The advantages to balanced operation are only gained when it is a "truly balanced" circuit, i.e., there are two separate, but identical, signal paths. One for the positive signal and one for the inverted signal. When the two are combined the noise is canceled out. Many audio components have balanced connectors but are not "truly balanced". Your example of the McCormack amp is indicative of it not being "truly balanced". Think of these amps as having balanced to RCA adapters, similar to the Cardas (among others), built in.
Is balanced necessarily better?
Assuming fully balanced equipment that also offers single ended connections, and no RFI problems, is the use of balanced interconnects necessarily the better way to go? My forum search indicates some who say balanced is better because the connectors are inherently better and because of noise cancelling properties associated with the signal flowing in both directions; and others who say for reasonably short runs and no interference problems that rca/single-ended connections sound better in many cases, maybe because the signal has less circuitry to traverse. This has come up for me because I am considering different preamp alternatives, and if I decide not to stay with a fully balanced system, I have more choices. To give things a try I substituted some old AudioTruth rca cables for my Luminous Sychestra Sig balanced cables. Except for the 6db loss in output, I have initially found the rca cables to sound a little smoother, with more rounded images, a little plumper bass, and what initially sounds like a more "musical" presentation. The system is a Muse Model 10 source/Muse Model 3 Sig pre/McCormack DNA 500/Aerial 9's. BTW, Steve McCormack told me the DNA 500 sees the signal the same way whether balanced or single-ended, and didn't seem to think the amp would sound significantly different either way. Therefore, even though many manufacturers are now offering more balanced equipment, especially at the upper end, others such as CJ continue to make only single-ended equipment. What are do you guys think, is balanced necessarily better?
- ...
- 26 posts total
Yes it is better but RCA is good enough for most audiophile applications. I use balanced XLR as I have active speakers and that is the connection they accept. I don't even remember the brand of cable I use. I picked the cables up at a musical instruments store...they are used for microphones, guitars and with studio grade gear. |
Eldartford, when you have twice the signal, you can run the device with half the gain. That lowers the noise floor considerably. As for the ICs themselves, it's not so much that they resist noise pick-up any better than a SE IC. It's just that the noise in one signal conductor is 180 deg. out of phase with the noise in the other signal conductor, so it self cancels. Pmotz, the McCormack DNA 500 has fully balanced circuit topology from input to output. Specs are on their website: http://www.mccormackaudio.com/ |
Could not agree more with Eldartford, see this link which gives a "balanced" explanation (forgive the pun) http://www.earthcurrents.com/london-live/balanced.htm The article explains that it is all about less external noise pick up in the circuits and wires themselves. This should not be a problem for most audiophile applications. In most cases there will be no difference between balanced and unbalanced in an audiophile environment (provided manufacturers have used similar high quality components and an appropriate design topology). Pro studio noise problems however, are a common nuisance, which is why pros prefer balanced; studios are jam packed with all kinds of portable gear, including the artist's personal instruments, and preferred rental gear, all of which leads to a much noisier electrical environment that changes on a weekly basis. Pros do not prefer balanced circuit design because the sound is intrinsically better because it isn't....it is simply to reduce electrical noise pick up. |
- 26 posts total