I'm Getting Unbalanced About Balanced


It was my understanding that having XLR/Balanced cabling was the ultimate goal for any high end system for all the reasons we've read about. But now I'm told that even though some equipment "accepts" Balanced they aren't necessarily "truly balanced". Therefore negating the benefits...How would I determine this? And if I add high end RCA cabling to my system am I wasting my money?
sof762
Thanks for the input and info. I have Levinson 23 amps and Levinson 26 pre going to Martin Logan Monolith III's w/active x-over. Played off a Linn.Using Levinson ic's now.
Hi Mejames, there is really no such thing as a "truly balanced" output from a digital player. There is only one signal per channel stored on the disc, so every player that has a balanced output has to create the inverted signal to achieve a balanced output.

Some players do this in the digital domain and then have separate dacs for the inverted and non inverted signals. Some do it in the analog domain using op-amps or some other analog inverter.

I also agree with Unsound and question the statement in the original post that balanced is the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is good sound. I don't think balanced operation is a prerequisite to get it.
The SET crowd would certainly question whether balanced is the end goal.

I remain,
Herman, balanced and single-ended only apply to analog signals. It is perfectly possible for a CD player or D/A converter to have truly balanced analog output signals.

Balanced has its virtues, but it has a downside of requiring a doubling of amplifier circuitry. This adds to the complexity and cost of a component. It's not at all clear that balanced signals are truly superior to unbalanced designs.