balanced is inherently flawed

Hi folks,

Hate to bring this up but all of Herman's arguments are completely flawed! As you might expect me to say, but all I have to say is, if you've not tried it, you have no idea what you're missing.

I'll give you some examples (refer to the leading post above):
1.>

This is inherently wrong, as balanced does not have inherently more gain. It has the same gain, just with less noise.

2. This is the most misunderstood of all...

It appears that this in one of the things that Herman misunderstands the most. Internal noise generated in differential circuits tends to be less then that of the same circuits executed single-ended. In theory, about 6DB less, so in two stages of gain, this could be 12 db less! This is dramatic. Additionally, differential balanced circuits can also reject noise in power supplies. This is called Cross Mode rejection, and is a spec, in addition to Common Mode rejection, that all active balanced circuits have.

3> sheesh...

Balanced amps built from the ground up sound better with balanced inputs for the simple reason that balanced sources sound better! This is because of various things, but a good example is that balanced cables can deliver the signal better. If you don't believe me, look at the phone company. Before balanced lines existed, transcontinental phone service was impossible. That is because of all the losses that are are associated with single-ended systems. When balanced line came in, so did long distance. The same benefits work well in the home too, as balanced connections send the signal from one component to another with far less interference from the cables!

4> double sheesh and Geez...
Finally, here are some balanced sound sources: All phonograph cartridges (with the exception of certain ceramic cartridges and the old Decca cartridge). All tape heads. All decent microphones. All LPs are cut with balanced equipment. Most CDs are mastered this way too. In fact, 99% of everthing you listen to had balanced circuitry as part of the signal's makeup. Mercury Records could never have made all those recordings without balanced lines as in some cases they had to run the mic cables over 150 feet. Same for RCA, Decca, EMI, in fact nearly every record label in the world.

The bottom line is Herman is a leading source of misinformation. Sorry to say it, and if y'all want to look at my previous posts you'll see I try to not flame people, but this sort of blather can't go unchallenged. Forums like this should be about the truth for God's sake and ours.

1) A TRUE "balanced" design can swing twice the voltage potential of an identical single ended circuit. The gain of such a circuit is not necessarily twice as high ( a lot of other factors here ), but offers greater power potential with the associated increase in headroom. There are designs that operate on a differential mode, but aren't "truly" balanced as most engineers / designers think of them.

2) "Internal noise generated in differential circuits tends to be less then that of the same circuits executed single-ended. In theory, about 6DB less, so in two stages of gain, this could be 12 db less! This is dramatic."

Notice that Ralph says "in theory". In reality, these figures are typically not achieved. There are improvements, but not to the extent mentioned. Quieter and cleaner IS quieter and cleaner though. Whether or not the benefits will be noticeable is obviously dependent on how good the original single ended circuit was to begin with. Hence my previous comments about "poorer" single ended circuits benefitting most of the additional noise cancellation of balancing. When you've got a relatively high noise floor ( compared to a quieter design ), lowering that noise floor is always beneficial. Whether or not going into the added expense of balancing such a circuit is a worthwhile investment compared to designing a better single ended circuit ( with a drastically reduced parts count ) is a matter of personal preference / budget for the designer / manufacturer. As a general rule, balanced designs typically require appr twice the parts count as that of single ended designs. Many will argue that "simpler is better", but obviously, that is a subjective opinion.

3) I agree with you here Ralph, but that is IF the rest of the system is up to snuff. Since most gear / systems are compromised in design integrity, the benefits of "true" balancing are many times not achieved in lesser systems with lower grade components. As you mentioned though, "Balanced amps built from the ground up sound better with balanced inputs for the simple reason that balanced sources sound better!". This takes into account "proper design" from beginning to end, not trying to impliment a superior design into a system based on lesser design integrity.

As a side note, our AC systems are "balanced" as transmitted and DC is single ended. While Eldartford has commented on low loss DC transmission over extended distances, there is a reason why AC was selected over DC. That is, with twice the voltage swing and multiple phases, loss is drastically reduced and the signal is kept cleaner over a longer distance. DC is both lossier and more susceptable to interference. On top of that, RFI is very easily superimposed on top of a DC voltage. That's why even after the AC mains have been rectified in the components power supply, you can still have RFI being passed into the circuit. As such, the installation of some type of "trap" or even "snubber caps" in a typical power supply can really clean things up.

4) I didn't really read much into Herman's response here but I should have. All sound is created by displacing air, causing both a pressure front and pressure drop i.e. a positive and negative. Strings move fore and aft or side to side, percussion instruments are compressed and then rebound, etc...

