Well, due to crosstalk, I would say IF you can do it, make one stereo single ended box do the two positive parts (both R & L positive. (and then you are actually doing NOTHING to the internals of the box!) .. and the second box do the two negative parts. Again, once you have the negative signal, you are just entering it into a not modified box. Then the crosstalk will not be a problem.The signals coming out would be left positive and right positive one from each box to the plus and minus of a balanced cable. ditto the other channel. Then getting the output of both plus and minus exactly the same level... A problem particularly if the boxes have a knob adjusting the bass balance. (I have NO IDEA if any problem to equipment with out of balance balanced voltages on the two legs. MY GUESS is it is really no big deal to be a little off. Then the impedance matching.. It certainly will change from the origin of the balanced signal. to the boxes, and then back to a balanced cable. This is another area an EE would know a lot more about.
The one issue would be the ground from both boxes would be connected.(perhaps at both the input and exit if from a balanced device. I have no idea if that would cause ’blue smoke devastation’/termination of equipment function. Or would just be no problem. Even some resistors COULD solve that.. but it would need someone with EE tech abilities to know fer’ sure.
I was wondering about the benefits of trying to convert two of them to balanced mono operation.IMO, it will benefit if the rest of your system is true balanced.
make one stereo single ended box do the two positive parts (both R & L positive. (and then you are actually doing NOTHING to the internals of the box!) .. and the second box do the two negative parts. Again, once you have the negative signal, you are just entering it into a not modified box.
@unsound, have you ever considering bi-amp the cs3.5?
Thiel use parallel crossover design can easily modified to bi-ampable, so the bass equalizer will has no effect on higher frequencies.
Thanks for all your responses. I seem to be just as confused as when I first started.
I have considered bi-amping the 3.5's. The 3.5's only come with one set of binding posts per speaker. The earlier 3.0's came with two sets of binding posts per speaker. Perhaps "Coherent Source Service"
the company made up of ex-Thiel techs could modify the 3.5's with earlier dual setup 3.0 binding posts. They are currently working on cap replacement/upgrades for the Jim Thiel designs, Unfortunately I'm led to believe that the 3.5 cap replacements are not currently on the front burner of development. I do have a bit of concern about the time delay between the signal that would go through the eq vs. the signal that doesn't. I realized that the time might be insignificant, but time integrity is one of the hallmarks of Thiel designs (and a handful of others). Heck, the cross-overs on the CS 5's were designed to move drivers back as little as 3/8".
Furthermore, though bi-amping would help keep the eq out of the upper registers, the degree to which might be less than one might first assume due to the shallow 1st order cross-over. Still, despite the extra expense the thought has much merit.
Thanks again for the responses. I still don't feel like I understand this well enough. In any event I don't have the technical skills to pull this of myself and think I would have to hire some one to complete the task, should I go forward.
I welcome any other thoughts or considerations.
As always, thanks in advance.
You could do this with some modification, but there really isn't a good way to do it otherwise. The problem is that you have to invert the signal to one channel in order for a balanced output to be produced from the pair of channels.
One way do solve that, assuming a single-ended input, is to wire the input circuits of the two channels as a single differential amplifier- with each output then driving their respective channels. This assumes a discrete solid state circuit. And you might need a negative power supply to make it happen.
Another way would be to use an line transformer driving the two inputs. This is by far the easiest way to do this but the transformers that are worth it aren't cheap. Jensen makes the best- its either that or Lundahl. If the secondary driving the input of the EQ has a center tap that would be helpful, but a pair of resistors would do as well. PM me if you need more info.
Atmasphere, Thanks for your considered thoughts. I was hoping you might respond:-). I’ve always been curious about using balanced configuration, and your previous posts on the subject have been quite compelling. Honestly, this subject seems more and more like it’s way beyond my technical understandings. Still, I’m curious and it might open up options up and down stream in my system if I could resolve the bottle neck.
Just last week I was lamenting that there was so little response.
The schematic is beyond my comprehension, but I suspect might be invaluable.
In the past week the Audiogon community has really impressed me with their selfless research, posting and invitations for private discourse.
Thank you all so very much! It truly is appreciated!