XLR waste of time ?

JimJoyce25: It sounds as if the conclusions being voiced here are based more on philosophical creed, rather than on experimentation----at least not recent experimentation.

Since either type of connector can be used on either type of cable, the comparison should be pretty straightforward.

I've done the direct comparison of Eichmann silver vs copper RCAs. and in a good enough system, the superiority of the silver is quite clear.

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has done a similarly direct comparison between the Eichmann silvers and high-quality XLR connectors.

Not sure how balanced cabling can be used with RCA connectors, at least in a way that preserves the benefits of a balanced interface. And vice versa as well -- what would be the point to making a comparison between connectors using unbalanced cabling terminated with XLR connectors? One or both of those alternatives seeming to be the experiment you are proposing, if I understand correctly.

And it seems to me that in any experimental comparison between RCA and XLR connectors the differences will be vastly overshadowed by other variables. As Nrenter aptly put it, "A great audio system is not a collection of optimized independent variables, but a collection of optimized dependent variables."

Variables in this situation that clearly, imo, would far outweigh differences between quality connectors of the two types include, for starters:

-- Interface circuit differences at both ends, including the fact that in designs that have XLR connectors but are not "fully balanced" there will likely be an extra active stage in the signal path to convert between balanced and unbalanced (or vice versa).

-- The fact that in most and perhaps all conventional designs the ground sleeve of an rca jack (and consequently the shield of the unbalanced cable that is normally connected to it), is common with both signal ground, chassis, and ac safety ground. Resulting in signal return currents flowing through that shield in common with extraneous ac-related currents and noise caused by leakage paths and parasitic capacitances in the power transformer and elsewhere, and also due to ground loops which are often present to some degree.

Basically, if it is not clear, connecting balanced cabling via RCA's, and connecting unbalanced cabling via XLR's, makes no sense. And the suggestion in your last post of comparing RCA tape outs with XLR main outs, in order to evaluate connector differences, is, well, simply unworthy of comment considering all of the circuitry that is present between those points, most probably including the volume control.

On the other hand, contrary to what was said in some of the earlier responses in this thread, it is conceivable (although not especially likely) that in some systems there may be significant reduction of noise pickup if an unbalanced output is connected to a balanced input via a properly implemented adapter arrangement. See figure 2.1 of this reference:

http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an003.pdf

Note carefully how the adapter cable is architected, with the "adapting" basically being done at the source component's output, and balanced cabling being used from that point forward. Note also that although its common mode rejection ratio is far lower than for the transformer-based interface arrangements shown in the subsequent figures, the 30db cmrr figure which is indicated as being typical at 60Hz is significant nevertheless.

With respect to the op's question, I believe that a Cardas RCAM/XLRM adapter (RCA male to XLR male), followed by a conventional balanced XLR female to XLR male cable, would amount essentially to this same arrangement. I also suspect that comparable but probably much less expensive pro-oriented adapters, available from B&H Photo Video and many other sources, would provide similar performance, at least from a noise rejection standpoint.

But whether the overall sonic result would be superior to, equal to, or inferior to the op's present single-ended connection scheme would pretty clearly have to be determined by trial and error.

Regards,
-- Al

Almarg,

Thank you for the Jensen transformer link.

Best,
Sam

Sam, you're very welcome.

And thanks very much for the link you provided to the Rane paper, in your post dated 11/24. It is indeed, as you said, very informative, and makes the point (among many other points) that a lot of balanced equipment is designed incorrectly in some of the respects we have been discussing here.

That perhaps being one of the reasons for the disagreements that tend to arise about balanced vs. unbalanced, and perhaps being an underlying reason for some cases of sensitivity to cable differences as well, as Shadorne has often pointed out.

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi, Al,

Agreed. I value your comments...Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.

Best,
Sam

Gentlemen: There's much that I don't know about electronics, and I appreciate the information you provide.

But perhaps one benefit of my situation is that I'm able to approach the listening experience with a bit less prejudice than some of you. And IME the various preferences expressed in this forum (tubes vs solid state, analogue vs digital) are often based on the limited experience of a set of listeners, and they don't hold up in the listening room.

Nothing I've read so far persuades me that there is anything inherently superior about differential vs non-differential technologies. It still sounds like philosophy, or, in the case of atmasphere, philosophy plus a marketing plan.

It's also quite clear, in general, and despite the various prejudices, that there is no direct correlation between electronics theory and the best sound: There's still so much that has yet to be discovered about how to reproduce sound, so much that is not understood about how the technology results in the listening experience. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool, or trying to fool someone else.

For every one of you with an EE degree, there is someone else with an EE degree who believes something different. Fortunately, none of that matters.

What I am in search of is a way to make a useful, practical, listening comparison between the two technologies, differential and non-differential.

Yes, I understand that this is perhaps not possible on a component by component basis, but surely someone can suggest an appropriate way to listen to the best that balanced has to offer, so I can come to the only judgment that matters.