balanced is inherently flawed

I didn't read all the responses here, yet. I'm using a single-ended preamp(RGR) with a balanced amplifier(Nuforce 8b). With the Cardas adaptors, does this present any problems. Are there advantages to going with a balanced preamp?

OK, I'll come clean. I knew going in that my position was indefensible. After being involved with electronics on a daily basis for the past 25 years, including 10 years teaching circuit theory, I knew that if one took the position that balanced is better for any number of technical resons, noise performance, etc. that it could not be refuted. I also knew that it was impossible if they took the position that it simply sounds better since very few can agree on what actually sounds better.

So when I said that balanced was inherently flawed, what I really meant was that IN MY OPINION, even though balanced looks better on paper, single ended can sound just as good or better with simpler circuits and therefore a lower cost. Pretty much the "overkill" that 9rW mentioned.

I enjoyed Ralph's spirited response and he did indeed shoot down some of my original points that I either didn't think through very well or could not be defended if you take the "if it measures better it is better" angle.

I hope you all enjoy your balanced equipment and I'm sure it sounds great.

Thank you Herman for raising the issues that you felt were important, for in doing so, you managed to inspire Ralph to write some of the most informative posts I've read on this noteworthy and often misinterpreted subject.

I've concluded that you and Ralph actually know each other and he suggested you posted as the devil's advocate, a classic literary device, in order for him to help educate the AudiogoN readers. Beautiful. Thank you both. ;-)

Regards,

9rW, you simply reworded your previous post and made the same challenges. Please see my previous response.

Rowland, Johnson, Pass, Paul McGowan of PS Audio and several others in the balanced camp aren't just men who design amps while they're watching the bait shop. They're among the most respected in the industry and have been doing this for several decades. If you're going to challenge them, you really need to be able to back it up with something other than unfounded theories and hunches.

It would be one thing to claim that balanced is perhaps overkill. But to claim it's actually inferior is, indeed, entertaining.

So what about those credentials and technical expertise to back up your claims? Short of that, at least cite several designers who are in the same class as the ones I've mentioned.

Rats, even though I agree that some of the issues raised by the "balanced is better" crowd are nonsense, I still found it to be entertaining.

Making nonsense of technical issues is entertaining?

have fun...:)

steve

True. Your post generated lots of discussion.

Besides, anyone who appreciates and quotes Guy Clark can't be all bad.

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

First, I have credentials but that has nothing to do with it. All the education, qualifications, references, and published papers in the world won't change the fact that either I'm right or I'm wrong. Even an uneducated fool is right sometimes.

Secondly, a list of designers that embrace a balanced design doesn't mean anything. I can rattle off a list of well respected single ended designers that proves just as little.

Whichever side of this you land on you must admit it was an enternaining thread.

I just stumbled upon this thread today. Well, obviously, Bill Johnson at Audio Research, Nelson Pass, Jeff Rowland and many other designers (in addition to Ralph) of some of the best amplifiers have a lot to learn. I'm really glad to see Sean and Herman set them straight.

(Gentlemen: Please tell us about your educational backgrounds and whatever other qualifications you might have so Audiogoners can take that into account. I think a lot of people would like to know.)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious. It could be that you've published in peer-reviewed journals and all of your claims are absolutely valid. If so, please include references. Thanks.

Herman- Glad that you have been listening to your system. I was going to make you an offer (shhh! the wife is looking over my shoulder).

Russ

Hi Sean, I'm not a big fan of the DIN plugs either. I was just commenting that they seem to be a sort of British/Euro tradition. Get careless, trip on the cable or step on a connector on the floor and its toast. I had to make up the cable for the Echolette I mentioned- what a pain.

Some people that are neater then me won't have these issues, but come to think of it, 1/4 phone plugs are about the only thing you could step on without hurting it right away.

Further thoughts on the speaker issue... almost any dynamic driver would be considered balanced, but few crossovers are. There are dual VC dynamic drivers out there FWIW. Some planar speakers are balanced too. Seems to me some of the Maggies (later ones), ETs and certain ESLs. In the case of a loudspeaker, the balance issues have much to do with the Electromotive device the speaker employs, sort of the reverse of a balanced pickup (like a phono cartridge). IOW a speaker that is not balanced is really the exception rather then the rule

Sean...IMHO, We are talking about such low voltage/current level signals that connector contact resistance is of little consequence. The practical advantage of DIN connectors is that they lock in place. RCAs are easily pulled out.

Any time you use a stereo amp in bridged mode your speaker wires are "balanced mode". I have always found bridged mode to be good, (assuming that the amp can handle the load impedance) and I don't understand why some folk don't like it.

Ralph: There are points that i'd like to respond to on your comments pertaining to the amp / speaker interphase, but i'm going to refrain from doing so for now. I've got my reasons and it has nothing to do with you, your company or your products. As i've mentioned before, i like many of the design aspects and sonics generated of the Atmasphere amps.

As to DIN connectors, as far as i'm concerned, they are the worst audio related connector on the market. I don't care if the "technologically advanced" aka "perfection oriented" Germans invented them, they make a poor connection, are not rugged, lack reasonable spacing between conductors, increase the potential for crosstalk between channels / circuits, are difficult to assemble if working with anything above hair-fine wire, etc... To keep things in perspective, some of my Quad gear uses them. The only reason that i can see that a company would want to use a connector like this is that it minimizes clutter ( Quad gear is typically very small ) and that it "almost" makes one choose products from the same manufacturer due to connection compatability. This guarantees the manufacturer that the unit will be working with suitable support components ( probably their own ) and increases the potential for more sales of their own gear. Then again, the reverse part of that equation is that they end up losing sales due to lack of universal connections. Either way, i HATE those damn DIN plugs!!! Sean
>

Hi Sean,

The interface to a speaker really depends on the amp, not the speaker. The reason is that the speaker floats, and if you change the connections to it, all that changes is the phase. OTOH, some amps drive a speaker SE and others are balanced. Ours drive it balanced of course, either speaker terminal is floating (not connected to) ground. Some speakers have balanced topologies in the crossovers and other don't.

