Hi @atmosphere, can you discuss what you just said in context with my Audionet Max amps and Pre G2 Preamp? Thanks!
Balanced versus single ended
From my experience, every situation that had both options, the balanced connection and/or increased gain sounded better, regardless of the bolume knob’s final position. More detail , air, emotional connection etc. The single ended cables used were good, not the bargain or so called high end extreme.
Sometimes using balanced or xlr it involved just the source, but optimally it carried through thd entire chain.
Anyways, my question is: has anyone ever thought that single ended sounded better?given the 2 options. Im only referring to a truly balanced connection.
I ask, because a manufacturer who makes tube amps, recommends single over balanced connection. Is there something else involved in this decision, additional parts or labor complexity? Is the signal path extended?
Thanks in advance
89 responses Add your response
@mglik I don't believe so.
This is entirely false. The only reason its not used in the home is balanced line tends to be more expensive, especially if transformers are used to implement it. But these days transformers are not needed- for example our tube preamps have a patented direct-coupled output, and balanced outputs with semiconductors have been available for decades. It appears you are laboring with a misconception. If the balanced line is properly implemented, there is no '6dB lift'. The balanced output is pin 2 and pin 3; the signal of pin 2 being generated with respect to pin 3 and vice versa, rather than ground. Imagine a simple output transformer secondary with one side tied to pin 2 and the other side to pin 3 and no ground connection, and you have the idea. Obviously if one side were to get grounded to drive an RCA input, the signal voltage would be the same. If the signals are generated with respect to ground in a a balanced connection, then AES48 is not supported and you will get that '6dB lift'. I can't make sense of this 'twisted pair in reflection and differential' bit in your post. BTW that 6dB lift you mention can only happen if there are two single-ended outputs that are out of phase with each other. That is not how a balanced line is implemented, and I can see problems with that if one side is slightly different gain from the other. That would mess with the input of an amplifier if it had a lower CMRR value, and it would increase the probability of ground loops, which the balanced system is supposed to lack! The benefit of a properly set up balanced line is there even if the interconnection is only 6 inches; the length really has nothing to do with it. The rejection of noise including that of the cable itself is. IME once you hear a properly set up balanced line there is no going back to single ended.
|
I agree! Mike Good read see below: https://www.ranecommercial.com/kb_article.php?article=2107
|
@ghdprentice When I said the sound is bigger when using XLR,I do not mean the volumne, I mean the sound has bigger 3d space,more spacious. Do you love the spacious sound? I depend on the space you are listening. More spacious more good for big space ,no good for small room.
|
As usual in situations like this, a middle ground is probably closed to the truth. Hence: "it depends." Robert Harley, in The Complete Guide to High-End Audio, concedes that, in certain circumstances, balanced connections may sound better, but that in other situations, they actually sound worse. I'll let him speak to this latter situation himself: "Say you have a disc player or DAC that take an unbalanced signal form the digital-to-analog converter chip and converts it to a balanced signal so that the DAC manufacturer can tout the product as having 'balanced outputs.' Inside the DAC, the unbalanced signal is converted to a balanced signal by a phase splitter. Phase splitting subjects the unbalanced signal to an additional active (transistor- or op-amp-based) stage and puts more circuitry in the signal path. The balanced DAC's output is then input to a balanced-input preamplifier. Because all but the very best balanced preamplifiers convert a balanced input signal to an unbalanced signal for the preamplifier's internal gain stages, the preamplifier's input converts this balanced signal to an unbalanced signal—adding yet another active stage to the signal path. After the unbalanced signal is amplified within the preamplifier, it is converted back to balanced with another phase splitter. The preamplifier's balanced output is then sent from the preamplifier output to the power amplifier's balanced input where it's—that's right—converted to unbalanced with yet another active stage. The result of these unbalanced/balanced/unbalanced/balanced/unbalanced conversions is additional electronics in the signal path—just what we don't want. This is why you can't assume that balanced components sound inherently better than unbalanced ones." |
I do not think it is that simple. As is so often the case in audio, a lot depends on implementation. Today's environments - even in the home - are full of RFI from all sorts of devices, and the CMR benefit of truly balanced, differential circuits and cabling can help ensure a cleaner and quieter signal. It certainly isn't a detriment, imo. |
