Balanced vs. Unbalanced - What does it mean?

Not meaning to give Kal (Kr4) a hard time with this post, as his responses on this forum are hugely valuable and much appreciated, but I *am* surprised, Kal at your response here.

I remember quite well your excellent review of the Bel Canto PL-1A in which you noted that it sounds better through its balanced outputs. For about four years the PL-1A was my main source (your review being something that put me onto that unit in the first place), and I agreed with your review completely, including your pointing out that it sounds better through the balanced outputs.

The balanced line system was designed to solve (and very effectively) three different problems: noise in cables, length limitations in cables, and finally (IMO the most important thing to audiophiles) preventing sonic artifacts from cables.

IOW **if your balanced line system is set up properly** you will finally hear no difference between a cheap cable and a very expensive cable. The length will have little bearing on the sound either, plus of course you will have blacker backgrounds as there will be less noise.

Now **it does not matter how long the cable is**! If the cable is only three feet long there is still an advantage, due to the fact that the cable has no sonic artifact.

If you **do** hear artifacts (IOW if one cable seems to sound better than another) then your 'balanced line' system is not set up right.

Decades ago (over 50 years...) this stuff was figured out. All LPs were recorded using balanced lines, in many cases with 150 feet between the microphones and the input of the recorder. If the cables were a problem, we would all know it by now, but as our stereos improve, the merits of many vintage LPs continue to improve- the cables used to make those LPs were/are completely transparent.

To take advantage of balanced lines, the amp has to have real balanced inputs! Some amps have the connectors, but the input is really single-ended. If the circuit of the amplifier is single-ended, sometimes the balanced input is accomplished with an input transformer. This transformer has an artifact; IMO/IME you are always better off with a real balanced input.

Dgaylin-

I am not retracting my comments but it is certainly possible for a given component to sound better via one output vs. another depending on the design of that particular component. In general and in normal environments, there should be no difference between bal and unbal connections.

Kal

This is one of those threads that can go on forever as there is no real answer. As has been pointed out it is system dependent. There is little or no agreement among the most experienced designers and reviewers. Martin Colloms, who has tested about everything for 30 years has said that 95% of the components he tests sound better single ended and that balanced best use is in long runs in studios. BUT, he uses VERY expensive ICs. A recent article by a recording industry professional in HIFICRITIC mag. , which Colloms publishes, came down on the other side. The author maintained that equal results could be obtained with much cheaper cable with balanced. At the same time he pointed out, as mentioned above, that not all "balanced" are created equal and that standards about how it is implemented are very imprecise, a situation not unknown in other area of audio. He also recommends transformers in some cases. He notes that balanced seems to be popular in US and Japan but not Europe, which he finds strange. So the answer seems to be dependent on each system and user, another not unusual finding.

Some electronics are designed single ended with balanced operation included so that the buyer would think that the component is a greater performer. The truth is that those circuits that are designed single ended with XLR options sound the same in either configuration. Circuits like those that are designed around a balanced circuit such as Ayre will greatly benefit from balanced operation, although single ended operation is available for convenience.