Inter Connects - What I know and don't know

@williewonka 

Good post. Value added. Excellent that someone with the DIY bent chimes in. There are lots of variables… which is why different companies have pursued many different approaches. 

@nquery this might be easier to understand:

Balanced line connections

Its from the Rane website- they are a manufacturer of studio equipment. 

The reason ground is ignored (whereas in a single-ended connection the ground is part of the signal) is because ground loops are endemic. So rather than trying to prevent them, the balanced line system simply doesn't use ground. In a recording studio where you might have an enormous amount of equipment, this makes it easy to hook things up with confidence; hunting down errant buzzes is much more rare.

An advantage of not using the ground is that the cable itself becomes more neutral. So much of what we hear as differences in cables has to do with how the shielding is constructed since a signal (at ground potential) is being passed through it. When that issue is removed the cable becomes more neutral. 

@69zoso69 - - that Ludic Power cable is very affordable considering the materials crafttsmanship and design. It should be a very good performer

The Zavfino cables should also perform very well, since I am yet to hear any negatice comments about them.

In my own quest for great cables, one thing that I became very aware of is allowing sufficient break-in time. Ive had cables that took over 400 hours to sound their very best.

But generally...

1. cables can sound very good immediately
2. after about 20 hours they can start to sound as little rough around the edges - not as smooth
3. 60 hours and up, they start to shine again
4. 100 hours and they are almost at their peak
5. 150-300 hours you may start to really notice the appearance micro details in the venue acoustics - i.e. the very small echoes and reverberations of the concert hall

My own break-in method is to run my streamer 24/7 for about a week and then return to normal listening for a month or two.

You should be hearing some very nice improvements with the cables you have selected

Enjoy - Steve

@ghdprentice - glad you enjoyed the post  - and I definitely agree with your statement...

There are lots of variables… which is why different companies have pursued many different approaches. 

Cables can get very complicated - if you let it🙂

Regards - Steve

@atmasphere  thanks for the followup and link. I read it and understand it in and of itself.

T+A previously stated that pin 1 is connected to the enclosure (chassis) and not signal ground so this would suggest that they do match the "recommended practice" in Figure 1b of the article you linked. i.e. "equipment using 3-pin, XLR-type connectors must tie pin 1 to the chassis (usually called chassis ground) -- not the audio signal ground as is most common."

So far so good. Now, that's where the article you linked stops.

T+A then said "The analog signal circuitry of the DAC200 is referenced to the analog signal ground" and that this matches figure 3 in AES48 Draft. In this figure 3, the pin 2 and pin 3 (signal circuits) are tied to the REF = "Signal Reference" which I assume is what they meant when they said "signal ground".

This is where I am having a disconnect - isn't this the same thing as when you state that pin 2 and pin 3 need to reference each other and not 'ground'?? I assume you mean chassis ground, not the REF = Signal Reference in the AES diagram.

I don't believe the DAC uses an output transformer ('The generation of the balanced audio signal is already done in digital domain - not in analog domain.') so isn't it possible that the differential circuit could legitimately push out twice voltage for balanced vs SE and still remain AES48 compliant?

Thanks for your patience and understanding, I am learning a lot.