balanced is good for studios to get rid of hum issues. which was it’s orignal intent. Beyond that, it is a degeneration in sound quality, due to how it functions, how it works, how it is designed. (twisted pair in reflection and differential) If one is not using it for long microphone lines, or hum reduction along said long line of very fine signals... then it has no place in home audio and is inferior to single ended. and that’s a fact. The supposed 6db lift comes at a price of loss of quality of micro signal aspects. with the elctrical signal itself.., all you hear and all you aim for in high end lives entirely within the qualities of the micro signals and micro differentials in signal... and that is the part that balanced makes a mess out of. this can falsely be perceived as a quality advantage as it is out of step and separate, exaggerated above and outside of the main body of the signal..., in the same way that class d makes a mess out of ultra fine detail and we hear that and.. imagine it as being higher quality. When, emphatically, neither are. Digital can and does do the same. Tubes get that fine peak and transient micro detail right, as does an LP, as does a horn. Horns can be used to dramatically explain and show this human hearing issue, as a horn will do the leading positive transients correctly and then they distort the other parts of the signal to the tune of 25% to 40% or more distortion. Yet, we don’t hear that, we hear those perfectly launched main and micro peaks, off the mouth and throat of the horn itself. the same human hearing problem exists in our takes on balanced being superior, class d being superior and digital being superior. In these three cases, the micro fine transient and positive (transient delta/peak) data is garbled and messed up and we hear this as a separate thing, above and outside of the main body of the signal. we perceive this patterned distortion as signal and then think we’re hearing real detail, when we’re actually hearing exaggerations and distortions. depending on the skill set and speed of intellect and the basic hearing condition of the given person, either they hear it for what it is, or they don’t, or they might take time to understand this. But these conclusions are inevitable, real, and part of what we deal with in high end audio. High end audio fell into the trap of thinking that if it is pro, it is superior. No, not true, not true at all. Balanced is for hum control and noise control for very tiny signals over long lines but it has squat to do with the extremes of perfection that high end naturally seeks. It is an initially cleaner and more detailed sounding package but eventually, one will finally, if they grow and keep learning in audio, hear it for the fundamental mistake that it is. Note that balanced exists in the big sellers in audio, but the reality, in any distribution curve, in any market or area or psychological grouping, is that the mass market aspect or the big companies do not represent peaks in quality or what not, they represent the main central bulk of the masses. They are not the peak, not the actual peak. They are just the peak the masses imagine. So no, balanced is NOT the way to go when truly seeking real and actual peaks in quality. Of course, none of the biggest audio stores and the biggest magazines and the biggest audio companies in volume and advertising want to hear any of this, as it is against the market and the perception they’ve all built up in this juggernaut of insanity and other associated desires. However, Teo Audio did fix the fundamental flaw that is the electromagnetic problem - that balanced cables are... simply by using liquid metal in balanced cables. Due to the way they work in electromagnetic fundamentals, they are unlike all other balanced cables and thus sidestep the fundamental problems of balanced cable distortions. FYI, I have had conversations with very accomplished audio designers who will, in private, say the same thing. Where they came to the same conclusion. I don't particularly enjoy saying these things and it can be bad for business to engender such negative emotions cast at us...but what do you want? Do you want me to lie with a straight face while I rub your nipples and try to slip a fiver out of your pocket, or do you want the truth that lies at the end of the road? What's it gonna be? |
Hey Ralph, You absolutely convinced me that I did not need an expensive IC when using your amps and preamp. Has that changed now that I am using my AGD amps? Do you know if AGD supports the balanced standard. And do cables make a difference when amp and/or preamp do not meet that standard but use an XLR IC? |
As many have stated, the design of the gear plays the biggest role in the differences heard from balanced and unbalanced. I have a fully balanced system from the streamer, the DAC which is specifically designed to perform best with an AES input being used and balanced outputs. My DAC, Pre and Amp all sound noticeably better when everything is hooked up with XLR balanced cables. But, that’s because of the design of the equipment, all the pieces in the chain were designed that way. There are plenty of high end designs that aren’t designed to be fully and truly balanced, those pieces can sound better than balanced equipment. I have heard some manufactures downplay or state unbalanced implementation is as good or better. Primaluna, Kevin Deal states this in some of his famous video reviews. I think the general rule of thumb is if your equipment is designed to perform at its best using balanced input / outputs, you should listen to the manufactures and plan accordingly. If they aren’t or specific pieces of gear in your chain aren’t, you shouldn’t worry about going unbalanced or feel like you are missing out. Synergy is real, it is a good idea to try and match up equipment that maximizes the design of other pieces of gear in the chain. |
I tend towards being a cable denier, but I have never seen XLR cables that attract the multi hundred t multi thousand dollar figures like RCAs can. It gets difficult when one has say, an XLR phono stage and RCA based amp and preamp.
Starting new I would agree that using XLRs would be a good choice.
