‘Unbalanced is Best'? a comparison of balanced and unbalanced

[linnfomaniac83]

Why should a well implemented balanced circuit always sound better than unbalanced?

If it's a natively balanced circuit it should sound better with balanced connections. You can connect natively balanced equipment up in with single ended connections (or connect fully balanced kit with single ended only kit) but that would at the very least result in a loss of gain and an increased noise floor.

There is no reason why a well implemented balanced system should be better than a well implemented single ended system. My HIFI kit (linn obviously) is all single ended and sounds superb to my ears. It's when you convert from balanced to single ended or or more so vice versa that you can expect some level of degradation.

 

[duckworp]

Please post the spec. for the input sensitivity of your amp and the output from your DAC/CD both on the balanced and single ended connections.

Perhaps this will shed some light on the matter.

This is what I have from the manual

SIA-025 Specifications
Rated Output Power………… . .………2 x 25W Class A /2 x 100W Class AB
Frequency Response………………………… . . . . .………… . . . .DC to +800KHz
Signal to Noise Ration……………………………… . . . . .……… . .……> 110dB
THD+ Noise………………………………… . . . .………… . . . .Better than 0,01%
Input Sensitivity……………………………… . . . . . . .……………2, 4 or 8 V RMS
Input Impedance…………………… . . . . . . .…… . . .RCA = 10KΩ / XLR = 10KΩ
Slew Rate……………………………… . . . . . . . . .………………… . . .… . . . .> 35V/ μs



SCD-025 Specifications

RCA Analog
Available 1 (L+R)
Sensitivity 2 VRMS
Impedance 75Ω
freq resopnse +800khz
signal to noise ratio <110dB

XLR
Available 1 (L+R)
Sensitivity 6 VRMS
Impedance 75Ω
freq resopnse +800khz
signal to noise ratio <110dB

 

[radamel]

If it's a natively balanced circuit it should sound better with balanced connections. You can connect natively balanced equipment up in with single ended connections (or connect fully balanced kit with single ended only kit) but that would at the very least result in a loss of gain and an increased noise floor.

There is no reason why a well implemented balanced system should be better than a well implemented single ended system. My HIFI kit (linn obviously) is all single ended and sounds superb to my ears. It's when you convert from balanced to single ended or or more so vice versa that you can expect some level of degradation.

I see what you mean.

Cheers!

 

[abbydog]

Balanced implemented with cheap op-amps can sound bad (Lundahl transformers and the like may be a bit better) - really you need fully differential kit.

 

[misterdog]

Your attitude of jumping down my throat in an attempt to 'protect people from marketing foo' is not making any sense here

But you are not engaging in debate, your opening statement 'unbalanced is best' and I agree, is merely a statement of your opinion, based on one magazine article and your one amp/CD player.

So you are neither providing statistical or scientific 'evidence' or even any reasoning.

 

[radamel]

So you are neither providing statistical or scientific 'evidence' or even any reasoning.

So a debate about what may sound better must, according to you, provide statistical or "scientific" evidence or even any "reasoning" (whatever you may think that is)...

Who has given you the prerogative of defining how people debate in this HiFi forum?

 

[cooky1257]

I was pleasantly surprised to read an article entitled “Unbalanced Is Best” in this quarter's Hi-Fi Critic magazine (the excellent subscription-only print magazine). The writer, Harvey Lovegrove, describes an A/B blind test he did: he compared a fully balanced XLR and an unbalanced RCA interconnect. The results come out clearly in favour of the unbalanced single-ended (RCA) input.

I say I am ‘pleasantly surprised’ as I have had a similar experience to the writer, but kept quiet as no one quite believed me. I have a Vitus amp and DAC/CD player with fully balanced XLR inputs/outputs as well as traditional RCA connections. After much listening to RCA interconnects I had on demo I ended up choosing the excellent Townshend F1 Fractal interconnect. However, as I have a fully balanced XLR output/input I presumed that the XLR option would be best, but before committing to buy the XLR I demoed the XLR version of the cable and directly compared the sound to the RCA interconnect. In the A/B (not blind) comparison I found the balanced XLR interconnect was not sounding nearly as good as the single-ended RCA. I told Sue from Townshend about my experience, but she was not surprised - I understand Max Townshend maintains RCA does generally provide a better sound than XLR, and this is exactly what I heard. Obviously I purchased the RCA version of the Townshend F1 Fractal interconnect.

