Balanced vs RCA preamps
How important is it that your Pre-amp has both balanced and RCA capabilities? I’m shopping for another pre, most likely tube, and it seems to make sense with any future component that it offers both XLR and RCA. And to further complicate the search finding both these features plus remote limits the offerings for both tube and SS particularly tube.
Ralph promotes his products here and I've always defended it:
Ralph's issue is confusing his opinion with fact. No more, no less. |
That depends. Many truly balanced amplifiers do not use "mirrored circuit paths." For example, you can build balanced circuits using differential amplifiers. As for @atmasphere, he simply won't accept that his opinion that the only proper way to build a balanced component is to make it consistent with the AES48 standard is simply his opinion. It's one that most of the high end community has rejected but he disputes that too, arguing that maybe they've never heard of the "standard." Those are the simple facts and I'll grant him the last word. |
It's a red herring, really and you've already acknowledged that AES48 is not commonly accepted in home audio. You describe your MP-1 preamp as "featuring Balanced Differential Design®" and state it's "still one of the very few preamps to support the balanced standard (AES48)." You then go on to insist that only AES48-compliant designs are "proper" balanced designs. So yes, you're here to promote your products, Ralph, and that's fine. You've earned the trademark and multiple patents and you've earned the right to tout them. But when you insist that you have found The One True Way, and that competing balanced designs aren't "proper," it warrants a reminder that with most things in life, there's almost always more than one way to accomplish a task. And that is certainly true in high-end audio. |
It cannot possibly be a "standard" ("something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example") yet at the same time not commonly accepted. Even your website admits that few home audio manufacturers observe this "standard." ("still one of the very few preamps to support the balanced standard (AES48)"
I don't think so. While you provide information about balanced circuits, you are also promoting your patented and trademarked Balanced Differential Design® components. That's fine, of course, but there's no reason to be coy about it. After all, you frequently argue that only balanced designs that respect AES 48 are "proper."
No, balanced lines can work quite nicely and still reject AES48. You're welcome to listen to my mostly-ARC system and judge for yourself, @atmasphere. |
That is your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. You express it here frequently, as is your right. But it is just as opinion, and one which many of the world's foremost manufacturers of audio equipment reject. That appears to trouble you greatly, perhaps because you seek to promote your trademarked and patented Balanced Differential Design® components. And that's fine, too. But when you claim that those whose circuit topologies don't embrace your favored methods somehow aren't "proper," you really make yourself look kinda silly, imo. I have a lot of respect for you Ralph, as do many others on this forum. But for just about everything in life, there simply is no One Absolutely Right Way, and that includes the design of balanced circuits. I'm telling you this Ralph because I think you do yourself a disservice by denigrating the designs of others. |
Not really, the benefits of balanced designs are pretty well known. Designing to the AES spec is just one approach to balanced design.
The Topping and Audio Research schemes are different than your designs. That doesn’t make your design right or "proper" any more than it makes the ARC design "improper," as you’ve claimed. They each take a different approach to balanced amplification, either method offers improved CMRR. (Similarly, some speaker designers use sealed boxes, some use ported boxes and some use no boxes at all. Each approach can be valid and its success will depend on implementation.)
Most home users have no need to drive 600 ohm loads. |
That's not surprising - there's quite a bit of mediocre audio equipment on the market. But to argue that balanced components that do not observe the AES spec are somehow "improper" is misguided. They can still offer potential advantages over single-ended components, including improved CMRR.
I'm not having those problems with my mostly ARC system, which is not AES compliant. As an aside, I'd wager there are balanced, AES compliant components on the market that are easily bettered by some single-ended gear. As is often the case, the implementation is as critical as the topology or technology.
|
I'd argue that noise reduction is the primary benefit of truly balanced circuits, which can offer high CMMR.
Balanced equipment that isn't AES compliant isn't necessarily "improper," it's just different. For example, the balanced ARC gear isn't AES compliant, yet using the balanced connections yields improvement that you can measure and hear.
|