Other than that, i don't think that Herman has been a "great source of misinformation". I think that Herman has contributed many factors along the way that were both valuable and factual along with quite a few personal observations. Obviously, nobody is going to agree with someone else ALL the time. Rather than making a generic and cumulative statement such as "The bottom line is Herman is a leading source of misinformation", one should jump in and present rebuttal at the time that the statements are made or when first "stumbled across". This keeps everyone on the same path in the same time-frame without offering much time between the "misinformation" being presented and / or the possibility of it being futher distributed. In effect, "rebuttal" acts as a form of "damage control".

I'm not getting down on you Ralph as i surely appreciate your input. I wish folks like you came around more often. If you've read any of my previous posts making mention of you or your designs / gear, i think that you know that i have the utmost respect for you and what you offer us as audiophiles. Other than that, feel free to put your boot in my ass as needed : ) Sean
>

Thanks for the input Sean, one always needs to know that there is sanity out there.

As you pointed out about the noise thing, I did use on purpose 'in theory'. In practice unless your circuit is way extra bad, 5db is easy. That means 10 db less noise in two stages is too. Often the noise rejection is more like 5.9-someodd- pretty close to 6 for most people.

Parts count in a fully differential circuit is not really all that bad, being slightly less then double the parts (although most are resistors which are not a big deal in the overall cost of an amp or preamp). Our preamps (and I make no bones about the fact that I walk what I talk) are fully differential and balanced and yet are less expensive then a lot of preamps that sound markedly inferior (if I do say so myself...).

3) I guess in the scheme of things, one would hope that what is strived for is the experience of recorded music sounding real. I would certainly hope then that the balanced source has its ducks in a row. If it is to be flawed for this discussion though, to be on the same ground the single-ended source must accept the same flaw(s). Given that the case, balanced sources would still tend to be better, if that flawed source is still considered to be balanced.

I've worked with this stuff for over 32 years now and I had often wondered why audiophiles did not take advantage of the benefits that balanced operation offerred. I am sorry for this, but if the best explanation is really no more then misinformation (or perhaps its own kind of damage control), -well, I don't buy it.

Having said that, I do believe there may be a different issue: some manufacturers got on the balanced bandwagon as they seemed to think is was a new trend. Most of those that I might put in that category do not seem to understand what the technology is about and have produced inferior products. Some of these are well-known. Held up to single-end products that are better thought out, I think such manufacturers have done the field of balanced operation in high-end audio a dis-service. My soapbox... -but since we were talking theory or that's how Herman made it sound, well, I reject on the basis of fact and experience just about everything he said in his opening post. What is disturbing is that it looks like people just ate it up. There's just too much of a mountain of evidence to the contrary; I just had to point it out.

Sean, good response, as was Ralphs. You have acknowledged many of the positive aspects of balanced circuitry noting the absolute most important point. Most notably, your point #3.

There are MAJOR differences between "quasi" balanced circuits and "true" balanced circuits. This factor MUST be recognized when evaluating. Installing XLR connectors on a component does not a balanced circuit make.

I provided the Jensen link (Bill Whitlock), in hopes that persons would familiarize themselves (if not already familiar) with the actual differences defining "balanced" vs. "true balanced" circuits. It clarifies with a high degree of accuracy and very little sales "slant".

Herman had mentioned the additional expense of manufacturing components with provisions for balanced interconnection and throughput. Well? This is partially accurate. Many quality manufacturers incorporate "true balanced" configuration as "standard equipment". I didn't "option" any of my components with "true balanced" configuration. It was already there. Maybe that could be considered an added benefit of a $5000 integrated? Along with chassis dampening, airborne and structure borne vibration control, high quality close tolerance components, short signal paths, etc, etc, etc. In short? Sound engineering practices.

Bottom line? If balanced configuration is utilized "true to form"? It has many benefits over single ended. Once again the key words being "true to form".

"True to form" is NOT a Ferrari with a Chevy motor in it.

Dang! Spot on!

I can't tell you how often I have people call me thinking they have a 'balanced' input on what is clearly a single-ended amp! Just 'cause you have that connector- don't let that fool ya.

I would think that it goes without saying that a 'balanced' amplifier or preamp was built that way from that ground up, but it isn't always that way.

Also, we probably ought to discern the difference between balanced differential and plain old balanced. Balanced differential is usually the simpler of the two, and generally quieter. Some of the ARC amps from the late 70s were balanced but they were not differential and they were also extremely complex. Complexity is definately not a prerequisite of balanced operation as differential circuits can be quite simple.