Harvey Lovegrove, a recording professional and journalist writing in HiFi Critic, found exactly the same thing, through A/B blind testing from fully balanced Ayon DAC outputs into D-Sonic Monoblock fully balanced inputs. It surprised him too, but after talking to engineers he post-rationalises and gives complicated engineering explanations for the findings (to be fair it is only complicated as I am no electronics engineer).

He concludes that a fully balanced system can serve you well if you have things like nasty high-powered lighting systems, massive transformers and dimmer rigs in amongst your system, which is common in the Live environment but not so much in your lounge. So in the domestic environment he maintains you should keep it simple with single-ended inputs.

His A/B tests completely bear this out: the RCA was better than the XLR version of the same cable.

The fact that Townshend suggested the RCA would be better than the XLR balanced, the fact that was exactly what I heard, and the fact that Hi-Fi Critic in a blind test reported exactly the same, these things lead me to a conclusion: perhaps my own experience of preferring the sound from the rca interconnect over the balanced XLR interconnect is not so crazy after all.

Maybe, just maybe, sometimes unbalanced really is best.

Wow fascinating, well done you, that's all the proof I need, I don't know about anyone else here but it's a slam dunk kudos to HiFi Critic for setting the record straight.. Great.

 

[misterdog]

This is what I have from the manual

SIA-025 Specifications
Rated Output Power………… . .………2 x 25W Class A /2 x 100W Class AB
Frequency Response………………………… . . . . .………… . . . .DC to +800KHz
Signal to Noise Ration……………………………… . . . . .……… . .……> 110dB
THD+ Noise………………………………… . . . .………… . . . .Better than 0,01%
Input Sensitivity……………………………… . . . . . . .……………2, 4 or 8 V RMS
Input Impedance…………………… . . . . . . .…… . . .RCA = 10KΩ / XLR = 10KΩ
Slew Rate……………………………… . . . . . . . . .………………… . . .… . . . .> 35V/ μs



SCD-025 Specifications

RCA Analog
Available 1 (L+R)
Sensitivity 2 VRMS
Impedance 75Ω
freq resopnse +800khz
signal to noise ratio <110dB

XLR
Available 1 (L+R)
Sensitivity 6 VRMS
Impedance 75Ω
freq resopnse +800khz
signal to noise ratio <110dB

I assume you selected the appropriate settings for each cable type.

Input gain settings Offset gain setting / Sensitivity setting. Different sources often have different output voltages. This has a direct influence on the typical volume level that is needed for a specific sound level, hence changing between sources can result in high sound level differences. To accommodate easy operation, we have included a gain (or as some prefer to call it – sensitivity setting) in our amplifiers – it simply sets the volume starting point at a specific volume – to match the source. The offset-value can be set from - 12 dB to +12 dB. In the example on page XX we will show you how you can change the offset values (Examples 4 and 5 on pages 33

Also from the user manual.

To prevent clipping of the input. The sensitivity level needs to be higher then the input level

 

[radamel]

Wow fascinating, well done you, that's all the proof I need, I don't know about anyone else here but it's a slam dunk kudos to HiFi Critic for setting the record straight.. Great.

What's the matter with you? Who said anything about proof?

I really fail to understand where all this acrimony comes from...

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

OP>
My thanks for the observation, IMO a useful thing for these forums.

As for how the rest of the thread somehow morphed into another pointless debate, I've got to ask, just why?
The OP has voiced his opinion with regards to his own system. I don't remember him saying that it was the universal answer. So I really don't understand why you'd want to derail things.

Some people really should take a deep breath, stand back and reflect on what they're posting and why on here.

I did think that this forum was for a useful point to share experiences. If you're here just to create "noise" for the LOL, well I think you can imagine my view on that.

 

[duckworp]

I thought this was going to be an interesting subject, not one I know much about. 'Unbalanced is Best' is in quotes as it is from the article title, it is not a definitive statement of fact.