My 30+ year old XLR based phono stage did not sound as good as my 10 year old RCA phono stage… but that did not have a lot to do with the RCAs or the XLRs. I suspect that the Benchmark, Atmasphere (etc. etc. etc.) amps that are balanced would sound better than my amps. And they also measure better. But I would not hesitate to run an RCA based preamp into them even if I had to use an XLR to RCA adapter. One would probably need the same gear as balanced or RCA to make a determination, and I have seen at least preamp show more distortion products with balanced than with RCAs, so it is likely equipment specific?? |
I humbly submit that it really depends on the design of the preamp and amp. But that is just from my own experience and without any engineering background. It always surprises me that so many reviewers claim that SE is just as good, and how many reviewers seem to keep only SE IC's on hand. As an owner of an ARC Ref 6 and Ref 80S and Ref 150 SE I know that Warren Gehl and Co strongly suggest running balanced with the very best IC's you can afford. I conducted listening tests with a wide assortment of balanced IC's at all price ranges and heard huge differences. I settled on Cardas Clear Beyond. |
I don't really have a strong opinion in an otherwise well functioning home whether you go with XLR or RCA, but I will say that if you build your own, Neutrik has silver contact XLR's and Parts Connexion has a line of pure silver, balanced IC cables you can combine to make outstanding / end game interconnects for a lot cheaper than you'd buy. |
Certainly, long runs, if equipment offers, use XLR to protect from the added potential of problem(s). But, even a long run at home, really not the same need as a swarm of this and that in commercial setups. Short runs, home audio system, why? One clear advantage is the snap in locking connector. For stable matched secure contacts for L and R, I changed all my interconnects to locking rca connectors, and use XLR/RCA from my Sony CD player's XLR out, just to compare. I cannot hear any difference between it's XLR out or it's RCA out. |
The issue goes beyond simply the use of different cables as the "standard for balanced line operation" that Ralph often discusses focuses on how audio equipment is designed with respect to grounding and shielding as discussed here. Could there be sonic differences based solely on whether the equipment is designed to be balanced or single-ended, probably, but how that single difference would affect the sound we hear is something I couldn't predict. If implemented properly, the balanced gear should be have less noise. However, it has not been my experience that fully balanced equipment is immune to all facets of IC cable design such as wire gauge, geometry, shielding, connectors, and materials, but then IME most cable changes are subtle not revelatory, so YMMV. |
I can only say my present setup, balanced from digital source through real balanced pre, finally through monoblock amps, which are also in effect, true full balanced I get best sq.
I've also had any number of se components over the years. Certainly, I have higher resolution than systems or components that contained se. Still, without having the choice on most or present components to directly compare hard to say. Balanced does have advantage of lower noise floor, and components that are truly balanced have inherent advantages as well. Not sharing power supplies, output transformers in case of tube components, signal path circuit is only good.
In case where component is not truly balanced, I can imagine se being better, in this case balanced is add on, using transformer or some other scheme for xlr. |
That’s not correct. The extra 6 dB is the doubling of the signal amplitude due to having 2 signal wires with opposite polarity. Here’s an online calculator. Put in 1V as the start, 2 V at the end and it will come out to 6. This is the same ratio you get when going from RCA to XLR. https://aetechron.com/calculator-Volt2dB.shtml
As others have noted, with short runs away from noise sources the noise is the same. So, in terms of the signal to noise ratio (S/N) the N isn’t reduced, but the S is increased.
|
Very few products even have balanced connections, at least the ones I’m interested in or happen to own. I tend not to stress over it. I’m not about to change out my Amp, dac, turntable, etc...just to gain maybe a 1% difference in sound quality. However, in my back up system, which includes Naim products, it does include balanced XLR connections (2), 5si and cd5i. Luckily the cd5si already came with an XLR balanced cable in the box. Naim recommends the use of such over an RCA connection. Pro--ject just released a new turntable, the x8, which is a fully balanced design. Additionally, they offer 2 balanced phono preamps to pair with it. However, to keep it balanced all the way through, you would have to buy an Amp with balanced line in connections, otherwise, why bother with it. |
Balanced makes for a more reliably low noise system. Others have noted hum, earth loops and noise can creep into single ended systems, requiring detective work to locate and rectify. There is also talk of more gain with balanced. As I understand it the extra 6dB is a lower noise floor rather than extra gain. Anyhow, this is a free benefit from running balanced. I have run my whole main system balanced for about 30 years now, from cartridge to power amp. It is very quiet and I don't get noise problems. There is a little additional cost on cabling, but otherwise it's a free lunch. |
Balanced is theoretically better than SE. Separating the ground between the 2 channels eliminates a lot of hum and crosstalk-type issues. This doesn't mean that it will always sound better to all listeners, but it shouldn't sound worse unless there's an implementation issue. You're never "required" to use an op amp. Normally, that would suggest that the design is already op amp-based, or that they're using it to invert the signal at some stage to create a balanced signal. A discrete gain stage or op amp is required to convert any SE inputs to balanced operation. In the case of Audionet, they appear to have developed a proprietary op amp that is presumably used in all their active stages. |
Ahh another draw ! If Your system was completely dual..balanced and not, A/B testing could be done with equal length and quality cables. Perhaps then theory and measurement would have ironclad credibility. Kind of a moot point as few system components will be wired that way. So you have a system with XLR, RCA, mixed Components maybe servo control, if it’s fabulous who cares. |
Balanced will always sound louder, but your system isn’t going to be capable of playing louder. So you have to adjust the volumes to be the same for a true comparison of quality.. Fortunately my Audio Research equipment allows that. So I can flip between them with the volume equalized. The only direct comparisons I have done was with Transparent cables and Audio Research gear (all balance designs). I was not able the discern a difference. I think in most cases it is negligible or at most a small difference. If the component design is balanced and you use single ended interconnects… then inside the components are converters to change from balanced to single ended and visa versa. In high end equipment, the designer puts effort and high quality sub components into doing it. XLR cables cost more… often a lot more. If I was relatively young I would go with balanced… component design is headed that way. But if I was on a budget you can save money on single ended. But as has been pointed out to be sure with your components, you have to try to be sure. |
XLR and RCA will bring the different sound,which some perople might not agree,but it happen every single day. It is case to case issue,different pre and different power amplifier and also different music. Most of time, XLR make the sound bigger and If you like it,you choose. Also XLR might lose some small sound,if you do not like it,you choose RCA. It is all my experience.