With regards to the question about the preamp, I'm not able to answer the question as I don't know any of the particulars. I can tell you this: On older MP-1s we used a vacuum tube regulator and there were two problems with this.
Some people did not put in the tube (did not or would not read the manual), and while the preamp would work this way it certainly would not sound right. The other problem is that the tube would fail and the preamp would continue to run, again in a compromised state. Newer MP-1s have this issue fixed with a semiconductor regulator that is impedance, temperature and short protected (and is an order of magnitude better regulation and smoother impedance). That would be my guess about what was going on.

Herman, I agree that RCA connectors have plenty of weaknesses. RCA developed them for purposes other then audio and we have been making do ever since. I prefer a connection that locks in place somehow (like 1/4" phone plugs; I also appreciate their robustness), but that's just me.

My soapbox: If high end audio as an industry went to 1/4 phone connectors, we could use balanced and single-ended connections intermixed, as 1/4 phone plugs can support either. A lot less screwing around...

Naim, being British, is typical of using DIN connectors, like other Euro manufacturers. Its kind of a tradition- I have an old Echolette (used by musicians) made in Germany in the early 60s) that uses DIN connections. DIN connections can be used about any way you want- balanced, SE either in mono or stereo, or as SE inputs/outputs. BTW, Naim uses balanced circuits as elements in their power amp circuits. Just thought you should know :)

Buscis2, thanks for the comments. I've taught more then one class in the past and the education aspect definately gets away from me. High End Audio being what it is, you can spend *WAY* too much money and wind up having a stereo that essentially sucks. I see no point in that, so if I can be helpful I do give it a try. On these forums, I try to stick to what I know and stay away from those things for which I have no passion.

Ralph, if I may be so bold as to call you Ralph, thanks for all of the information you have provided. I think we've run our course here, but I've learned a few things and been reminded of things I learned long ago but forgot. I may be a bit pig headed but I'm not stupid. You haven't convinced me that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but at least you've piqued my interest in your products and I would love to hear them. That can't be all bad.

And here is something we can agree on that relates to what Russ says above. One huge weakness in the standard SE scheme is the use of RCA connectors. In a nutshell, they suck, but Russ, the fact that a DIN connector has enough pins that it could be used to carry a balanced signal does not make it a balanced connector. The fact that Naim chose to address this weakness by going with a more robust DIN connector does not mean that they "provides much the same result" as being balanced. The earthing scheme may be improved, but other than that it provides absolutely none of the benefits that Ralph has been pointing out with regards to being balanced. Oh, and yeah, I listened several hours yesterday and enjoyed myself immensely. Thanks for asking :>)

Two things Ralph.

"Not that I'm saying that SE is bad, just that balanced (done right, which is not that hard) is better and *any* audiophile can hear it. I had a girlfriend who was deaf in one ear, and half deaf in the other, and *she* could hear it, so I am confident you can too if it give it a straight shot."

Someone that is highly respected, both within the Audiogon forums and audio industry on the whole, publicly commented that they did not like your preamps at ALL. On top of that, the preamp that they ended up running is being utilized in single ended mode. Given that they've run your amps and found them to be a quality product, how would you respond to that?

As a side note, a reduction in noise of -18 dB's is equivalent to having 1/64th the noise floor that you started out with. As Herman points out though, if the noise floor is already well below audibility, how much of a benefit is it?

There's another thing that you're overlooking Ralph. That is, ALL amplifier / speaker interphases are "single ended". Why this is, i don't know.

If you think about it, a "balanced" dynamic driver would be simple to make AND offer drastically improved transient response. By using two coils in parallel ( one positive and one negative ) and driving them with a common center tap ( ground ), you would literally have ( near ) instant acceleration and deceleration potential. When one motor was pulling, the other would be pushing, etc... They would end up sharing the load AND cancelling out / drastically reducing the effects of reflected EMF. Why hasn't anyone done something like this? While it would take an all new speaker AND amplifier design, i see no reason why it couldn't be done successfully.

Once again, the "high end" and "high tech" audio engineers / manufacturers "sleeping on the job". Sean
>

PS... I'm a "more is better" kind of guy, so i'll take any reduction in noise / increase in power that i can get. Having said that, only one of my systems is running in balanced mode.

PPS... An E-stat would lend itself to "balanced drive" also with no need for a transformer. One could use high voltage output devices in the amplifier and directly charge the two plates and mylar. By varying the positive and negative potential between the plates, the mylar, which would be grounded, would be repelled and / or attracted uniformly across the entire sheet in both directions. Only problem here is that you would have one helluva safety hazard to deal with when energized / playing music.

Atmasphere, I find it hard to believe that you are still beating your head against the wall on thi issue. I have to credit you for your tanacity. I responded to this thread several times with what I considered useful information, fully encompassing all aspects of balanced designs, obviously to no avail. If one was to read, evaluate, and retain the information previously provided, there would be no requirement for this redundancy.

If the personal factors were removed from this thread, it would have ended 27 responses ago.

For those of you who agree or disagree, at the very least, take the time to acknowledge the provided information in this thread and be willing to understand the technology. Stop thinking that all information by manufacturers is only being provided to sell you something. A lot of that is also a matter of interpretation.

Your mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

OK- good questions. Here we go:

I use tubes because the distortion they generate is less annoying to the human ear then the distortion of transistors. This has to do with odd-ordered generation that transistors do. Even in vanishingly small amounts, the ear is sensitive to this. Tubes don't make nearly as much of this distortion.

To get rid of the noise of tubes, I use balanced differential circuits, and acheive noise figures 5-5.5db less per stage of gain then I would have if operated SE with the same topology. In a preamp with 3 stages of gain, this is close to 18 db less noise as compared to the same topology in a single-ended embodiment. Don't tell me you can't hear that! Reducing the noise floor means more detail, and detail is a highly desirable characteristic of a good system.

You hear differences in cables due to several factors:
1) termination impedance
2) characteristic impedance of the cable.

