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

Showing 5 responses by nsgarch

nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
"Assuming fully balanced equipment"

That's the key right there. If the equipment (but principally the amp and preamp) has fully balanced circuit topology, then 'yes" balanced is better -- and for all the reasons you mention, and one other very important one you didn't:

You're giving the circuits more (voltage, usually) to work with (resulting in better signal to noise values) and conversely, you are engaging the circuit(s) to their full design capacity (resulting in lower distortion levels.)

So although the advantages you mention are real, they all have to do with the differences between the cables themselves (SE vs. BAL) whereas my focus has more to do with what the equipment can do with a balanced signal vs. a single-ended signal. The reason Steve McCormack said what he did, is that the DNA 500 uses the balanced input "as is" (the amp is a fully balanced design BTW) and has (I presume) alternate input circuits that "convert" SE input signals into balanced form in order to take full advantage of the amp's balanced design. This is a nice feature, but notwithstanding his remarks, I'd feed it (the amp) a balanced signal if I had one available.
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
Eldartford, when you have twice the signal, you can run the device with half the gain. That lowers the noise floor considerably. As for the ICs themselves, it's not so much that they resist noise pick-up any better than a SE IC. It's just that the noise in one signal conductor is 180 deg. out of phase with the noise in the other signal conductor, so it self cancels.

Pmotz, the McCormack DNA 500 has fully balanced circuit topology from input to output. Specs are on their website:
http://www.mccormackaudio.com/
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
Well, I read Mr. Mackie's article, and for starters, he apparently is unaware that "ground" in a SE circuit is "common ground" or "chassis ground" whereas "signal ground" in a BAL circuit is separate from the common/chassis ground, and therefore presents a different (and quieter) reference for the signal. If you look closely at an XLR connector, you will see it has two separate ground connections: signal ground (usually pin 1) and common/chassis ground provided by the bayonet connection on the barrel of the XLR.

This is another way balanced circuitry provides cleaner signal processing. I'm sorry, but I believe Mr. Mackie's article contains misleading information which in the end compromises his conclusion(s). Just my opinion of course ;~))
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
Bigtee -- perfectly put!
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
I think Shadorne's comment:

"The home audio market may not be educated about the problems of noise or has never suffered significant noise problems "

is important, because in discussing BAL vs. SE, it's the noise you can't hear (consciously) that contributes to (what I consider) a qualitative difference between the two.

Steve is correct about the location of the noise cancellation -- it's at the input end of the cable. However, components with truly balanced circuit topology do not convert balanced input signals to SE. Rather they convert SE signals to pseudo-balanced signals.
More to discover