I thought debate was more about, "well this could be why it sometimes sounds better", or "this could be why it doesn't always sound better", or some interesting engineering insights into the whys and hows of rca and xlr balanced. Instead the thread quickly deteriorated into people having a 'go' at expensive cables, people saying that you can't have an opinion without measurements, people getting defensive about xlr, and demanding that I answer questions about the listening experiment. Mostly unpleasant in tone. Unless that is how people like to debate around here.

Perhaps it was the '...is best' definitve nature of the statement that caused this arousal of anger, maybe people did not understand that it was quote. If so then I apologise for leading the thread title like this. I will learn and in future be less dogmatic with thread titles. I thought that the fact that it was in quotes meant that it would be understood that it was a quote and not my definitive statement of truth.

My concluding statement "maybe, just maybe, sometimes unbalanced is best" seems pretty open to debate to me. I am not stating that it is best, I am just opening the debate to allow for the fact that it might sometimes be better, something I did not realise prior to listening to two cables the way I did. I do not quite see how this caused so much instant ire.

 

[radamel]

I thought this was going to be an interesting subject, not one I know much about. 'Unbalanced is Best' is in quotes as it is from the article title, it is not a definitive statement of fact.

I thought debate was more about, "well this could be why it sometimes sounds better", or "this could be why it doesn't always sound better", or some interesting engineering insights into the whys and hows of rca and xlr balanced. Instead the thread quickly deteriorated into people having a 'go' at expensive cables, people saying that you can't have an opinion without measurements, people getting defensive about xlr, and demanding that I answer questions about the listening experiment. Mostly unpleasant in tone. Unless that is how people like to debate around here.

Perhaps it was the '...is best' definitve nature of the statement that caused this arousal of anger, maybe people did not understand that it was quote. If so then I apologise for leading the thread title like this. I will learn and in future be less dogmatic with thread titles. I thought that the fact that it was in quotes meant that it would be understood that it was a quote and not my definitive statement of truth.

My concluding statement "maybe, just maybe, sometimes unbalanced is best" seems pretty open to debate to me. I am not stating that it is best just opening the debate to allow for the fact that it might sometimes be better, something I did not realise prior to listening to two cables the way I did. I do not quite see how this caused so much instant ire.

Great post!

 

[cooky1257]

What's the matter with you? Who said anything about proof?

I really fail to understand where all this acrimony comes from...

Oh sorry I was trying to engage in the kind of unquestioning 'debate' you seem to be whining for. Seem that any attempts at REAL debate such as how many took part in the 'test' is taken as an insult or acrimony.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Duck>
Well I appreciate the post, bit of a shame that there's so much "noise" on here that it probably discourages some from even voicing their opinion, which feels like an utter wasted opportunity. "Yeah, let's have a forum to share experiences, then SHOUT at people willing to actually do it".

I'm on a forum, so I'll take a step back myself before saying how I feel on the subject.

 

[duckworp]

Duck>
Well I appreciate the post, bit of a shame that there's so much "noise" on here that it probably discourages some from even voicing their opinion, which feels like an utter wasted opportunity. "Yeah, let's have a forum to share experiences, then SHOUT at people willing to actually do it".
.

Thanks. I thought that was what it was about too. I think I will not share experiences in future on here. Is there a forum where you can, or is it always like this on all hifi forums?

 

[misterdog]

Who has given you the prerogative of defining how people debate in this HiFi forum?

There is more than sufficient unsubstantiated marketing bullshit in the world without adding to it.
IMO.
You may disagree so feel free to.

 

[cooky1257]

All I said was that piece of halibut was fit for Jehovah. You lot crack me up.

Here are my posts;

1.How many listeners were on the auditioning panel?

2....and yet his use of balanced xlrs in his recordings doesn't prevent the information getting on to tape that then miraculously is revealed by RCA's....just saying. Anyone charging £1k/m is taking the piss.

Shocking, I know.

 

[linnfomaniac83]

Thanks. I thought that was what it was about too. I think I will not share experiences in future on here. Is there a forum where you can, or is it always like this on all hifi forums?

This is by far one of the friendliest forums... but cable threads can get a bit heated across the board, also, when a statement is seen as being definitive, especially if its controversial, it can trigger a strong response. I did understand the nature of your post and hopefully my reply was helpful.