The two are related. Since most SE cables are terminated with 100K or more in most cases, the capacitance of the cable can easily interact with the input impedance of the amplifier to result in a high frequency rolloff that is quite measureable and audible. This introduces measureable and audible phase shift. Since different cables have different capacitances, the roll-off and phase shift is different from cable to cable. You also have termination losses due to the connectors themselves, and reflections due to the characteristic impedance of the cable being poorly terminated by the input of the amp.

With balanced lines, the cable issues are swamped by the impedance of the driver circuit and also by the input impedance of the amp, which if done properly, are both quite low. With low impedances, the capacitances and other cable issues are pushed out to frequencies well outside the audio band (and the propogation delay in the cable is improved too- up to 8X better). This is easily heard and measured.

You may get 100KHz out of SE designs, although most tube based SE power amps will not do anywhere near that, but the real issue is can you get that signal *into* the amp from a distance. You might be able to over a meter or two, but not if the cable is ten meters long. Over that length, the high frequency roll-offs will be too severe. You need balanced lines to do better.

If you wonder why I brought up Mercury, the point was that a *microphone* signal went over 150 feet to get to the tape recorders. Just go ahead and see of you can get a hifi signal out of a single-ended cable that is 150 feet long! You can't. Now I know that no-one uses cables that long at home, but what happens if you are interested in that last degree of nuance that is possible? Well I can tell you quite simply that the better your cable is, even if its only 3 feet, the more nuance you will transmit. And audiophiles are all over that nuance stuff. That's what makes good things happen in good systems. If you want that last degree of nuance, you have to use a balanced sytem to get it, particularly if you have any real length in the cables.

Herman- Sounds like you have a nice system. Do you ever listen to it? And one more time, being that you are a Naim owner, Naim uses DIN connectors "to eliminate earthing problems and improve CMR" (go to their website or give them a call). As you have stated "Naim is not fully balanced", but conceptually the use of balanced (DIN) connectors provides much the same result. Give it up already; as I said above "no one is twisting your arm".

Hi Herman

I see that you do not understand how balanced signals works. That's OK. Here's a short primer:

Any signal source (transducer: either electromechanical, inductive or light) that does not use ground as a reference is a balanced source. What this means is that as long as one of the output leads of the device will work as well as the other, and switching them only means that phase has been reversed, then the device is a balanced source.

Phono cartridges are like this, tape heads are like this, microphones are like this, light sensing pickups are like this. So *IF* you wanted to, you could use the output of a laser pickup in the balanced domain. There are CD drives that do this out in the field and in service; I read about a company doing this over ten years ago! I don't keep up on digital technology as much as analog so I don't know of current (no pun intended) examples. Now the fact that this is the case is probably not really very important, since the analog signal that comes off the light pickup is interpreted as a digital signal fairly close to the pickup itself.

Herman, to say that what happened with Mercury in 1958 has nothing to do with how your system operates is flat wrong. Here's how I know: What does you stereo sound like with nothing playing on it? Hopefully, silence, or very near that. Where does the recording come from that you play? A: The record labels, unless *ALL* the recordings you play are made by you or your friends. IF not, then the effects of balanced line technology are all around you, in every commercial recording you play. Its inescapable. Therefore it is impossible that this has no effect on your stereo, unless you just plain and simple do not play recordings on it.

That we are not talking about opinion is very simple as the benefits of balanced line are one of the few areas of audio that are both audible and quantifiable. There are plenty of ways to 'determine what sounds better', and they can be quantified as long as there is enough experience to detirmine what measurements correllate with the sounds that we hear (poor Julian...).

If this is not obvious from the equipment that you have heard, it might be that that gear has its own weaknesses that have nothing to do with blanced operation. The reason I say this is that the legacy of 45 some odd years of hifi recordings is a rather massive testemony to the success of the technology. A few high-end audio failures are not suficient to be its defeat.

My advice is to listen to balanced gear that is done right, as I am sure you will agree that it is importanat to listen to single-ended gear that is done right for the same reason!

At least we both agree about Mr. Hirsch!

Lets explore your reasons why audiophiles benefit from balanced designs:

"Lower noise
Lower distortion
cable immunity
wider bandwidth"

If lower noise and distortion are the holy grail that you make them out to be, why are you using tubes when they are inherently noisy? You can achieve even better noise and distortion figures with transistors. We went down the "lower distortion is better" road in the 70's until the end result was a bunch of high powered amplifiers with .00001% distortion that sounded like crap. I won't disagree that tubes can sound very pleasing and I would use them if I had the patience to deal with them, but you have to attribute that pleasing sound to some kind of inherent distortion, which sort of contradicts your lower distortion is better arguement.

If immune to cable differences and "sounded excellent no matter what cable you used", why do I and thousands of others hear significant differences when switching cables?

Wider bandwidth than what? The 100 kHz that your amps do is easily achieved by single ended designs.

To imply that the manner of detecting the logic state of the laser sensor in a CD player is in any way, shape, or form related to a discussion about balanced sources is laughable, and even though I may be the largest source of mis-information on this forum, you are embarrassing yourself with this one.

Your information about Mercury recordings in 1958 was also very interesting, too bad it has nothing to do with how the system at my house reproduces that recording.

And it is most definitely about opinion. There is no quantifiable way to determine what sounds better even if you do have a half deaf girlfriend :>) If there was, Julian Hirsch would be an audiophile god.

I have given it a straight shot. I've owned and/or listened to some of the most highly regarded balanced systems out there, I hope to hear yours some day.

Hi Herman,

Its obvious to me that you're not getting what I am talking about else you would not be responding this way. I'll try it another way, maybe you'll see.

One of the things balanced does for you is it helps get rid of cable problems. That is how come Mercury was able to park their recording truck behind Northrup Hall in Minneapolis in 1958 and then ran their mic cables over 150 feet from the hall to the truck, and got a recording that is still considered state of the art today. If there were the cable problems that audiophiles see routinely today, this would simply not have been possible. Mercury did this in 1958 when no exotic cable industry existed at all. How did they do this? Balanced Line connections.

