When to choice XLR over RCA ICs.

If you can hear the difference with cables that short, you have 'dog's ears. :-) 

If your system is 'balanced' and a you're a tad anal XLR cables would put your mind at ease. They won't make it worse. 

It is worthwhile to try them, there are two places for differences.. between the components themselves and the cables. In general you are not going to hear a sound quality difference between the two cables of the same construction (same level, one balanced and one not), although the XLR will be a little louder. Then the question will be on the components.

When I got my most recent Audio Research components (which are of balanced design) I had unbalanced Transparent interconnects, so I compared with balanced… which cost a lot more. If there was a difference it was really really subtitle.

I decided to upgrade another level of cables… and chose balanced… just because the industry is headed that way and it is Audio Research’s recommendation. If I was still upgrading my system, I would probably put the money elsewhere. Iike direct lines, or vibration control.

I would not upgrade from unbalanced to balanced at the same level of interconnect. But if in the market to upgrade interconnects to match your system, that would be the time to do it. But you must verify that XLR outputs do sound the same or better. On some gear, they may not.

as per xlr vs rca itreally depends on length and components design.

long runs xlr is preferred if the devices are truly balanced ie differential cicuits then xlr

if thedevice uses a trasformer to turn rca to xlr the use rca.

hope that helps

Dave and Troy

audio Intellect NJ

Many differentially balanced components will yield 6dB more gain when operated fully balanced - that is, balanced input and output. Another way to look at that is a 6dB improvement in s/n. That can be noticeable.

There is no real difference at one meter.  However there may well be a difference in how each is implemented in the Amp.  Often XLR is implemented with a small transformer which colors the sound a bit and amplifies it.  Louder sounds better.  

Also, the term balanced implies that RCA is imbalanced.  Balanced must be better.  People make choices based on superficial impressions like this.  

Jerry

some simply prefer the tighter connection when the XLR cables click into place...

Make sure what they are running between is all so balanced. Just because a unit has XLR imputes or out puts does not mean it's balanced when running XLR cables between real balanced gear has alway sounded better  to me than single ended.

What @cleeds said

but you have to listen to determine what is best for you in your system 

The only way to know for sure is to try whatever wires you have as many ways as possible.

Having said that, I am not a fan of trying to tune a system with wires in most cases. XLR done properly should always be the best way to go technically when available then tweak elsewhere from there as needed.

Max Townshend told me that RCA's are the way to go over XLR's because RCA's give "pure sound". That the additional circuitry in XLR's detract from the pure sound..However if you are dealing with longer cable runs, XLR's are the sensible choice. 

Why is it that some (all?) component manufacturers design XLR with a few dB more than the RCA outputs? 

@kraftwerkturbo XLR input is often implemented using one of these little transformers that up's the dB.

https://www.jensen-transformers.com/transformers/line-input/

@vinylshadow I use RCA for that reason.   I'm always a less-is-more guy.

Also, "longer" is at least 30 ft.  

Jerry

@farne230 Wrote:

When to choice XLR over RCA ICs.

See article below:

Mike

http://www.atma-sphere.com/en/resource-why-balanced.html

Only if components are truly balanced designs, then you will have increased S/N and a perceptible increase in dynamics and contrast.

Literally everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced.  (Pro-ject has some new ones, but I’ve never seen them in person.)

Nothing fancy.  Made with top line Mogami wire and top Furutech connections.

Makes a huge difference.

davetheoilguy

... everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced ...

Phono cartridges are inherently balanced or, if you want to be strictly accurate, they are floating. That is, there's a separate positive and negative for each channel. All that's needed to maintain that is a balanced phono preamp. It may be the best place in an audio system to use balanced lines and truly balanced components, such as ARC.

I appreciate everyone's response to my question and enjoyed the very detailed article provided by "ditusa". I will let you know if one pair of more expensive ICs unbalanced vs less expensive similar ICs change anything.

As always I can count on this forum to help a new-bee like me get the most out of his music.

Happy Holidays to All.

Bob

There is no real difference at one meter. 

This statement is incorrect. Balanced operation can be beneficial even if the connection is only 6", since rejection of noise impinged in the cable is not a function of length. If operating balanced, that noise is rejected at the receiving end.

Max Townshend told me that RCA's are the way to go over XLR's because RCA's give "pure sound". That the additional circuitry in XLR's detract from the pure sound..

