've run your amps and found them to be a quality product, how would you respond to that?
As a side note, a reduction in noise of -18 dB's is equivalent to having 1/64th the noise floor that you started out with. As Herman points out though, if the noise floor is already well below audibility, how much of a benefit is it?
There's another thing that you're overlooking Ralph. That is, ALL amplifier / speaker interphases are "single ended". Why this is, i don't know.
If you think about it, a "balanced" dynamic driver would be simple to make AND offer drastically improved transient response. By using two coils in parallel ( one positive and one negative ) and driving them with a common center tap ( ground ), you would literally have ( near ) instant acceleration and deceleration potential. When one motor was pulling, the other would be pushing, etc... They would end up sharing the load AND cancelling out / drastically reducing the effects of reflected EMF. Why hasn't anyone done something like this? While it would take an all new speaker AND amplifier design, i see no reason why it couldn't be done successfully.
Once again, the "high end" and "high tech" audio engineers / manufacturers "sleeping on the job". Sean
>
PS... I'm a "more is better" kind of guy, so i'll take any reduction in noise / increase in power that i can get. Having said that, only one of my systems is running in balanced mode.
PPS... An E-stat would lend itself to "balanced drive" also with no need for a transformer. One could use high voltage output devices in the amplifier and directly charge the two plates and mylar. By varying the positive and negative potential between the plates, the mylar, which would be grounded, would be repelled and / or attracted uniformly across the entire sheet in both directions. Only problem here is that you would have one helluva safety hazard to deal with when energized / playing music. |
Ralph, if I may be so bold as to call you Ralph, thanks for all of the information you have provided. I think we've run our course here, but I've learned a few things and been reminded of things I learned long ago but forgot. I may be a bit pig headed but I'm not stupid. You haven't convinced me that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but at least you've piqued my interest in your products and I would love to hear them. That can't be all bad.
And here is something we can agree on that relates to what Russ says above. One huge weakness in the standard SE scheme is the use of RCA connectors. In a nutshell, they suck, but Russ, the fact that a DIN connector has enough pins that it could be used to carry a balanced signal does not make it a balanced connector. The fact that Naim chose to address this weakness by going with a more robust DIN connector does not mean that they "provides much the same result" as being balanced. The earthing scheme may be improved, but other than that it provides absolutely none of the benefits that Ralph has been pointing out with regards to being balanced. Oh, and yeah, I listened several hours yesterday and enjoyed myself immensely. Thanks for asking :>) |
Hi Sean,
The interface to a speaker really depends on the amp, not the speaker. The reason is that the speaker floats, and if you change the connections to it, all that changes is the phase. OTOH, some amps drive a speaker SE and others are balanced. Ours drive it balanced of course, either speaker terminal is floating (not connected to) ground. Some speakers have balanced topologies in the crossovers and other don't.
With regards to the question about the preamp, I'm not able to answer the question as I don't know any of the particulars. I can tell you this: On older MP-1s we used a vacuum tube regulator and there were two problems with this.
Some people did not put in the tube (did not or would not read the manual), and while the preamp would work this way it certainly would not sound right. The other problem is that the tube would fail and the preamp would continue to run, again in a compromised state. Newer MP-1s have this issue fixed with a semiconductor regulator that is impedance, temperature and short protected (and is an order of magnitude better regulation and smoother impedance). That would be my guess about what was going on.
Herman, I agree that RCA connectors have plenty of weaknesses. RCA developed them for purposes other then audio and we have been making do ever since. I prefer a connection that locks in place somehow (like 1/4" phone plugs; I also appreciate their robustness), but that's just me.
My soapbox: If high end audio as an industry went to 1/4 phone connectors, we could use balanced and single-ended connections intermixed, as 1/4 phone plugs can support either. A lot less screwing around...
Naim, being British, is typical of using DIN connectors, like other Euro manufacturers. Its kind of a tradition- I have an old Echolette (used by musicians) made in Germany in the early 60s) that uses DIN connections. DIN connections can be used about any way you want- balanced, SE either in mono or stereo, or as SE inputs/outputs. BTW, Naim uses balanced circuits as elements in their power amp circuits. Just thought you should know :)
Buscis2, thanks for the comments. I've taught more then one class in the past and the education aspect definately gets away from me. High End Audio being what it is, you can spend *WAY* too much money and wind up having a stereo that essentially sucks. I see no point in that, so if I can be helpful I do give it a try. On these forums, I try to stick to what I know and stay away from those things for which I have no passion. |
Ralph: There are points that i'd like to respond to on your comments pertaining to the amp / speaker interphase, but i'm going to refrain from doing so for now. I've got my reasons and it has nothing to do with you, your company or your products. As i've mentioned before, i like many of the design aspects and sonics generated of the Atmasphere amps.