You can't say that this has no effect on you as an audiophile- Mercury's recordings are legendary. Now, if you could have a cable system in the home that eliminated cable problems, so you could run 30 or 50 feet of cable without any high frequency loss, without any loss of low level detail, for that matter sounded excellent regardless of the cable you used, would you be interested? If you say no, you will not be in agreement with most of the audio community. These are very real benefits of balanced lines, and they have very real benefits for audiophiles who use them in the home.

I used the other industry examples to make a point, which was that these industries benefited from this technology for the same reasons that audiophiles can:

Lower noise
Lower distortion
cable immunity
wider bandwidth

These are very real benefits and are readily audible.

Yes, a light sensor (from a CD pickup) is a balanced device. It has two leads, neither of which has to be tied to ground to work properly. That's how most balanced sources work. How a designer chooses to use the device is a different story, just like a phono cartridge, which is another inherently balanced source. Sure, you can use it SE, most people do, but at the end of the day the cartridge will not care how it terminals are connected, as neither side of the inductor is tied to ground. That's how balanced sources work. If you let both sides of the cartridge float, and just use the tonearm as a shield, along with the shield of the tonearm interconnect, you have a very elegent and simple balanced setup. Nothing to it. Its actually *harder* to run the cartridge SE, as noise, hum and RF interference are harder to get rid of and you have three connections to make instead of two.

I'll revisit the noise thing for a moment. Its possile to build a phono section with less stages of gain then ba single ended phono section, using a differential topology, one that can work directly with low output moving coil and yet be quiet. Now, if you can eliminate a whole stage of gain, you have less distortion, wider bandwidth and greater definition all at once. Audiophiles like that sort of thing. Sounds better. That's a very real benefit, its already in service in the field, and it connot be denied.

It would be nice if this was a case where we could agree to disagree, where this was all opinion. But this is not about opinion, which is why I feel compelled to set the record straight. There's a lot that I don't know, like, for example, anything much about saxopones. Kenny G kinda wrecked that for me. But I have been working with balanced circuitry for the better part of 30 years, and seen repeatedly how much better it performs then single-ended approaches to audio. Not that I'm saying that SE is bad, just that balanced (done right, which is not that hard) is better and *any* audiophile can hear it. I had a girlfriend who was deaf in one ear, and half deaf in the other, and *she* could hear it, so I am confident you can too if it give it a straight shot. You know, just the facts.

Onhwy61, if you only read my last post then I can see where you come to your conclusion, but if you followed from the beginning you will see that one of my main reasons for taking the inherently flawed position has to do with the problem of first taking data that is single ended and creating an inverted copy, and then maintaining equal but opposite signals through the system.

I'll stand by that even though I did get pulled off track a bit with the noise and source issue.

If all you had said was that you didn't see any advantages for balanced equipment in your own home system, then who but you would be in a better position than you to make such a statement. However, you grossly extrapolated your position and stated that balanced is inherently flawed. While some of your observations may be valid your conclusion is not particularly logical.

Thanks for taking the time to more clearly state your case. It was much better than the "it is better because it is better" post you put up earlier.

You seem to miss the big point here.

We are talking about home stereo, nothing else. Not recording studios, not the phone company, nothing but home stereo. I don't care if NASA used balanced circuits to cut down on noise. I'm not going to the moon.

I concede that balanced has advantages in the noise arena, but I'll repeat myself. If my 103 dB speakers are dead quiet with a relatively inexpensive ($1,350) integrated, who cares how much quieter balanced will be?

I concede the point, I just don't see any advantage for my home stereo.

As far as being wrong on every point, you don't seem to understand what it means to be a balanced source. I'll explain. It means you have two signals of equal amplitude but opposite polarity.

There is absolutely no commercial media available today that stores data in a balanced format. The ability to output a balanced signal means that a conversion has to be done somewhere. Even if you use a phono cartridge in a balanced mode, the data on the disc is single ended. Once again, I don't care what they use in a studio, I don't use microphones at my house.

Balanced output from a laser diode? You made that up, right? The sensor reading the reflections from the disc either outputs a high or a low depending on whether or not the laser hits a spot where light is reflected: a high or a low, a one or a zero, a true or a false. The information on the CD is stored in a digital format as data representing a certain amplitude at a certain point in time. The next data point is either, higher, lower, or the same as the data point before it. There is absolutely nothing at all balanced about any of that.

In twenty plus years I have yet to hit a dead spot on a volume control. I'll take my chances.

I see nothing in the information you presented that leads me to believe that balanced will sound better than single ended. Please note I said "sound better," not that everything else being equal it can achieve a lower noise floor.

I know we are beating a dead horse here so I'll let it go.

Good luck selling your inherently flawed balanced stuff :>)
I'll continue to enjoy my inherently flawed single ended.

Hi all, sorry it took a while to get back to this.

Herman thought I did not present some balanced sources, so I will repeat myself. Nearly all phono cartridges made today are balanced sources: the Shure M-95 from 30 years ago was a balanced source, as is a Titan or a Ruby made today. Ever wonder why mag phono is the only source that requires a grounding wire? Most balanced sources that you try to run single-ended behave this way unless you ground loop the signal with the ground. Or have a grounding wire...

Microphones such as the Neumann U-67 are balanced. So are RCA DX77 ribbon mics. If you wonder why I bring up recording equipment, its because we all listen to this stuff in our recordings: Nearly all LPs and CDs are mastered using balanced connections and equipment.

When you think about it, there really aren't any true single-ended sources. I suppose a tuner might be, but the radio station makes the signal in the balanced domain, so really the tuner is a signal filter of sorts... A CD player might be, but the laser beam is picked up by an optical device, which has an output that is balanced (although its not always used that way). Certain lo-fi devices are single-ended- cheap ceramic microphones for example. No-one in high end audio uses them though :)

I was also chastised about mentioning the phone company. Its not as obtuse as you might think, but you do have to know some history. I'll try to explain it better. Before balanced lines existed, there was no such thing as long distance more then a couple hundred miles as definition was lost very qucikly. You had to yell at the top of your voice to be heard. Balanced lines were developed as a solution, and due to the increase in definition and improved signal transmission, continental and intercontinental phone calls became possible.