@vinylshadow 

This is a common myth. If it were so, then recordings would all use single-ended connections, which they don't. The Golden Age of Stereo, which began in 1958 with the introduction of the first stereo LPs, was also ushered in by balanced lines, which allowed microphones to be placed correctly without the recording equipment being only a few feet from the performers. So this meant you could record in concert halls and the like without signal degradation before it hit the mic preamps in the tape machines of the time.

What is important to understand is the signal in a balanced line connection isn't push pull any more than it is in a single-ended cable- as long as the setup is compliant with AES48, the balanced line standard. You'll note there really isn't a standard for single-ended cables...

Literally everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced.

@davetheoilguy 

Usually all that is required is to change out the tonearm cable. Sometimes, on cheaper stuff, this might require some soldering. But on tonearms that have the 5-pin DIN connection or RCAs with a ground post, its a simple matter of changing the cable so you can run balanced. In the case of the RCA connections, the shield of the cable goes to the ground post and the two RCA connections (center pin and the barrel) are the twisted pair within the shield. At the XLR input of the preamp, the twisted pair are pins 2 and 3 of the XLRs and the shield is pin 1. On no account should the shield of the cable contact the barrel connection of the RCA. This works a treat- you can use Mogami console wire which is low capacitance and this will work as well as any single-ended cable regardless of cost.

I've always seen the need to audition expensive cables as a hidden cost of single-ended preamps. When you run balanced, the cable cost is inconsequential if the equipment (such as the phono cartridge) supports AES48.

And a fantastic way to allocate most of that exotic cable savings into a much better phono cart or speakers…. because transducers REALLY matter…

^ +1

My attempts with XLR: if you don’t have an interference problem, don’t waste your time or money. I ran 25 ft RCA’s and 25 ft XLR, zero difference, because I didn’t have any interference to start with, and the RCA’s didn’t get noisy either.

A stage, multitude of wires, sensitive mic cables, XLR for sure!

I did find two slight advantages using XLR from my Sony xa5400 SACD/CD player

1. XLR is a secure connection, so mess with other cables, they will not be disturbed like RCA connectors occasionally are.

2. Slight Volume Increase. No ’better’ or ’preferred’ or ’different' sound, but a discernable volume increase, IF that makes a difference. btw, other equipment, no volume difference, so it’s the Sony xa5400’s output that is slightly stronger, not the cable.

I do use balanced cabels only in the critical connections. Between the preamp and the amp between my digital streamer and the preamp and from my turn table to my phono preamp and from the phono preamp to the preamp. The rest of my connections are rca. I do hear a difference. Now my tape deck my tuner and my TV to my preamp I use rca thoses pieces ate not going to sound  any better

 Also when you get cabels xlr I. Peticuler get pure silver stranded wire cables they make a huge difference in the sound

 I use silver wires for all my cables even the rca and ho with the silver  rca ends  .I bought all my inter connect cabels at morrow audio except my phono cabel. They don't make them with xlr ends . So I searched the web and found it at Westbury audio in the uk. Hope this helps Michael 

Silver 😳 is for tinsel 🎄

Keep it up I am learning.

Again Thanks,

Bob

2. Slight Volume Increase. No ’better’ or ’preferred’ or ’different' sound, but a discernable volume increase, IF that makes a difference. btw, other equipment, no volume difference, so it’s the Sony xa5400’s output that is slightly stronger, not the cable.

@elliottbnewcombjr If this is the case, it means the Sony doesn't support the balanced standard. Instead, what it has is two single-ended outputs, one out of phase with the other. So when you run balanced you get 6dB more output.

If it supported the balanced standard, the output level would not change.

When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced. You retain the noise aspect, but the choice of cable will become important to get the best sound and you might have to deal with a ground loop (since ground is being referenced by the output of the player). Neither is an issue if AES48 is supported.

atmasphere

... it means the Sony doesn't support the balanced standard ... When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced.

What is the greatest advantage of using balanced components? There are multiple advantages, so the answer is subjective and debatable. In my view, the answer is lower noise. That would explain why we see so many differntially balanced components that do not comply with the AES48 standard that you tout.

There are several ways of designing an AES48 compliant component, and some have negative sonic effects. So the AES48 standard is not itself a guarantee of performance.

What is the greatest advantage of using balanced components? There are multiple advantages, so the answer is subjective and debatable. In my view, the answer is lower noise. That would explain why we see so many differntially balanced components that do not comply with the AES48 standard that you tout.

There are several ways of designing an AES48 compliant component, and some have negative sonic effects. So the AES48 standard is not itself a guarantee of performance.