|
Yess. I am aware of the point that long runs are best handeled by balanced connection. But I am talking short runs only, and my experience is still: balanced sounds better. Could this possibly be related to the increased gain(voltage)?, aside from the excellent points Atmosphere posted? It is more than simply an increment in volume. Maybe it is the " op amp"? Is there variability in quality of these, tube ss? Thanks for the input. It appears many don’t hear a difference. |
I'm using a preamp that has both single ended and balanced. For me it's a bonus because I can connect 5 analog sources . Two XLR in and three RCA inputs are plenty analog inputs for me. It allows me to use pro-sumer gear like DACs whether they have RCA out or not. Using a pair of Nordost Blue Heaven 2 RCA and Mogami Pro Gold XLR from the same source it's hard to tell a difference. Any perception of better sound is the difference in gain in my opinion |
I second Ralph's (Atmasphere)'s post. You need equipment that supports the AES standard in order to compare balanced to RCA.-Otherwise, it is a crapshoot. Utilizing the AES 48 standard should eliminate the effect of cables affecting sound quality. FWIW, when I bought my Atma equipment, Ralph supplied me with a 25 foot length of XLR interconnect to go between preamp and amp (Mogami?) at a very low price. When I had an itch to scratch, I called my dealer who sold me some AQ Yukon to replace it. Long story short, I didn't notice a significant difference between the two cables. So, for me, using XLR with equipment that supports the AES standard, you don't have to pay an exorbitant price. If you use RCA, you might have to cycle through a number of cables in order to find one that sync's with your equipment-esp. if it doesn't support the AES standard. I hope this makes sense. Bob |
Great question. I had always assumed and read that balanced was 'better'. When I went full in with Audionet Electronics, I was advised by my very respected friend and Audionet importer Bill at GTT Audio that I should use single ended interconnects. I did not understand, so I actually ended up calling the designer of Audionet in Germany. He stated the exact same as Bill. Balanced requires an op amp at the input end, which adds distortion. So I switched to single ended interconnects as advised. I have not a/b compared, but it sounds amazing.
|
Plenty of situations where they sounded the same. Many don't even realize that the single ended inputs on their amps may just be there for show. 😁 Still, since I want to be very careful and have the cables I run my DAC to integrated using shielded balanced cables. When I've had to run single ended on the same setup I can't say I heard a difference. |
The issue you are up against when asking this question is that there is a standard for balanced line operation that is rarely supported in high end audio. The standard (AES48) reduces the ’sound’ of interconnect cables dramatically and thus also allows longer distances. It also prevents ground loops. If the standard is not observed these benefits go away. Balanced line however (especially if the equipment itself is also balanced) is inherently lower distortion, since even ordered harmonics get cancelled. But otherwise when the standard is not observed, how its going to sound is anyone’s guess. I am also a manufacturer, and in this case the one that introduced balanced line operation into home audio equipment back in the late 1980s. So now you also know a tube amp manufacturer that says that if you hear a balanced line system that is properly set up, there’s no going back to single-ended. If you do it right, although there may be more parts, the actual signal path may well be less complex if you go balanced (inside the equipment itself). For example our amplifiers have only a single stage of gain. One advantage of balanced operation is that the interconnect cables need not be expensive to sound right! Quite literally the balanced line system is a technology meant to minimize any artifacts associated with the interconnect cable. It was used in all the classic stereo recordings. Sometimes the microphone signal in those recordings had to travel up to 200 feet to arrive at the microphone preamp; if there were cable problems this simply would not have worked! |