The recording industry quickly realized the benefit: lower noise, much lower loss of signal detail, lower distortion and dramatically increased immunity to interconnect cables (does this sound like anythihg audiophiles might be interested in too?). By the early 50's, balanced lines were in place throughout the recording industry and ushered in the age of HiFi and the Golden Age of Stereo.

There was an important point there. These are things that audiophiles find important! Increased definition? Lower noise? Lower distortion? Immunity to cable weaknesses? Yes. We find these things to be important as they bring us closer to the musical experience.

For some reason (mostly cost), balanced line remained the domain of the professional market until the 1980s, when the first balanced gear for the home appeared (FWIW the first balanced tube preamp was made by us in 1989). It took 30 years, but finally balanced line was available for the home with the same benefits to audiophiles that brought them HiFi in the first place.

These days it is hardly more expensive to build balanced stuff as it is to build single-ended. Look at the tube preamps that are out in the marketplace and you see what I mean. Most of them are single-ended. The few that are balanced do not cost any more then the competition. With semiconductors, OpAmps all have balanced inputs. If you are running semiconductors its almost harder to make single-ended. For the record.

The gain thing:
Balanced allows for the same gain with less noise, close to 6 DB less noise, easily achieved. Despite imperfections caused by mismatches, tube issues and the like this remains true. When people say otherwise its because they have not played with these circuits- if they had then they would know!

Another interesting fact about balanced differential circuits is that there is a distortion-cancelling feature. This effect works even if the circuit is not perfectly balanced. Again, if you work with this stuff, you find these things out.

It is possible to operate things like EQ for LPs in the differential domain, and never have to worry about how well balanced your circuit is: the EQ will always be correct.

Volume controls and switches when executed in the balanced domain tend to be more accurate and less noisy then when the same types of switches and volume controls are single-ended. To give you an example, let's say there is a defect causing a volume control to drop out at a certain level. With single-ended, the signal is gone! With balanced, the signal drops only 6 db. In the case where a stereo volume control had poor tracking from channel to channel, with the balanced version the tracking problem would probably not even manifest until things got a lot worse (to the point where the SE version would be unusable rather then inconvenient).

I can offer a ton more of things like this, so again I have to state: Herman is wrong on every point offered. So Herman, contact me off line (or call me) and I'd be happy to fill you in. There are also a number of fabulous texts on the subject if you are interested. This is not about anyone taking a drubbing, I'm happy to help out.

And finally, I appreciate being allowed to try to set the record straight. Again, if you don't believe me, there is a mountain of evidence out there that shows how balanced lines perform better and there is no evidence to the contrary (although there is a lot of hearsay). There is a lot of myth, and in general audiophiles (myself included) tend to let go of these myths slowly if at all. We have to be constantly vigilent about this sort of myth if we are to advance the state of the art.

Hear What?

Hence, back to my "quasi" balanced theory.

I think it's pretty safe to say this thread has run it's course.

I'm gettin' my chain saw. I gots some theories to prove.

TIMBER!

Did you hear that?

Unbalanced trees fall more easily. All audiophiles are unbalanced, some more than others.

Or if a tree fell on the person with the cymbal, would we have an audiophile?

If a tree fell in the woods, and there was nobody there to hear a cymbal......I mean........If a cymbal fell in the woods........I mean........No. If a tree fell on a cymbal.......Would it vibrate like a.........If........

What were we talking about?

Sean, of course you are correct in saying that there is sound present when moving an unstruck cymbal and that we just don't hear it.

I am heartened to see that you realise the danger of using analogies. The problem with using "incorrect" analogies is that the model used might then be applied to many other phenomena and even less comprhension ensues.

I am in the training of technical subjects business and I have seen the pitfalls of using incorrect or misleading analogies. A good analogy, however, is an extremely powerful training tool.

Salut, Bob P.

Filtering of the ground can be beneficial if properly implimented, but it also increases the potential for reduced safety. By placing filter circuitry in the path to ground, you limit current capacity. In the event of component failure or an electrical problem ( severe surge or spike ), the filter circuitry could become damaged, opening the safety path to ground. Obviously, this is not good and i don't think that you'll ever see any design using such an approach obtaining UL approval. That's because something like this could literally be a matter of life or death. No manufacturer with any brains wants to risk something like this.

Having said that, providing the shortest, lowest series resistance path to ground that you can is the next best thing that you can do short of creating the above mentioned safety hazard. As i've mentioned in other posts, having someone that knows what they are doing clean and weatherproof your ground connections can sometimes make a world of difference. Most ground connections that i've seen from the AC mains to Earth were severely corroded, offering very poor conductivity. If conductivity to ground is reduced, any noise / RFI that was shunted to ground elsewhere in the house can now find its' way into your audio system. As such, maintaining your ground connection would not only be safer, it could reduce grain and glare while lowering your noise floor.

By the way, wasn't Dejan the guy that was shilling some specific PLC's that he was associated with over at Audio Circle? Sean
>

Ralph Atmasphere, so my friend Dejan Veselinovic does have a point: under most circumstances single ended system with ground filtration will sound better. Doing a properly balanced setup takes some real $$$.

Bob: I understand that sound doesn't move air, the air simply "transports" the energy of the sounds created. Most people don't understand that, so i tried to word it in a way that was easier to follow. It is good that you mentioned this though, because my "simple analogy" could be considered "misinformation" if one were to take it word for word. Thanks for the clarification.

"To use your cymbals as an example, it is not the movement of the cymbal up and down that causes the sound - a single unstruck cymbal moving does not make a sound:

This is incorrect. Anything moving is creating sound because that movement imparts energy into the air. Whether or not that energy / sound is of high enough amplitude or at a frequency that we can hear is another matter.