Of course! But it is a guarantee of plug and play insofar as the cables are concerned.

I don't know of a way that has a 'negative sonic effect' that is specific to AES48. Perhaps you could point one out to me.

I know of a good number of reasons that can cause a 'negative sonic effect' when the standard isn't supported, for example a ground loop. Nasty, and easily detected, so not really subjective.

The advantages of balanced components is different from balanced cables, since you can have single-ended equipment that uses balanced connections, like my RCA and Westerex microphone preamps.

But if we stick to your question above, the advantages are several. Its more than just lower noise; item 6 would seem to be the one in which most audiophiles would be interested, although IME that isn't always the case:

1) lower noise in each gain stage (if the circuit is differential; a 6dB theoretical noise reduction per stage of gain), You can see an advantage for high gain circuits like a phono section where you might have 12 or 18 dB less noise than an equivalent single-ended circuit.

2) greater power supply noise immunity

3) Greater rejection of magnetic fields (like from a power transformer) that might be close to the equipment

4) rejection of noise imposed on the interconnect cable by a power cord, transformer or the like (Common Mode Rejection Ratio is the term used for this)

5) immunity to ground loops

6) (if AES48 is supported) interconnect cable immunity; IOW no sonic effects caused by the cable itself.

Only item 6 might be considered subjective although its easily demonstrated so its the only item of debate.

The advantage of the cable itself is it does not have to be expensive to work perfectly. This is also easily proven so really isn't debatable.

What is debatable is the use of balanced lines actually being an advantage when the standard isn't supported. That is why this thread exists. Sometimes its better, sometimes its not, because in this circumstance, the benefit of balanced lines isn't fully realized.

atmasphere

What is debatable is the use of balanced lines actually being an advantage when the standard isn’t supported ... Sometimes its better, sometimes its not ...

I agree completely, and made that point because I disagreed with your prior claim:

the Sony doesn’t support the balanced standard ... When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced.

You do not inherently lose "most of the benefit" of balanced components by not supporting AES48, imo. Sometimes it’s better, sometimes it’s not. As for this:

... I don’t know of a way that has a ’negative sonic effect’ that is specific to AES48 ...

I’ve seen and heard AES48 compliant balanced components that sounded w-a-y better on the SE inputs and you probably have, too. When cheap tiny xformers are used for the conversion it can suck the HF right out of the sound. Same thing if cheap opamp ICs are used. Of course, poor implementations such as those don’t render the standard any more invalid than the standard renders all non-compliant components invalid. It all depends on the implementation.

You do not inherently lose "most of the benefit" of balanced components by not supporting AES48, imo. Sometimes it’s better, sometimes it’s not.

@cleeds The two benefits lost are cable immunity and susceptibility to ground loops, since ground is referenced by the output of the device. This isn’t a matter of opinion or debate. Those two things are literally the goals of the balanced line system. The cable immunity aspect is what made long distance phone calls possible- so it was the phone company that embraced balanced lines first. Record labels saw very quickly what that benefit was for placing mics properly and being able to run long cables without noise or bandwidth problems. This was one of the most important technologies to usher in the age of HiFi in the early 50s.

But imagine a room full of equipment, and I mean full. You literally can’t afford to have a ground loop shut you down, it might take days to find the errant component while an orchestra is on the clock.

I’ve seen and heard AES48 compliant balanced components that sounded w-a-y better on the SE inputs and you probably have, too. When cheap tiny xformers are used for the conversion it can suck the HF right out of the sound. Same thing if cheap opamp ICs are used.

Yeah, once you’ve heard it done right there’s no going back.

Most of the equipment I’ve seen that supports AES48 is studio gear. I’ve yet to see a cheap line transformer in it, but that’s different from sucking the life out of the sound. Some of that gear I have are compressors and I only use them in emergency, since sucking the life out of the sound is basically what they do. But they have nice transformers....

Generally you can’t use opamps to support AES48. This is due to the fact that the output has to be floating and not referenced to ground. Opamps have single-ended (but likely push pull, so single-ended as opposed to balanced...) outputs. Those output circuits don’t take kindly to another opamp sinking current in them- they will blow up. So instead you need a line driver IC like this. Otherwise you might have an opamp driving some transistors which in turn drive an output transformer.

Most implementations of AES48 compliant outputs are going to be pretty decent simply because its aimed at the recording studio. But that says nothing about how the equipment sounds- that’s a whole ’nuther issue!

I’m mostly harping about the plug and play issue, which is wrapped around the fact that the cables can always be inexpensive; no need for audition.