As to DIN connectors, as far as i'm concerned, they are the worst audio related connector on the market. I don't care if the "technologically advanced" aka "perfection oriented" Germans invented them, they make a poor connection, are not rugged, lack reasonable spacing between conductors, increase the potential for crosstalk between channels / circuits, are difficult to assemble if working with anything above hair-fine wire, etc... To keep things in perspective, some of my Quad gear uses them. The only reason that i can see that a company would want to use a connector like this is that it minimizes clutter ( Quad gear is typically very small ) and that it "almost" makes one choose products from the same manufacturer due to connection compatability. This guarantees the manufacturer that the unit will be working with suitable support components ( probably their own ) and increases the potential for more sales of their own gear. Then again, the reverse part of that equation is that they end up losing sales due to lack of universal connections. Either way, i HATE those damn DIN plugs!!! Sean
>
|
Sean...IMHO, We are talking about such low voltage/current level signals that connector contact resistance is of little consequence. The practical advantage of DIN connectors is that they lock in place. RCAs are easily pulled out.
Any time you use a stereo amp in bridged mode your speaker wires are "balanced mode". I have always found bridged mode to be good, (assuming that the amp can handle the load impedance) and I don't understand why some folk don't like it. |
Hi Sean, I'm not a big fan of the DIN plugs either. I was just commenting that they seem to be a sort of British/Euro tradition. Get careless, trip on the cable or step on a connector on the floor and its toast. I had to make up the cable for the Echolette I mentioned- what a pain.
Some people that are neater then me won't have these issues, but come to think of it, 1/4 phone plugs are about the only thing you could step on without hurting it right away.
Further thoughts on the speaker issue... almost any dynamic driver would be considered balanced, but few crossovers are. There are dual VC dynamic drivers out there FWIW. Some planar speakers are balanced too. Seems to me some of the Maggies (later ones), ETs and certain ESLs. In the case of a loudspeaker, the balance issues have much to do with the Electromotive device the speaker employs, sort of the reverse of a balanced pickup (like a phono cartridge). IOW a speaker that is not balanced is really the exception rather then the rule |
Herman- Glad that you have been listening to your system. I was going to make you an offer (shhh! the wife is looking over my shoulder).
Russ |
I just stumbled upon this thread today. Well, obviously, Bill Johnson at Audio Research, Nelson Pass, Jeff Rowland and many other designers (in addition to Ralph) of some of the best amplifiers have a lot to learn. I'm really glad to see Sean and Herman set them straight.
(Gentlemen: Please tell us about your educational backgrounds and whatever other qualifications you might have so Audiogoners can take that into account. I think a lot of people would like to know.)
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious. It could be that you've published in peer-reviewed journals and all of your claims are absolutely valid. If so, please include references. Thanks. |
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
First, I have credentials but that has nothing to do with it. All the education, qualifications, references, and published papers in the world won't change the fact that either I'm right or I'm wrong. Even an uneducated fool is right sometimes.
Secondly, a list of designers that embrace a balanced design doesn't mean anything. I can rattle off a list of well respected single ended designers that proves just as little.
Whichever side of this you land on you must admit it was an enternaining thread. |
True. Your post generated lots of discussion.
Besides, anyone who appreciates and quotes Guy Clark can't be all bad. |
Making nonsense of technical issues is entertaining?
have fun...:)
steve |
Rats, even though I agree that some of the issues raised by the "balanced is better" crowd are nonsense, I still found it to be entertaining. |
Rowland, Johnson, Pass, Paul McGowan of PS Audio and several others in the balanced camp aren't just men who design amps while they're watching the bait shop. They're among the most respected in the industry and have been doing this for several decades. If you're going to challenge them, you really need to be able to back it up with something other than unfounded theories and hunches.
It would be one thing to claim that balanced is perhaps overkill. But to claim it's actually inferior is, indeed, entertaining.
So what about those credentials and technical expertise to back up your claims? Short of that, at least cite several designers who are in the same class as the ones I've mentioned. |
9rW, you simply reworded your previous post and made the same challenges. Please see my previous response. |
Thank you Herman for raising the issues that you felt were important, for in doing so, you managed to inspire Ralph to write some of the most informative posts I've read on this noteworthy and often misinterpreted subject.
I've concluded that you and Ralph actually know each other and he suggested you posted as the devil's advocate, a classic literary device, in order for him to help educate the AudiogoN readers. Beautiful. Thank you both. ;-)
Regards, |
OK, I'll come clean. I knew going in that my position was indefensible. After being involved with electronics on a daily basis for the past 25 years, including 10 years teaching circuit theory, I knew that if one took the position that balanced is better for any number of technical resons, noise performance, etc. that it could not be refuted. I also knew that it was impossible if they took the position that it simply sounds better since very few can agree on what actually sounds better.
So when I said that balanced was inherently flawed, what I really meant was that IN MY OPINION, even though balanced looks better on paper, single ended can sound just as good or better with simpler circuits and therefore a lower cost. Pretty much the "overkill" that 9rW mentioned.
I enjoyed Ralph's spirited response and he did indeed shoot down some of my original points that I either didn't think through very well or could not be defended if you take the "if it measures better it is better" angle.
I hope you all enjoy your balanced equipment and I'm sure it sounds great. |
I didn't read all the responses here, yet. I'm using a single-ended preamp(RGR) with a balanced amplifier(Nuforce 8b). With the Cardas adaptors, does this present any problems. Are there advantages to going with a balanced preamp? |