" but the vibration of the metal cymbal as it is struck that causes the air pressure to vary as described before"

This supports my comments above. The only variance between the unstruck yet moving cymbal and the cymbal that was struck is the intensity of the movement generated and the frequency of excitation. Add the resonant and transient ( rise and fall ) characteristics of the cymbal to this movement and you have a specific sonic trait.

"In fact, if we move the 2 cymbals towards each other but stop their movement before they touch, we will move a lot of air but there won't be any sound."

False. There is sound, but it may not be of high enough amplitude or high enough in frequency for us to easily hear. If you doubt this, take a large yet solid lightweight item and move it back and forth in the air making long and slow excursions. You might not hear anything even though air is moving. Moving the item back and forth at a faster rate ( like "fanning" yourself ) will produce sound that is more audible and centered at a higher frequency. Same thing is taking place in both examples, the only variances are amplitude and frequency.

"The ear responds to varying pressure, not air flow or movement, after all if the air is moving, where is it going in the ear?"

Herman and i discussed this somewhat privately via email. Neither of us will argue this point. Sean
>

Sean, it is a common myth that sound is air "moving" balanced or not. Sound is produced by a vibrating object causing the air pressure in its immediate vicinity to vary according to the frequency and amplitude of the vibrating object. This air pressure variation is propagated as a wave of varying pressure - the air does not move - that would be wind!

To use your cymbals as an example, it is not the movement of the cymbal up and down that causes the sound - a single unstruck cymbal moving does not make a sound - but the vibration of the metal cymbal as it is struck that causes the air pressure to vary as described before. In fact, if we move the 2 cymbals towards each other but stop their movement before they touch, we will move a lot of air but there won't be any sound.

The ear responds to varying pressure, not air flow or movement, after all if the air is moving, where is it going in the ear?

One thing i'd like to add here. If Ralph wasn't wearing his affiliations on his shirt pocket ( Atma Sphere products ), nobody would have known who he was or why he might have the very strong point of view on the subject that he does. Due to the fact that he designs / manufactures audio gear that is balanced, an intelligent person would realize that he has a vested interest in protecting / promoting those interests. As such, comments made by someone in that position may be viewed in a slightly different light. This is not to attack or belittle the input from Ralph or any other manufacturer / designer / retailer / distributor, etc.. on any given subject, only to demonstrate how important disclosure of affiliations is. There is nothing wrong with sharing an opinion / point of view, regardless of who agrees or disagrees, so long as it is truly honest and not designed to manipulate others for one's own personal gain. Given the mess that we have going on in another thread about this subject, i thought that this was a perfect time to point out why i did / said what i did over there and why this thread hasn't turned into much the same mess. Those with ethics have nothing to fear when contributing to this or any other forum and i hope that they will continue to do so, both on a regular and long term basis.

Now, back to our normal program. Sean
>

Herman, right or wrong..great thread. Atmasphere, Sean, Buscis2 and Eldartford, great input for future revisit and reading!!

Dave

Herman: A cymbal moves up and down to displace the air. The rate that it displaces air is called the frequency and the volume of air displaced is the loudness or amplitude.

Just as the cymbal is pushed down and displaces air in that direction, the other side of the cymbal swings up and displaces air in the opposite direction. It is an equal and opposing force. If we didn't maintain the equal and opposing force, we wouldn't mantain consistent air pressure. If we don't maintain consistent air pressure, we start to develop a state of vacuum. The greater the vacuum that we develop, the less air that we have to displace. When we don't have air to displace or air to replace what has been displaced, we have total vacuum. If we have total vacuum, we don't have sound. Therefore, sound is generated by moving air in a balanced format.

Our ears work the same way. That's why our ears "pop" as we change altitudes rapidly. The pressure inside our ear is not equal to the pressure outside due to the varying densities of air, creating an imbalance. Once the pressure is fully balanced inside and out, our hearing returns to normal and we no longer have "popping" taking place. Sean
>

Atmasphere, welcome to the discussion

Ouch! I’m glad you decided not to flame me. It would have been reduced to tears. At first I was going to just walk away with my tail between my legs utterly defeated until I realized:

A: you misrepresented what I said about gain
B: other than the noise issue, you offer no reason why balanced is better
C: you cloud the issue with facts that have nothing to do with this issue, who cares what the phone company uses, we’re talking home stereos
D. You chastise me on the issue of balanced sources but don’t provide any. Remember, this is home stereo, not a recording studio
E: you completely ignore the heart of my position i.e. truly balanced and/or differential amplifiers introduce distortions due to the impossibility of creating perfectly balanced and/or differential circuits, especially with tubes.

Let me elaborate.

1. I never said that a balanced amp has more gain than single ended. I was attempting to refute the commonly held belief that balanced is better since the output of a balanced stage is typically louder when using the balanced vs. the single ended inputs, which most people incorrectly describe as an increase in gain instead of an increase in loudness. If I didn’t clearly articulate this then I apologize for the confusion. Just as most people confuse phase and polarity, I was attempting to minimize confusion for the vast majority of people who would describe this as an increase in gain. I know as well as you that it is not a matter of gain, but I’ll stand behind my contention that louder does not equate to better.

2. I never said that balanced doesn't have some design benefits like you mentioned, and I do understand the types of noise that you describe, but if my 103 dB speakers are dead quiet with single ended gear, how much quieter can they be with balanced? Granted, dead quiet without a signal applied is not a test of its ability to reject noise generated in the supply while under load, but it’s not that hard to build a well regulated supply. I’ll give you the fact that there is a theoretical advantage in regards to noise performance. I just don’t think there is any real advantage in practical use. If your system produces 12 dB less than nothing, who cares?

3. It is hard to disagree with your claim that “balanced lines can deliver the signal better” since “better” isn’t exactly a quantifiable parameter. Surely you can produce a more convincing argument than it is better because it is better. I’m also at a loss trying to understand your statement about balanced systems having “far less interference from the cables!” What type of interference are you talking about? Your information about transcontinental phone transmission may be accurate, but we’re discussing stereos here, not transmission of signals over thousands of miles of cables. Just because a 747 may be a good choice to get me from NY to LA doesn’t mean I would use one to go across the street. Please allow me to throw in my own “sheesh” at this point.