@atmasphere we are mostly in agreement and this debate is getting tiresome.

The two benefits lost are cable immunity and susceptibility to ground loops, since ground is referenced by the output of the device. This isn’t a matter of opinion or debate. Those two things are literally the goals of the balanced line system.

The value of a balanced system using balanced lines is not confined to those two goals. This is where you drift into circular reasoning. (As you well know, balanced systems also enjoy the benefit of CMNR, whether AES48 compliant or not.) Nor is it true that being non-compliant with AES48 inherently subjects a product to being sensitive to ground loops. Again, it is implementation, implementation, implementation.

We mostly agree, Ralph, so I’m inclined to leave the last word to you. Or, feel free to PM me.

The value of a balanced system using balanced lines is not confined to those two goals. This is where you drift into circular reasoning. (As you well know, balanced systems also enjoy the benefit of CMNR, whether AES48 compliant or not.) Nor is it true that being non-compliant with AES48 inherently subjects a product to being sensitive to ground loops.

@cleeds Yes, we covered other aspects already. I do not see how there is circular reasoning, but I do feel I've been having to repeat myself on this a bit 😁 That's circular, isn't it?

It is true that if the component does not support AES48 that it will be open to ground loops. This isn't to say that will always happen, just as with single-ended gear it doesn't always happen. But if you don't take steps to deal with the ground loop issue, it'll be a problem sooner or later. This is fact, simply because ground is being referenced by the equipment, and when ground is referenced, then noise in the ground can get amplified. That is why in balanced systems going back 70 years ground is ignored.

I don't care to debate this either since I've repeated myself so much (not all on this thread). I have been amazed at how much misinformation exists around this topic. But if you have the interest, you might take a look at this book on transformers by Bill Whitlock, of Jensen Transformers fame.

If you look at the schematics, you'll see there are no center taps- that in fact the balanced inputs and balanced outputs are always floating.

atmasphere

The balanced signal volume is a barely, but recognizable increase in volume, no way is is that much.

@atmasphere 

Thanks for the information re: jury rigging XLR/balanced connection.  I may do so.

I became interested in the topic because I have (and love) a VPI Avenger Titan turntable with a Fat Boy tone arm.  The Avenger has a separate unit where you can precisely adjust the speed of the two AC motors (that, in turn, rotate a magnetic plate).  The power cord that ran from the control unit, unfortunately, was a bit stingy and ran parallel to my Cardis phono cables for a good bit and I got a fair amount of noise.

I resolved the issue with an nice, shielded, after market power cord (nothing exotic).  Not sure if it was from the shielding or simply because I bought a longer cord that allowed me to drop it behind the console, so it did not run so close to the phono cables.  Anyway, problem resolved.

But the process did get me thinking about balanced/XLR turntables and phono preamps.

Turns out Pro-Ject has a line of balanced turn tables, using what looks like "microphone style" XLRs, such as this:

I thought about it a bit -- and my phono preamp (which I also love) is a Parasound JC3+ (I think that's the model) and it -- despite having XLR "outs" and essentially being completely separate left and right pre-amps in one box does not anticipate XLR "in", so, given I resolved the issue (to my ears, at least) did not pursue the matter further.

I have a fair amount of Mogami wire laying about, so I may see if I can improve over the Cardis interconnects.

Thanks again.

As I understand it the primary reason for using XLR cables over RCA cables is to prevent a ground loop from occurring.  This is especially true when using long runs of audio cable (25 feet or more), which is why XLR cables are standard in professional recording studios. 

The balanced signal volume is a barely, but recognizable increase in volume, no way is is that much.

@elliottbnewcombjr Hm. That might be because the balanced output is a completely separate circuit from the single-ended output.

Turns out Pro-Ject has a line of balanced turn tables, using what looks like "microphone style" XLRs, such as this

@davetheoilguy Triplanar offers their arms with a balanced connection as well.

atmasphere

Originally I ended with:

"btw, other equipment, no volume difference, so it’s the Sony xa5400’s output that is slightly stronger, not the cable."

@elliottbnewcombjr Yes. I got that; in my post above that is what I was talking about. I should have been more specific.

XLR cables and interfaces are used in audio applications because they are designed to cancel out radio interference.  One side has reverse polarity to the other.  When interference crosses the cables their signal moves the same direction across both sides. The two sides are reversed again at the interface so the stray signals sum to zero and get cancelled out.

Don't even think about it.  Just go XLR all the way!!!