Don’t be too discouraged, we’ve all started a thread or made a comment that’s evoked a strong response at some point. It’s the internet and there are thousands of people on here with differing views.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Please FFS people lose the silly XLR = balanced, RCA Phono = unbalanced rubbish that always pollutes the waters whenever this is discussed. The type of connector used has diddly squat to do with whether it's balanced or not. 90% plus of balanced connections will be made with XLR for convention and historical reasons but XLR's do have other uses and "XLR" definitely does not mean balanced!!! I've had to load the shotguns with rock salt many a time I tell you when some ejit says "should I use unbalanced or XLR?"
The thread should lose the mention of interconnects also as it obviously has nothing to do with anything... so
"‘Unbalanced is Best'? a comparison of balanced and unbalanced" would be more accurate....
and relax...

Me? I prefer unbalanced. A sweeping generality based mainly on the way that most balanced facilities are afterthoughts for marketing reasons ("lets convince the punters that balanced is better then offer it as a reason to buy our top of the range stuff") and usually involve putting the signal through more electronics, often op amps. When the design of a particular piece of circuitry intrinsically lends itself to being natively balanced, and in an elegant manner, it can have some advantages (non of them the ones yer average audiophile will be thinking of!) but we don't know what it will be used with and it may well then be connected to another item of "balanced" gear that uses several op amps to convert the signal back to unbalanced before feeding it through the rest of the often unbalanced circuitry.
Notwithstanding any of the above there's also the simple fact that different topologies sound different to one another... It's all too easy to compare say an unbalanced with a balanced amp and decide that all the differences are down to it being balanced/unbalanced when in fact it's down to how much feedback was used, grounding regime, frequency response and distortion etc etc, all the things that would effect the difference between two unbalanced amps!

Ultimately the whole balanced V unbalanced thing is a technical discussion so we'll probably see nowt but "unicorn racing" with the technical and scientific integrity of "do gun-metal finished amps sound better than silver finished amps" Anyone could be forgiven for thinking I'm rather cynical these days...

 

[duckworp]

Please FFS people lose the silly XLR = balanced, RCA Phono = unbalanced rubbish that always pollutes the waters whenever this is discussed. The type of connector used has diddly squat to do with whether it's balanced or not. 90% plus of balanced connections will be made with XLR for convention and historical reasons but XLR's do have other uses and "XLR" definitely does not mean balanced!!! I've had to load the shotguns with rock salt many a time I tell you when some ejit says "should I use unbalanced or XLR?"
The thread should lose the mention of interconnects also as it obviously has nothing to do with anything... so
"‘Unbalanced is Best'? a comparison of balanced and unbalanced" would be more accurate....
and relax...

Me? I prefer unbalanced. A sweeping generality based mainly on the way that most balanced facilities are afterthoughts for marketing reasons ("lets convince the punters that balanced is better then offer it as a reason to buy our top of the range stuff") and usually involve putting the signal through more electronics, often op amps. When the design of a particular piece of circuitry intrinsically lends itself to being natively balanced, and in an elegant manner, it can have some advantages (non of them the ones yer average audiophile will be thinking of!) but we don't know what it will be used with and it may well then be connected to another item of "balanced" gear that uses several op amps to convert the signal back to unbalanced before feeding it through the rest of the often unbalanced circuitry.
Notwithstanding any of the above there's also the simple fact that different topologies sound different to one another... It's all too easy to compare say an unbalanced with a balanced amp and decide that all the differences are down to it being balanced/unbalanced when in fact it's down to how much feedback was used, grounding regime, frequency response and distortion etc etc, all the things that would effect the difference between two unbalanced amps!

Ultimately the whole balanced V unbalanced thing is a technical discussion so we'll probably see nowt but "unicorn racing" with the technical and scientific integrity of "do gun-metal finished amps sound better than silver finished amps" Anyone could be forgiven for thinking I'm rather cynical these days...

I think that's a great idea and I have changed the title as you suggest. It confused me for ages the whole xlr = balanced thing before I realised it actually doesn't always. Though in this instance my amp and cdp and the ones the hifi critic reviewer used were fully balanced. Though you say interconnects are irrelevant but they are useful in this instance as unless you use identical interconnects one could argue that a perceived difference came from a different cable.