4. What you say about studios is true. As I stated in my original post, studios use balanced gear to good advantage, but once again, I must point out that we are talking about sound reproduction in the home, not studio recording or transcontinental phone transmissions. I don’t use any microphones or tape heads, and cutting an LP with balanced gear does not make the information on it balanced. A CD or LP or tape mastered in a balanced studio is still encoded single ended onto the CD/LP/tape.

Where are the balanced sources in a home system? A phono cartridge perhaps, but how many phono stages process it as a balanced from input to output? Even the mighty Aesthetix IO takes the balanced input and feeds it to a single ended stage before converting it to balanced. Besides, I’m not sure a phono cartridge is really balanced since used it in that fashion it is a floating source with no reference to ground. I could be wrong about that and I would enjoy hearing an explanation to the contrary.

I see nothing in your post that gives any reason why balanced gear will sound better than single ended other than the potential for better noise performance, and since my system doesn’t have any noise issues, I’ll stand behind the blather in my original post.

From your website I see you have devoted many years to your passion and I applaud you for that. After the Futterman fiasco you were either very brave or very foolish to continue down that path. I'm sure your stuff sounds swell. However, my contention is that you could have made a system just as swell or better with a single ended design and done so at a reduction in cost.

Now take a deep breath, gather your thoughts, and if you can offer something besides noise rejection, better is better, studios do it, and the phone company does it, then I will be happy to consider your response.

p.s. Sean, I’m not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my contention that sound is single ended to begin with. You hear because your eardrum moves in and out in response to the increases and decreases in air pressure from some vibrating source. There is no equal but opposite pressure wave arriving at the same point in time like there are two equal but opposite electrical voltages in a balanced amp. Perhaps I’m not making myself clear or it may be totally unrelated to what we’re talking about, but I thought it illustrated my point that single ended was the natural order of things.

My McIntosh 2102 has balanced inputs but then it converts the signal to unbalanced which means there is just more adjustment before amplification.

Thus, using the unbalanced inputs in this case is better which is the opposite of my Audio Aero Capitole Makr II CD player's connections to my matching Audio Aero Capitole Amp which makes for perfect bi-amping in my home: unbalanced to the McIntosh and balanced to the Audio Aero....all from the same Cd player.

Dang! Spot on!

I can't tell you how often I have people call me thinking they have a 'balanced' input on what is clearly a single-ended amp! Just 'cause you have that connector- don't let that fool ya.

I would think that it goes without saying that a 'balanced' amplifier or preamp was built that way from that ground up, but it isn't always that way.

Also, we probably ought to discern the difference between balanced differential and plain old balanced. Balanced differential is usually the simpler of the two, and generally quieter. Some of the ARC amps from the late 70s were balanced but they were not differential and they were also extremely complex. Complexity is definately not a prerequisite of balanced operation as differential circuits can be quite simple.

Sean, good response, as was Ralphs. You have acknowledged many of the positive aspects of balanced circuitry noting the absolute most important point. Most notably, your point #3.

There are MAJOR differences between "quasi" balanced circuits and "true" balanced circuits. This factor MUST be recognized when evaluating. Installing XLR connectors on a component does not a balanced circuit make.

I provided the Jensen link (Bill Whitlock), in hopes that persons would familiarize themselves (if not already familiar) with the actual differences defining "balanced" vs. "true balanced" circuits. It clarifies with a high degree of accuracy and very little sales "slant".

Herman had mentioned the additional expense of manufacturing components with provisions for balanced interconnection and throughput. Well? This is partially accurate. Many quality manufacturers incorporate "true balanced" configuration as "standard equipment". I didn't "option" any of my components with "true balanced" configuration. It was already there. Maybe that could be considered an added benefit of a $5000 integrated? Along with chassis dampening, airborne and structure borne vibration control, high quality close tolerance components, short signal paths, etc, etc, etc. In short? Sound engineering practices.

Bottom line? If balanced configuration is utilized "true to form"? It has many benefits over single ended. Once again the key words being "true to form".

"True to form" is NOT a Ferrari with a Chevy motor in it.

Thanks for the input Sean, one always needs to know that there is sanity out there.

As you pointed out about the noise thing, I did use on purpose 'in theory'. In practice unless your circuit is way extra bad, 5db is easy. That means 10 db less noise in two stages is too. Often the noise rejection is more like 5.9-someodd- pretty close to 6 for most people.

Parts count in a fully differential circuit is not really all that bad, being slightly less then double the parts (although most are resistors which are not a big deal in the overall cost of an amp or preamp). Our preamps (and I make no bones about the fact that I walk what I talk) are fully differential and balanced and yet are less expensive then a lot of preamps that sound markedly inferior (if I do say so myself...).

3) I guess in the scheme of things, one would hope that what is strived for is the experience of recorded music sounding real. I would certainly hope then that the balanced source has its ducks in a row. If it is to be flawed for this discussion though, to be on the same ground the single-ended source must accept the same flaw(s). Given that the case, balanced sources would still tend to be better, if that flawed source is still considered to be balanced.

I've worked with this stuff for over 32 years now and I had often wondered why audiophiles did not take advantage of the benefits that balanced operation offerred. I am sorry for this, but if the best explanation is really no more then misinformation (or perhaps its own kind of damage control), -well, I don't buy it.

Having said that, I do believe there may be a different issue: some manufacturers got on the balanced bandwagon as they seemed to think is was a new trend. Most of those that I might put in that category do not seem to understand what the technology is about and have produced inferior products. Some of these are well-known. Held up to single-end products that are better thought out, I think such manufacturers have done the field of balanced operation in high-end audio a dis-service. My soapbox... -but since we were talking theory or that's how Herman made it sound, well, I reject on the basis of fact and experience just about everything he said in his opening post. What is disturbing is that it looks like people just ate it up. There's just too much of a mountain of evidence to the contrary; I just had to point it out.