I’e given a good deal of thought about this particular question and from my perspective a very well designed single ended interconnect cable is every bit as good, if not better than an XLR cable due to several factors pertaining to geometry, insulation and connectors.

• please note - I’m referring to the more conventional interconnect that is generally 1-2 meters in length and not the 35+ feet

However, for those that have both XLR connections and do not want to get into the design aspects of cables, but simply purchase an interconnect - then I would recommend going with an XLR cable for the following reasons...

• the noise cancelling design
• the cable(wire) used is generally a better quality than those used on an RCA cables
• the pins of the XLR connectors are low mass, which is now the trend on the newer styls RCA plugs, but you still see those large high mass RCA connectors glittering in Gold and Rhodium made from a large lump of metal on some very expensive interconnects.
• the insulation is often much better on an XLR cables.

Higher end cables like those from Audio Envy, Zavfino and Hijiri are a different matter altogether - either style of cable will perform well.

For more details on cable design plase read this link

• Good Cable Design

Regards - Steve.

@atmasphere Can you recommend some good bulk cable?  I'd like to make a few balanced cables to try in my system.

Can you recommend some good bulk cable?  I'd like to make a few balanced cables to try in my system.

@ketchup Mogami Neglex is the gold standard of high quality balanced cables in the studio. They employ oxygen free copper and polyethylene dielectrics (the only thing better perforamance is Teflon, but it does not prevent oxidation of the conductor inside, so polyethylene might be the best thing out there), so in that regard are on par with cables from the high end audio world- I've seen Mogami products rebranded on that account.

williewonka

... a very well designed single ended interconnect cable is every bit as good, if not better than an XLR cable due to several factors ...

If all else is equal and the cables are being used between truly balanced components, I can’t imagine a scenario where unbalanced RCA connections could be better than balanced connections.

@ketchup Mogami Neglex is the gold standard of high quality balanced cables in the studio. They employ oxygen free copper and polyethylene dielectrics (the only thing better perforamance is Teflon, but it does not prevent oxidation of the conductor inside, so polyethylene might be the best thing out there), so in that regard are on par with cables from the high end audio world- I've seen Mogami products rebranded on that account.

@atmasphere That would be something like the quad core W2534?  Or will the W2549 also work?  They say the W2549 is a "Neglex type," but it's a two conductor cable with a shield.  Not sure if it would work as well as the W2534.

@ketchup Either will work fine. I use the 2449 in my system. The quad core is a bit better if you have a noisy environment as the quad construction helps with noise rejection.

Thanks @atmasphere. I already have 2549 single ended ICs at a few location in my system, so converting them to balanced is what I’ll do.

@cleeds - RE:

If all else is equal and the cables are being used between truly balanced components, I can’t imagine a scenario where unbalanced RCA connections could be better than balanced connections.

Unfortunately all things are not equal because of the following...

• The best low mass RCA connector is significantly better at transferring an audio signal than the very best XLR connector is able to achieve - i.e. at present
• Then there are the insulations and cable geometries, which can only really be "equaled" with a very custom cable build
• even then the number of conductors in an XLR cables can cause noise issues within the cable itself. This noise is not canccelled out by the balanced processing of the +ve and -ve signals in the component because it resides on the neutral conductor, which impacts circuit performance

OK, so even with the very best cables we are talking miniscule differences here, but the signle ended RCA interconnect for a 1-2 meter cable will always be just a little superior to an XLR ables of a similar design/geometry/build.

Due to the complexities of cable design there are very few people that will step upto the task of designing/building cables having their own geometry.

So, for the most part the XLR cable will "generally" prove to be superior.

But if you are into custom built cables having their own noise supressing geometry you can spare some expense by building a single ended cable that will better the performance of a similalrly designed XLR cable.

Unfrotunately, since the internal design approaches between the XLR circuit and the single ended circuit within a component can vary, actually proving which is better is incredibly hard, especially if the component’s design is based on a balanced approach and the RCA is there just to accomodate a customer perceived preference.

Regards - Steve

williewonka

The best low mass RCA connector is significantly better at transferring an audio signal than the very best XLR connector is able to achieve ...

Hmmm, that's quite a claim. It's not too difficult to buy XLR connectors that are essentially electrically perfect, so I don't see how it's possible to get "significantly better" than that.

... the signle ended RCA interconnect for a 1-2 meter cable will always be just a little superior to an XLR ables of a similar design/geometry/build.

Not when used between differentially balanced components that yield 6 dB better gain (or s/n) when operated in balanced mode, such as ARC.