2. cables
  3. 1140528058

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?
mitch2
serus
93 posts
 
Eldartford... "Twice the signal and twice the noise" is not a correct description of a balanced differential input circuit. Noise adds up when uncorrelated, but the circuit will reject supply noise and RF pickup better than the single-ended circuit.
In addition, the differential circuit cancels out even harmonics, for a lower measured distortion.
All said and done, the single-ended circuit is inherently simpler and - in my opinion - can provide the ultimate sound purity. If noise levels are acceptable (i.e. close to non-existent) then I much prefer the SE amplification. To me, it is the realization of "as simple as possible, but not simpler..."
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Serus..."Twice the signal and twice the noise" is more accurate than "Twice the signal (period)" which is the common misconception that I wanted to correct. Complementary circuitry will reject common mode noise on the signal and distortion, for example power supply ripple, assuming that the (+) and (-) rails of the power supply have the same noise.
pedrillo
560 posts
 
Just wanted to add that recently I coupled my sim's p-5 preamp to w-5 power amp with balanced cables by blue jeans and the difference is totally different, by far much better. I am now looking to get balanced phono stage and eventually cd player. thanks blue jeans and many thanks simaudio.
gregm
3,409 posts
 
*Bsic balanced is slightly more expensive for obvious reasons (complementary circuits)
*Balanced is useful because you just have to match circuits -- not components (so easier to implement linearity) + you get common mode rejection.
*Of course, in balanced you get twice the circuit noise
*Single-ended, in "ultimate" implementation, would be extremely expensive -- it would require component matching for each channel and extremely careful ground to ahcieve ultimate linearity. Forget it -- but that would be the best.

Finally, the rca connections are horrible; the xlrs are much better & reliable. No wonder pros use balanced as standard.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Gregm...Pro sound uses balanced lines because they run signals hundreds of feet amongst a tangle of other wiring. Noise rejection is important to them.
More to discover