1) A TRUE "balanced" design can swing twice the voltage potential of an identical single ended circuit. The gain of such a circuit is not necessarily twice as high ( a lot of other factors here ), but offers greater power potential with the associated increase in headroom. There are designs that operate on a differential mode, but aren't "truly" balanced as most engineers / designers think of them.

2) "Internal noise generated in differential circuits tends to be less then that of the same circuits executed single-ended. In theory, about 6DB less, so in two stages of gain, this could be 12 db less! This is dramatic."

Notice that Ralph says "in theory". In reality, these figures are typically not achieved. There are improvements, but not to the extent mentioned. Quieter and cleaner IS quieter and cleaner though. Whether or not the benefits will be noticeable is obviously dependent on how good the original single ended circuit was to begin with. Hence my previous comments about "poorer" single ended circuits benefitting most of the additional noise cancellation of balancing. When you've got a relatively high noise floor ( compared to a quieter design ), lowering that noise floor is always beneficial. Whether or not going into the added expense of balancing such a circuit is a worthwhile investment compared to designing a better single ended circuit ( with a drastically reduced parts count ) is a matter of personal preference / budget for the designer / manufacturer. As a general rule, balanced designs typically require appr twice the parts count as that of single ended designs. Many will argue that "simpler is better", but obviously, that is a subjective opinion.

3) I agree with you here Ralph, but that is IF the rest of the system is up to snuff. Since most gear / systems are compromised in design integrity, the benefits of "true" balancing are many times not achieved in lesser systems with lower grade components. As you mentioned though, "Balanced amps built from the ground up sound better with balanced inputs for the simple reason that balanced sources sound better!". This takes into account "proper design" from beginning to end, not trying to impliment a superior design into a system based on lesser design integrity.

As a side note, our AC systems are "balanced" as transmitted and DC is single ended. While Eldartford has commented on low loss DC transmission over extended distances, there is a reason why AC was selected over DC. That is, with twice the voltage swing and multiple phases, loss is drastically reduced and the signal is kept cleaner over a longer distance. DC is both lossier and more susceptable to interference. On top of that, RFI is very easily superimposed on top of a DC voltage. That's why even after the AC mains have been rectified in the components power supply, you can still have RFI being passed into the circuit. As such, the installation of some type of "trap" or even "snubber caps" in a typical power supply can really clean things up.

4) I didn't really read much into Herman's response here but I should have. All sound is created by displacing air, causing both a pressure front and pressure drop i.e. a positive and negative. Strings move fore and aft or side to side, percussion instruments are compressed and then rebound, etc...

Other than that, i don't think that Herman has been a "great source of misinformation". I think that Herman has contributed many factors along the way that were both valuable and factual along with quite a few personal observations. Obviously, nobody is going to agree with someone else ALL the time. Rather than making a generic and cumulative statement such as "The bottom line is Herman is a leading source of misinformation", one should jump in and present rebuttal at the time that the statements are made or when first "stumbled across". This keeps everyone on the same path in the same time-frame without offering much time between the "misinformation" being presented and / or the possibility of it being futher distributed. In effect, "rebuttal" acts as a form of "damage control".

I'm not getting down on you Ralph as i surely appreciate your input. I wish folks like you came around more often. If you've read any of my previous posts making mention of you or your designs / gear, i think that you know that i have the utmost respect for you and what you offer us as audiophiles. Other than that, feel free to put your boot in my ass as needed : ) Sean
>

Hi folks,

Hate to bring this up but all of Herman's arguments are completely flawed! As you might expect me to say, but all I have to say is, if you've not tried it, you have no idea what you're missing.

I'll give you some examples (refer to the leading post above):
1.>

This is inherently wrong, as balanced does not have inherently more gain. It has the same gain, just with less noise.

2. This is the most misunderstood of all...

It appears that this in one of the things that Herman misunderstands the most. Internal noise generated in differential circuits tends to be less then that of the same circuits executed single-ended. In theory, about 6DB less, so in two stages of gain, this could be 12 db less! This is dramatic. Additionally, differential balanced circuits can also reject noise in power supplies. This is called Cross Mode rejection, and is a spec, in addition to Common Mode rejection, that all active balanced circuits have.

3> sheesh...

Balanced amps built from the ground up sound better with balanced inputs for the simple reason that balanced sources sound better! This is because of various things, but a good example is that balanced cables can deliver the signal better. If you don't believe me, look at the phone company. Before balanced lines existed, transcontinental phone service was impossible. That is because of all the losses that are are associated with single-ended systems. When balanced line came in, so did long distance. The same benefits work well in the home too, as balanced connections send the signal from one component to another with far less interference from the cables!

4> double sheesh and Geez...
Finally, here are some balanced sound sources: All phonograph cartridges (with the exception of certain ceramic cartridges and the old Decca cartridge). All tape heads. All decent microphones. All LPs are cut with balanced equipment. Most CDs are mastered this way too. In fact, 99% of everthing you listen to had balanced circuitry as part of the signal's makeup. Mercury Records could never have made all those recordings without balanced lines as in some cases they had to run the mic cables over 150 feet. Same for RCA, Decca, EMI, in fact nearly every record label in the world.

The bottom line is Herman is a leading source of misinformation. Sorry to say it, and if y'all want to look at my previous posts you'll see I try to not flame people, but this sort of blather can't go unchallenged. Forums like this should be about the truth for God's sake and ours.

Thank you Herman. I often have a hard time deciding which sound is more pleasing to the ear, "Kind Of Blue" through the YBA, or 390 cubic inches rumping away on 110 octane Cam-2. The motors in both of those cars are being run "full balanced", but it doesn't make them any quieter.

The YBA is less octane sensitive. :>)

Ed, I think you've found the secret, happy components, which to me means using your equipment the way it was designed to be used.

I checked out your system, very nice, especially those AMC Gremlins :>)